When we will have artillery overhaul? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

exsonic01 -> When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/19/2019 8:58:25 PM)

I'm satisfied with AB updates so far. But I really wish to see new artillery system for this game.

1) Show artillery model names (ex: M109 Paladin) from purchase screen.

2) Differentiate regimental / division / corp level artillery units. Game could offer different artillery unit layer based on their level, from both purchase screen and fire support screen. Then differentiate possible fire support units and price.

3) Differentiate the point price per artillery model. Price can be decided based on mobility, survivality & armor, rate of fire, accuracy, range and etc...

4) Introduce artillery FO and air controller. Distinguish artillery incoming speed and accuracy in & out of TRP, and in & out of LoS of FO or air controller. Let FO and air controller LoS as a possible region for guided munition support.

5) Counter battery.

6) Chemical rounds & tactical nuke

7) Show off map artillery units. Players have no control of their movement, but only can watch them.

8) While players can't directly control artillery, let players able to set some important parameters, such as frequency of shoot & scoop (number of salvo) or frequency of changing position (time) or etc.

There were more by me and others, but I can only think of those.



Perturabo -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/19/2019 10:41:01 PM)

I second this.



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/19/2019 11:23:39 PM)

Strongly agree, but it'd all be bittersweet in my opinion if they don't first figure out how to get arty/mortar kill credits to register in the AAR.



nikolas93TS -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/20/2019 8:25:50 PM)

I think it makes sense differentiating between 105mm/122mm and 152mm/155mm systems. Also the off map representation, we were thinking about that already.

However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/21/2019 2:46:28 AM)

quote:


However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.

Hmmm I like the realistic representation of units with their ranks and formation, same goes to artillery... but well, for beginners, you are right, it might be inevitable to abstract something...

I still think things like #8 might be necessary if AB introduce counter battery in game. Players (and AI) cannot directly control artillery units, so some options to choice evasion-oriented / fire-support-oriented artillery play style should be there. Options like shoot and scoop frequency or changing position frequency would automate such evasion maneuver, help players not to babysit all artillery units. If good default values are given, new players would easily catch about those.

Or, instead of #8, maybe it would be possible to introduce "move" or "evade" command for artillery units in fire support panel in game. If "move" or "evade" command issued by player or AI, artillery units will immediately move to random surrounding positions after specific amount of time. Time to initiate move (artillery unit command delay) should be depend on mobility (towed or tracked or wheeled), weather and ground condition, and degree of training, whether the units were firing shells or not, and etc. But such manual option will make players to babysit artillery every single time.

But I also think your comment has some point. Too many freedom and too many options would make things too much complicated for new players (ex: how new players think about CMANO and Harpoon series). So, it would be better to just depict artillery units to shoot several salvos and automatically move, and leave no options to players. Anyway, CB or automated evasion would prevent "arty-noob" style game flow.

About FO and air controller, my intention was about allowing guided munition support in AB, from air or artillery (you don't need to depict airplane, just show approaching airplane). Plus, this would enable AH64 LOAL option. But, oh well, if this might make too much complexity then... I don't know. Because I kinda agree simplicity and good abstraction is important as well as realistic representation. May need to think about this as well...



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/21/2019 9:50:19 AM)

For me the Arty system is ok, simple but functional, although CB fire would be cool...

One question though, would the AI be able to handle the extra options?



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/22/2019 12:02:18 AM)

quote:


One question though, would the AI be able to handle the extra options?

IMO if AB introduce CB, then it would be inevitable to set up some options (changing position frequency or shoot & scoop frequency or etc) for survival of artillery units, because players cannot directly control artillery units in AB. But if such additional options increase the complexity too much, then it would be better to set those frequency control as automatic default, and remove additional options. Or make such option as little as possible.



nikolas93TS -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/22/2019 1:01:58 PM)

I assume counter-battery will be implemented in future, but largest share of work will probably go in implementing a specific UI for it. I think it should have enable/disable feature switch in battle generator.



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/22/2019 9:59:42 PM)

The most logical route for implementing counter-battery, in my opinion, would be to either;
1) temporarily reveal on-map firing artillery/mortars after a delay or
2) place a firing icon (similar to what is already in game) above all unobserved on-map artillery/mortar after a delay when they fire (the delay should be adjustable in the database to allow for the reflecting of actual standards/capabilities).

If you wanted to go deeper you could require the presence of an on-map radar(which should also create a "firing icon" when it's active).

The Ai should then be taught to both relocate after fire missions and prioritize fire missions on visible or detected artillery.

I'm concerned that abstracting the impact and effects of the counter-battery fight with unobservable off-map resources could have unintended and unrealistic consequences. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/23/2019 1:23:26 AM)

Maybe it would be possible to depict artillery unit like current helicopters in AB. Set up 4~5 big circular points around the outside of battle zone as artillery BP, and let them move their position among BPs by player / AI signal? This way, though players cannot fully control artillery units like other units, but can control them when (and where) to move their positions. Instead of fully automating the shoot and scoop by frequency option, this option will force players (and AI) to issue a move command for their artillery units. Unlike fully-automated way, such direct control will give a chance to value sound and tactical command, which will be rewarded and good players will get some benefit. But poor decision will be punished. Good wise decision will on move or don't move position will save his or her artillery from CB devastation, or reduce wasted time for movement. Of course, artillery units will have their own time to deploy and undeploy.

Not sure if it is possible to be introduced in AB, but how about allow mines in CB mission to block road for artillery units? I was only thinking of DPICM and HE for CB, but mines will reduce their movement speed or even could deny their movement, and of course could damage some artillery units. If the chemical & tac nuke is introduced in this game in the future, it would be possible to consider CB mission with chemicals not to directly aim artillery units, but hinder their movements or position by targeting and contaminating major roads. But this is just a brainstorm idea, maybe it would be better to depict as direct fire CB for simplicity.

And I figure out some problem about the showing off-map artillery units. This feature might be limited by map. I mean, if the battle zone is extreme north west corner of regional map and if the direction of axis of battle of game is west vs east, then there is no space behind the western side of battle zone to show off-map artillery units... There might be a better idea. Maybe, how about setting "artillery zone" for 5~40km (minimum 5km, and 0km if player of AI set no artillery) outside the battle zone, at the direction of axis of battle?

quote:


The most logical route for implementing counter-battery, in my opinion, would be to either;
1) temporarily reveal on-map firing artillery/mortars after a delay or
2) place a firing icon (similar to what is already in game) above all unobserved on-map artillery/mortar after a delay when they fire (the delay should be adjustable in the database to allow for the reflecting of actual standards/capabilities).

If you wanted to go deeper you could require the presence of an on-map radar(which should also create a "firing icon" when it's active).

The Ai should then be taught to both relocate after fire missions and prioritize fire missions on visible or detected artillery.

I'm concerned that abstracting the impact and effects of the counter-battery fight with unobservable off-map resources could have unintended and unrealistic consequences. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I like this idea, but how do you think about target for CB mission? In current AB, players (and AI) can set the target coordinate, in or out of TRP. Should players have a control towards CB fire target coordinate? Or should it be fully abstracted / automated by AI?



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/23/2019 1:53:15 AM)

@exesonic As it stands, the player has ultimate control over every friendly fire mission that gets shot. I would keep it that way.

I love Flashpoint Campaign's automation of some counter-battery tasks, and being able to assign tasks is great but I'm not sure Armored Brigade could implement those types of functions without radically changing the character of the game. So with that said I'd put the burden of both displacing to avoid incoming counter-battery fire, as well as the decision whether to execute fire missions on detected enemy artillery on the player as well.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (9/23/2019 2:39:49 PM)

I also like the automated CB feature in FCRS. I wish AB also finds its own good way for CB



capttyco -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/7/2019 12:13:41 AM)

Just to add to this: the distribution of fire is off. A 6 gun battery of 155MM (NATO) will usually shoot around a 60m circle radius for most targets, a linear is also very common. In AB the rounds land in a random pattern which is not how they would land IRL. Although weather conditions add some uncertainty depending on how the guns are aimed the fall of shot should be pretty predictable. I am greatly enjoying this game and I would love to see the artillery get some love.



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/8/2019 10:04:04 PM)

@capttyco Just to clarify; Is your disagreement with the games' distribution options or lack thereof (ie no option to specify open/converged etc, limits on target dimensions precluding destruction fires)? Or the games' depiction of the affect of CEP on the fall of rounds within the target area (ie percentage of rounds landing within the beaten zone)?

I think the devs are probably applying their own methods of achieving distribution, but it's worth mentioning either way that in the Armored Brigade time frame the standard BCS sheaf was a cicular target with a 100 meter radius. Even today this is pretty typical for artillery as the expected area of coverage from 1 (6 gun, 155mm) Battery firing 1 round per gun is a 155 meter radius circle (or 275mx275m square). Linear sheafs are usually applied in the absence of an observer generated target dimension for road columns, smoke missions and finally FPFs.

Totally agree that the artillery (all the fire support) could do with a lot of love.



capttyco -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/9/2019 3:08:03 AM)

I guess it would be a bit of both. Having some distribution options would be nice, especially if you wanted a linear in a different direction than N to S. Playing today I still think the CEP is off. Im not sure of how it is calculated but there seem to be far too many rounds lading outside of the designated area (275x275). Even taking into account charge (which is something I dont expect AB to do) 80/90 percent of all rounds should land in the given circle. As it stands it can be up to 40% on some volleys.




nikolas93TS -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/9/2019 12:50:57 PM)

I think everybody can guess none of developers served in an artillery unit. [sm=Tank-fahr09.gif]

What is doable is differentiation on classes and counter-battery (which for now we envisage as off-map with visual representation).



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/9/2019 6:47:25 PM)

@nikolas93ts Could you expound more on how you're planning on depicting counter-battery? In my head I'm imagining a worst case scenario where it amounts to the player and AI suffering through random blocks of time where off-map artillery support is either delayed, denied, or destroyed because of the abstracted presence of counter battery.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/9/2019 8:35:45 PM)

LOL I just wrote a long post but for some reason it crashed and it is all gone.... [&o]

I will write this some time later. But the key is how we give the control of movement to artillery unit, if CB is introduced. For fire control, current fire control box is enough. But how to control off map unit's movement is the key point for the introduction of CB in AB.

Plus, there should be delay time for artillery units, for initiation of any maneuvering and movement from fire support mode, and for the preparation of fire from any maneuvering and movement. I'm not sure exact time cost for it, as I'm not a artillery unit veteran. But I can tell towed guns and SP guns will have different fire preparation time and movement preparation time. Pricing of artillery units can be differ by those factors plus other factors.




Gratch1111 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/11/2019 10:16:07 PM)

I agree with art needs a do over, to me its the CB and the different types of artilleri. There is a large difference between light, medium and heavy artilleri and its impact. MRL should also be a class of its own with light medium and heavy.



Perturabo -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/12/2019 9:31:38 PM)

And it would be nice if we could define indirect fire tracers and soft damage. I swear it has nothing to do with radium XD .



nikolas93TS -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/13/2019 3:22:54 PM)

Artillery rework is scheduled for the incoming period, but we haven't even drew a basic road-map on what and how to implement it.

We realized that this will probably involve drastic changes to current user-interface, so it will need to be well planned and designed. I would like to have counter-battery as selectable feature, as such amount of information might be overwhelming for a new player. As mentioned above, we have seen people struggling even to call artillery mission properly, and current system is pretty simple compared to what is being asked for by more experienced players.

Counter-battery fire is likely to be automatized by a large degree (current draft idea is to reward player if he willingly decides to move his guns and render them temporary unavailable, and penalize him with longer delays if enemy founds his artillery positions). The idea is to have icons off-map representing artillery units, but without direct interaction with the player. We are not sure if permanent gun loss is on the table at the moment.

Another thing is how current doctrines are modeled as well. I have to point out that Armored Brigade has to model different artillery doctrines and give some flavor to factions, and not just to copy US-centric doctrine which is familiar to majority of player base. And of course there is always present need to balance between painstaking realism and fun in a believable way, because after all, this is a game as well and not just the simulator. Ditto for user-interface.



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/13/2019 8:41:57 PM)

Of course you aim to model each faction's capabilities with enough fidelity and flavor to make it both accurate and interesting, but US doctrine is actually a great place to start. We've published our manuals freely since ww2 and they are available online. American Artillerists are free to discuss essentially everything outside of classified weaponeering guides (JMEMs). There is no better springboard into understanding which nuances of another country's doctrine and capabilities should be highlighted, depicted, and modified than first starting by digging into US literature.

Like I've said in the past though, I would be happy with you guys first re-wiring the fire support to provide feedback in the form of kill counts just like every other unit in the game. If you're planning on continuing to focus on off-map resources rather than what I'd actually prefer (improving and emphasizing on-map stuff)-- then maybe develop an additional tab on the AAR that lists your off-map artillery and air support kill counts, maybe it also includes rounds fired, missions fired, etc, maybe just a kill count, feedback.

I'm sure you probably already know that universally, aside from fuel, artillery is the most burdensome logistical element of a division and brigade and as such is an efficiency game. Terms like suppressed, neutralized and destroyed, in the artillery world, correspond with actual physical damage estimates, they have to. How many rounds, and tubes you fire at every target, how much artillery you assign to an operation greatly depends on feedback, the numbers. If you aren't working with doctrine that considers the numbers, and your numbers aren't based in reality, then you get Kasserine Pass. To further highlight the requirement for feedback and efficiency consider that the US Army assigns 2 forward observers (actual MOS 13F, FISTERS) to every infantry and mech platoon, in addition to a 4 man FIST team and FIST vehicle assigned to every company and troop headquarters for every tank, cav, infantry, and mech unit across the army. That isn't done because maneuver NCOs, lieutenants and captains can't call for fire, you spend a lot of time teaching them how, it's done amonsgt other reasons to allow the artillery branch an extra layer of control over the efficiency of fire support from the bottom up across the entire force.

In real life, to develop those numbers, there are BDA procedures that place immense priority on accurate feedback. Every fire mission ends with a BDA which considers both manpower and material loss. Those BDAs are cross sourced with BDAs generated from periphery sources, high altitude reconaissance, air and ground based radars, electronic warfare 'heat maps' etc, radio sigint collection. Everything is focused on providing the most accurate feedback possible, to ensure every subsequent operation is as efficient as possible. A brigade fire support coordinator has eyes, and ears in every maneuver formation at every echelon in the brigade, and is linked to them through a robust communications network that exists independently and unto itself parallel to the bridage's maneuver networks. This is massively important stuff, and while every nation places personnel differently, and has different equipment available, the fundamentals are the same.

Anyways I'm just expounding more on my pet issue because you guys are showing a serious interest in improving fire support and I want you guys to be rock solid! And as always just one guys opinion.




lancer -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/13/2019 8:43:59 PM)

Hi,

My interest in the finer points of artillery is not that high. From a players perspective assigning some of my artillery to counter battery fire doesn't sound like much fun as it involves a totally abstracted situation with off map units and no visual indication of exploding shells. It's essentially just shuffling around a bunch of numbers.

What might work, as a suggestion, is to assume, in any given battle, that counter battery fire automatically exists and that it'd be outside of the player's control. Give the player an option for how often they want to relocate their artillery with, as mentioned, down time for every relocation. Have a percentage chance, each turn, of the player's artillery being hit by counter battery fire based on how often they move.

That way there is only one player decision involved (frequency of relocation), no messing around with allocating guns to counter battery fire (it's assumed to be present at all times) and an interesting risk / reward decision for the player (artillery availability versus chance of being hit by counter battery fire).

UI wise all you'd need to do, perhaps, is add a tick box to the existing fire mission UI for 'shoot and scoot'. You'd have to assume that you're entire battery of available artillery would do so, regardless of how many tubes were used in the current fire mission. If you tick the box your artillery will be unavailable for 'x' number of turns. The existing message interface could handle all the necessary notifications including loss of guns.

It's a pretty simple approach admittedly but I think with anything more complex you are, I suspect, going to be bumping into the law of diminishing returns with the majority of your player base.

There'd still be scope for some of the other artillery enhancements requested above.

Cheers,
Lancer



ChortleBuffer -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/14/2019 9:45:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

I think it makes sense differentiating between 105mm/122mm and 152mm/155mm systems. Also the off map representation, we were thinking about that already.

However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.


Definitely not! The game is enjoyable because it is easy to jump into. I can create a campaign in minutes. Don't spoil the product by over complicating.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/14/2019 3:31:50 PM)

The idea I was writing (and website crashed) is also similar with lancer's idea. We have two options:

Full random, or semi-control.

1) Full random
FPC-RS is using similar system. Players set CB mode to selected number of tubes. Let RNG decide chance to react to enemy artillery for those CB moded tubes. Then, let RNG decide hit/miss and damage amount.
Merit of this system is that the things will be very simple and easy to implement. As a coder myself, this will be I guess the easiest option to implement CB in AB. While it still might be possible to describe off-map units, but I guess it would be better to not to show off map units if CB is introduced this way.

2) Semi-control.
Players have no direct control of where and how to move, let AI decide. But players can set some important frequency values, such as frequency of initiation of movement after N number of fire or etc. This can be modeled via current artillery support box I guess, just add several more values for players to set for control of maneuver of artillery unit, but let AI decide detail. I guess artillery doctrine of each army can be introduced here. (If AB depicts full aspect of FOs that would be great but I guess that will create heavy burden.)

I still think it would be great to see different level of artillery units (division / brigade / regiment ...) and different artillery vehicles, but I also think this will make things very complicated. So, those features might be better to be simplified just like the current AB off-map arty system. However, I still believe MLRS, SP tube artillery, and towed tube artillery should be distinguished with some pros / cons and price difference.



Artillerist -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/14/2019 7:58:19 PM)

Maybe we're all looking at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of bringing the arty up to par with the rest of the game, the devs should be bringing the other units in line with the arty. I'm thinking scrap the kill counts, unique artwork, and individualized specs for each of the thousands of weapons, vehicles and units and revert to a universal tank, universal apc, universal sam, universal infantry unit, all sharing generic attributes, specs and capabilities. Will save everyone tons of time, and the devs won't have to bother with properly representing modern warfare's most casualty producing arm.



exsonic01 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/14/2019 9:30:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Artillerist
Maybe we're all looking at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of bringing the arty up to par with the rest of the game, the devs should be bringing the other units in line with the arty. I'm thinking scrap the kill counts, unique artwork, and individualized specs for each of the thousands of weapons, vehicles and units and revert to a universal tank, universal apc, universal sam, universal infantry unit, all sharing generic attributes, specs and capabilities. Will save everyone tons of time, and the devs won't have to bother with properly representing modern warfare's most casualty producing arm.


I also agree but dev team only consist of 4 people, and 3 of them are half time for this project as they have day job.

I wish the detailed AAR with trackable kill count / replay like WRD or SB Pro, including arty. But those works might require huge time and effort to code with current game engine, which might be a great burden. I believe eventually devs will try something like your comment, but amount of time and effort and money would be significant for 4 man team. So I see those detailed features as a very long term plan.

For now, IMO best scenario for this game is implementing features one by one, step by step. I suggested several idea in post above, but I don't think all will be resolved within short time frame. (and I wish to see CB and movement of arty units, distinguish of rocket/SP tube/towed tube as a first step but this is just my opinion) So we can think and discuss about what might be the best way to implement some features in realistic fashion yet easier way to implement by coding.



nikolas93TS -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/14/2019 9:59:51 PM)

Although, in this specific case, progressive implementation might be hard or maybe even counter-productive. If we are going to tear-up current artillery system interface, doing it well at once might be less "painful" in a long-run. Particularly because it might also involve working databases...



Perturabo -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/15/2019 6:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

And of course there is always present need to balance between painstaking realism and fun in a believable way, because after all, this is a game as well and not just the simulator. Ditto for user-interface.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/YQ3mkSW.jpg[/img]

Wait, people actually have fun playing wargames XD ? Always found playing wargames to be more of a bothersome compulsion than having fun XD . Level of complication to me is more of a barrier of cognitive abilities than fun/not fun.



Gratch1111 -> RE: When we will have artillery overhaul? (11/16/2019 8:08:40 PM)

IRL during the 90s an art unit could fire 5 min before it had to pack up and leave, so within 10 min of first shot they had to be on the move. Now its worse, they are spotted as the first shell leaves and they have to leave. But back to 90s, Then they would take at least 10-20 minutes until they could fire again, move and setup the mount and target. This isnt taken into consideration at all in the game. My off map units can fire and then they are ready to fire on next target in 1,5 minutes.

I like the simplicity of the current system but think it could be tweaked to reflect the different calibres and then you could add as someone suggested the option to have some art reserved to CB as well as you could put in variables to how long the units should fire until they move, then you could calculate the risk of CB hits with how long they stay in one place and how many guns the opposition has dedicated to CB.

I like the art system in FCRS except that art is overpowered



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875