Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/29/2014 11:20:27 PM

mb4329

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/16/2007
Status: offline

Wondering on the most effective way to employ smoke/how the LOS engine handles smoke, so I can employ it more intelligently. Does the LOS calculations give a greater hindrance value if I smoke the hex with my unit, or an intervening hex, or the hex with the target (assuming my unit has TIS and the target does not) or some combination thereof?

I have a couple of weeks of paternity leave before my next TDY, so I figured I would run through some scenarios while I had a chance. Hope you all had a great holiday and happy early New Year!

Regards,
Merrick

Post #: 1

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/30/2014 12:06:34 AM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

I remember Jim saying units in a smoked hex are partially obscured. But that's added on to the terrain (woods, urban, etc), so lots of times, it ends up being a total obscuration, from what I see in the game. I see my units become unspotted and incoming arty effectiveness go way down. That's when the enemy has no TIS equipped units that were doing the spotting, of course.

I have always had great success with smoking my units. I need less smoke than smoking in between the two sides. I usually would need 2-3 hexes smoked to hide one hex.

I recommend that since you don't resupply smoke, you lay it on your units.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to mb4329)

Post #: 2

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/30/2014 4:27:56 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

From the v2.08 What's New:

quote:

2.10 Fixed � NATO FSCC Not Firing Smoke Missions.
The NATO Fire Support Control Center (FSCC - the staff artillery command) never fired smoke. This has been
relaxed and it will fire smoke about 25% of the time against eligible targets.

I have seen a few smoke missions fired but not many, not enough. I like to use the FSCC for convenience, but may start doing more manually. I know artillery is one of the areas being relooked for the next game version. The automated FSCC is nice and should be retained, but perhaps include more settings for different priorities that players can adjust during a game. Like, fire more smoke. And vehicle smoke, that would be nice...

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 3

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/30/2014 5:07:09 PM

JohnOsb

Posts: 245
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Colorado Sprins, CO
Status: offline

What about the duration of the smoke on the hex? I'm playing a PBEM as the Soviets and when firing a smoke mission, it seems to stay for a very short time. I mean like for a few minutes. Do I have to keep firing smoke rounds for a long time?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 4

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/30/2014 5:10:35 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

For 2.1 we want to have a support priority dialog to basically set FSCC parameters. As the commander, you will be able to set a list of targets and assign support assets to engage them as directed. This should cover the use of smoke and hopefully other special munitions. As for vehicles, smoke dischargers are already factored into the combat model.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 5

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 12/30/2014 5:16:16 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

John, the dissipation chance is a bit random and increases over time. Some screens can fizzle out quickly. In 2.1 I hope to get more detailed and integrate the weather more. Slower dissipation if the air is calm, quicker if there is wind. Scrubbed if weather is too disruptive. We will have more control over rate and durations of fire with the new Support priority dialog too. That should help in keeping persistent smoke or fire ops.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 6

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 1/1/2015 11:29:51 AM

mb4329

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/16/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for all the feedback.

Regards,
Merrick

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 7

RE: Question on the Most Effective Way to Employ Smoke - 4/11/2015 2:15:59 PM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

What I have noticed is that smoke seems to have very little impact when combat is at close ranges. I assume smoke degrades LOS percentages but the percentages are already so high at close range that units get decimated anyway.

For example, I needed to finish off the remnants of a T-80 platoon (2-3 tanks) in a town hex without a good LOS. Since I couldn't get a LOS, I had to assault the town to take out those tanks. I smoked the adjacent town hex and closed with 8 M-1s. All 8 of my M-1s were wiped out without knocking out a single T-80. Smoke and thermal sights is not much of an advantage at close range. I had a similiar situation in another scenario at a 2 hex range. Some T-64s wiped out 6-8 of my M-60s at 2 hex range regardless of the smoke and my M-60 thermal sights. I don't think slight decreases in LOS have much impact if LOS is already very high.

< Message edited by Jagger2002 -- 4/11/2015 3:34:32 PM >

(in reply to mb4329)

Post #: 8