Artilley changes

[sweedensniiperr]

remember we can't have too many eyes off the front line and sitting in main pointing and clicking arty or whatever.

yes ofcourse but then with less manpower they have arty support..could be balanced?

i remember portable mortars being made..what happend to those? couldn't the devs find a way to implement this? (not saying it could be easy)

but tbh i think artillery works fine

[Ccharge]

How often is artillery used IRl in a 32 v 32 situation?

how often is there a 32vs 32 fight in a 4km region with 2 jets, multiple tanks and apcs and aa in support?

[HAAN4]

remember we can't have too many eyes off the front line and sitting in main pointing and clicking arty or whatever, so if manual arty was implemented it would have to be with a spotter vehicle like below.

It would also give recon vehicles more interest ingame

e.g. the BRDM could possibly be like this, make a duplicate vehicle, then add an extra bit of texture on so that it can be identified as a spotter vehicle, or use the BRDM support so that its only 1 man who can also do transport if necessary. <- teamwork orientated.

agreed. to little people in the game, at all to manage artilhary in all means, spot. resuply and other things. so it cannot be maded at all.

but in PR2 maybe we can get better luck, like a fullscale war game of 252 players, would be bad *** at all, the amoung of map, like 8 KM. of course a VERY GOOD COMUNICATIONS SISTEM WILL BE REQUIRED, but this is also one of the PR players dreans at all.

[Ninja2dan]

Ok, now that my nerves have settled and I've been able to calm down a bit, I'd like to make a post here.

First, I am seeing a lot of rabble and nonsense about what "real" artillery and mortar systems are capable of, yet I have not seen anyone making those comments that I recognize as being an experienced soldier who has actually operated such equipment. I am seeing no links or reference sources being mentioned in any posts either. All I'm seeing is a lot of claims and rumors about this and that, basically insulting the work that others have done to improve the artillery in game.

So I'd like to settle this once and hopefully for good. I want you to state exactly what you feel is "wrong" with the current artillery in PR, so that I can address those issues properly. If I feel that some of the complaints are accurate and merit a response, I'll point those errors out to the staff who can look into correcting the problem. If I feel a complaint is incorrect, then I'll do my best to politely post why it's incorrect.


The first complaint that I'm seeing is about the reload delay between fire missions. Some people are saying they want it to be 15-20 minutes, others more or less. I also see a lot of people saying that "real artillery" can fire much faster than that. That is false. While an initial fire mission or two can be done at maximum rate of fire, we have something called "Sustained Rate of Fire" that must be done after so many rounds. This is because the tubes get hot, and you DO NOT FIRE when you have hot tubes. The rate of fire in game does not change after so many fire missions. Basically, all fire missions in PR are at a RoF in between the max and sustained rates, to form an average RoF suitable for gameplay.

The reload times in game are based on Q&A topics created by the staff so that MA's such as myself that have real experience with artillery systems could answer questions about specific aspects, which are then input into the in-game equipment. As with everything in PR, that data is sometimes adjusted slightly to conform to better gameplay standards. For the most part though, the artillery in PR is performing pretty close to the real counterparts.


As for using the M270, HIMARS, or similar weapon systems, I don't see it happening. Those weapons are designed for extended ranges beyond that of regular 155mm howitzer fire, but in PR all fire missions are well within the strike distance of a 155mm or 105mm howitzer section.

Another reason I would think the M270 would not be used is because the munition payloads used in the rockets are very limited, while the 155mm (towed and SP) can fire nearly all of the same munition payloads that the M270 can, in addition to many other rounds.


I personally would like to see more use of spotters (dedicated FO units) in the future. With the addition of a dedicated FO kit, OH-58D's, B-FIST, Stryker FSV, etc. I have had quite a bit of hands-on experience with those units, and I understand how effective they can be in PR with proper map design and asset assignment.

If/when they figure out how to properly offer multiple types of fire mission, then I think we'll see artillery become even more vital. Eventually teams will start to rely heavily on having a good FO on their team, which will greatly increase their chances of winning. They don't call it the "King of Battle" for nothing.

[HAAN4]

I kwon you got a few in nerver but easy up dude, what i going to say is whicht the most civilized intetions.

Indeed what you say is true. (how to go agaist someone that serve armed forces)

but i am sure that in irake they don't use much artilhary, (not compared to WWII at all)

but what did you thick about adding one or more artilhary groups in the PR fight? i mean extra slots of arty. of course the same couldown. because like you say. the artilharys take time to reload and get the guns cold, but no one metion about 2 arty groups,

Correct my if i am wrong, but AAS is to simulet real fights, i mean tough ones. since normaly we see Russia agaist USA, china agaist USA, etc. those wars will be certaly nearby apocalipty ones. so asking some extra arty in those case is very Requisitable compared to ask a Nuke to trow in enemy main base. (not i saying we don't have a JDAM that is very close to a nuke if you see the kaboom it did)

in my 2 years of PR, i never died much for arty, is like 3 or 4 times only, one time i survived a mortar fire. so i not scared if we add a litle more arty. will not hurt de gameplay. because one of the great things of all BF series is that you face all times of treats, tanks, planes, helicopters, infatanry and artilhary. so adding a few will wont hurt the gameplay. not in my opnion at last.

sorry by my bad inglish, but remenber my good intetion.

[Hunt3r]

The problem with realistic artillery is that the pace of the game really is not >.>

[Hotrod525]

Ok, now that my nerves have settled and I've been able to calm down a bit, I'd like to make a post here.

First, I am seeing a lot of rabble and nonsense about what "real" artillery and mortar systems are capable of, yet I have not seen anyone making those comments that I recognize as being an experienced soldier who has actually operated such equipment. I am seeing no links or reference sources being mentioned in any posts either. All I'm seeing is a lot of claims and rumors about this and that, basically insulting the work that others have done to improve the artillery in game.

Feel the same about alot of LAV25 point when people argue with me... Anyway back on topic, Arty as currently used ingame is accurate, ( dispersion etc.. ), i think the point they try to bring up is the fact that Arty as seen in movies fire for hours =) lol ok i'm stop kiddin, they just dont find it realist to have to wait for an hour for a 60seconds strike, IMO i think we should have ARTY every 15/20 min, yeah it might seems short, but 8 times on 10, even if ARTY is available after an hour people do not request it, and we can "cut the number of shell fallin" instead of having lets lay 4 guns shooting 5 rounds each, we could have only 2 guns firing 5 rounds, so its just a 10 rounds that could change the turn of a battle. But that should apply only to ARTY.


For MAP like Muttrah, M.E.C could have 105mm, and USMC only mortar's. With about the same timing for each area attack. Things like that, pretty sure you got the point.

For J.D.A.M. i love it, but i think it should be removed, i would rather prefer see Arty than a single bomb, cause i believe the way JDAM is used cannot be represent in P.R., when you call a 2000 lbs bomb, its cause you wanna take down a big building, bunker or things like that, generaly ( talking about what i've been told by people who got tour in Afghanistan ) high command wont autorize the drop for pointless reason.
And since we cant take down building or bunker in P.R. i think it should be remove, also its not like you will encounter a full armor division in a 32 vs 32 map.

Its just my opinion based on what my R.O.E. said and what the R.C. South allow in Afghanistan. Of course P.R. is not an Afghanistan based mod, but i still believe it is pointless to have a JDAM in P.R.

[Ninja2dan]

The ability to use multiple munition types on a single map has been suggested and discussed with the staff, and they are still working on a solution to get it working properly in game. When this option does become available, specific maps will have multiple munition types available.

When that ability is made possible, we might see options such as HE, FASCAM, ICM/DPICM, smoke, and maybe even Copperheads. The munition types available will likely depend on the specific map, as not all maps would have all munition types available. For example, you aren't going to be using FASCAM or ICM in a jungle environment.

But remember that regardless of the munition type, they will all retain the same firing delay because they are all coming from the same source. And as I mentioned earlier, real artillery has a set rate of fire.


The use of artillery in Iraq and Afghanistan is only limited due to populated residential areas and the concerns with collateral damage. In real life we rarely use a non-precision munition in such areas because we don't want unnecessary civilian casualties. Artillery missions are still capable in those areas with the use of Copperhead rounds, but for the most part it's much easier to simply use air assets to deploy LGB's or for precision missile strikes.

My opinion is that on certain maps where it is entirely made up of a MOUT environment, available artillery should be limited. Even if the area was "cleared of civilians" before the battle is to take place, the use of artillery where multi-level structures is present is a poor decision. The chances of those rounds actually hitting the target instead of premature detonation on rooftops makes the use of such an asset pointless. On those specific maps, the use of JDAM strikes is far better, in addition to the proper use of ground forces and support weapon systems like armor and IFV's.


The purpose of the JDAM weapon system is for large precision strikes where other assets are incapable of effectively being used. The JDAM in PR is being tweaked to greatly improve the realistic effects of blast radius and defeating forces taking shelter in hardened emplacements. But there will always be issues due to the game engine, and the team is working hard to overcome those problems.

The problem is that players still do not always use the JDAM correctly, against the proper target types. This munition is designed to be used where precision is vital, such as hitting a bunker or stationary position. It is still quite effective if used to knock out an enemy defensive position such as a FB/FOB or supply point, or for hitting an enemy armored vehicle that has parked itself up on a hill. In time we'll hopefully see the Copperhead available in game, which will be often used in situations where the JDAM is currently necessary.


Artillery is an asset that should be used only when the use of other means would put your troops or vehicles at unnecessary risk. Or in situations in which other forms of supporting fires are unavailable, or would take longer to arrive and therefore risk additional loss of forces. Artillery is not meant as an "easy button" where you can just point, click, fire, and kill an entire sector. Using artillery properly requires practice, knowledge of how it works, and learning tactics to employ it correctly to maximize its effectiveness. Players will not be capable of using artillery perfectly right away, it takes time to learn how to use it well.

Having served in both Infantry and Field Artillery, I have seen the true effectiveness of artillery support from both sides of the field. If used correctly by a trained force, artillery support can change the tide of war. Just having the artillery support available will not mean you will win, you need to use it as intended. The more often people start using it, the more practice they'll get and the better they will learn to use it the right way.


From what I've seen, the artillery in PR is just fine. My only concern is the fact that we currently can only use one type of fire mission, but that is being looked into and eventually will be fixed. But in regards to using the current HE fire mission, I see nothing wrong with the current effects. It's perfectly balanced between realism and gameplay, it's just going to take time for players to learn how to correctly use it and learn when/where to use it.

[HAAN4]

i will not quote what is above, but can the commander choce how many guns will fire?

i mean you said the commander got 4 hotzers at his commands, what means he can call 4 artilhary missions of 5 rounds. giving the commander the way to save ammo instead of just wasting 20 rounds to just kill a whole squad or a Fire base.

so also the 4 slots of one piece of artilhary can give in the same fire mission a way to spread more the shoots, so he can take a fire base down even whicht distant defessive weopows.

anyway the combinations of arty tatics will be far better great. if you do so. people will call up arty and when it's miss they will call up again, util the targuet is destrowed. allowing the targuet to find the spoter, kill it. go for cover, or just run away to the spoter don't see it at all. giving also some couter arty tatics since it's only 5 rounds and i guess it will be wont dificult to take cover at all. allowing the gameplay to continue it's shines.

I meaning

slot1 = 1 arty 5 rounds
slot2 = 1 arty 5 rounds
slot3 = 1 arty 5 rounds
slot4 = 1 arty 5 rounds
ALL THE SAME COULDOWN.

will be much better that
slot1 = 4 arty 20 rounds.

what you guys thick about it?????

[Hunt3r]

I'm guessing what HAAN wants is giving the commander multiple slots that would have a salvo of artillery. Sending in all of them at once, or sending in a single salvo.

[Ninja2dan]

To my knowledge the game will not allow us to create variable fire missions like what you are asking for. Each specific fire mission is considered a different "weapon", from how I understand it, and creating variables like that would take an insane amount of time and coding while having minimal use.

In real life, the fire mission is created differently for every target. Not for each target type, but every new target. One fire mission might only require 2 guns firing 3 rounds each. Another fire mission might require an entire Battery firing 10 rounds each. It all depends on the target. But PR does not allow such adjustments, so the generic fire mission used in PR is a decent average. It's enough to serve its purpose, but not overly extended that becomes useless after a few shots.

Also remember that artillery is not a precision weapon (without special warheads), so firing just a couple rounds is pointless. As with all indirect-fire weapons, you want to fire enough rounds into the target area to make up for PE (probable error). So if you're only thumping 5 rounds into a target area, you're probably not going to kill anything. In fact, you have just wasted shells and also have given the enemy warning that they are being targeted.


This "spread" you are talking about is called the Sheaf. Artillery crews can modify the sheaf as needed, but this is another task impossible in PR without some serious coding and headaches. The sheaf pattern being used currently is the most commonly-used sheaf with HE munitions against generic targets. It is a combination of both a Converged and an Open sheaf pattern, with dispersion between rounds set to cover each other's blast/frag radius. In essence, this pattern is most effective at ensuring any unprotected targets within the overall impact zone are damaged or destroyed.

In order to create multiple sheafs, you would actually need to create individual weapons/ammo. Ammo 1 would be HE rounds in an open sheaf, Ammo 2 would be HE rounds in a converged sheaf, Ammo 3 would he HE rounds in a parallel sheaf, etc. Now imagine having to code and add new classes for every sheaf pattern, and every available munition type (HE, Smoke, ICM, etc). Do you want to code all that?


Trust me guys, the previous discussions about PR artillery and all aspects have been asked over and over and talked about for months on end. The development team knows what they're doing, and they have MA's around to answer questions when they come up. These are all things that were brought up way back then, and what you see in game now is the best that can be done logically at this time.

So we will hopefully see multiple munition types available, but I seriously doubt you'll ever see variable sheaf patterns or the ability to call in adjust missions, etc. It's just not going to happen with this version of PR.

[Web_cole]

Thank you muchly for the responses [R-DEV]Ninja2dan

[HAAN4]

I'm guessing what HAAN wants is giving the commander multiple slots that would have a salvo of artillery. Sending in all of them at once, or sending in a single salvo.

yeah this is it, very inteligent??? yep???

[rushn]

I think aggressive gameplay would be fun

[Bringerof_D]

Also, if we really were to add hellfires to the UAV, I'd rather have 1 or 2, not 1/2.

lol, technicalities. "/" when not used in a mathematic context is commonly used in place of "or"

in anycase i'd like slightly shorter artillery reload times adding cost to it. i'd also like shorter fire missions while giving each reload several missions. would also be nice if the commander could freely place strikes on the map again (granted the current minimaps are removed and there only be a basic topographical map or basic city map) This would allow commanders to approve a strike, then communicate with the SLs to correct fire before putting down a full barrage.

1 reload = 4 salvos (10 seconds between salvos)

1 salvo = 3 shells (0.25-3 seconds between shells)

all numbers are open for change

with this the individual salvos wont be too deadly, but used successively on a properly sighted target is highly effective. unlike now where if the strike starts, you are F***ed scenario, between salvos you'll have a few seconds to GTFO of your fox hole, and get into a building if you are in the city, otherwise get the hell IN to a foxhole.

as we all know sometimes the artillery sighting doesn't always go where you want it to. this way you can correct before you waste the entire load.

this also enables further tactical use of artillery such as "creeping artillery" as used at Vimy for troops to sneak up behind for lighter shells, firing the shells in patterns, or even chasing a moving target if you have a skilled enough spotter

again if the commander chooses simply to place artillery wherever by himself on his map without a spotter, those individual salvos will be near useless, the whole barrage would be wasted too since the strike area will also be decreased

would allow for scenarios like this:

"0 this is 1, requesting artillery strike one salvo here."
"0 - Roger firing now."
"1 - Correct fire one grid north, half grid east, fire for effect."

[iwillkillyouhun]

i like the 15 mins light artillery reloading +1

[rushn]

i like the 15 mins light artillery reloading +1

I like that too I also support the UAV helllfire missiles

[killonsight95]

UAV hellfire missiles are not capable at this moment

[BloodBane611]

The commander UAV cannot be given hellfires, that is correct.

[rushn]

dang it then scratch that off my list and move to the latter