When we will have artillery overhaul?

[Artillerist]

Everyone should step back, google and download (for free) FM 6-20-50, FM 6-20-40, FM 6-20-20 and ATP 3-09.42. What is and isn't realistic and applicable to the Brigade and Battalion fights can't be honestly discussed if you haven't read these manuals first.

[Gratch1111]

I agree with not moving art, it should be abstracted

I agree with CB being automatic = Art not being used should automatically be CB. Effect of CB should be based on how long you as a player decides the art to fire before it moves(this is a setting before the game starts set in minutes, the longer the time the bigger the risk of CB and this can be adjused by the programmers based on timeperiods and country)

As I said before I think art should be offline between firing when they move and reload which means that the player sometimes doesnt have art - Just like you said

We should however be able to move mortars and there should be different kinds of art, light, med and heavy since the effect is very different

105mm 19kg
122mm 25 kg
152mm 40 kg
155mm 43,5-47 kg = 3mm bigger gun = 10-20% heavier grenade
175mm 66,5 kg
203mm 100 kg

Size matters

[Artillerist]

Okay @gratch1111 so assuming they choose to implement counter-battery as an off-map apparatus-- how will it interface with on-map units? If I have my counter-battery god shield activated will it target enemy on-map assets like mortars and howitzers? Will my on-map assets be targeted? Or are they immune from this counter-battery layer?

[Gratch1111]

[:D] You cant have everything, so im afraid the CB will only target the off map artilleri. However that is the most dangerous artilleri anyway so I would say that it takes care of 90% of the problem. If it were me I would make the on map art an "off map" thing as well. And then when you enter the art support screen you can choose the kind of guns to use, so not just how many guns but which type for which mission. I really like the off art usage its very easy, I would just add the option to choose the gun type. Also, only med and heavy art + MRL/MRLS would be available for CB fire.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Gratch1111
[:D] You cant have everything, so im afraid the CB will only target the off map artilleri. However that is the most dangerous artilleri anyway so I would say that it takes care of 90% of the problem. If it were me I would make the on map art an "off map" thing as well. And then when you enter the art support screen you can choose the kind of guns to use, so not just how many guns but which type for which mission. I really like the off art usage its very easy, I would just add the option to choose the gun type. Also, only med and heavy art + MRL/MRLS would be available for CB fire.

My suggestion was based on the assumption of description of artillery units and icons on the map, but just matter of implementing full control to arty units like Eugen's Wargame Franchise, or slightly modifying the AB's indirect way of helicopter control and implement it for arty. In this case all artys are "in-map" artillery units (whether my "FEBA" idea is used or not) I think they should be called as "inmap" arty if they are described on the map, even though player or AI cannot directly control, isn't it? Suggestion of "inmap" arty but with "indirect control" would make a room for players to communicate to arty units for their tactically sounding maneuver, but automated processes will hugely decrease the burden of micro for players.

I'm not sure if "offmap" artillery with huge abstraction would be a good choice for tactical game eventually in the future. Of course this will be much easier to code, and will looks simple. But in this case, RNG number will decide the life and death of off map artillery against CB. Players and AI might be allowed to set up some frequency numbers, but since all is off-map, it is still true RNG number will decide the fate of artillery. This is one of the feature I was not a fan of in FPC-RS's CB system. In FPC-RS, depending on scenario, in-map and off-map artys are existing together. You set the CB to any arty against enemy inmap or offmap arty, and RNG will only thing to ruin yours and pixeltruppen's day, no room for your tactical decision can be involved yet artillery is very powerful and important to battlefield. I'm not sure if this system is really a good idea. At least I don't like it.

However, I must admit if the current game code has a limit to depict larger map size, then maybe we may not be able to escape from offmap arty system. (But in this case my FEBA idea would be helpful to depict inmap arty with automated indirect control, with less computational burden)

[Gratch1111]

I have no problem with on map artilleri as a concept, however how the mortars are used makes me wary. They cant move and you only fire two guns at a time. Your concept could work if you can group the units yourself, like 3 mortar sec to fire at one target, or an art battallion of 18 guns, and they move after firing on their own. If you have art radar or equivalent you could then see art positions and fire CB hoping that the unit havent moved. But you would still have to set how many rounds to fire before they move and the AI would need to calculate how long after first shot I would be able to spot where they are. It could be better, more realistic, but it runs the risk of micro management if not done right

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Gratch1111
I have no problem with on map artilleri as a concept, however how the mortars are used makes me wary. They cant move and you only fire two guns at a time. Your concept could work if you can group the units yourself, like 3 mortar sec to fire at one target, or an art battallion of 18 guns, and they move after firing on their own. If you have art radar or equivalent you could then see art positions and fire CB hoping that the unit havent moved. But you would still have to set how many rounds to fire before they move and the AI would need to calculate how long after first shot I would be able to spot where they are. It could be better, more realistic, but it runs the risk of micro management if not done right

I only used SP mortar units so I have no idea about infantry mortar units. I thought they can move on foot in this game, aren't they? When I was active I saw 60mm, 81mm, and even 4.2 inch guys carrying those on foot... 4.2 inch is designed to be operated in vehicle, but sometimes those poor dudes had to run with that big gun [:D]

CB radar would be much more accurate than sound method, but still would only show rough estimation, not a pinpoint of the enemy arty. As far as I know even modern CB radars cannot "pinpoint" the exact location of enemy arty, like within 1 meter error. Cold war era CB radars would only estimate broader area of possible arty position. For the representation of "rough idea of whereabouts" of arty units, it might be possible to increase the size of "artillery signature" icon. In current "fire signature" yellow icon, the center of icon does not means the location of enemy muzzle flash or source of gun sound. Same can be applied to "artillery signature" icon, the center of such icon wouldn't be the location of opponent arty, but all area should be regarded as possible arty position. Size of this icon can be decreased by advanced CB radar or if recon was close to enemy arty position to help FDC to correct the CB radar's data, or recon was watching enemy recon to feedback to HQ and FDC.

I was also thinking of introducing delayed appearance of "arty signature", as a representation of calculation time and communication time. This time delay might be decided based on CB radar's technical spec or each faction's arty doctrine. But if such information is not available, then some estimation on this time delay should be made.

I think such inaccuracy & delay time of CB radar or by sound method to find opponent artillery would balance the CB to prevent OP CB to kill all arty when activated.

Oh well, if such options are too complicated, then I would say Eugen's Wargmae style description with full player/AI control of arty would be better, showing the "tracer" or "bins" of artillery projectile which can be used to estimate the firing position.

[Gratch1111]

No they cant move, stupid.... 81mm can be carries, 107 I dont know but 120mm mortars no way:)

SE/NO/UK + nations has Arthur now, it tracks the grenades/rockets and based on trajectory they can pinpoint the firing position down to 60m, at least the 1994 version now hthere are more modern ones, however until 91 they werent that good. I can also imagine that since the whole thing runs on computers it took a lot longer and not so accurate in the 80s and before that I dont think they were any good at all, then they probably used sound visual etc, but I do know that our mortars, 80s, as a rule never stayed more than 10 minutes after firing first shell due to CB from the Sovjets. So since they werent SP they could only fire for 7-8 minutes and then they packed up and left in two minutes tops, they were very good at that, One of the things they practiced over and over and over again. Thank good I wasnt in that unit:)

I like your idea, Im just afraid of the micro when it comes to moving and firing the guns.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Gratch1111
No they cant move, stupid.... 81mm can be carries, 107 I dont know but 120mm mortars no way:)

Well, I'm not sure why you call me stupid. But two decades ago when I active, I did saw lads with 4.2 inch mortar, 106mm RR, and automatic GL (something similar model with Mk19) carrying those on foot, and reassemble. They all were supposed to operate with vehicle of course, but they did trained to disassemble, carry on foot part by part, then reposition & reassemble to prepare any emergency situations. Each steps had some time limits to finish. So yeah, I can say for sure they were able to move on foot in reality. I believe this would be the same for now. 81mm and 60mm is supposed to move on foot from the beginning.
I didn't know in-game infantry mortar can't move on foot as I always use SP mortar units. But if that is true, devs should fix them to possible to move on foot.

SE/NO/UK + nations has Arthur now, it tracks the grenades/rockets and based on trajectory they can pinpoint the firing position down to 60m, at least the 1994 version now hthere are more modern ones, however until 91 they werent that good. I can also imagine that since the whole thing runs on computers it took a lot longer and not so accurate in the 80s and before that I dont think they were any good at all, then they probably used sound visual etc, but I do know that our mortars, 80s, as a rule never stayed more than 10 minutes after firing first shell due to CB from the Sovjets. So since they werent SP they could only fire for 7-8 minutes and then they packed up and left in two minutes tops, they were very good at that, One of the things they practiced over and over and over again. Thank good I wasnt in that unit:)

CB radar exited and operated from Vietnam war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/MPQ-4
I'm not sure about spec of this machine, but it seems manual of this radar is available from google. Google for "Operator's Manual for Radar Set AN/MPQ-4A" I guess those are declassified as they become too obsolete... I think this might be a good beginning point. Operating doctrines of mortar and artillery from vets like you would be helpful too, share your story to devs more. But of course, don't share them if they are still classified.

I like your idea, Im just afraid of the micro when it comes to moving and firing the guns.

I think amount of micro would not be too much with such "indirect control" method for artillery, if devs develop a good automation algorithm based on their current helicopter control system.

If AB introduces the system of all-in-map-arty with full control of arty to players/AI (like Eugen's Wargame style), then that will increase the micromanagement requirement. But I'm OK with that option too.

[exsonic01]

Modern CB mission example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong
https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/ ... 11-.23.pdf

https://youtu.be/BUPWVpbFrYg
https://youtu.be/NTtf1eWyoe0
RoK government and DoD official historical record for this incident.

https://youtu.be/aieFoXBjdaY
RoK news report KPA shot 400 rounds to the island.

https://youtu.be/bPSiaC9P2SY
Smartphone record from one of the resident on the island. You can hear KPA artillery sound too.
https://youtu.be/DOGTsxh7WAE
Another smartphone record from island resident.
https://youtu.be/TpG82ISK7Eo
Another smartphone record from island resident 2.

https://youtu.be/TA3AKig6d7w
3 yrs later, official RoK marine officer interview about this incident, introducing after action report.

https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mo ... 0002207345
Internet news article.

CB radar was not operational on that moment due to scheduled check up. So RoK marine arty operators fired back to possible KPA artillery position by calculation based on pre-determined position. KPA started fire from 14:34, and RoK fired back from 14:47. Without CB radar and considering all units were suppressed due to sudden enemy artillery, I guess 13 minutes of reaction time was not that bad. Rather, I think it was good enough fast reaction.

[Gratch1111]

Im not calling you stupid:)! I called the idea that you cant move mortars stupid!!

I believe you about carrying, I just said that I know that 81mm was carried and since we didnt have 107mm I dont know, but you are correct a mortar can be disassembeled into smaller pieces while some weighing 60-70 kg or more I believe. We did have RCL, not sure they could be carried but I know they had wheels they could put it on and drag it.

Not classified any longer, havent been commisioned for 15 years.

Nice "talking" to you and Im not for abusing people so If you think I am, just ask as you did, sometimes something sounds right in your head as you write it but the reader sees something else:)

[exsonic01]

OK, well, I'm just a player and moder, and I know my idea cannot be perfect, I'm just suggesting and throwing new idea for better game. I also welcome any discussion with you or other people with different point of view, because such discussions would help me and all of us to catch missing points or prevent the idea to flow into possible loophole.

Anyway, I guess indirect control of artillery + visualization of artillery units & icons might work with good automated control algorithm. But I also think there might be a problem which I'm missing. I wish devs find a good solution for artillery.

[Artillerist]

I've also tended to use howitzers and mortars that I've created or modded myself, so the inability of heavy weapons to move has been less an issue for me. Obviously though rectifying this issue for heavy weapons should be a priority. As the Computer is handicapped without being able to exploit this.

I think it goes without saying that the on-map fire support would definitely need movement, method of engagement/fire and control improvements before even thinking about a transition to a predominantly on-map fire support system, if that were in the cards. I brought that up in March.

End of the day I think most people agree that:
1) artillery/mortars/rockets whether on-map or off-map should be subdivided by calibre.
2) improvements should not sacrifice simplicity or lead to excessive micro-management.
3) Artillery ammunition attributes should be moddable in the database

In my opinion that's a good non-controversial place to start (err umm after arty kill counts!!!!!)

I'm on the fence with counter-battery, even as much as I absolutely love the principles and tactics behind waging a clever CB fight, and strongly believe it's an integral part of brigade operations.

People tend to look at it as an obstacle to responsive fires, which it might indeed become depending on implementation, but that's not at all how it needs to work.

NATO units during the cold war trained to fight outgunned and outranged. That meant more ground and air radars, integration of fire support personnel at all echelons to improve coordination, greater mobility and displacement discipline, digital communications and fire and control, expensive sensors to improve efficiency as it related to TLE, and obviously GPS which allowed greater dispersion, and efficiency.

In my opinion the counter-battery system should be built with space to allow the various factions to authentically play to their strengths, or at least overcome their weaknesses.

[Perturabo]

I'm playing with on-board artillery-only in my mod. It's pretty nice. The only problem is that there is CB radar so I have to use air support to find/destroy enemy guns. Though I managed to infiltrate a recon team far enough to spot some of them a few times.

Personally, I think that in larger engagements, deploying and manoeuvring units is incomparably more bothersome than managing artillery and CB fire would be.

[Artillerist]

@perturabo totally agree about arty management being easier than maneuver management. Was surprised people pushed back on that.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
I'm playing with on-board artillery-only in my mod. It's pretty nice. The only problem is that there is CB radar so I have to use air support to find/destroy enemy guns. Though I managed to infiltrate a recon team far enough to spot some of them a few times.

Personally, I think that in larger engagements, deploying and manoeuvring units is incomparably more bothersome than managing artillery and CB fire would be.

I guess this is related with player's mouse speed & multi tasking ability. During my experience in W:RD, I saw a lot of players forget about their artillery & mortar control because they were too busy with control of units on the front line. Then they get punished by opponent's CB. I was one of the person who loved to punish arty noobs with CB fire or deep strike SF elements.

I'm OK with full direct control option. This system (direct control of arty) is already proven to be OK in many other games. Current AB has no MP yet, so burden of micro for arty might not too huge. However, I also understand for some players don't like it.

Mouse click speed and multi-tasking is not related with tactical decision of commander on the real battlefield. Rather, it is more of RTS-world issue, player's reactivity and sense of performing multiple tasks at the same time. Then, a player with faster mouse speed & multi-tasking brain will win any games. But we all know real army field commanders don't babysit their artillery units to where to move after shoot. It is artillery commander's job. Real world commanders don't get punished just because they forget about maneuver of artillery. At this point, the game become more close to RTS not traditional wargame...
AB is single play only game for now, so burden of such micro would be small for now. But if MP comes in, this will cause the same criticism which WRD received from realism wargame fans.

AB already abstracted helicopter, minimized the direct control of helicopter for players. At first I didn't like this. But from some time I like this option and I think this totally make sense, because control & maneuvering of helicopter is performed by pilots, not by commander on the field.

That is why I think indirect method of artillery, just like helicopters, might be the best option for AB. Artillery units will be described like other units on the map, but players have very limited control on artillery. Maneuvering of artillery is controlled by AI, but players can set firing positions (just like helicopter's BP). CB and shoot and scoop maneuver is performed by AI, let players only can set tendency of artillery as aggressive or defensive, or frequency of shoot and scoop. Decision of fire is performed by players, current fire support control box can be used.
If this option requires too much computational resource, then let's introduce "FEBA" concept, might be able to reduce some computational burden due to enlarged map.

Indirect control have several distinctive merits:
- a) Description of artillery units with their graphics and proper maneuverability = realism.
- b) More realistic description of artillery control. You cannot spam artillery due to CB and movement of artillery like we do in current AB. This will also involves tactical decision of players, as players need to find the balance of maneuvering and fire support = balancing + motivation to players.
- c) As a field commander, players can and should concentrate their effort on the control of front line units. This is more realistic description of battlefield than full-control of arty, as artillery maneuvering is decided by artillery commander = realism.
- d) Does not require any fast mouse click speed or multi-tasking brain of RTS players. Any wargame fans who don't like RTS-ish feature will like this option. (And RTS players will like this option too, as players still need to micro your units on the field.) This will make AB artillery easy for new players = less steep learning curve and easier difficulty.
- e) Current fire support box still can be used = less steep learning curve and easier difficulty.

[Artillerist]

This is all I want--->

[nikolas93TS]

After reading several hundred pages in FM 6-20-20, FM 6-20-40, FM 6-20-50 and ATP 3-09.42 and additional half a dozen other manuals, my brain is even more confused. Particularly on the eternal dilemma on how to balance between simplicity and playability on side, and accuracy and realism on another.

I think we all can agree on having different artillery calibers.

I am proposing this classification by artillery caliber and weight of projectile for game purposes (not historical):

[*]Light: including all calibers up to 90mm
[*]Medium: including all calibers up to 127mm
[*]Heavy: including all calibers up to 160mm
[*]Superheavy: including all calibers from 160mm upward

This categorization will allow us a greater flexibility in differentiating capabilities and even roles (simulating for example regimental / division / corps level artillery units). I recommend individual system modifiability both as a weapon and as ammunition.
US artillery manuals in particular take into consideration naval gunfire of any caliber as a special category. Due to its flat trajectory, terrain masking affects naval gunfire more than field artillery. Naval gunfire also results in large range probable errors (the dispersion pattern of the naval gun is roughly elliptical with the long axis in the direction of fire).

What we all also agree on, is that rocket artillery should be bought separately, as artillery formation that delivers very destructive strikes with a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover. Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional gun artillery.

Rocket system(s) will require a “cool-down” period for reload between fire missions.

What else could probably be introduced without drastic compromises and changes in current system are different smoke types (HC and HW) and thermobaric weapons (albeit those can be kept on-map).

[nikolas93TS]

Most armies break their artillery down into batteries of 4 to 8 tubes. An artillery battalion usually has anywhere from 3 to 4 batteries assigned. Each combat brigade or regiment has one artillery battalion assigned to it. This coincides with the 3 to 4 maneuver battalions that each combat brigade / regiment consists of. This support is called DS (direct support) in the US, British and German armies (Unmittelbare Unterstützung), or RAG (regimental artillery group) in the Soviet army, and represents the firepower that a brigade or regiment has dedicated directly to it. Direct support typically consisted of a battalion of 105mm to 122mm guns, later moving towards 152mm and 155mm.

Additionally, divisions have another complete artillery battalion- and sometimes even several battalions - assigned to them. This force is at the division commander’s disposal, to provide additional heavy support for any combat brigade in a serious fight. This support is called GS (general support) by the US, British and Germans (Allgemeine Unterstützung), or DAG (division artillery group) by the Soviets. These guns are typically 152mm to 203mm (8 inch) or even larger in size. Divisions sometimes also had rocket artillery that were available in battalion strength as well.

Corps and Armies have artillery units assigned to them, to provide even more firepower on the battlefield. These are typically independent units used for special purposes.

Now, I was thinking about introducing a possibility to purchase direct support and general support artillery formation. You could buy an artillery battery or a whole battalion, depending on faction.

In theory, each battery is “assigned” to support a maneuver battalion. In practice, the artillery batteries are typically assigned to support the battalion or battalions that are involved in the most serious fighting. Thus, a reserve battalion may have no artillery support, while the battalion conducting an attack may have all the DS batteries in support, plus GS support from the division. If it were a critical battle, additional Corps and Army support may be forthcoming. Essentially, if the guns are available (i.e. deployed and within range), the unit in the thick of a fight can probably call on them.

Those would have different proprieties according to faction (for example GS would be cheaper, but often unavailable and not responsive as DS etc.) and I was thinking that could also have implications on counter-fire.

Do you think it is too complex?

Overall, counter-battery fire should be selectable before starting the battle. Maybe direct and general artillery as well, because many players might not wish to bother with intricacies of complex artillery systems. The idea is that counter-fire will probably induce artillery units moving after each fire mission, hence increasing the number of possible artillery units per-game might at least offset the temporal loss of firepower.

[Artillerist]

Nikolas You don't sound very confused to me! Definitely moving in the right direction.

- Distinguishing weapon platform/shell size
- Specifying whether a battery or battalion is serving in a direct support or general support role
Both excellent decisions and not complex.

As for the counter-battery I'd have to see what you come up with to judge.

If the philosophy is to keep it all as simple as possible the only other thing that comes to mind right now is fire mission orientation (attitude). Right now we have what amounts to 0 mils, and 1600 mils. 0800 and 2400 mils would be useful.

And of course kill counts. And FISTERs (FO/FOOs)