Artillery Question

[z1812]

Hi All,

RDOA and HTTR are very enjoyable games. COTA is on my list but not purchased yet.

With RDOA and HTTR, I find that artillery can be a bit frustrating when you wish to create a barrage that will really pound the opposition before an attack.

You can direct Artllery to "support" or target manually. Choosing the support option gives control to the friendly A.I. who may not send it where you want, or as often.

Unfortunately continual manual targeting becomes very repetitive and requires a lot of mouse work. Has COTA changed anything so, for instance, artillery can be targeted as a user selected number of barrages.

If the artillery model has not changed in COTA perhaps this type of adjustment will be
considered for future releases.

Regards John

[JudgeDredd]

I did have RDOA but not HTTR and I do have COTA and I can tell you it's the same (iirc RDOA!)

[Arjuna]

z1812,
 
For COTA, we have done a lot of work on the artillery. It's basing code ( ie the code that finds a good location for long range arty ) has been rewriten. The default duration for bombardments has been reduced to 10 mintes. It's rate of fire is now adjusted according to a number of factors such that it will fire rapid against close enemy threats and slow at threats further away. The selection of targets has been revised too. In fact I invariably leave the AI to manage most of my artillery. I usually keep one or two units under direct command, but the bulk I leave for the AI to manage.
 
In fact we have had an extensive discussion on the Dev forum about the future management of arty assets. One option in the future is to do away with the Bombard order alltogether. Another to restrict the ability of players to mass arty from different formations. So we are continuing to review the matter but I think you will find that arty is more effectively managed in COTA than in HTTR.

[z1812]

Hi All,

Thanks Judge and Arjuna for answering my question so quickly.

I was wondering if something like the kind of artillery control used in Tacops might be appropriate to future development. That is to choose the number of Barrages and type of ammo.

The management of arty is really the only thing I have noticed that could use some thought. The arty is great, in and of itself, it is just all that mouse work if you want to closely manage.

In any case the games are very good. A "must have" for any wargamers collection.

Regards John

[JudgeDredd]

My apologies for suggesting it was the same as "even" RDOA. [&o] From an "aesthetic" perspective, it seemed the same...I'm sure alot of work has gone under the hood.

I, personally, like how you are able to bombard. I think to lose that ability would be a mistake. Whilst I understand (and this has come up several times) the allure of keeping things historical....there is a downside...we cannot put our knowledge to the test. We cannot try many things that commanders of the day would want. Just because commander x didn't mass bombard, it doesn't mean he didn't want to - or realise the potential benefits of a mass bombard. Just because a "higher authority" didn't allow someone to do something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed in a game.

As I said previously (in another thread - to do with reinforcements being refused the ability to land because of a loss of DZ or LZ), I don't want to see Challengers taking on Tigers.

Within the equipment / landscape scope, things should be as historically accurate as can be......when it comes to the mindset and doctrine, I think a more ahstorical approach should be allowed.

Perhaps even make it an option at scenario start if it's that important...historical doctrine or not. That's more work, I know...but if your going to program the doctrine in, then a switch to select otherwise would be a simple check when allowing or dissallowing order types.

After all....with hindsight, we all have ideas of what could and could not have been done better - so why not allow us the ability to try those methods? If you take away the mindset aspect, and limit the player to doctrines of old, then you are taking away an element of creativity in battle. That of "I wonder if doing x will work?".

[Vince_Tooket]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

In fact we have had an extensive discussion on the Dev forum about the future management of arty assets. One option in the future is to do away with the Bombard order alltogether. Another to restrict the ability of players to mass arty from different formations. So we are continuing to review the matter but I think you will find that arty is more effectively managed in COTA than in HTTR.

One way to do this is to define artillery observer to the company who are linked to his organic artillery bty. So if one batalion are far way from another in the same regiment then we will cannot target the same target and so on for regimental artillery and so on for divisional artillery. This permit historical way that divisional artillery cannot support units from another division. In fact some country, like us, can do this but it's only for some few offensive, aother country have doctrine which do not permit this.
It's will be fine too that if an artillery fire is not observed then the location of the fire will be generated randomly.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Vince_Tooket
...
This permit historical way that divisional artillery cannot support units from another division. In fact some country, like us, can do this but it's only for some few offensive, aother country have doctrine which do not permit this.
...

That's what I'm talking about, though. My argument is purely on the "just because it wasn't doctrine then, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the ability to do it".

As I said, it's all well and good having historical games...but really you should have the ability to change the doctrine, should you desire. I'm sure there was a German commander on the ground who thought "If only I was allowed divisional artillery assets"...and he wasn't allowed...because the doctrine at the time said no way jose...but we know it makes sense...so why not allow us.

No...sorry. For me, the historical bit should stop at equipment. Doctrine should be left to the player. I see no reason why, in a game, I should not be allowed to use my brain.

Now, if the use of artillery in the manner in which the game allows us to use it at the moment should not be permitted because of some other reason, other than doctrine, then fine. If they were "physically" incapable of performing what we perform, then fine. But if it's purely "Hitler didn't allow his artillery to be used in that way...so we won't allow it in the game", then I don't agree I'm afraid.

[Vince_Tooket]

This is when the corps/army artillery enter in game. Like artillery divisions only support own division except on high level pre-planned offensive (independantly of the doctrine ), the corps/army artillery adds the firepower needed by the division.

[James Sterrett]

When you're dealing with complex systems, doctrine does limit what you can do.

Somebody decides what doctrine will be - ideally, on the basis of experience, testing new kit, deep knowledge of the relevant warfighting function....

That doctrine, in turn, determines what equipment is bought, and how people are trained to use it  -- which determines the capabilities of the force.  It isn't simply a matter of deciding to turn a gun towards a different target.

If doctrine means you buy signals equipment and raise signals units and train staffs such that interconnections between divisions are difficult, then requests for fire support from division A to division B become difficult as well.  (That's really putting the cart before the horse, too - the reality is that coordination between units is hard, and the variable is how effective doctrine, training, & equipment are at getting through the difficulties.  Much of the whizz-bang computer equipment that armies around the world are investing in is aimed directly at the problem of trying to make coordination easier.)

[JudgeDredd]

Now that makes sense, and I stand corrected. I accept that doctrine determines equipment and training levels.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

z1812,

For COTA, we have done a lot of work on the artillery. It's basing code ( ie the code that finds a good location for long range arty ) has been rewriten. The default duration for bombardments has been reduced to 10 mintes. It's rate of fire is now adjusted according to a number of factors such that it will fire rapid against close enemy threats and slow at threats further away. The selection of targets has been revised too. In fact I invariably leave the AI to manage most of my artillery. I usually keep one or two units under direct command, but the bulk I leave for the AI to manage.

In fact we have had an extensive discussion on the Dev forum about the future management of arty assets. One option in the future is to do away with the Bombard order alltogether. Another to restrict the ability of players to mass arty from different formations. So we are continuing to review the matter but I think you will find that arty is more effectively managed in COTA than in HTTR.

Hi all,

For some reason the evolution of arty & player control thereof is near & dear to my heart. Can you share anything with us as to how the above discussion is progressing??
Here are a few (simplistic) ideas that may or may not have occurred to you folks already:

1/ Base the number of arty units that can be directly controlled by the player on a divisor of the on map boss's max. command capability. E.G. on map boss can support a command load of 30. Arty divisor is 5. 30/5 = 6 maximum arty units under player control at any one time. This could be further refined by arty costing more than mortars, or by side (allies able to control more than axis or vice versa by having different divisors for each side), with divisor values definable on a scenario by scenario basis, or any combinations of the above.

2/ Increase the cost of arty command points to a player when (s)he puts them under direct control. E.G. when left to organic AI controlled subordinate HQ, arty unit "x" costs 1 point towards organic AI boss command limit - but when changed to direct player control costs 5 points towards on map boss's command limit. This could also be defined by a designer on a per scenario and/or side basis.

3/ HQ's would have two command load limits - one for arty and one for everything else. Would be definable by designers by side at the scenario level.

4/ Allow only arty assigned to highest level HQ (the on map player boss) to be directly controlled by the player. So if the highest HQ on the game is a Commonwealth division then only that Divisional HQ's organically assigned artillery can be player controlled.

What do y'll think?? Comments anyone??
Thanks.

Rob. [:)]

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,
 
If no one minds........ I'd still like to hear what the beta/development team is considering in terms of direct player control over arty as per my above post. Unless of course it's secret [:D]
Thanks!  
 
Rob. [:)]

[Arjuna]

Rob,
 
I'm not going to be addressing this for the patch. Once that is out, I'll look into this and see what we can do for BFTB. Please remind me again once the patch is out. Thanks.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Rob,

I'm not going to be addressing this for the patch. Once that is out, I'll look into this and see what we can do for BFTB. Please remind me again once the patch is out. Thanks.

Hi,

Now that the patch is (almost) out I thought I'd take your advice and re-submit my original post concerning player control of artillery. Just some different ideas on ways of how it might be limited ........

Hi all,

For some reason the evolution of arty & player control thereof is near & dear to my heart. Can you share anything with us as to how the above discussion is progressing??
Here are a few (simplistic) ideas that may or may not have occurred to you folks already:

1/ Base the number of arty units that can be directly controlled by the player on a divisor of the on map boss's max. command capability. E.G. on map boss can support a command load of 30. Arty divisor is 5. 30/5 = 6 maximum arty units under player control at any one time. This could be further refined by arty costing more than mortars, or by side (allies able to control more than axis or vice versa by having different divisors for each side), with divisor values definable on a scenario by scenario basis, or any combinations of the above.

2/ Increase the cost of arty command points to a player when (s)he puts them under direct control. E.G. when left to organic AI controlled subordinate HQ, arty unit "x" costs 1 point towards organic AI boss command limit - but when changed to direct player control costs 5 points towards on map boss's command limit. This could also be defined by a designer on a per scenario and/or side basis.

3/ HQ's would have two command load limits - one for arty and one for everything else. Would be definable by designers by side at the scenario level.

4/ Allow only arty assigned to highest level HQ (the on map player boss) to be directly controlled by the player. So if the highest HQ on the game is a Commonwealth division then only that Divisional HQ's organically assigned artillery can be player controlled.

What do y'll think?? Comments anyone??
Thanks.

Rob.

Thanks,

Rob. [:)]

[Deathtreader]

No comments?? Good, bad, indifferent?? Anybody??

[Arjuna]

Rob,
 
Patch is almost but not actually out yet. So I've been a tad busy.
 
If I understand you correctly, the basic thrust of your suggestions is to limit the ability of the player to mass arty units. In so far as contributing towards realism I concur. However, there are other factors to consider. Player involvment is one. We don't want to so limit the player that he gets bored or frustrated. Nor do we want to make it so complicated that he has to sit down with a calculator and work out whether he should attach an arty unit or not. This would be a backward step in my view.
 
Perhaps the answer is to provide further "options" that players can select on starting a scenario. We already have one for orders delay, so perhaps we could have other for limiting the flexibility of commanding arty. One could be for Bn mortars. I for one would be in favour of not allowing the player to be able to order these units to bombard directly ( unless, and there is always an unless, it no longer has an organic superior ).
 
Anyway I have to go for now. I'll come back in due course and discuss this further. Be patient. [:)]

[Deathtreader]

Anyway I have to go for now. I'll come back in due course and discuss this further. Be patient.

Fair enough....... [:)]
I like the options angle btw.

Rob.