Thoughts on game rules

[Tcao]

1, Arty spotter. As we know there is huge difference between arty strike on an undetected enemy and a spotted enemy unit. But let’s think about this scenario. Either it is plotted by player directly or done by FSCC, an 122mm indirect fire mission planned to commerce on 14:05. The enemy, a NATO Mech inf plt is undetected, so it might suffer no loss at all. But at 14:04 a lone survivor infantry squad from a trashed BTR co. climb on a hill (and I guess this low readiness low morale squad cannot carry reliable radio equipment), spotted the NATO mech inf plt, so now the planned 122mm arty strike become a deadly precise strike with spotter correcting the fire. Any explanation to justify this battle result?


2, Smoke. Right now the non-thermal image units can also benefit from smoke screen, it cannot see/fire through but it can do so when hiding under the smoke. The LOS will suffer a 20% reduction but will block the return fire from the non-TI equip units. This test can be easily setup, put a co. T-62 and a Bn of M60A1 on map. T-62 will happily turkey shot the M60A1 until the M60A1 reach the adjacent hex.
Is this rule need to be changed? It seems to be unrealistic.


3, Smoke again, smoke and TI. The smoke will not reduce the TI equip units’ spotting ability , however I would argue against that. In 80s only the gunner has the Thermal sight. Commander don’t have an independence Thermal imager. So dropping the smoke on the head of M1 will block the commander’s search mission. And the burden of searching will lay on the shoulder of the gunner’s narrow FOV.
So I am thinking maybe the TI units should suffer a 20%-30% penalty on spotting behind the smoke?

[CapnDarwin]

Tcao, I have your questions posted to the team for review and any possible fixes. For number #3, if smoke blocks the M1 units, only the thermal sights can search/shoot enemy targets as the visual systems are blocked. The Cold War game does not have any CITV systems in use and, when added, will improve search and target ID. As soon as I hear more on these points I'll let you know or have the guys drop in here and post info.

[Tcao]

knock knock, any update on this?

[CapnDarwin]

I have not heard anything yet, but we are also very busy with getting things done for the upcoming release. I will ping the team again on these questions.

[WildCatNL]

1, Arty spotter. As we know there is huge difference between arty strike on an undetected enemy and a spotted enemy unit. But let’s think about this scenario. Either it is plotted by player directly or done by FSCC, an 122mm indirect fire mission planned to commence on 14:05. The enemy, a NATO Mech inf plt is undetected, so it might suffer no loss at all. But at 14:04 a lone survivor infantry squad from a trashed BTR co. climb on a hill (and I guess this low readiness low morale squad cannot carry reliable radio equipment), spotted the NATO mech inf plt, so now the planned 122mm arty strike become a deadly precise strike with spotter correcting the fire. Any explanation to justify this battle result?

Apologies for the delay. And "delay" is also the answer...
In this specific example, the trashed BTR co lone infantry squad survivor may serve as spotter, but as a spotter he will not be able to adjust fire earlier than the comms delay allows, and also not more frequently than the comms delay allows.
The comms delay models a communication link up the hierarchy, up until the the first shared HQ with the 122mm battery, and down to the 122mm battery (unless the 122mm is firing in direct support of the spotter). The comms delay always is subject to EW, and subject to HQ performances along the chain (poor readiness, too many subordinates, on the move, or out-of-command). A typical comms delay for WP formations is 10 minutes. Climbing on the hill at 14:05, the survivor will not have any impact on the 122mm fire mission until after 10 minutes, so 14:15. And the subsequent adjustment, if any will take another 10 minutes.

[WildCatNL]

2, Smoke. Right now the non-thermal image units can also benefit from smoke screen, it cannot see/fire through but it can do so when hiding under the smoke. The LOS will suffer a 20% reduction but will block the return fire from the non-TI equip units. This test can be easily setup, put a co. T-62 and a Bn of M60A1 on map. T-62 will happily turkey shot the M60A1 until the M60A1 reach the adjacent hex.
Is this rule need to be changed? It seems to be unrealistic.

This reflects the attacker's ability to quickly move forward from a concealed position to the forward edge, gaining sight to targets, firing a shot, and dropping back into concealment. Tanks and anti-tank units trained to do so, for example rolling out of a dug-in tank position, shooting, and reversing back into a tank position.
The behavior might not always be realistic (especially disallowing defenders to respond at all), but disabling it also would be unrealistic.

[WildCatNL]

3, Smoke again, smoke and TI. The smoke will not reduce the TI equip units’ spotting ability , however I would argue against that. In 80s only the gunner has the Thermal sight. Commander don’t have an independence Thermal imager. So dropping the smoke on the head of M1 will block the commander’s search mission. And the burden of searching will lay on the shoulder of the gunner’s narrow FOV.
So I am thinking maybe the TI units should suffer a 20%-30% penalty on spotting behind the smoke?

I checked how we implemented this in the game, and we'd struggle to distinguish between the various situations, so Cold War units without a independent thermal sight for the commander (your M1) and units that do have one (Apache AH-64A). It something to consider for the future.

(We're also not up to the point where we model power lines, and have TOW units trying to avoid firing over power lines or open water).

[Tcao]

2, Smoke. Right now the non-thermal image units can also benefit from smoke screen, it cannot see/fire through but it can do so when hiding under the smoke. The LOS will suffer a 20% reduction but will block the return fire from the non-TI equip units. This test can be easily setup, put a co. T-62 and a Bn of M60A1 on map. T-62 will happily turkey shot the M60A1 until the M60A1 reach the adjacent hex.
Is this rule need to be changed? It seems to be unrealistic.

This reflects the attacker's ability to quickly move forward from a concealed position to the forward edge, gaining sight to targets, firing a shot, and dropping back into concealment. Tanks and anti-tank units trained to do so, for example rolling out of a dug-in tank position, shooting, and reversing back into a tank position.
The behavior might not always be realistic (especially disallowing defenders to respond at all), but disabling it also would be unrealistic.

But everytime the attacker coming out of smoke screen it will have to go through the process of searching, re-acquire, range. It will take time, so it will slow down the overall rate of fire. When it retreats back into smoke it lost the chance of correction so that also reduce the hit rate. And yes, after receiving one or two salvo, the defender may well aware of this kind of tactic, and zero their gunsight to where the attacker may come out of the smoke.

I would suggest a tweak in the future.
I just make up some number, but the reasoning stands itself:
1,reduce the attacker's rate of fire to 50% , or reduce the attacker's PoH to 50%
2, reduce the defender's rate of fire to 25%, or reduce the defender's PoH to 25%

[CapnDarwin]

We will note this issue and create a JIRA for a possible correction in the new Cold War game, should we have the opportunity to refine how smoke and sensor modeling is implemented. You make a valid point.