Missle Artillery

[danthemanbuddy]

I just played with USI's player driven artillery pieces and they are amazing.

Just wondering if they are realistic enough to be put into a PR situation.

[G.Drew]

hmmm.....i dont think it fits the style tbh, i mean Cmdr arty is fine as it is

again its up to the devs

[$kelet0r]

at a maximum of 4km squared maps, the only realistic form of artillery will be mortars. multiple launch rocket systems fire at targets 20+ miles away and unlike mobile artillery, have no anti-tank capability if caught napping

[l3etrayed91]

I too have played with the mobile artillery on the other BF2 mod... Indeed it is quite a good bit of kit in which to play about with. I think it would need to be tested out to see if it integrated well with PR gameplay before being put into the official 0.7

[77SiCaRiO77]

we alredy have fighters and choppers , witch have the same or even more range than missils arty in 4x4 km maps , so why not?

since we dont have ANY type of arty ingame , i thing that mibile arty will be very welcomed .

i agree .

[Ninja2dan]

The MLRS is a long-range weapon, which uses multiple types of warheads. Some of those munitions could be useful in PR, but the problem is the range of the weapon compared to the size of the current maps. You would NEVER see such a weapon system being used in close range unless it was necessary, and any commander with half a brain would keep them mobile enough to avoid detection. The real threat for artillery, be it howitzers/mortars/rocket, is not being hit by armor or grunts. The only real threat to artillery is counter-battery fire or airstrikes.

That being said, I don't see how any MLRS platform could be realistic in PR, but a simulated rocket launch offmap that spawns realistic munitions on the play map would be ok. Some munitions useful in PR could include the minefields, ICM rounds, tank busters, etc.

I fully agree that mortars are best suited for this map size, although light howitzers can also find their place on a properly designed map. The only problem with using a towed 105mm is the fact that vehicles can't be towed with this engine, and an artillery survives by shoot-and-scoot. SP howitzers would seem more survivable, but their use would be limited to few maps due to both their range and their power.

If artillery were to be implemented, the number of guns would have to be less than a platoon (4 guns), to keep it downscaled enough to not wipe out the entire enemy in one fire mission. Also, the guns should be operated by players, and require skill and practice to use. This would work similar to the artillery in the original BF1942, although more realistic.

The only problem I see though in using howitzers on limited maps is the actual design of the guns targetting system. This engine has a few limits, and I am not sure how you could integrate an accurate sighting system. The gun should NOT have a line of sight to the target, but should require an FO to spot the target, call for fire, and make adjustments as needed. The vBF2 artillery was lame as all hell, way too accurate with no realistic sheaf or spread. Artillery can be one of the most deadly weapons used on the modern battlefield, so using it in PR should be limited and require much effort to get on target. I'm not saying you should make it like the guns I used (M109A6 Paladin), or require a month's training to hit something, but don't make it just point, click, boom.

As both an Infantryman and as a Cannoneer, I can agree that the need for artillery in a realism mod is necessary. But at the same time, it should be handled with careful planning and design. If someone is up to the task, I'd be glad to help. I have already helped develope an artillery simulator for the military, and can help apply some of those same methods here.

[Jaymz]

Don't worry, we have our own surprise in store

[77SiCaRiO77]

well, an spotting system like 1942 can be done , poe2, DCon and fh2 alredy have one , so thats not hardcode .

mortars can be ok for maps of 2x2 km ,and howitzers and MLRS for large maps (4x4 km) .

[Anderson29]

ya i really think there should be an indirect aspect added as long as gameplay doesnt suffer from the addition. as for the IRL asspect i consider myself an expert. Im a FO in a line platoon and have been on the line now for 3 years. im in iraq currently and the hardest thing when needing indirect Fire Support (FS) is getting air clearance. which in a TIC (troops in contact) can almost take 5 to 10 min. after the firemission has been sent, in the army sector...i worked in the anbar provence for about 6months with the 1st and 2nd MEF and they clear airspace real quick. as for army...not so quick. anyways my point being if any FS asset is added it should be the 60mm mortors handheld mode. being that if in contact they can fire w/o cordination or approval from higher. and also having an off screen assest would be pretty realist. if it takes about maybe 3 minutes to fire after the taget location has been sent. and the only way to take that off screen indirect fire asset out would be killing the FO which is how it would be done IRL.

so in basicly adding maybe a FO kit, that could create a new element. having the FO - asset view through binos as in 1942.
having the ability to call for an offscreen asset that would take a little longer to fire and see the effects.
having the FO with soflam to make accurate CFF's(call for fire) and marking targets for CAS.

adding a mortor kit carring the tube and 3 rds while the ammo barrer cares maybe 7 rds. and maybe giving the mortor guys the ability to put their mortor into convientional mode (max range 3.5k) or handheld (max range 1.3k)...the main different is the max range. and hand held not being as accurate.
i also think there should be a heavy support kit carring the 240b. i dont think that gun is anywhere in the game. and should be.

i could go into alot more detail but u and me both hate reading long post's. if devs are interested i have pic's of the mortors, tubes, sites, and have decent audio of the impacts. and im only going to be in country for about 2 more weeks...so i look forward to playing with u guys as soon as i get back. and im look forward to the surprize jaymz

[Ninja2dan]

Anderson is correct about the air clearance as well. I'm sure many of the pilots out there have had their aircraft blown away due to entering the zone of an artillery strike. High-angle artillery (long range) would create a very serious threat to any air units operating in the area.

I am not a fan of the BF1942 targetting method, it was very unrealistic. I would like artillery to either be computer-controlled where the spotter has a way to adjust the rounds himself, or if manually-fired, the cannoneers have to adjust fire. Their method of targetting would need to give them a general aiming cue based on an FO's marker, after which the FO can give adjustment orders as needed.

I think mortars would be the best option for human-controlled artillery. Heavier artillery such as the 155mm and 105mm guns is a complicated process that takes time to learn, and the process is too involved to be implemented in a game without making most people hate it. The simulation module I helped develope was accurate down to the last bit, and any civilian trying it would give up in 5 minutes. Mortars on the other hand are much simpler to operate, and even a stage chimp can learn in just a couple hours. FDC has the most complex job, that's where the math comes in. For PR, FDC would be simulated by the computer, making everyones jobs much easier and more fun.

Missile artillery is just too big for PR maps, and the only realistic way to implement it would be simulated fire from offmap. This would allow the developers to spend more time getting the impact effects more realism, and not having to worry about modelling a new weapon system. Howitzers might find good use on larger-scale maps where air assets are not a concern, but care must be made in designing such a module for PR. It's a lot more work than mortars, and I don't know if any modelling teams would be up to the immense task of modelling and scripting a fairly realistic FA platform.

I think for now the best thing to do is wait for the DEV team to continue their work, and we will see a teaser of it when they are ready.

Anderson: My recruiter is trying to get me to reenlist as a 13F. I'm not sure about it, I didn't really enjoy being 13-series. It'll always be in my blood, but I'm an Infantryman at heart. I still have nightmares of being a "lanyard-puller". I guess 13F could be a little funner though, as long as you have a steady supply of popcorn for the fireworks show.

[fubar++]

At the moment map like Kashan is very dominated by tanks and airpower. An infantry squad is very underpowered agaist tank or attack chopper. If you got good team others can handle the threats but with poor team (noob tankers and pilots) you are basicly just waiting to get killed or trying to hide in some pithole.

For instance a couple of moving howitzers added Kashan would make it very different for infantry squad. Your enemy has no means to see where they are fired while infantry squad leader (firecontrol ability could be given only those who have officers kit) would spot them in cover. Ofcourse such kind artillery would be very defenceless against airstrikes but e.g. in Kashan there is lot of space to seek hiding place.

What comes to spotting old bf1942 style system wasn't so bad as you didn't need any extra communication between spotter and artillery. If gunner can't see directly is he hitting the target or not you would need a radio channel between spotter and artillery, and that would ruin the idea for infantry squad leaders call for artillery support (as voice communication between squads isn't possible).

PR is still a video game and there isn't much greater fun than seeing too close packed enemy squad ragdolling in air or group of tanks getting hammered as smoke clouds.

[Ninja2dan]

At the moment map like Kashan is very dominated by tanks and airpower. An infantry squad is very underpowered agaist tank or attack chopper. If you got good team others can handle the threats but with poor team (noob tankers and pilots) you are basicly just waiting to get killed or trying to hide in some pithole.

For instance a couple of moving howitzers added Kashan would make it very different for infantry squad. Your enemy has no means to see where they are fired while infantry squad leader (firecontrol ability could be given only those who have officers kit) would spot them in cover. Ofcourse such kind artillery would be very defenceless against airstrikes but e.g. in Kashan there is lot of space to seek hiding place.

What comes to spotting old bf1942 style system wasn't so bad as you didn't need any extra communication between spotter and artillery. If gunner can't see directly is he hitting the target or not you would need a radio channel between spotter and artillery, and that would ruin the idea for infantry squad leaders call for artillery support (as voice communication between squads isn't possible).

PR is still a video game and there isn't much greater fun than seeing too close packed enemy squad ragdolling in air or group of tanks getting hammered as smoke clouds.

I have to disagree with a few of your comments. First off, in this game an infantry squad is far from underpowered against armor. A tank's worst fear in this game is the grunt. A helo you can usually see coming, or can get a warning from other spotters that it's headed in your direction. But those "crunchies" can be almost anywhere, just waiting to smack you with their ATGM's or RPG's. They are much harder to spot, they don't make much noise at range of their weapons, and there can be several of them.

Troops vs. Gunships is also equally troubling for the air crew. Any one of those grunts could be carrying a Stinger (or equivalent), are hard to spot while not in a hover, and can be scattered all over the place. Not to mention they can see and hear you coming before you can see them. If you are a grunt, and use your brain, you can wipe out ANY asset.

As for artillery, if any were to be implemented as an on-map player-operated unit then it would be necessary to create some form of counter-battery defense. You can't give one or both sides a weapon and not give the opposing team a chance to counter it. An exmaple is that any artillery unit on-map that fires their gun will have a marker placed on the map that all can see. The marker would not be dead-on, but would be similar to the insurgent cache markers; placed within a set radius of the artillery piece. This would require the artillery unit to shoot-and-scoot just like in real life. If not, it faces a nasty attack with minimal defense.

You would also not want SL's to have control over the artillery. Such a weapon should be available only on a limited basis and with limited ammo, and having 5-8 SL's all requesting it would become a huge pain. Instead there should be only one FO per team. SL's would request artillery from the commander, who would have to weigh the situation and decide which fire mission is of the highest priority. Once the decision is made, the commander informs the FO of the target area, after which the FO must work in coordination with the artillery unit(s) to get the rounds on target. The FO and artillery/mortar crew should be in the same squad, making communications easier and also forming the basis for the unlock requirements. FO first, then artillery crew kits become available.

The spotting system in BF1942 was lame. In real life only a mortar gunner will see their rounds impact most of the time, at least close enough to make accurate adjustments. A human FO should be required to get the rounds on target with any accuracy, otherwise artillery would be just too powerful.

Take it from me and others that have posted here with ACTUAL MILITARY ARTILLERY EXPERIENCE. Artillery in this game would work, IF it can be coded and planned out correctly. As of now it sounds like several options are already being developed, so I would wait to see how mortars do before we move on to the bigger platforms. And to all devs, don't forget I'm here if you need some assistance. I have a few gigs of video/audio/photos of the real thing, inside and out that would make a modeller/texture artist cream their pants.

[fubar++]

I have to disagree with a few of your comments. First off, in this game an infantry squad is far from underpowered against armor. A tank's worst fear in this game is the grunt. A helo you can usually see coming, or can get a warning from other spotters that it's headed in your direction. But those "crunchies" can be almost anywhere, just waiting to smack you with their ATGM's or RPG's. They are much harder to spot, they don't make much noise at range of their weapons, and there can be several of them.

You are talking about real life. I know this like you do as I have had my NCO training as anti-tanker. But if you think a video game like BF2 and maps there you could see they diverge light years from real life. In PR only threat for tanks by infantry is heavy anti-tank kit, which you have one or two each side, in real life you could have them whole squad in platoon or at least in company. Of course in PR you can blow up tanks as engineer (very easily in fact) but that again isn't real life.

Troops vs. Gunships is also equally troubling for the air crew. Any one of those grunts could be carrying a Stinger (or equivalent), are hard to spot while not in a hover, and can be scattered all over the place. Not to mention they can see and hear you coming before you can see them. If you are a grunt, and use your brain, you can wipe out ANY asset.

Again, these kits are very limited, usually having one AA kit each side if I have noticed it correctly.

As for artillery, if any were to be implemented as an on-map player-operated unit then it would be necessary to create some form of counter-battery defense. You can't give one or both sides a weapon and not give the opposing team a chance to counter it. An exmaple is that any artillery unit on-map that fires their gun will have a marker placed on the map that all can see. The marker would not be dead-on, but would be similar to the insurgent cache markers; placed within a set radius of the artillery piece. This would require the artillery unit to shoot-and-scoot just like in real life. If not, it faces a nasty attack with minimal defense.

I'm not sure if in understood all that you are saying but that seems against idea of in-game moving artillery. Simply: you can hide but can't run, and an artillery unit would be quite easy to search and destroy by bomber plane or attack chopper, it's just question of priorities: you can go chasing armor and infantry or take more time for hunting "invisible" artillery at desert.

You would also not want SL's to have control over the artillery. Such a weapon should be available only on a limited basis and with limited ammo, and having 5-8 SL's all requesting it would become a huge pain. Instead there should be only one FO per team. SL's would request artillery from the commander, who would have to weigh the situation and decide which fire mission is of the highest priority. Once the decision is made, the commander informs the FO of the target area, after which the FO must work in coordination with the artillery unit(s) to get the rounds on target. The FO and artillery/mortar crew should be in the same squad, making communications easier and also forming the basis for the unlock requirements. FO first, then artillery crew kits become available.

The spotting system in BF1942 was lame. In real life only a mortar gunner will see their rounds impact most of the time, at least close enough to make accurate adjustments. A human FO should be required to get the rounds on target with any accuracy, otherwise artillery would be just too powerful.

I have to disagree with you but it's just matter of opinions. You can limit the amount on ammunition and fire rate as you wish in video game. On the other hand communication can not be expanded from which it is now (due to limits of game engine as far as I know). In our army (apart many other armies) infantry platoon leader can request artillery support cooperation with platoons firecontrol officer very easily, but if you try implement such combat pairwork in video game like BF2 it turns out very complicated. In short you are missing a lot of ways of communicate and see, hear and feel what is happening on the battleground.