When we will have artillery overhaul?

[nikolas93TS]

Artillery rework is scheduled for the incoming period, but we haven't even drew a basic road-map on what and how to implement it.

We realized that this will probably involve drastic changes to current user-interface, so it will need to be well planned and designed. I would like to have counter-battery as selectable feature, as such amount of information might be overwhelming for a new player. As mentioned above, we have seen people struggling even to call artillery mission properly, and current system is pretty simple compared to what is being asked for by more experienced players.

Counter-battery fire is likely to be automatized by a large degree (current draft idea is to reward player if he willingly decides to move his guns and render them temporary unavailable, and penalize him with longer delays if enemy founds his artillery positions). The idea is to have icons off-map representing artillery units, but without direct interaction with the player. We are not sure if permanent gun loss is on the table at the moment.

Another thing is how current doctrines are modeled as well. I have to point out that Armored Brigade has to model different artillery doctrines and give some flavor to factions, and not just to copy US-centric doctrine which is familiar to majority of player base. And of course there is always present need to balance between painstaking realism and fun in a believable way, because after all, this is a game as well and not just the simulator. Ditto for user-interface.

[Artillerist]

Of course you aim to model each faction's capabilities with enough fidelity and flavor to make it both accurate and interesting, but US doctrine is actually a great place to start. We've published our manuals freely since ww2 and they are available online. American Artillerists are free to discuss essentially everything outside of classified weaponeering guides (JMEMs). There is no better springboard into understanding which nuances of another country's doctrine and capabilities should be highlighted, depicted, and modified than first starting by digging into US literature.

Like I've said in the past though, I would be happy with you guys first re-wiring the fire support to provide feedback in the form of kill counts just like every other unit in the game. If you're planning on continuing to focus on off-map resources rather than what I'd actually prefer (improving and emphasizing on-map stuff)-- then maybe develop an additional tab on the AAR that lists your off-map artillery and air support kill counts, maybe it also includes rounds fired, missions fired, etc, maybe just a kill count, feedback.

I'm sure you probably already know that universally, aside from fuel, artillery is the most burdensome logistical element of a division and brigade and as such is an efficiency game. Terms like suppressed, neutralized and destroyed, in the artillery world, correspond with actual physical damage estimates, they have to. How many rounds, and tubes you fire at every target, how much artillery you assign to an operation greatly depends on feedback, the numbers. If you aren't working with doctrine that considers the numbers, and your numbers aren't based in reality, then you get Kasserine Pass. To further highlight the requirement for feedback and efficiency consider that the US Army assigns 2 forward observers (actual MOS 13F, FISTERS) to every infantry and mech platoon, in addition to a 4 man FIST team and FIST vehicle assigned to every company and troop headquarters for every tank, cav, infantry, and mech unit across the army. That isn't done because maneuver NCOs, lieutenants and captains can't call for fire, you spend a lot of time teaching them how, it's done amonsgt other reasons to allow the artillery branch an extra layer of control over the efficiency of fire support from the bottom up across the entire force.

In real life, to develop those numbers, there are BDA procedures that place immense priority on accurate feedback. Every fire mission ends with a BDA which considers both manpower and material loss. Those BDAs are cross sourced with BDAs generated from periphery sources, high altitude reconaissance, air and ground based radars, electronic warfare 'heat maps' etc, radio sigint collection. Everything is focused on providing the most accurate feedback possible, to ensure every subsequent operation is as efficient as possible. A brigade fire support coordinator has eyes, and ears in every maneuver formation at every echelon in the brigade, and is linked to them through a robust communications network that exists independently and unto itself parallel to the bridage's maneuver networks. This is massively important stuff, and while every nation places personnel differently, and has different equipment available, the fundamentals are the same.

Anyways I'm just expounding more on my pet issue because you guys are showing a serious interest in improving fire support and I want you guys to be rock solid! And as always just one guys opinion.

[lancer]

Hi,

My interest in the finer points of artillery is not that high. From a players perspective assigning some of my artillery to counter battery fire doesn't sound like much fun as it involves a totally abstracted situation with off map units and no visual indication of exploding shells. It's essentially just shuffling around a bunch of numbers.

What might work, as a suggestion, is to assume, in any given battle, that counter battery fire automatically exists and that it'd be outside of the player's control. Give the player an option for how often they want to relocate their artillery with, as mentioned, down time for every relocation. Have a percentage chance, each turn, of the player's artillery being hit by counter battery fire based on how often they move.

That way there is only one player decision involved (frequency of relocation), no messing around with allocating guns to counter battery fire (it's assumed to be present at all times) and an interesting risk / reward decision for the player (artillery availability versus chance of being hit by counter battery fire).

UI wise all you'd need to do, perhaps, is add a tick box to the existing fire mission UI for 'shoot and scoot'. You'd have to assume that you're entire battery of available artillery would do so, regardless of how many tubes were used in the current fire mission. If you tick the box your artillery will be unavailable for 'x' number of turns. The existing message interface could handle all the necessary notifications including loss of guns.

It's a pretty simple approach admittedly but I think with anything more complex you are, I suspect, going to be bumping into the law of diminishing returns with the majority of your player base.

There'd still be scope for some of the other artillery enhancements requested above.

Cheers,
Lancer

[ChortleBuffer]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

I think it makes sense differentiating between 105mm/122mm and 152mm/155mm systems. Also the off map representation, we were thinking about that already.

However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.

Definitely not! The game is enjoyable because it is easy to jump into. I can create a campaign in minutes. Don't spoil the product by over complicating.

[exsonic01]

The idea I was writing (and website crashed) is also similar with lancer's idea. We have two options:

Full random, or semi-control.

1) Full random
FPC-RS is using similar system. Players set CB mode to selected number of tubes. Let RNG decide chance to react to enemy artillery for those CB moded tubes. Then, let RNG decide hit/miss and damage amount.
Merit of this system is that the things will be very simple and easy to implement. As a coder myself, this will be I guess the easiest option to implement CB in AB. While it still might be possible to describe off-map units, but I guess it would be better to not to show off map units if CB is introduced this way.

2) Semi-control.
Players have no direct control of where and how to move, let AI decide. But players can set some important frequency values, such as frequency of initiation of movement after N number of fire or etc. This can be modeled via current artillery support box I guess, just add several more values for players to set for control of maneuver of artillery unit, but let AI decide detail. I guess artillery doctrine of each army can be introduced here. (If AB depicts full aspect of FOs that would be great but I guess that will create heavy burden.)

I still think it would be great to see different level of artillery units (division / brigade / regiment ...) and different artillery vehicles, but I also think this will make things very complicated. So, those features might be better to be simplified just like the current AB off-map arty system. However, I still believe MLRS, SP tube artillery, and towed tube artillery should be distinguished with some pros / cons and price difference.

[Artillerist]

Maybe we're all looking at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of bringing the arty up to par with the rest of the game, the devs should be bringing the other units in line with the arty. I'm thinking scrap the kill counts, unique artwork, and individualized specs for each of the thousands of weapons, vehicles and units and revert to a universal tank, universal apc, universal sam, universal infantry unit, all sharing generic attributes, specs and capabilities. Will save everyone tons of time, and the devs won't have to bother with properly representing modern warfare's most casualty producing arm.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Artillerist
Maybe we're all looking at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of bringing the arty up to par with the rest of the game, the devs should be bringing the other units in line with the arty. I'm thinking scrap the kill counts, unique artwork, and individualized specs for each of the thousands of weapons, vehicles and units and revert to a universal tank, universal apc, universal sam, universal infantry unit, all sharing generic attributes, specs and capabilities. Will save everyone tons of time, and the devs won't have to bother with properly representing modern warfare's most casualty producing arm.

I also agree but dev team only consist of 4 people, and 3 of them are half time for this project as they have day job.

I wish the detailed AAR with trackable kill count / replay like WRD or SB Pro, including arty. But those works might require huge time and effort to code with current game engine, which might be a great burden. I believe eventually devs will try something like your comment, but amount of time and effort and money would be significant for 4 man team. So I see those detailed features as a very long term plan.

For now, IMO best scenario for this game is implementing features one by one, step by step. I suggested several idea in post above, but I don't think all will be resolved within short time frame. (and I wish to see CB and movement of arty units, distinguish of rocket/SP tube/towed tube as a first step but this is just my opinion) So we can think and discuss about what might be the best way to implement some features in realistic fashion yet easier way to implement by coding.

[nikolas93TS]

Although, in this specific case, progressive implementation might be hard or maybe even counter-productive. If we are going to tear-up current artillery system interface, doing it well at once might be less "painful" in a long-run. Particularly because it might also involve working databases...

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

And of course there is always present need to balance between painstaking realism and fun in a believable way, because after all, this is a game as well and not just the simulator. Ditto for user-interface.

Wait, people actually have fun playing wargames XD ? Always found playing wargames to be more of a bothersome compulsion than having fun XD . Level of complication to me is more of a barrier of cognitive abilities than fun/not fun.

[Gratch1111]

IRL during the 90s an art unit could fire 5 min before it had to pack up and leave, so within 10 min of first shot they had to be on the move. Now its worse, they are spotted as the first shell leaves and they have to leave. But back to 90s, Then they would take at least 10-20 minutes until they could fire again, move and setup the mount and target. This isnt taken into consideration at all in the game. My off map units can fire and then they are ready to fire on next target in 1,5 minutes.

I like the simplicity of the current system but think it could be tweaked to reflect the different calibres and then you could add as someone suggested the option to have some art reserved to CB as well as you could put in variables to how long the units should fire until they move, then you could calculate the risk of CB hits with how long they stay in one place and how many guns the opposition has dedicated to CB.

I like the art system in FCRS except that art is overpowered

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gratch1111

IRL during the 90s an art unit could fire 5 min before it had to pack up and leave, so within 10 min of first shot they had to be on the move. Now its worse, they are spotted as the first shell leaves and they have to leave. But back to 90s, Then they would take at least 10-20 minutes until they could fire again, move and setup the mount and target. This isnt taken into consideration at all in the game. My off map units can fire and then they are ready to fire on next target in 1,5 minutes.

Wow. That's brutal.

So, basically arty as it is is an arbitrary super-weapon where a 100 point gun can fire all it's ammo, including complete game-changers like smoke, dpicm and illumination without any danger to itself but a 250 point tank needs to be carefully manoeuvred to avoid destruction.

[exsonic01]

My top picks to make more realistic and fun experience yet not too complicated without huge burden to devs for artillery:

1) At least show kill count of artillery units in AAR. Unit-by-unit kill record like WRD would be great and eventually I believe AB would follow to that way, but I guess that will take more time. So, with current style, just show kill list of artillery at least. I'm also curious how my arty calls are effective.

2) Whatever we do, let's keep current artillery support box in game, for now. I believe devs might bring better dedicated menu for fire support. But until then, let's use current simplified fire support box, which is rather simple and easy to follow.

3) Introduce CB icon, and introduce several frequencies for offmap artillery unit's mobility and maneuvering. Plus some delay times for initiate maneuvering, fire preparation and aim, and etc...

4) Differentiate rocket / SP tube / towed tube. I really wish to see distinguish of artillery by its level (corps, division, brigade...) but this will increase complexity and will take some time to describe. So, at least differentiation of type of artillery will be helpful for players to conduct better artillery missions.

5) It will be OK to depict the visual representation or sprite of offmap arty units and their maneuvering. But if this involves too much of coding hour than I'm not sure if it is worth it. I'm a person who suggest this (Show offmap artillery and artillery shells as bins or dots, just like Supreme Commander series). However, if this takes too much effort then I cannot say it would worth to invest limited resource to such 'eye candy' effect.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Wow. That's brutal.

So, basically arty as it is is an arbitrary super-weapon where a 100 point gun can fire all it's ammo, including complete game-changers like smoke, dpicm and illumination without any danger to itself but a 250 point tank needs to be carefully manoeuvred to avoid destruction.

There is a reason why Stalin quoted "The artillery is a god of modern war"

If AB depicts the true doctrine of artillery units that would be great. Some consideration for gaming balance can make game enjoyable, but I wish to more stick to historical accuracy. (But basically I agree gaming balance factor should be there as AB is also a game)
But if it is unavailable to gather real cold war artillery doctrine and plans for individual artillery vehicles then I guess devs will try something approximated.

I think CB and time cost to maneuver, initiate the move, or set up will balance the artillery, and will balance AB.

[ChortleBuffer]

Please don't spoil a wonderful game to appease a tiny minority. The developers should be sure that changes to the game will be attractive for most players.

If counter battery can be abstracted, so that a given percentage of units will be out of action (scooting), then raise the price of artillery accordingly. So, for example, if half of your units will be on the run then double the price of artillery and save us messing around with a boring mechanism. You can randomly destroy opposition artillery at a rate that simulates the capability of a given army, their doctrine, and the number of guns they have - assuming that the typical doctrinal proportion are dedicated to counter battery.

If some very knowledgeable artillery people want to create a counter battery game point them at kickstarter.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: ChortleBuffer
Please don't spoil a wonderful game to appease a tiny minority. The developers should be sure that changes to the game will be attractive for most players.

If counter battery can be abstracted, so that a given percentage of units will be out of action (scooting), then raise the price of artillery accordingly. So, for example, if half of your units will be on the run then double the price of artillery and save us messing around with a boring mechanism. You can randomly destroy opposition artillery at a rate that simulates the capability of a given army, their doctrine, and the number of guns they have - assuming that the typical doctrinal proportion are dedicated to counter battery.

If some very knowledgeable artillery people want to create a counter battery game point them at kickstarter.

I also think devs have done great work, and I wish they will find the best option for AB. I just wanted to give some suggestions, and of course it is dev's decision to take what should be in or not. I don't mind if my suggestions are not reflected. If it is reflected, it is good. If not, then it is OK. I don't mind if they introduce CB in AB far later, as I already commented, considering the capability of 4-men dev team could achieve, any upgrade should be done one by one, step by step, with enough time for proper development and testing.

Like I said I really want to see something close to realistic but I also know and we all know that will not be possible, some sort of abstraction and simplification should be involved. I know that and I actually like such abstraction and simplification.

But I'm not sure if we can call CB or artillery system upgrade as "tiny minority" or "spoiling" as they should be one of the most influencing factor on the hypothetical cold war battlefield. That is why I believe, CB & introduction of features such as maneuvering of artillery units will balance the artillery system, by prevent arty-noob style game or prevent heavily arty oriented game. In current version of AB, if you play assault game, you could exploit arty + recon by purchasing a lot of them, especially if you play USSR in relatively small map or map with narrow corridor or too obvious defensive positions. Sometimes, you can win the game with tons of artillery and a lot of recons and small elements of mech infantry and tanks, by just calling endless rain of artillery. Also, UK faction in this game has some bonus on artillery reaction time, it is easy to win AB as UK when I bring good amount of artillery and spam recon infantry infiltration to detect enemy. I'm sure CB option will prevent such heavily-artillery-oriented game. But I admit it will not be an easy option to introduce in AB. Well, this is my opinion too. You have right to disagree to mine as well.

I'm not sure if price increase of artillery for CB is really necessary. I'm still not sure how the point price of artillery units are decided in AB, but if this game introduce the differentiation of rocket / SP tube / towed tube, then some price difference should be introduced among three artillery types.

Whatever devs decide, I wish the improvements of AB in positive direction. It doesn't necessarily need to be CB, but I'm saying CB (plus some other suggestions) might bring better AB experience. It is dev's call to follow or not.

[Artillerist]

@chortlebuffer; Yes, obviously one of the most endearing aspects of AB is that you can turn it on, create a battle, and play. I think we all recognize and appreciate that AB isn't CMANO.

It's also pretty clear the devs are sensitive to the wishes and limitations of people like you that are reading these walls of text and concluding that a raucous minority is lobbying for the total annihilation of Armored Brigade's simple elegance by hosting informed debate about the future depiction of counter-battery and distinguishing the calibre of off-map artillery.

[Gratch1111]

I think a small tweak could be to have time between when art is available. Its no that 1,5 min is to short time until impact when given order, its that there should be at least 15 min since the last fire mission was ordered. Then again the speed of the game is much faster than normal battle so mabee shorter, like at least 5 min until guns again becomes avalable

[Perturabo]

I think we should also abstract away unit deployments and unit movements because they are a boring chore and spoil the enjoyment of the game.

[22sec]

One way I have always looked at artillery given the current system is a 1/3 rule. I typically think to myself when building a scenario how much artillery would be available, let's say a Soviet assault has a regiment worth of artillery to support it, so in-game I purchase 1/3 of that. It helps simulate the limited availability of batteries which the current system cannot account for.

My vote has always been for bigger maps with all artillery on the map. In the past I created a Bm-21 on-map unit, and it was a thing of beauty to watch fire off all its missiles.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: 22sec
One way I have always looked at artillery given the current system is a 1/3 rule. I typically think to myself when building a scenario how much artillery would be available, let's say a Soviet assault has a regiment worth of artillery to support it, so in-game I purchase 1/3 of that. It helps simulate the limited availability of batteries which the current system cannot account for.

My vote has always been for bigger maps with all artillery on the map. In the past I created a Bm-21 on-map unit, and it was a thing of beauty to watch fire off all its missiles.

+1

Bigger map + all on map artillery would be good too, AB can escape from all those issues of abstraction of off map arty. Plus, this can appeal to Eugen's Wargame franchise fans as the way of artillery control will similar with Wargame. How much do you think would be the proper maximum size? 30km x 30km or 25km x 25km? Some artillery will lose merit of longer range (like 203mms like Pion/Malka) but I guess something should be sacrificed for such feature. My personal wish is 25km x 25km, as 30km x 30km might too big.

If air-assault and heliborne troops are introduced, I guess such increased map size would be inevitable anyway. So I think this is really a good idea to increase total map size now.


==========================================================================================


At the same time, how about leaving the maximum play zone as 15km x 15km, but introducing add additional space of depth of 0~10km to West and East if game is West-East game, or North and South if the game is North-South game, as representation of artillery zone? Or, it might be possible to induce such additional space to all 4 directions (North South West East). But I think 2-direction representation might be better. Anyway, the key is, in such artillery zones, only artillery units can be placed, but I think artillery units should be able to maneuver inside battle zone as well. By letting artillery units able to maneuver battle zone and artillery zone, players and AI can depict the in-map arty (arty in FLOT) and off-map arty (arty in FEBA).

In this case, it can be assumed as 15km x 15km battle zone as FLOT, and additional spaces can be regarded as FEBA. There is no distinctive boundary between FLOT and FEBA in reality, and concept and size of FLOT and FEBA varies a lot. But let's just assume it for the convenience in AB.

If increasing map size induce burden to the game's speed or FPS, such "additional zone" approach might reduce the burden to game engine's memory spending and calculation amount. However, regardless of game speed and memory issue, I think introduction of FEBA might be a good idea.

Let the map selection give an option of applying FEBA zone depth of 0~10km. In FEBA zone, players can deploy recon, artillery, gunships and helicopters, airstrikes, and resupply station (if this game introduce resupply in the future).

Normal units cannot go into enemy FEBA or friendly FEBA, both deployment phase and during in-game. Only artillery and recon units can move in both FEBA and FLOT zone. Helicopters and gunships can fly and hover over any place of FEBA and FLOT. This issue can solve the current issue of small map: gunships are forced to engage in very close range in small map. From FEBA, gunships can use ATGMs from far without worrying about AA fire, even during 2km x 2km game. As such, FEBA idea would bring much realistic doctrine / operation of gunships, regardless of map size. Player and AI can place gunship BP inside FLOT and inside FEBA, this way players and AI can operate helicopters much realistic by switching long range ATGMs and short range rockets/guns. Right now, it is only possible to try such thing in big size games.

Allowing recons to infiltrate and move inside friendly & enemy FEBA would increase the importance of recon and counter recon. With improved AI for recon (which I suggested in https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4718276), this will make game much more interesting and dynamic, and will be more close to realistic description of recon tab infantry (recon, light infantry, and SF teams) and recon vehicles. Of course, heliborne for recon infantry should be allowed in FEBA zone.

Resupply station in FEBA zone will allow a better & realistic description of resupply operation. Of course, such resupply operation should be only allowed to "big size games" as FMs indicates such field resupply operation is only possible from battalion size. Let units can go inside FEBA zone only if its destination is inside resupply zone and resupply station. Units heading to resupply station only can use road network, not fields, and they can suffer traffic jam (use quick move algorithm for those movements) Or, movement to FEBA resupply station of 'normal units' can be totally automated by AI only to use road network (use quick move algorithm for those movements), and make player/AI cannot control units once the "resupply" button is clicked for target unit.

Such resupply station in FEBA will prevent unrealistic abusing of resupply, as units should escape from front line move to FEBA resupply station. This will create empty space on the line, so the decision should be careful. Some of SB Pro scenarios well depicted this feature.

Resupply station can be depicted as a group of trucks and ARVs. Let those vehicles available to purchase from support tab, only from total force point and map size is greater than specific number. But they should be only controlled by AI, like helicopters, by designating two or three resupply station point on the FEBA zone only near the road (within 2~3 tiles from any road) if there is road in the map. Let those resupply vehicles can be attacked and damaged by all weapons and artillery, air strike and gunship weapons. This way, players & AI will take more care about placing if resupply station.

My wish is increase play map to maximum 25km x 25km, or at least 20km x 20km and induce 0~10km depth FEBA zone. Well, this will depends on game engine's ability to depict such wide map.


To describe the "penetration" situation, let 'normal units' can move into opposite's FEBA zone once they reached the opposite end of the map. Once enemy 'normal' units move into friendly FEBA zone, then let friendly 'normal units' can go into friendly FEBA zone to counter enemy "penetration".

=======================================================

However, if things become too complicated due to FEBA concept, then let's just increase map size and make all units (including arty) as in-map units like 22sec commented. [:D] I'm just brainstorming for better description of battlefield.