Artillery, Tradeoffs and Decision Making In FCSS

[DCETRADER]

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.

...
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.

Troops should be ready to relocate to next position which have been planned in a mobile defense combat.

[IronMikeGolf]

I know I am replying late and MikeJ offers good into as a former artillery officer. Let me offer my experiences from this era as a "caller for fire".

I only called for adjusting rounds in a class or testing situation My first call was Fire For Effect. Moas and met data were good enough by at latest 1979 for that. Moving target? I had a cheat sheet to help me. As an infantry fire team leader.

I just don't see evidence that as of late 1980s a unit can "run away" from artillery.

[byzantine1990]

I know I am replying late and MikeJ offers good into as a former artillery officer. Let me offer my experiences from this era as a "caller for fire".

I only called for adjusting rounds in a class or testing situation My first call was Fire For Effect. Moas and met data were good enough by at latest 1979 for that. Moving target? I had a cheat sheet to help me. As an infantry fire team leader.

I just don't see evidence that as of late 1980s a unit can "run away" from artillery.

I concede defeat. I won't be bothering anyone on the forums or discord anymore.

[cbelva]

This is not a contest. There is no winning or losing in this. In fact we are on the same side. We have always taken your comments seriously. In fact, this thread has had a lot of discussion in our group. When we disagree, we need to explain ourselves and why we disagree. However, just because we have a disagreement does not mean that we aren't taking your comments seriously.

[byzantine1990]

This is not a contest. There is no winning or losing in this. In fact we are on the same side. We have always taken your comments seriously. In fact, this thread has had a lot of discussion in our group. When we disagree, we need to explain ourselves and why we disagree. However, just because we have a disagreement does not mean that we aren't taking your comments seriously.

I understand where you're coming from and I know you and the team are working hard on making the game better.

After a lot of trial and error I have found that the game leads you into a very static playstyle that punishes you for interacting with a majority of the movement and SOP options available. Personally, this makes every scenario play out the same and takes away control from the player since there is a single optimal strategy that works for every situation. This is especially true on the NATO/defending side. I tried laying this out to the best of my ability in the original post.

The response from developers and contributors is you're wrong and the game is working as intended except for some small tweaks.

I concede because it's time to except the game as it is or move on.

[Tcao]

Combat mission has its own problem. Troubled by small size map, CM has toned down the lethalness of arty. They have their reason, because otherwise the game will become super boring after five min arty bombardment.
CM put you in the shoes of multiple level command structure. You play as plt, co. and Bn commander at the same time, so you have no (direct) penalty on command delay + communication delay.
And last, regarding spotting round detection, CM WE GO mode gives a player an unlimited times to review what happened on the pervious turn, so the player can easily collect some information that is very hard to noticed IRL. Like where the spotting round land, where the AT round coming from. In real time play game mode, the spotting round will be much much harder to detect.

So we’d better don’t use CM’s gameplay to prove FCSS is wrong , or verse vasa. We should focus on FCSS current arty performance. The complaint that it generate too much kills but not degrade combat readiness enough is a good start.

If we really want to simulate the spotting round, then consider this: Arty strike begin 2 min (NATO) after order issued, but at first it is at harass level, this is to simulate spotting round. Then a random number generate (2-5) , after another 2-5 min, fire for effect. Neutralization fire begins.