Matrix Games Forums

Just read a post by Wiggum over in the CotA forum that wasn't addressed but I find thinking about it a good question.

Below is a quote from said post.

Wiggum Quote:

"Hi, while playing the tutorial #1 of COTA i had a Bn reorg for a attack (FUP) in LOS to some enemy units.
They got shot at during reorg and because of that it took some time until they finaly attacked.

Ok, i know that setting a FUP in LOS to enemy units is not clever but i just did everything like in the tutorial manual.
I think in this situation it would be great to have some kind of smoke screen covering the FUP.
But i cant find anything about smoke in the manual so i think its not in the game.

Now, is there any kind of abstraction of smoke and FOW ?
I mean there is always some smoke/dust on a battlefield that restricts the LOS to some degree..."



I also liked to know why smoke barrage aren't an option in the game. They'd help massively in making Arty so deadly when in LoS..didn't the Germans ever use smoke? Or for that matter the Allies?

Yes! I would love to see smoke implemented in BftB. I can see a smoke barrage button being a very nice feature, would make me love my mortar teams even more.

My initial thought is that smoke would be really great and useful, especially for head to head.

But my concern is how the AI might handle this.  Units has a limited 'memory' of what is in front of them.  How might this work, in conjunction with smoke that completely breaks the LOS.  Should the AI retain info on the units until LOS is restored?  How to ensure a reasonable response from the AI if LOS is broken due to smoke as opposed to other conditions/factors

Yes lots of new coding would be required. Thats why it would be a major feature in a new release I expect.

Is smoke appropriate in an operational environment?
I know many of you like to play tactical games where it is appropriate. Here? No!

Agree with above.  Due to the scale, it is better to do smoke protection in the combat resolution.  Meaning they affect accuracy and letality of enemy fire calculations.  Instead of rendering a map object that blocks LOS.  Can be done automatically as well based on doctrine and availablity of smoke rounds and grenades.

Well at coy level yes it is I reckon. Remember really the game is a coy scale game. This game is more of a grand tactical game than operational (you just give out orders at an operational scale\levl but the game plays out at grand tactical\operational. Besides either way smoke is relevant as it was used in large attacks on a big scale. I'm talking about arty smoke rather than grenade tactical smoke here. Smoke screens where used in one of the large attacks by the British and Canadians after Cain..was it Goodwood? Can't remember.

So yes smoke barrage is correct at this scale.

So logically, you would then want to decide on the difference between proximity fusing or ground impact for HE rounds? To chose tank round type/main gun/MG?
Even if you limit your choice to "grand" smoke, you then have to know wind direction and speed!
'fraid you don't seem to have got over your wargame introduction where micro-management was the only way because AI was dumb.

Regarding your point about smoke barrages at Goodwood, I seem to remember that attack being just a little bit sort of disaster, smoke or no smoke. I think you want all your attacks to be successful and you to be provided with all the good tools and none of the problems like: smoke barrages give the enemy quite a lot of warning of an impending attack ... how would you model that?

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

Is smoke appropriate in an operational environment?
I know many of you like to play tactical games where it is appropriate. Here? No!

Actually, I'd agree with you there, if operational planning wouldn't have included consideration of factors like say safe route, safe FUP, level of air cover, level of smoke cover, during the planning of historical operations.
While it was usually down to the divisional or even regimental commander to order smoke, commanders in charge of the entire operation would often force the use of smoke and would then set it as a constant in the operational plan and in the attack plan respectively.

Also, I just thought about a smoke feature for ComOps several weeks ago as well, after I had dug out my copy of TOW 2 North Africa 1943.
Imho, the next ComOps Installment would really benefit from getting some kind of OFF-board arty with smoke. Using smoke was often the only way for the Russians to conceal movement or to penetrate an occupied sector in the Eastern Campaign (eg. in the Steppe east and southeast of Stalingrad, or to cover attacks across rivers in Germany), as well as for the Germans in the North African Campaign.

Ray Wolfe no I wouldn't want to choose fuses etc.Of course not. We already have loads of different ammo in the game, however smoke is the only one where you'd have to decided when to use it. . Your reply smacks of sarcasm and it's obvious you are missing the point entirely if you think I want all my assaults to work. I want to be able to do what was available to higher command. I also want the AI to be able to do it aswell.

Large scale smoke barrages where used through out WW2. They also have a far larger impact than if you choose a certain fuse on a certain shell. You really went to the extreme their trying to force home a point.

Smoke barrages where used at Operational level. So I see no reason to be able to have them here.

I like the idea of it even being included abstractly if necessary. Though I'd rather be given the option for either normal or smoke barrage. Though you don't have loads of smoke rounds, enough for one barrage say.

At least, smoke needs to be taken into the LOS calculation and accuracy and letality of fire.
Smoke was always there (look at the TO&E) for the units Command Ops simulates.

So even if a "real" simulation is not done, at least we would need to know how it is abstracted.
Or if its abstracted at all...

Just some official information would be great.

ORIGINAL: Wiggum

At least, smoke needs to be taken into the LOS calculation and accuracy and letality of fire ...

It should be used "routinely" -- yes, that's a pun -- as a combat modifier to decrease assaulting casualties on that front; this should not require extensive changes to the exisiting code.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
this should not require extensive changes to the exisiting code.

Oh how I love these words.[8|]

Let's just quickly look at this issue. First off we need to create a new task so it can be included in the plan development mix. We then need plan doctrine on how to use it, when to use, why to use it and for how long and in what combination or sequence with other attack tasks. then we need to consider all the cases where it cannot be used eg wind too strong, no smoke ammo etc. We need tactical doctrine - ie code to implement the task that factors in weather, ground conditions, available ammo, its effectiveness. This also needs to interact with the reassessment code - eg what if the smoke task ordered is fired but proves ineffective due to a change in wind direction. Does the commander call off the attack. If the troops are still advancing to the FUP, can he change the FUP and what will that do to the timings of other tasks etc.

Now that was me just thinking off the top of my head for a few seconds. There are probably other issues to address.

So when it comes to introducing new tasking think "extensive changes to existing code". [:)]

Poor Dave, we band thinsg around as if it's going to be simple and I bet he is already in turmoil trying to work out how to do what they've decided on already.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
this should not require extensive changes to the exisiting code.

Oh how I love these words.[8|]

Let's just quickly look at this issue. First off we need to create a new task so it can be included in the plan development mix. We then need plan doctrine on how to use it, when to use, why to use it and for how long and in what combination or sequence with other attack tasks ...

Even if it's done routinely, i.e., no "check box" and only as a combat modifier, not a separate task?