Artillery

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Dev1200
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2008-11-30 23:01

Re: Artillery

Post by Dev1200 »

Cassius wrote:same old problem, it would mean less people at the guns.

Second this.. :\ Moar assets = less infantry. having a "manual" firing arty would just make less people doing things.


I say, wait until PR2. This way, they can make their own game with their own settings. Then they would be able to do something like this. Otherwise.. it would just take up space. Space that isn't really needed.
<<SpanishSurfer>>
Posts: 220
Joined: 2006-05-13 05:38

Re: Artillery

Post by <<SpanishSurfer>> »

Hey, got to bring up old subjects! If a subject is brought up enough times by different people, then it deserves to be looked at...That's why I'm not a fan of "searching" for old threads, what's the point? Trust me on this, I've been on this forum since 2005-2006.

1 thing to the arty vet....I had a US Army Sergeant in my OCS (4 months of Bootcamp, *sigh) class who told me all about Army artillery and how it works, yes it requires A LOT of people IRL, but that's the beauty of PR, it's a game! Helis, jets, tanks, are much more complicated then the game portrays, I know because I'm going through the Coast Guard's flight school program! I love PR because of it's simplicity yet devotion to realistic combat. My point is, to say that arty can't be done because it's too complicated to use, I say hogwash!

Artillery is totally doable on PR....Hell there are 32 people on each team, sparing 1-2 for artillery is well worth it. Besides, it's not the responsibility of PR to diminish assets due to a possible lack of infantry combat, it's up to the player/team what he/she wants to do in the game. The more options you have in a game the larger an audience you can bring.


End of my rant, off to PR I go!
"Get lost, support your Coast Guard."
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 21225
Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32

Re: Artillery

Post by Rudd »

sparing 1-2 for artillery is well worth it.
I disagree with that, as that inevidably eats in to other resources such as the guys manning AA vehicles/assets

if Arty was brought in id want it to be used by the commander more than any1 else. Though the UAV+arty combination might cause problems, I dunno.
Image
Ninja2dan
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2213
Joined: 2007-10-29 03:09

Re: Artillery

Post by Ninja2dan »

The problem with making any form of artillery actually feasible in PR in a fairly realistic manner though is what I'm concerned with. I don't want it to be just some asset that a player hops into, points and clicks a spot on the map, and boom...steel rain at the touch of a button.

Real artillery requires setting up the assets, determining exact location of the gun, location of the target, shell/fuze types, powder charges required to deliver the round to target, meteorological conditions, etc, etc. While not all of those aspects need to be simulated by players in the game, I still feel that making the artillery even remotely "realistic" is going to be a serious challenge.

Sure, you can make the gun auto-loaded. Strike one slot for the loader. You can make the gun stationary, so strike the slots needed for the advanced party and crewmembers placing collimators and lining up aiming stakes. You can remove everyone from the gun except for the actual gunner (lanyard puller). But you still need the FO, and you need to give that FO some sense of realism towards that task. Not just a "click here, lay marker, call for fire". They should actually have some use in adjusting fire and helping select shell/fuze types depending on the actual target. Ok, with a lot of scripting and tweaking, that might also be possible.

Now you have to somehow come up with a system that allows the cannon gunner to manually aim the gun in a manner that requires some skill and practice, yet not require a full crew or live FDC. You need something that can calculate the shots to tell the gunner the general azimuth and elevation to aim the gun to hit the general area, and still provide enough precision tuning to put the rounds on target as needed during adjust firing.

The simulator we created for artillery in VBS made all of that possible due to the massive amount of open scripting options and realistic ballistics in the program. That simulator is currently in use by military units from countries all over the world, and is still considered the number one software-based artillery simulation program in the world. Nobody has been able to make something similar since, and probably won't for quite some time. But again, VBS was far more "advanced" than BF2/PR. With so many limitations and hard-coded **** in BF2/PR, it's going to take a genius to come up with a feasible artillery system that performs its job without complicating things too much.

Here's another problem. If the asset is placed in the game for use by players, those assets will most likely need to be stationary. Real artillery is anything but stationary, hence the "Shoot and Scoot" technique we were taught. Real artillery is rarely going to be at risk from infantry attacks, air strikes, etc. By the time the enemy knows they are being hit, the artillery is prepping to move out and relocate. The only real means of killing artillery is counter-battery radar and CB fire. If artillery is placed as stationary objects, then after a while players will know exactly where it is and where to target. If it's made as a deployable or semi-mobile asset, then the enemy should have some way of detecting it in order to counter it.

As far as support like JDAM strikes, there is really little that the enemy can do to counter it. Chances are that the forces using such a bomb are going to have multiple aircraft equipped with the device, and are using methods to ensure that package arrives safely on target. JDAM shouldn't be considered in the same class as artillery, because artillery would be limited to munition stores instead of a timer-based delay.

This topic could keep going on and on and on, but it's been around for a long time and we still haven't seen much news as far as developments on making a viable artillery system a reality. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just giving my opinion that in this game it's probably out of our reach. The core game just has too many limitations, and trying to create weak work-arounds just to introduce an asset is not a good idea. We need to pull away from cheating ourselves with poorly-implemented designs and start working towards better assets. If we can't do it right, then we should wait to add it until we can.
gazzthompson
Posts: 8012
Joined: 2007-01-12 19:05

Re: Artillery

Post by gazzthompson »

Ninja2dan wrote:The problem with making any form of artillery actually feasible in PR in a fairly realistic manner though is what I'm concerned with. I don't want it to be just some asset that a player hops into, points and clicks a spot on the map, and boom...steel rain at the touch of a button.


TEXT
thats what PR is all about tho, im sure you know crewning tanks and defiantly aircraft is nowhere near as easy as it is in PR.

it wouldnt be that easy tho, would require a spotter (SL's) and adjustment etc
Ninja2dan
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2213
Joined: 2007-10-29 03:09

Re: Artillery

Post by Ninja2dan »

gazzthompson wrote:thats what PR is all about tho, im sure you know crewning tanks and defiantly aircraft is nowhere near as easy as it is in PR.

it wouldnt be that easy tho, would require a spotter (SL's) and adjustment etc
Yes, I know what you mean about reducing realism in certain aspects in order to better support gaming. But crewing an artillery platform is actually a bit different than crewing a vehicle.

I know first-hand about operating military wheeled and tracked vehicles, and operating aircraft. Yes, using those vehicles takes a lot of training, but that's more of a personal skill level that can be simulated in the game. You can let players drive a car around the map with just the WASD keys, without requiring the player to shift gears or adjust tire pressure, etc. But operating artillery isn't just about crewmember skill, it's about the actual function of the platform.

In reality, I could probably teach just about any semi-intelligent PR gamer age 14-60 how to operate either a towed or SP artillery system in about a week. And I'm not talking about just moving it around or making it go boom, I'm talking about actually making those people combat effective. But there is so much more involved than just ramming a round and charge, priming the breech, and pulling a string. We can simulate crew skill by removing the real tasks such as using the collimator, lining up witness marks, swabbing the breech, fuzing the rounds, breaking down charge bags, etc. But people don't seem to understand the concept of how artillery works OUTSIDE the gun system, and how they plan to get those rounds on target.

I do not want to see some asset where a player hops in, points a crosshair at another crosshair, and clicks the fire button. I want to see people using artillery actually have to train with it, train to coordinate their actions with an FO, and learn to adjust fire. Artillery is a very powerful form of fire support, and it would only be fair to make it a challenge to be effective. So there needs to be some form of automated FDC system that can help point the gun in the general direction, but require the players (gunner and FO) to get the rounds on target. To do it any other way would be pointless, you might as well just have the artillery system off-map.

I don't know anything about coding, especially not for BF2. So I honestly don't know if creating a feasible system is even possible or not. If it is possible, then I'd be willing to help who ever tried taking the helm of such a project. But so far, with this topic being years old and still no results, it makes me think it just can't be done to a satisfactory level that fits with the rest of PR's quality.

As a former Artillery Instructor and Cannon Crewmember myself, I'm willing to offer my help if someone requests it. I still have plenty of support material that is declassified regarding US towed and SP artillery systems, pretty much everything that I used to support the development of the VBS Artillery Simulator that wasn't marked confidential. I would love to see artillery in PR, and maybe some day we might, but right now I honestly don't see it happening beyond what we have now or something similar.
Tartantyco
Posts: 2796
Joined: 2006-10-21 14:11

Re: Artillery

Post by Tartantyco »

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I disagree with that, as that inevidably eats in to other resources such as the guys manning AA vehicles/assets
-Here's the deal, it should be up to the team which of the assets available on a map should be used. There are plenty of maps with way more assets than what could feasibly be used and what happens on those maps is that people make decisions whether or not to use those assets, which results in a more or less adequate balance. If a team wants to take all the assets then that's their loss, bringing in a new asset does not mean that it has to be used, neither does it mean that the asset will be used constantly throughout the game as it could just as well be an emplacement temporarily used by nearby infantry, as with .50 cal emplacements and AA emplacements. You're just saying that something will happen with absolutely basis and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.
Ninja2dan wrote:Yes, I know what you mean about reducing realism in certain aspects in order to better support gaming. But crewing an artillery platform is actually a bit different than crewing a vehicle.

(Etc, etc.)
-I'm a former Combat Engineer and when reviewing the implementation of Engineers in PR I laugh(Not the PR crew's fault, they just haven't found any good ways to modify the retarded vBF2 Engineer well). I've made a few suggestions about it but I always keep in mind that PR cannot properly simulate what Engineers do, nor any other branch for that matter, it can only try to emulate it as well as possible. Your expectations are just wildly unrealistic and it can never be implemented in a satisfying way, so just drop that hope and figure out a way to have the general principle implemented instead.
Make Norway OPFOR! NAO!
ImageImage
It's your hamster Richard. It's your hamster in the box and it's not breathing.
HangMan_
Posts: 1753
Joined: 2009-06-07 00:58

Re: Artillery

Post by HangMan_ »

I think Player controlled artillery would be a great addition to the game. I've been thinking about it for quite some time and have had a few good thoughts on making it happen. The problems u get are that it may not be well balanced, and base raping will occur.

The system i've been thinking about is similar to calling in an APC or heli. Some one calls it in off the comm rose then the SL running the arty squad puts a marker down on the arty call marker. The gunners rotate the artillery to face the marker then adjust the gun up until the distance value on their sights = the distance away from target. Then the gunners fire off rounds. They have a choice of HE and White Phos.. Possibly smoke as well.

Problems associated with this are that we could get noobs who arty spam, and quite possibly friendly fire which is quite realistic.

Also commander will be able to put down an arty request marker on the map.

HangMan
Image

PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sh*t Done..."
Jedimushroom
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2006-07-18 19:03

Re: Artillery

Post by Jedimushroom »

I've never understood why there isn't just more fire support options for the commander, I mean he has one good strike an hour at best, which is utterly ridiculous. I think rather than waste players manning arty the commander should be given more fire support, not only would it be easier to implement, it would also encourage people to command.
Image

"God will strike him down when he checks his email and sees young Fighter has turd burgling tendancies. Could you imagine going to church knowing your son takes it up the wrong 'un?" - [R-Dev]Gaz on 'Fighter137'
Alex6714
Posts: 3900
Joined: 2007-06-15 22:47

Re: Artillery

Post by Alex6714 »

Ninja2dan wrote:
I know first-hand about operating military wheeled and tracked vehicles, and operating aircraft. Yes, using those vehicles takes a lot of training, but that's more of a personal skill level that can be simulated in the game. You can let players drive a car around the map with just the WASD keys, without requiring the player to shift gears or adjust tire pressure, etc. But operating artillery isn't just about crewmember skill, it's about the actual function of the platform.
And Apaches rely on a ton of ground crew, forward air controllers etc.

What about the AA in game, hop in and click? Is that anywhere near realistic?
-Here's the deal, it should be up to the team which of the assets available on a map should be used. There are plenty of maps with way more assets than what could feasibly be used and what happens on those maps is that people make decisions whether or not to use those assets, which results in a more or less adequate balance. If a team wants to take all the assets then that's their loss, bringing in a new asset does not mean that it has to be used, neither does it mean that the asset will be used constantly throughout the game as it could just as well be an emplacement temporarily used by nearby infantry, as with .50 cal emplacements and AA emplacements. You're just saying that something will happen with absolutely basis and a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.
This. I don´t know why people have this haunting fear that someone somewhere may prefer something other than running around with an inaccurate gun getting shot.

Simple, have arty, let players decide. If you think having 2 guys more running around the frontline is better than 1 or 2 guys operating an artillery gun at your disposal, then go for it. I sure know what I would prefer though both as the operator and the ground troop.

If I am playing an infantry man, give me a decent Apache overhead over 2 guys next to me anyday.
Last edited by Alex6714 on 2009-09-08 10:10, edited 1 time in total.
"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"


"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
Tartantyco
Posts: 2796
Joined: 2006-10-21 14:11

Re: Artillery

Post by Tartantyco »

XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote:Problems associated with this are that we could get noobs who arty spam, and quite possibly friendly fire which is quite realistic.

Also commander will be able to put down an arty request marker on the map.
-That is one of the main issues of course, though I feel that it wouldn't increase the amount of baserape as tanks and air assets are just a lot easier to use for that. Regardless, with certain limits to the artillery pieces and simply proper admining I don't foresee too much of an issue.
Jedimushroom wrote:I've never understood why there isn't just more fire support options for the commander, I mean he has one good strike an hour at best, which is utterly ridiculous. I think rather than waste players manning arty the commander should be given more fire support, not only would it be easier to implement, it would also encourage people to command.
-The main issue I have with CO artillery is that it's this one off button you click and stuff goes boom, the opposing team can't do anything to stop it as it's off map and so it's just annoying. And artillery for the CO only encourages 5 minute COs.
Make Norway OPFOR! NAO!
ImageImage
It's your hamster Richard. It's your hamster in the box and it's not breathing.
Thermis
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 2008-01-27 15:05

Re: Artillery

Post by Thermis »

Unless you guys bring up an idea that we haven't been over in other threads I'm locking this.
Herbiie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 2009-08-24 11:21

Re: Artillery

Post by Herbiie »

Howabout Exactly the same Arty as in FH2 - except that the Commander can place a marker that lasts for a short while (1 minute maybe?) and the Arty Gunner can see over head - also if someone scouts it out, then the Gunner can only see over head as long as the person who spotted is still alive/has his binocs out.

Also remove jets (They are stupid - air strips aren't 4km away from one another people!) and replace them with an Air strike thing for the commander, with say 2 different kinds for different sized bombs (Jdam and a Mini Jdam) and then 2 different levelled Artillery, all 4 would have a HELL of alot of noise incoming and therefore the troops on the ground know that Something big is coming their way and can try to take cover. Also, the countdown for the Area Attacks will be staggered and will START counting down as soon as there is a commander - maybe at 5 - 10 minutes intervals between each one? or maybe the smaller ones can eb used every 10 minutes, larger ones every 30 minutes/hour. Then add Mortars (See Highlights ;) ) that are used in the same way as FH2.2.
<<SpanishSurfer>>
Posts: 220
Joined: 2006-05-13 05:38

Re: Artillery

Post by <<SpanishSurfer>> »

Remove jets? No way dude, this is BATTLEFIELD! Not Americas Army.
"Get lost, support your Coast Guard."
Herbiie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 2009-08-24 11:21

Re: Artillery

Post by Herbiie »

<<SpanishSurfer>> wrote:Remove jets? No way dude, this is BATTLEFIELD! Not Americas Army.
No - this is PROJECT REALITY.

I'm fed up of Jet Noobs who all they can do is fly jets when only 2 maps have them - yes a few more will but the majority of maps DO NOT have jets :roll:

You have Helicopters for CAS - IMHO the Jets are unrealistic and cheesy.
Thermis
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1537
Joined: 2008-01-27 15:05

Re: Artillery

Post by Thermis »

Last edited by Thermis on 2009-09-08 15:41, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”