Artillery, Tradeoffs and Decision Making In FCSS

[byzantine1990]

Waste of time.

[Darojax]

Artillery is too good! (Says an amateur pc gamer with no real life experience).

Still though, please reduce the effectiveness of artillery. Regular 155mm ammo takes out half your Red Army tank company with two volleys, unless it's dug in in HOLD mode ... argh.

Also, helos die too easily.

[byzantine1990]

Artillery is too good! (Says an amateur pc gamer with no real life experience).

Still though, please reduce the effectiveness of artillery. Regular 155mm ammo takes out half your Red Army tank company with two volleys, unless it's dug in in HOLD mode ... argh.

Also, helos die too easily.

Sorry, not sure if you disagree with my points or having a giggle.

I'm fine with artillery being deadly as long as there is counterplay.

[Comcikda]

Artillery is too good! (Says an amateur pc gamer with no real life experience).

One important feature currently missing from FCSS is the absence of morale/readiness drops beyond direct damage. This leaves artillery with no "suppression" effect other than direct damage.
The devs explained that this was on the plan, so now it completely ruined my day when I bombarded a defending US tank platoon with hundreds of 122mm howitzer shells to no avail. They still accurately took out any enemy that tried to charge at them.

[byzantine1990]

Artillery is too good! (Says an amateur pc gamer with no real life experience).

One important feature currently missing from FCSS is the absence of morale/readiness drops beyond direct damage. This leaves artillery with no "suppression" effect other than direct damage.
The devs explained that this was on the plan, so now it completely ruined my day when I bombarded a defending US tank platoon with hundreds of 122mm howitzers to no avail. They still accurately took out any enemy that tried to charge at them.

Totally agree. Artillery needs to act as area denial. When you see the spotting rounds you need to make a decision. Risk the artillery or lose the advantageous position. Right now there is no decision, just get blasted instantly.

[Darojax]

Sorry, not sure if you disagree with my points or having a giggle.

I apologize, I realize that was a bit unclear. I agree very much with your post! The "amateur pc gamer" was a reference to myself. : )

[MikeJ19]

I am a retired artillery officer and instructor.

Overall, I think this is one of the best games for artillery matters.

The delay for fire missions is about five minutes - in most cases. This is the time it takes to adjust fire. What you see on the game map is the actual fire for effect of the entire firing unit. I have not fired artillery missions in anger, but I do know that most studies show that the first few rounds after adjustment are the most lethal - as the soldiers have not taken cover fully yet.

In the 80's, both NATO and the WP had many methods to shorten target adjustment. Both sides had laser range finders and were constantly updating weather conditions to shorten or remove the requirement to adjust.

Also, many studies indicate that artillery has a lot of kills. In this game, what we see as kills can also be sub-units falling out. So some of the artillery kills will be from soldiers not being able to continue to fight.

The lethality of 155 (and 152) is much greater than for 105 or 122. In this case size does matter.

I hope that at some point the game engine will allow players to record targets. A recorded target does not need adjustment, as the data for the target are already known. With recorded targets, the mission would be even quicker with fire for effect happening in one to two minutes.

All the best,

Mike

[22sec]

I wonder if a lot of the people bring up about FC isn't intertwined with the "Fallen Out" status? In standalone scenarios especially, the Fallen Out and Dead status units are the same thing in terms of gameplay - they're gone for that scenario. It's only in FC's campaigns that Fallen Out matters because those units can return in the following scenario of the campaign. The discussion around long distance engagement kills also should include mention of this I believe as well.

[byzantine1990]

I am a retired artillery officer and instructor.

Overall, I think this is one of the best games for artillery matters.

The delay for fire missions is about five minutes - in most cases. This is the time it takes to adjust fire. What you see on the game map is the actual fire for effect of the entire firing unit. I have not fired artillery missions in anger, but I do know that most studies show that the first few rounds after adjustment are the most lethal - as the soldiers have not taken cover fully yet.

In the 80's, both NATO and the WP had many methods to shorten target adjustment. Both sides had laser range finders and were constantly updating weather conditions to shorten or remove the requirement to adjust.

Also, many studies indicate that artillery has a lot of kills. In this game, what we see as kills can also be sub-units falling out. So some of the artillery kills will be from soldiers not being able to continue to fight.

The lethality of 155 (and 152) is much greater than for 105 or 122. In this case size does matter.

I hope that at some point the game engine will allow players to record targets. A recorded target does not need adjustment, as the data for the target are already known. With recorded targets, the mission would be even quicker with fire for effect happening in one to two minutes.

All the best,

Mike

Thank you for taking the time to read my way too long post. The issue here is counterplay. In real life, a unit would see the spotting rounds and have to make a decision to stay or run. In game you do not get to make that decision. The vast majority of the damage is done in the first volley. As I mentioned in this post, it restricts you to a single decision. Stay dug in because your unit will be destroyed otherwise.

Adding counterplay makes artillery more realistic and more fun for everyone.

[byzantine1990]

I wonder if a lot of the people bring up about FC isn't intertwined with the "Fallen Out" status? In standalone scenarios especially, the Fallen Out and Dead status units are the same thing in terms of gameplay - they're gone for that scenario. It's only in FC's campaigns that Fallen Out matters because those units can return in the following scenario of the campaign. The discussion around long distance engagement kills also should include mention of this I believe as well.

I still have no issue with lethality from artillery but right now there is no counterplay. You don't get to make the decision to move by SOP or manual movement. If there is no counterplay it means there is only one viable reaction. That doesn't make for an interesting game.

[22sec]

I wonder if a lot of the people bring up about FC isn't intertwined with the "Fallen Out" status? In standalone scenarios especially, the Fallen Out and Dead status units are the same thing in terms of gameplay - they're gone for that scenario. It's only in FC's campaigns that Fallen Out matters because those units can return in the following scenario of the campaign. The discussion around long distance engagement kills also should include mention of this I believe as well.

I still have no issue with lethality from artillery but right now there is no counterplay. You don't get to make the decision to move by SOP or manual movement. If there is no counterplay it means there is only one viable reaction. That doesn't make for an interesting game.

I gotcha. I was rambling on top of it about something on my mind lately.

[byzantine1990]

I wonder if a lot of the people bring up about FC isn't intertwined with the "Fallen Out" status? In standalone scenarios especially, the Fallen Out and Dead status units are the same thing in terms of gameplay - they're gone for that scenario. It's only in FC's campaigns that Fallen Out matters because those units can return in the following scenario of the campaign. The discussion around long distance engagement kills also should include mention of this I believe as well.

I still have no issue with lethality from artillery but right now there is no counterplay. You don't get to make the decision to move by SOP or manual movement. If there is no counterplay it means there is only one viable reaction. That doesn't make for an interesting game.

I gotcha. I was rambling on top of it about something on my mind lately.

I understand. I don't have as much issue with falling out being the same as dead. How would you change it?

[WildCatNL]

I still have no issue with lethality from artillery but right now there is no counterplay. You don't get to make the decision to move by SOP or manual movement. If there is no counterplay it means there is only one viable reaction. That doesn't make for an interesting game.

As Battalion / Regiment / Division commander in your HQ, your counterplay (or dilemma) is to either devote some of your artillery to counter-battery, or to put all artillery in support of the ground units. Putting artillery on counter-battery may take out the hostile artillery units (if detected and within range). Putting artillery on counter-battery makes them unavailable for anything else during that time.

[byzantine1990]

I still have no issue with lethality from artillery but right now there is no counterplay. You don't get to make the decision to move by SOP or manual movement. If there is no counterplay it means there is only one viable reaction. That doesn't make for an interesting game.

As Battalion / Regiment / Division commander in your HQ, your counterplay (or dilemma) is to either devote some of your artillery to counter-battery, or to put all artillery in support of the ground units. Putting artillery on counter-battery may take out the hostile artillery units (if detected and within range). Putting artillery on counter-battery makes them unavailable for anything else during that time.

Why can't we have counterplay AND counter battery? There are plenty of scenarios where one side does not have access to artillery that can reach enemy artillery.

It comes back to the first situation I referenced of the tank on the hill. Giving the tank time to move before getting hit provides meaningful counterplay to both sides and it's more realistic.

There is already the ability to reposition with SOP'S but they don't work because majority of the damage comes in the first volley. This means the defender has no choice but stay on hold all game and the shooter has no choice but to blast the hex until the unit is dead because both actions are the only ones with positive outcomes.

[WildCatNL]

It comes back to the first situation I referenced of the tank on the hill. Giving the tank time to move before getting hit provides meaningful counterplay to both sides and it's more realistic.

I still struggle to visualize this (but I'm not an artillery expert).
Either the tank's hex is observed by a spotter or it is is not.
If the tank's hex is under observation by a spotter, the spotter in many cases will be able to shift the fires to the tanks, even when the tanks try to bail out after seeing the initial rounds land.
If the tank's hex is not under observation by a spotter, there won't be spotting rounds as they don't serve a purpose.

Yes, there may be exceptions using counter-battery radar / WLR to shift fires to specific targets on locations which are not directly observed. And yes, in theory, if the tanks guess right where the spotter is and the terrain allows it and they get coordinated, they might be able to reach locations outside observation.
But in general, I don't see why units should be able run away from spotting rounds and not be hit anymore.

The game models the ability of the target unit to move into available cover after the initial round, and provides a protection bonus in subsequent rounds.

[byzantine1990]

It comes back to the first situation I referenced of the tank on the hill. Giving the tank time to move before getting hit provides meaningful counterplay to both sides and it's more realistic.

I still struggle to visualize this (but I'm not an artillery expert).
Either the tank's hex is observed by a spotter or it is is not.
If the tank's hex is under observation by a spotter, the spotter in many cases will be able to shift the fires to the tanks, even when the tanks try to bail out after seeing the initial rounds land.
If the tank's hex is not under observation by a spotter, there won't be spotting rounds as they don't serve a purpose.

Yes, there may be exceptions using counter-battery radar / WLR to shift fires to specific targets on locations which are not directly observed. And yes, in theory, if the tanks guess right where the spotter is and the terrain allows it and they get coordinated, they might be able to reach locations outside observation.
But in general, I don't see why units should be able run away from spotting rounds and not be hit anymore.

The game models the ability of the target unit to move into available cover after the initial round, and provides a protection bonus in subsequent rounds.

With the war in Ukraine we now have a wealth of footage showing AFV’s under artillery fire. Even with a drone observer it takes quite a few u guided rounds to actually get in target. We can also see that artillery needs to be within a few meters to actually damage or track a vehicle.

In FCSS the best you get is a guy with binoculars and artillery is destroying multiple dug in tanks with the first rounds. To make matters worse, it doesn't seem to matter if you're observed, you're still taking huge damage with the first shells.

The root issue is relocating is useless in the current system. If I have a tank on a hill with good sight lines and I come under fire and I relocate, I am giving up my valuable position AND taking much more damage compared to staying dug in. Why in the world would I ever use the screen command or the relocate SOP?

For this reason playing NATO is not fun. You are locked into your positions because moving is high risk/low reward option.

[calgar]

Fully agree with byzantine1990 here, the game doesn't leave much space for interesting manouvre decisions.

[byzantine1990]

Fully agree with byzantine1990 here, the game doesn't leave much space for interesting manouvre decisions.

Thanks! What do you think of the suggestions? Are there any you disagree with?

I figured I would get more controversy over the command delay points.

[Tcao]

I wonder if a lot of the people bring up about FC isn't intertwined with the "Fallen Out" status? In standalone scenarios especially, the Fallen Out and Dead status units are the same thing in terms of gameplay - they're gone for that scenario. It's only in FC's campaigns that Fallen Out matters because those units can return in the following scenario of the campaign. The discussion around long distance engagement kills also should include mention of this I believe as well.

I agree on that

For the fallen out, I hope the game can level the rate of fallen out in the future. A tank lost it’s thread can still shot its gun. A tank lost its gun can still attract ATGM. With the FOW, the opponent might waste tons of ammunition an time on some abandon AFV at long distance, because they can not tell if the target are still function or have been abandoned.

If this is too hard to code then some tweak is needed, just generate half of the Victory points for damaging an equipment , full VP for destroy it.

[WABAC]

If I thought that artillery was acting contrary to my estimation of what it might have been like in a reality that never happened, I would post screen shots and saved games.