Project Reality Forums

Well, we all know that player controlled artillery has been brought up god knows how many times.

But this time, I'd just like to know the feasibility of this:

Two modes. Active, and Passive. Passive is basically "fire, hope you hit, if not, try try again." Active would be firing, and with the help of a lase and a marker, you get reasonably close.

With Active and Passive modes, you'd get a reticle that would show the splashdown point of the weapon up to a linear 2 kilometers. It would get you close, but still require fine adjustment and a spotter to be able to get good hits.

Now, the procedure would be:

1. Spotter lases, has attack marker requesting a barrage.

2. Commander relays this to artillery squad, sets marker

3. Gunner gets marker, uses range to get within 100-50 meters of target on active mode, fires.

4. Shell flies it's ballistic path, to about 1500 alt, and begins to drop towards the target.

5. Once it clears the clouds, it locks onto the lase, and makes some correction to get within 25 meters of the lase or so.

6. Splash down, spotter calls in adjustments, with a new lase and marker if needed, which is relayed through the commander to the gunner, process repeats from three.

It would just have the ability to fire off 10 rounds in 20 seconds, but doing so would require a 30 second cool off.

I'm not really keen on this idea. First off, artillery never fire "blind", meaning they never do a fire mission without specific target coordinates from an FO and without a proper fire solution from FDC. Firing blindly can mean friendly fire or at the least, ineffective fire and a waste of ammunition.

It sounds like your suggestion is also mixed in reality. You first state that the round would fire "into the clouds using ballistics", but then you change the function to be semi-guided on it's downward trajectory. The only munitions capable of such an ability are the Copperhead rounds, and they will impact the precise location of the lase. The M712 Copperhead has a PE of around 1m for example. A 25m PE on a guided munition is very poor.


I'm not sure yet how the targeting system for the currently-planned artillery will function. Because the artillery is fired from off-map computer-controlled units, the impact zone is likely to just be a random deviation limit from the marker. Because the strikes are called in at a single go, there probably won't be any adjust missions or the ability to remark the target during that fire mission. A low deviation limit from the spot marker would help simulate adjusts.

As for player-controlled artillery such as the future deployable mortars, I would prefer that spotters are required. Something similar to FH2's artillery system, minus the overhead view. The spotter marks the target with binoculars, the scripting system then calculates the settings needed by the gunner, and the mortarman adjusts his weapon to impact in that area. Due to bad marker placement or other known issues, the spotter might need to adjust fire. This could be done quickly and easily with the dials seen in FH2's artillery, slightly modified. The exact method to be used in PR though hasn't been determined yet, or at least I have not been informed of the method.

I think the best way to do it is to have a Forward Artillery Controller or Forward Fire Support Control or what ever it's called class, with a rifle, binocs, and the radio, he needs to have spotted the target and have his radio out & aimed for the Mortar or Artillery to be able to fire accurately.

Actually it's usage is soo few that mostly I even forget that our team has an artillery. Never had an artry support in a critical situation or never witness a critical change it casued.

So I don't care if it stays like that or changes in a laser-targeted mode.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:I'm not really keen on this idea. First off, artillery never fire "blind", meaning they never do a fire mission without specific target coordinates from an FO and without a proper fire solution from FDC. Firing blindly can mean friendly fire or at the least, ineffective fire and a waste of ammunition.

It sounds like your suggestion is also mixed in reality. You first state that the round would fire "into the clouds using ballistics", but then you change the function to be semi-guided on it's downward trajectory. The only munitions capable of such an ability are the Copperhead rounds, and they will impact the precise location of the lase. The M712 Copperhead has a PE of around 1m for example. A 25m PE on a guided munition is very poor.


I'm not sure yet how the targeting system for the currently-planned artillery will function. Because the artillery is fired from off-map computer-controlled units, the impact zone is likely to just be a random deviation limit from the marker. Because the strikes are called in at a single go, there probably won't be any adjust missions or the ability to remark the target during that fire mission. A low deviation limit from the spot marker would help simulate adjusts.

As for player-controlled artillery such as the future deployable mortars, I would prefer that spotters are required. Something similar to FH2's artillery system, minus the overhead view. The spotter marks the target with binoculars, the scripting system then calculates the settings needed by the gunner, and the mortarman adjusts his weapon to impact in that area. Due to bad marker placement or other known issues, the spotter might need to adjust fire. This could be done quickly and easily with the dials seen in FH2's artillery, slightly modified. The exact method to be used in PR though hasn't been determined yet, or at least I have not been informed of the method.

Well, my idea is basically that, just more complicated.

The idea of the passive mode is that if the enemy team is trying to lase and screw with your shot then you can switch to passive and go from there.

The FH2 system sounds ideal though.

If we are talking about vanilla style artillery, with the massive rounds fired from a 155mm howitzer, then i think its a bad idea. i do like the idea of a small mortar though, because factions like the insurgents dont have much going for them, and huge shells raining down on them wont make it easier

I say use FH2s system, but instead of using the overhead view to adjust your fire you have to talk to the spotter via voip.

Well, I learned what I set out to learn.

If the mods want, this can be locked and burned.

If you don't know what the FH2 artillery is then read this:

A spotter uses his binocs to lase a target. The artillery team right clicks and gets a bird's eye view of the target. Then the artillery team literally has to zero in the coordinates using the degrees at the bottom and left of the screen.

A system similiar to FH2 would be fine, but only used on appropriate maps like Korengal, Sangin for example. Also, a function to not be able to fire unless a target is marked would be useful, to avoid blind firing.

Well it has been established that a player-controlled system is possible, but what I'm wondering is whether
we really want to take more players off the frontline than we already have/will. I think it is best to only feature player-controlled MORTARS on maps with no heavy assets.

Well the FH2 system seems to be good, but it needs to be modified in order to fit PR.

Anyhow, if the commander would have the arty cannon as his commander spot, then it might work.

I'm all for more support roles in PR. But to do a PCO artillery sytem well would be quite difficult. It requires some leet python i believe. I dont think it would be suited to all maps, could be cool on the infantry layer of some maps though to spice things up. I believe that this has been discussed before. I know i made a thread about it ages ago hehe.

Maybe the Commander can Only use this " Player Controlled Artillery " And he can have one person in each squad that can be FO for the commander.


Pros:

-Making Commanding more fun.

-Only one person off the front line.

Cons:

-You will need to have good communications with your Team.

don't they have that in FH2

FH2's artillery system is the exact same as BFV's system. It works fine, I think it would be a good addition to PR.

Whatever, let's not stray into the "suggestion threads in places they should not be". So a few questions to be asked, in order to figure out a player controlled artillery system to work.

1. How many players would have to gun? 4 players, firing at realistic rates, or one player firing at unnaturally high rates?

2. Who would these player or players be?

3. What's the point?

4. Would this be another role that's best left to be automatic and non player controlled?

5. Would you, yourself want to be in this role?

This would most likely be extremely effective, because unlike the current BF2 arty system human players can shift fire mid-barrage.

The suppression effect would be massive too. If you make arty share similar properties to the JDAM (Supply area able to go through statics), then the end result would be lots of little pieces.

in FH2 one person controls the arty and one person orders it by calling the coordinates ones the coordinates are called the arty guy has to line up his reticule(or whatever they call it) and then fire one shot. the observer/caller says if it is a miss or hit tells the arty guy how to adjust

it would be great in insurgency with mortars if it is done just like in FH2 except that maybe mortars can be moved to avoid exploiting and camping(because in real life insurgents fire mortars then they move out to another area )

1. How many players would have to gun? 4 players, firing at realistic rates, or one player firing at unnaturally high rates?

Most likely two, as there is a limit on team sizes. The rates are out of my league.

2. Who would these player or players be?

Possibly officer/crewmen. I'm thinking a) an arty interface for the gunner b) a spotter of sorts to correct the shots.

3. What's the point?

We know what the point is. Get where tank, planes, heli, and infantry don't go.

4. Would this be another role that's best left to be automatic and non player controlled?

Only if it affects max squad limits.

5. Would you, yourself want to be in this role?

Naturally.

Hunt3r wrote:Whatever, let's not stray into the "suggestion threads in places they should not be". So a few questions to be asked, in order to figure out a player controlled artillery system to work.

1. How many players would have to gun? 4 players, firing at realistic rates, or one player firing at unnaturally high rates?

2. Who would these player or players be?

3. What's the point?

4. Would this be another role that's best left to be automatic and non player controlled?

5. Would you, yourself want to be in this role?

This would most likely be extremely effective, because unlike the current BF2 arty system human players can shift fire mid-barrage.

The suppression effect would be massive too. If you make arty share similar properties to the JDAM (Supply area able to go through statics), then the end result would be lots of little pieces.

1. i would say it should be one or 2 "gunners" (for gameplay value- less troops from the frontlines) and it can fire a shell ever 2 seconds or so?.

I will admit, i dont know how fast they can shoot a morter, but they should be able to easily shoot a shell every 2 seconds...i think XD

2. the players would be whoever wanted it, but i feel you should need a commander to spawn it... like press X and one falls out of the back of the cp, and it can be picked up and moved. This would allow a commander to decide who can use it (if peaple are diing with it) and would add a need for commander, atleast to depoy it.
and i feel you must have a crewman kit to use it...

3. The point is it gives you quick access to fire support, just yesterday i was playing as insergents, luckly we had a morter barage avalible, on karbala the americans set up a base in the outpost, and fired off the mountans twards my squad, stuck inside a little building. The machine gun had rto realode, so i had just enofe time to call it in. one squad member could see the base, but could not do anything...

With player controled arty, i could have called morters up, and gave them a location. Then instruckted them where to turn as say my squadmember who could see the base.

4. I feel that it would be better player contoled, but also give conventinal forces something like the j-damns or arty every hour, to simulate something like (a j-damn droping plane droping a j-damn,) or a ship shooting artillery at a target.

5. Yes, I would love this role. There are many times where i feel that ( if only i could get some support to move) this could be used...

I mean if nothing else, try it in combined arms, let em see how it works, and if its over-spammed or something, it dose not have to come into pr...



But those are just my oppinions.
I think that when we get it, if we get it, it would be helpfull, and it should be semi easy to use, mabey make a new kit that has X ammount of morter shells to relode the morter with, while a crewman shoots the morter.
Every time they need more then the X ammount allocated to the morter shell kit, they would have to go back and get more...


But thats how i feel it should/would work... But i also am not the thread owner, so anything i say has no real importance XD