Project Reality Forums

fubar++ wrote:Ninja2dan, you are speaking the same about complexity of real life artillery as I thought it to be. Our difference is just that you don't want it if it can't be done real enough, I want it there because it isn't there altought it is needed indeed.

ATM it is possible for SL call indirect firesuport only by JDAM, or giving laser targets. Both of those are suitable only for some special situations. In real infantry combat artillery is basic fire support tool and so it should be in PR too.

Because it isn't possible to implement real artillery there has to be some kind of compromise between real life and game play - and whether there is artillery in PR at all or how it will be build is up Devs.

I'm voting for simple player friendly version that still would have some real life charasteristics like demand of spotter and gunner co-operation. What else there should or shouldn't be goes beyond my agenda.

Now that you have a basic understanding of how complex the real artillery system trully is, you can understand why player-operated units are just not possible (at a realistic level) or feasible (in a Reality mod). But off-map assets WOULD be better suited for this mod and allow a vital form of support to be made available.

As you acknowledged though, trying to integrate such a system will be tricky. You don't want it to be too complex, if that were so most DEVs would simply say it's not worth it. But if it's too simple, it will have the same effect in that it would be far too unrealistic for PR. In order to come to a fair balance of the two, to both meet the needs of the game as well as fall in line with the reality theme, the DEVs will need to bonk their skulls together to determine first what is actually capable with this "turd of an engine".

Right now we know that mid-round spawning of objects is possible, this is evident with commander/SL deployable objects. Spawning other items shouldn't be a problem either, but testing would be required for lag issues. I bring this up in regards to specialized artillery such as minefields being deployed via simulated artillery. Although this would make for a very interesting use of a limited strike on some maps, it also causes concerns. Can a marker be placed on the map, visible only to the deploying team, that accurately shows (within 25m or so) where the borders of such a minefield are? If not, dropping minefields this way would be a mistake, and therefore taking that munition type off of the list of hopefuls.

Smoke munitions should be possible, although the effect would need to be more like the armor defensive smoke where it is instant pop and not slow like the hand-deployed devices. Unlike the tank smoke though it would need a larger burst radius and longer duration. I think that this would be useful on some current and future maps where GL-deployed smokes are not feasible.

HE is the most common form of artillery used, but can you allow limited cover by infantry and vehicles behind cover? Or will splash damage from arty still go through walls/hills/sandbags/etc? If you can't provide ground units with some form of defenses against it, then that reduces the realism and fun level. JDAM is one thing, but normal HE should have some counter-defense or way to protect yourself from it.

I could go on all week long about all of the munition and fuze types and how they could be integrated into the game. I could discuss hundreds of ways that each round could be modelled or how the visual effect would look. I can provide GB's of data on shell graphics, images and videos of actual artillery round impacts, data tables on ballistics, pretty much you name it. But until someone from the DEV team actually starts asking for this stuff and shows signs that they intend to even consider it; well I'm afraid that these discussions will likely be for little more than just for fun and arguement sake.

well just a thought.....why not just for game sake...have 60mm mortors like an L.Anti Tank kit... have min. of 4 mortor kits, an ammo guy, the officer kit can be used as an F.O. and he sets them in a place...the SL (F.O.) goes to a place to observe the inpacts and adjust from that.....or other SL's relay through CO to FO for adjustments...using deg. and an approximate distance...yes it would take a squad off the "front lines" supposedly...but these guys still have their m16's could be used as primary def. and support role...while all other squads attack and such...not to far from how it is in real life.

So what's wrong with a light mortar barrage (read my post earlier in the thread about it).

You call in the barrage, then there are explosions 5, 8, 10, or 12 seconds part for a couple minutes.

Isn't it true that not all arty barrages are massive barrages? Aren't some light mortar barrages simply made to soften up a position without huge explosions everywhere?

the only problem i have with offscreen arty is that is requires no skill....in a team kinda way....

Ninja, your posts and long and I took quite some time making my way through them. You surely have a most respectable background to support your comments on implementing artillery into PR.

When reading various posts and counter-arguements, I've come to realize that, if artillery will be implemented into PR, it would probably come in the form of an off-map source to balance out reality with gameplay and prevent complications. Anything after that, however, is undefined as to how deep the DEVs want to get into preserving real-life detail and physics.

It's possible, but as with every other new function, there's many things to consider.

What was wrong with the way, for example, Point of Existence 2 redid thier artillery? (It was missing for several versions as they developed player-capable units).

They shifted artillery support into a valuable (1 per team, and not on all maps, and slow to respawn) mobile howitzer like the Gvozdika for the Ukraine and the M109 for the German side. It took 2 people to crew and the gunner had no precision view initially, but did have range gradiations. A special ops kit with binoculars could spot areas needing artillery support, and "lock" the coordinates in with the binoculars, then use a radio kit to send the coords back to the artillery unit. When that happened, an artillery warning marker was placed on the map for that team, and the arty gunner had a satellite view of the area from high up, whence he could then guide the artillery fire in by the range gradiations, a 3d map marker in the general direction, and the satellite view. The view only lasted I think 15-30 seconds, though. The artillery also had smoke rounds in addition to the HE, and the smoke radius I do remember was huge.

Theres an example on Youtube of the old system.

This was removed in a few recent updates bedcause of the complexity and some bugs with multiple people spotting at the same time, I do believe, but I miss it a lot because of the teamwork involved.

your going to get stabbed in the eye with a rusty spoon me thinks.

Teek wrote:your going to get stabbed in the eye with a rusty spoon me thinks.

Aye, that be a gimpy version of the old bf1942 artillery. I saw nothing at all that looked like real artillery CFF, not one fart of reality there.

That type of artillery might work for other mods, but it just doesn't work in PR. Like I have mentioned, adding in a fake or dumbed-down version of something just so you can have it to play with is NOT an answer to the issue. Most players that belong in PR would rather not have it than to have a half-assed version of it.

I didn't say I was against mortar barrages, or any artillery, as long as it is called from an off-map asset and has been designed to fit both realism and gameplay standards that PR is trying to strive for. Saying off-map artillery requires no skill is pretty pointless, are you going to complain now that the JDAM is bad for PR? As long as it is done right, it will work. FO's can be required for artillery strikes to be called, and only one FO per side. We know that can be done, so no worries about multiple people trying to call in fire. Creating an SP Howitzer that is crewed by only 2 soldiers is quite unrealistic. I don't expect to see guys running around with collimators and aiming posts, but a 2-man crew operating a gun?

There are several forms of artillery used by modern military. And there are several different types of CFF, all depending on the target and situation. Trying to add even a quarter of those would be impossible in PR. Before adding any form of asset, you need to figure out how and when it will be used, and against what type of targets.

I'm guessing that I'm not the only FA soldier on these forums. I would assume that there are current or former FA soldiers from several different countries (FA including mortar teams) who have good experience and are able to provide valuable input into developing such a system. So if and when the developers do decide to take up the task of creating an artillery suite, they know where to come for suggestions. But until they make that step, I feel we will keep seeing more and more of these posts that keep repeating the same things over and over. JDAM is alive and well in PR now, maybe we should just wait and see what they have in mind for artillery as well.

I don't really get it why there is so anxious need to tread down "teleport video artillery". The possibility not to communicate in proper way has just replaced with video camera. Ofcourse it's unrelistic but it has been proven working game solution.

I disagree with off-map artillery too. Off-map assets with all-seeing sattelite, UAV and artillery is strongest reason why I dislike vBF2; there's no teamwork and skill demanded. For same reason I'm not huge fan of JDAM either. It sure looks pretty, needs some co-ordination and have some advantages, but IMO good artillery solution would be much more practical for "every day use".

Just instead of hauling others point of views make some constructive remarks. If you don't like something please give some alternative solutions that would be realizeable.

I disagree with the whole "No Skill/Teamwork" argument. Seeing as how players are still going to have to designate a target, and have the CO approve it is teamwork. Not much skill involved sure, but does everything in PR need to revolve around individual skill? This is more of a strategic asset that, when used right could help the team make an overall decisive victory. In my opinion, that's skill on a team level. When one team can make better use of their assets than the other... that's team skill.

well i like ninja's ideas about being as realistic as possible...... im just saying the FO requesting a spot for indirect..CO approves and then its like request and forget.its team work...i just think there could be more....and i dont see why yall are stuck on arty...these maps are only 5k max...the reason arty goes straigt up and down is cuz its firing at such a short distance on vbf2. i just think that a squad leader needing indirect...would request the CFF to the CO..verbaly(optional) and on map and that request getting sent to the mortor squad...and taking the time to set the tubes up, get lined up, and fire a round and the SL need to watch and make adjustment to CO and back down to mortor squad and once on target...(thats alot of ****, i know)...FFE is sent and there u have ur kinda realistic indirect situation. and yeah arty is a big bang and a hell of lot kooler than mortors..i just think the mortor are more suited to be in game than an off screen arty...maybe im F'd up for wanting more specific teamwork and the similation of urgentcy in getting rounds downrange in a TIC. and having a mortor team would mean that the enemy can take out ur indirect capabilities..am i asking to much here...ill settle for offscreen 105's or why not the gmlrs..that'd be cool to see...basicly a jdam effect w/ diff soundeffects and in rapid fire..lol

Most players that belong in PR would rather not have it than to have a half-assed version of it.

After reading your posts, I have to say that I agree. Having an unrealistic arty model that takes players away from the front lines is worse than no arty at all. Given the combination of engine issues and implementation complexity, I would rather NOT see arty implementation attempted.

Except theres no real way to implement any sort of solution like that realistically in this engine. MOST of the stuff we do is unrealistic, it just approaches some semblance of realism. Tanks are being crewed by 2 people, and are missing the 2-3 more crew that have nothing directly to do with the combat (wheres our radio operator? wheres the loader for the gunner? these people have nothing to do directly with operating the tank and are thus struck out. Wheres the ground crew for supplying our jets? And most jets can certainly fly heavy with a lot more armament then we give them, and an F16 with a single AMRAAM could kill the J-10, etc all the way accross the map, having locked onto them from 10 miles range in BVR combat. Most of this stuff is sheer impossibility to implement at all, so is simplified and struck down.

If you're going to take the attitude that if it can't be done realistically, it should be removed, then 90% of the mod should have never existed. I'm a reality junky too, but it's mostly in flight sims, etc. I can say that the flight system is intensely dumbed down after playing Falcon 4.0 and F-22 ADF where it takes 20 minutes just to even start moving to the taxi, but if they implemented the kneeboard checklists and 20 different view panels for all the controls, 95% of the people who fly now would have no idea how to even start the engine, let alone drop a JDAM.

Why are you asking for large-scale artillery when the most effective arty is under the barrel of an assault rifle? If you care to devote the time, open up a local server, download the Kashan Training Map (for the Python file edits to the kit system), and make yourself SL.

Use your move markers and the handy How to Aim with Grenadier guide (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f138-infantry-tactics/33197-how-aim-grenadier.html) to get a grip on the sights and deviation. Once you do this, the Grenadier kit is like mortar artillery if you have the teamwork factor in place. It kills me when I see that 0 out of 5 grenadier kits are out on the battlefield - this is a tremendous gift, use it!

I have seen snipers in windows killed at 130m with an under-barrel grenade launcher, and entire squads blown to bits with a pair of M203s. It's as effective as mortars if used properly, defending yourself isn't a problem (you've got a rifle over that nice GL, you know :roll , and it doesn't take weeks of work to put in place.

Use that Grenadier kit, people.

Am I really that good at killing threads?

No your not that good at killing threads.
Arty should be in game, the grenade launcher is there to provide explosive support between minimum mortar range and maximum hand grenade range.
I do agree though that more people should take the grenadier kit, they are very useful, not as useful as am off map mortar platoon would be though.

Something to take into cosideration:

M67 Hand Grenades have a range of around 20-40m.

M203 Grenade Launchers have a range of around 35-150m for a point target, and 350m for area target.

M224 60mm Mortars have a range of around 70m to 2-3km.

M252 81mm Mortars have a range of around 85m up to around 5km.

M120 120mm Mortars have a range of around 200m to 7km.

M119 105mm Howitzers (T) have a range up to 11-19km, depending on charge/shell.

M198 155mm Howitzers (T) have a range up to 22-30km, depending on charge/shell.

M109 155mm Howitzer (SP) have a range up to 18-30km, depending on charge/shell.

M270 MLRS has a range up to 42-300km (with ATACMS).

As you can see, we use various assets depending on the range required. Also each one of those assets have a large variety of shell/fuze/submunition types available, all depending on mission requirements.

EDIT: And in case anyone is wondering, I have trained on and qualified with every one of those systems listed excluding the M270 (which I have been in during live fire though). The list above was assembled by me, not copied from some half-assed wiki.

v v special section v v

hm... On this subject: Deployable Weapons. Weapons that can only be fired when Aimed down the Sights, and aiming takes a bit of time...

which leads into two limited kits:
Heavy MG gunner (or have a commander asset/include stationary MG with bunker/firebase)
Artilleryman (or something like that, like I know anything... Portable mortar, set up, and mouse is used for calibration, maybe? aim in general direction, then a guy spots for you... sort of like BF1942 [I only played the demo, sorry]) 2 kits

this is probably impossible, though...
^ ^ Feel free to ignore the first part... *end* ^ ^

(note, my source for all of the information I have is Wikipedia... I know little-to-none)
the M270 MLRS is a vehicle, right? I think a really long respawn would be good... Also, maybe make the rockets Laser-guided... the article did say "guided and unguided projectiles"

except... how to lock...
oh, how about: with laser designation, after 1 minute of the laser in a small area, a map icon comes up (maybe with a red dot and an "L")
selectable in the map (the CAPS one, or maybe the spawn screen, as you only need to select a spawn point if you're dead and respawning)

you lock on the target, fire... 1 minute later, the rocket will come down (useful for long-range AV)

Keep in mind that I know absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. If I misinterpreted/assumed/made up something, feel free to give me a virtual smack upside the head.

Ninja2dan wrote:Something to take into cosideration:

M67 Hand Grenades have a range of around 20-40m.

M203 Grenade Launchers have a range of around 35-150m for a point target, and 350m for area target.

M224 60mm Mortars have a range of around 70m to 2-3km.

M252 81mm Mortars have a range of around 85m up to around 5km.

M120 120mm Mortars have a range of around 200m to 7km.

M119 105mm Howitzers (T) have a range up to 11-19km, depending on charge/shell.

M198 155mm Howitzers (T) have a range up to 22-30km, depending on charge/shell.

M109 155mm Howitzer (SP) have a range up to 18-30km, depending on charge/shell.

M270 MLRS has a range up to 42-300km (with ATACMS).

So what you are saying is depending on the map 16/32/64 and depending on what you are calling in, Close Infantry Support or Anti-Armor Barrage or Blanket Fire each would be different. So you might use the M120 Mortars for a 16 player map while the M119 Howitzer could be used for 32 player maps and the M109 Howitzer used for 64 player maps. And then be able to choose different barrage types depending on situation.

Sounds very cool and kind of like Company of Heroes in some ways. Calling in artillery support on a single vehicle formation may be a close target direct anti-armor barrage. While calling in arty support on a CP might be a large area anti-infantry barrage.

I like the idea of being able to choose different types of barrages depending on the situation. That would increase the realism of that type of support quite a bit. Also being able to call in different levels of JDAMs (500lb, 1000lb, 2000lb) would also be a huge benefit on the battlefield. Or even a single Maverick to take out a Tank.

Versatility is a huge benefit.

kilroy0097 wrote:So what you are saying is depending on the map 16/32/64 and depending on what you are calling in, Close Infantry Support or Anti-Armor Barrage or Blanket Fire each would be different. So you might use the M120 Mortars for a 16 player map while the M119 Howitzer could be used for 32 player maps and the M109 Howitzer used for 64 player maps. And then be able to choose different barrage types depending on situation.

Sounds very cool and kind of like Company of Heroes in some ways. Calling in artillery support on a single vehicle formation may be a close target direct anti-armor barrage. While calling in arty support on a CP might be a large area anti-infantry barrage.

I like the idea of being able to choose different types of barrages depending on the situation. That would increase the realism of that type of support quite a bit. Also being able to call in different levels of JDAMs (500lb, 1000lb, 2000lb) would also be a huge benefit on the battlefield. Or even a single Maverick to take out a Tank.

Versatility is a huge benefit.

Your post shows someone was paying attention to the point I was making earlier. Due to the vast array of artillery assets and munitions available, creating an entire artillery suite for PR will require an assload of work. Even if you didn't add all asset types or shell/fuze types, you have a lot to work with. The new JDAM effects show that there are talented crews able to work on visual effects and function of a new artillery system, but the workload would be heavy.

The artillery in game before (vBF2) was just a basic HE barrage, spawning enough shells to roughly simulate one battery firing for effect, high-angle with close sheaf. Not a lot of thought was put into the artillery then, as it was more arcadish than realistic. If the DEV team wants to add artillery back to PR, I doubt it would be much like what most people were used to.

Several things would have to be considered. What type of munitions would you want to allow in the game? What munitions could even be accurately modelled? I'm not talking 100% accuracy, but you don't want it looking cartoonish. Once they know what can be modelled, they have to determine what munitions have a realistic and fair function in PR without causing balancing issues. For example, would it be fair to allow a JDAMS/RAAMS deployment without advanced mine-clearing devices? Is there a way to create Illum rounds for night maps? Can DPICM be created to cause AP effect yet have minimal damage to hard targets such as vehicles and structures?

There are dozens of munitions types available, each asset type having a specific munitions table. Add on top of that a variety of fuzes for each munition, and you have tons of shell/fuze combinations, each with a specific purpose and effect. Trying to pick which you want and don't want is a challenge alone due to gameplay balancing, but then you have to model them. I have all the reference materials needed, but it still requires a LOT of work. And having seen dozens of topics regarding artillery, I have not seen any developer staff state they plan to take up such a task. Only mention I have seen was regarding a mortar, but those statements were vague.

Due to limited map size in PR, the M270 would not be suited in my opinion, even as an off-map asset. I see no need to integrate the M270 which offers less than half of the munitions that a 155mm has available.