Project Reality Forums

I think arty should be in the game in some form since it has been such an important tool for armies since the inception or war.
I had an idea I posted in another artillery thread but that died, I would like to discus this idea in more detail and get a view from players as to weather this is suitable for the mod or not.

I was thinking that squad leaders should be able to call for a light mortar barrage on a location; this barrage would work by the squad leader calling up a map and clicking on it where he wanted the barrage to be placed. Doesn’t sound like much skill is needed but I think he should use the game map but with no icons on it, so that he would have to use a bit of judgement to avoid friendly fire and calling in the arty on his own position. He would be able to use his map accessed by the M key to check where friendlies are but then go back to the arty map to place the strike coordinates on. The arty map could be accessed as if it were a weapon contained within the officer kit.

Once the strike has been called for it should then have to be approved by the commander to bring a bit more team work into the game and make the commander even more vital.
For the actual barrage effect, I was thinking just use the vanilla arty effect but have the explosions more spread out, and each blast having roughly double the damage and blast radius of the 40mm grenades, these mortars would be the 80mm variety. Obviously these would need to be tweaked in testing.

I think this would be a great addition to the mod, the only problem I can see would that it would need to be limited to either 1 barrage per officer kit, or maybe implement some sort of cool down period for the strike. Multiple barrages should still be able to be called though by multiple squad leaders so that a large barrage could be called in, if squad leaders are coordinated enough.

The reason why I don’t want player controlled arty, is that I think that the infantry is already spread thinly enough and trying to coordinate with an artillery player in another squad where you want him to shoot seems too cumbersome. You'd have to go through the commander, and he's already got enough to deal with, organising the other squads getting air strikes for them and organising airlifts.

So what do you guys think is this a suitable system, for the mod we love, or how can it be tweaked or in deed is it even possible.

Id like to see a strike from a 11 inch ship canon, and see that for an arti strke, the american Navy should keep those battle ship oporational there the only thing that can course that total devistation at little risk to the ship.

Id like enginners should get a small portible morter, and at base there be heavy 150mm morters that be used like arti in vBF2

There was a mortar kit in the plans, who knows what has become of it...

The problem with a mortar kit is, it's another infantry man taken from the front lines, what i'm suggesting is sort of an abiltiy of the squad leader to call fire down, which the commander will have to approve before the strike goes in.

i think the OPs idea is ok, the only thing is i HATE the vanilla arty effects. i mean they come straight down at a 90 degree angle, thats not at all realistic. if they came down at a 45 degree angle like in real life it would be cool but i dont know if the vanilla art effect can be modified that way.

Scarlet_Pimp wrote:The problem with a mortar kit is, it's another infantry man taken from the front lines, what i'm suggesting is sort of an abiltiy of the squad leader to call fire down, which the commander will have to approve before the strike goes in.

Hmm... maybe a new asset, Commander deployable "Entrenched Mortar System" like the vanilla artillery but mortars instead ???

I think an SL requested arty strike would be a good thing, as long as it doesn't get spammy. I would say limit it to a long reload time, and relatively high accuracy with a small number of rounds. 6-12 rounds fired without a huge spread could be good, I can't remember how many rounds the vanilla arty fired but it was too many, just made it seem too spammy.

I thought of another way to integrate it to the current game. Since mortars have a minimum and maximum range, if possible have the strike only available if in range of a main base/firebase/bunker. How this would work is you draw a circle around the commander asset representing the minimum mortar range then draw a circle further out representing the maximum range, then only allow mortar srikes within the two lines of course lines should be able to overlap so that it is possible to have every part of a map in mortar range.
This would also make it more vital for a team to build commander assets.
Defiantly agree with bloodbane that the mortars should not be spam able, so the number of rounds would have to be decided after testing.
I would imagine that it would be a single mortar platoon supporting the number of troops in a 64 player game so a barrage of about 9 shells might be realistic representing 3 rounds fired from 3 tubes of the 80mm variety medium mortars.

Hmm.. good idea.

Although I do approve of mortar strikes, as they are very realistic and often used, I usually don't like these types of weapons because they get in the way of good old fashioned teamplay.

What I would recommend is having the mortar strikes be fairly inaccurate (by that i mean, a radius of around 80-100 meters). The rounds should not come in all at once. They should be between 8-12 seconds between explosions -- and each time being random 8-12 seconds.

The idea isn't to have a devastating effect (thats not what the smaller mortars are for), but to suppress the enemy, harass them, and hopefully get a few kills out of the deal.

It would effectively drain an entire enemy position if you think about it... but it would not completely destroy them so you would still need to go in there and do the job. If they are feisty, experienced and skillful bunch, they may even be able to repel your attack!

Let's say you have a bunch of infantry dug in behind a building or a wall. They're close enough to shoot you, but far enough that you can't get armor to fully take them out.

So you place the mortar barrage and instead of simply annihilating everyone (no challenge + unrealistic), it would drop these rounds at 10-12 second intervals which will unnerve the hell out of them. Some will scatter, at which point you shoot them as they come out of cover. Others will stay put, allowing you to move up your men while they are suppressed.

If all go prone, *spread out*, and hold their positions ... on average at the worst 50% of them will survive but mostly only a couple will get clipped. They'll have heavy concussion effects but they can still shoot. So ultimately they could still hold off your assault when you go in to mop up.

The main reason why I like this concept is that it's not a fire and forget weapon. You still need to do the dirty work and take care of things so it can't be used by newbies as a way to kill a bunch of people at once. The most you'll get is a few kills, unless you're really lucky... then if you don't attack fast to capitalize on your opponent's temporary weakness they will simply come back from their rally and you're back to square 1.

So the idea is to give a temporary advantage in a situation, not give you instant victory.

Mortar round should cause a heavy concussion effect when they are close by.

charliegrs wrote:i think the OPs idea is ok, the only thing is i HATE the vanilla arty effects. i mean they come straight down at a 90 degree angle, thats not at all realistic. if they came down at a 45 degree angle like in real life it would be cool but i dont know if the vanilla art effect can be modified that way.

Depending on how high the shell is fired, and how far away the target is the shells could look as if they are coming down on a near 90 degree angle.

I think the point about infantry being stretched too thin should be considered when implementing artillery. Either an automated or a single player controlled artillery system should be used. If it is player controlled I think it'd be best if it were similiar to the bf1942 artillery.

Nice idea's there Artnez, thats what i had in mind when i though of this no one wants the vanilla arty back killing everyone in it radius. We do want the enemy pinned down and the rounds comin in spread out over a period of time is cool as well.

Artillery and mortars have been suggested and resuggested for much longer than I have been on these forums. And every time I see a new topic about it, one thing happens. "Already Suggested, Topic Closed"

Artillery is a complex system, and you can integrate it into PR in two different ways. You can create "simulated" artillery with spawned munitions that come from some unseen off-screen entity. Or they can add player-controlled units, which will likely cause more problems than it's worth.

As of 0.7 we now have a JDAM strike available. The method of employment (time delay) is great, meaning these strikes will be rare and used sparingly. Due to the limited number of players on a map, artillery strikes should be done in a similar fashion. But again you have to look at the two methods of employment as listed above.

Off-map simulated assets means the shells are spawned, and will fall at a 180 degree (straight down) path. This is unrealistic but probably the only method feasible. Spawning the shells with an angled downward arc would mean having to determine per map the location of the offscreen asset. You will have to take into account hills and other obstacles which the shells might impact during its flight. This all leads to too much time messing around with pathing and other issues, meaning most developers will shy away from completing it.

On-map player-controlled assets would mean more foot soldiers are taken away from direct battle and stuck sitting behind sandbags somewhere trying to thump rounds downrange. The aiming system would be quite complex and it would require an additional player to act as spotter. A mortar would require the 2-3 players per piece, as well as a crew chief. So a squad size of 6 would still be too small for a Section. If you try to make mortars use 1 player to operate, remove the need of an FO, etc, then you are making them very unrealistic. Unrealistic artillery is bad for a realism mod.

There are some forms of artillery that I can agree would make certain maps better. Some maps can even be created to specifically integrate artillery assets into the map design and function. Examples can be a map that situates one side with more armor/APC support against the other team, with the under-armored team having Copperhead artillery strikes available on a limited scale. With the updates in 0.7 and LGB's, Copperheads are now possible as well. Another example is the use of artillery-fired smoke barrages to form a screen to cover large troops movements. Or how about a map that replaces the JDAM with a chemical weapons employment, with effects similar to the vBF2 SF tear gas and an added damage-over-time effect. As you can see, custom-designed maps can have realistic artillery function. But the old method of artillery as seen in vBF2 is just not acceptable.

And for those who don't understand why player-controlled artillery is a bad idea, just ask any FA soldier or mortar team member. Trust me, it is WAY too complicated to realistically add into PR. This engine just can't support it enough to make it fit in with the rest of the theme.

EDIT: For people talking about the artillery being so close together, that is called the Sheaf. A sheaf is the spread pattern of the impacts. Artillery (like bullets) has a variable PE level. Think of it like weapon deviation. One bird dropping can affect a shell's impact by many meters. The sheaf pattern that the FO or FDC decides to use is based on the type of target you are firing on as well as the intended purpose. If you are trying to disrupt movement of a vehicle convoy you might use a wider-spread pattern. If you are trying to destroy a bunker you would use a very closed pattern. I don't have my scanner plugged in right now so I can't scan my artillery manuals, but here is a web page explaining sheafs and dispertion a little more.

Sheafs

To solve the problem of the shells dropping at a 180 degreee angle just makie it so that you can't see the shells falling. Were talking about 80mm mortars here not large artillery shells. It wont add anything to make the shells approach at a certain angle, you just want he shells to. A smoke barrage would also be very handy.

Hmmmmmm.

How about a "Shock and Awe" button so you can go and have a smoke and a cup of tea before going into battle.

I'm off for a smoke and cuppa.

Just bring back BF1942/FH2 style artillery. It's simple to use and not so unrealistic because you still need some skills and spotter/gunner cowork to get good hits. And I'd very pleased to see this on DC style moving Howitzers and/or MLRSs specially on Kashan Desert. That's my 2 cents.

Scarlet_Pimp wrote:To solve the problem of the shells dropping at a 180 degreee angle just makie it so that you can't see the shells falling. Were talking about 80mm mortars here not large artillery shells. It wont add anything to make the shells approach at a certain angle, you just want he shells to. A smoke barrage would also be very handy.

Actually a mortar is a lot easier to spot incoming than 105mm and 155mm shells. A mortar uses a smaller charge increment and flies at a lower overall speed, almost always requiring high-angle firing and uses a much shorter distance. I was always able to follow mortar rounds from tube to target with bare eyes, yet when watching shells from my M109 I could only track the shell for about 1/3 of the time. I was also able to spot incoming mortar rounds much sooner than incoming larger artillery.

As for making the shells approach at certain angles, this NEEDS to be considered for realism. If your target is hiding between buildings, in theory that target should have a chance of avoiding death if the buildings protect him from impact or splash damage. If the shells were insta-spawn without taking that into account, how are people supposed to have a chance to take cover? Realism is important, and even though full realism is not possible here, the more we can do the better.

In regards to the artillery system used in bf1942, that was a major joke. Any real artilleryman would stab you in the eye with a rusty spoon if you tried using such a system in PR. Trying to tie that to realism makes me want to vomit. I would be more than happy to PM anyone more details of how a REAL artillery or mortar team operates, if you want to question my comments. It's not as easy as "Hey, I need artillery on this tank" followed by "Ok, shot out"... BOOM!

Ninja2dan wrote:In regards to the artillery system used in bf1942, that was a major joke. Any real artilleryman would stab you in the eye with a rusty spoon if you tried using such a system in PR. Trying to tie that to realism makes me want to vomit. I would be more than happy to PM anyone more details of how a REAL artillery or mortar team operates, if you want to question my comments. It's not as easy as "Hey, I need artillery on this tank" followed by "Ok, shot out"... BOOM!

Yes, BF1942 was a video game with many naïve charasteristics. But so is PR altought it is trying to be much more realistic. I don't mind if some wants to make it all-in-one simulator with full artillery simulator, but hey... it still is a game! And just like many other games it is lacking many real life features like full operational communication between team members!

Just imagine how much knowledge and training you need to fully operate real artillery. I have no experience myself but I have watched by side firecontrol operation and that sure didn't look something you just step into and start "pounding". Ninja2dan, if you implement real artillery to a game, how much do you think it would take time average player to learn to use it, really?

fubar++ wrote:Ninja2dan, if you implement real artillery to a game, how much do you think it would take time average player to learn to use it, really?

The answer is You Don't. You can NOT integrate real artillery into a "game". I was part of a team that created a 100% realistic artillery simulator for VBS, and anyone familiar with ArmA or OFP should know what VBS is. The system is very advanced and completely simulates all aspects of proper artillery, in all associated roles from the FO, FDC, FA soldier, etc. That software is not a "game", it is a real military simulation program used by real military units around the globe. The development of that program probably cost more money than the entire annual income of the entire PR DEV staff combined. And no civilian would be caught trying to run that program, as they would have no clue in hell what they were doing without the real training to start with. That program is for simulating field excercises when real-world field training is not possible, and all users have attended their military's FA school prior to using it. If you have around $1,300 laying around, I'm sure I can direct you to where you can buy a copy to play with though.

I don't need to "just imagine how much knowledge and training you need to fully operate real artillery", because I HAVE that knowledge and training. I was a not only a Field Artillery soldier myself but I was also a Training NCO for an FA unit. I didn't just shoot and drive the howitzers, I trained other soldiers how to do it as well.

And as I stated, emplacing "real" artillery in the game is not going to happen. Ever. Real artillery assets requires multiple crew members and each section is comprised of multiple assets. To create a realistically-crewed platoon of howitzers with proper FO and FDC, it would require pretty much the entire team on a full server. This is why I stated realistic artillery would not be appropriate for PR, as even a small section of mortars would require too large a supply of grunts to operate it effectively. FDC can be simulated, but this would still leave the FO and the mortar team. And mortars are not a one-man piece of equipment.

You ask about how long it would take to learn how to operate artillery? For real US Army training a soldier must complete about 2 months of training at the USAFATC, just to learn the basic tasks. A soldier must then spend a few more months getting hands-on training in their assigned unit. They then continue to learn and practice their skills for the rest of their careers. If I were to take any one of the players from PR and instruct them on how to operate just the gun on an M109 it would take about 2 weeks to ensure they can safely and accurately operate the equipment. This only includes the load/fire/clear tasks, sheafs, shell/fuze combinations, charge types, and other skills specifically suited for a gunner. This doesn't include the jobs of the other crewmembers that are required to operate a howitzer. And without them, your asset is pretty much useless. It can be done, but it's like a NASCAR driver being his own pit crew.

I don't want to see a REALISM mod destroyed by adding fake features. While there are several aspects to PR that are still "fake" or unrealistic, most if not all of those are from the vanilla version. PR has been trying to remove the arcade system and replace it with a realism system, while still keeping the game fun and playable for people other than just us milsim addicts. Some arcade-like features can't be removed due to the engine, but there is no reason we should ADD an arcade-like feature. If it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.

Of course I want to see some form of artillery in PR. I was an Infantryman before I was a gun bunny, and I have had experience of being supported by artillery. But no matter how much I want to see it in game, I feel that if it can't be done right then I would rather not see it at all. It is a feature that we have done fine so far without, and future maps will do just as fine without it. Until a realistic method of integrating artillery can be accomplished, other support like the JDAM or air support will have to do.

I think the idea of off-map artillery is best. I also like the idea of bunkers and firebases having influence on the range, as in terms of gameplay this would further stress the need for well placed bunkers and firebases.

In addition to that, I'd also like to see different munitions available too. High Explosive, White Phosphorous and Smoke.

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.