Graviteam
January 23, 2018, 07:34:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: How indirect fire works  (Read 6855 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« on: July 05, 2016, 04:08:29 PM »

How indirect fire works step-by-step
https://www.facebook.com/notes/graviteam/graviteamtips-how-indirect-fire-works/1154382414621031
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Shadrach
Major
****
Posts: 94


« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 09:05:38 PM »

That's really helpful. I think this is one of the most frequently asked things on the Steam forums, and even veteran players have a hard time figuring out how exactly it all works.

On the guide, it might be good to clarify, that they do not *have* to be in defilade (concealed) to fire, but of course then they might just as well do direct fire I guess.

And you don't really need a radio link to the observer or higher command if the platoon leader can spot the enemy. At least that's what I think.
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2016, 08:32:22 AM »

That's really helpful. I think this is one of the most frequently asked things on the Steam forums, and even veteran players have a hard time figuring out how exactly it all works.
The game has a training mission around this question for a month.

On the guide, it might be good to clarify, that they do not *have* to be in defilade (concealed) to fire, but of course then they might just as well do direct fire I guess.

Obviously, targeting transmitted regardless of the closed position or not. The only condition - the link to the observer.
It works just like in real life.



And you don't really need a radio link to the observer or higher command if the platoon leader can spot the enemy. At least that's what I think.
There is not used a radio. This is an extremely rare form of communication in the company level at WWII time, hoped that it will be available - is very naively.
The main forms of communication at WWII time are voice, wire, messengers, flares, flashlights and whistles. Obviously for targeting are only suitable voice and wire.

This example uses a wired connection, as described in the game mission.

Krabb: Image tags.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 11:53:26 AM by Krabb » Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
phoenix
Oberleutnant
**
Posts: 24


« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2016, 04:01:27 PM »

Am I being stupid (probably...)? But how do you get the observer to target an area? In the tutorial, for example, I clicked on the observer and used the  'priority target' crosshairs button, then dragged a box over all the attacking axis troops. By the time the wire link was laid this had the effect of getting the mortars to fire some way behind the Axis line of advance. So how do I designate an area of ground, some way ahead of their advance?

Thanks.
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2016, 04:44:19 PM »

But how do you get the observer to target an area?
The observer is watching not shooting, it does not need to target area.

So how do I designate an area of ground, some way ahead of their advance?
You do not designate anything everything works automatically. You battalion commander,, your task is to organize the process not micromanage or support pants every soldier.
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Shadrach
Major
****
Posts: 94


« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2016, 01:17:39 PM »

My observations are these:

- If commander/spotter is observing enemy troops in range of connected mortars, it will order to fire at them, regardless of your orders or fire at will stance. This can be a PITA if you want to keep holding fire, and to stop this you need to turn AT control off. Way it should work is commander should not order fire unless he has fire at will order. Seems to only apply to mortars..(?)

- Mortar units will fire at targets of opportunity if they have fire at will on and can spot units. This will be 'direct' fire from the mortars.

- To order ground fire have the spotter use the ground fire order, and make sure guns/mortars are under AI control. The targeting accuracy will rise to 25% and units will start firing.

- Same applies to tank units, if you want area fire you need to use the leader tank to order ground fire and tanks be under AI control. IMO a bit unnecessary it should be like this, it doesn't really make sense to me to have tanks under "AI control". Sometimes this can cause tanks to move, for instance out of entrenchment which is something you might not want.

Tanks should be able to do area fire without a commander or AI control, I think they did this in Operation Star, you did not need a commander to order a tank to fire at ground, but this might've been changed.
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2016, 04:53:20 PM »

Fire ground is a totally cheater order. Each time, its use will be more and more difficult for player.
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Shadrach
Major
****
Posts: 94


« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2016, 08:16:51 PM »

Fire ground is a totally cheater order. Each time, its use will be more and more difficult for player.


Please explain, why is ground fire a "cheater" order? Are you making it harder for the player to do ground fire?

If a system is built into the game, how is it 'cheating'/gamey to use it?

And what if this ground fire is the only way I can get tanks to actually fire at AT guns?
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2016, 09:21:00 PM »

Please explain, why is ground fire a "cheater" order? Are you making it harder for the player to do ground fire?

Because with it, you can shot that you can see flying camera above the ground.

If a system is built into the game, how is it 'cheating'/gamey to use it?
In the game a lot of things built. Some more or less realistic, some cheating. All that allows the player to manage the process directly - cheat.
Ground fire is an example.

And what if this ground fire is the only way I can get tanks to actually fire at AT guns?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You are using the fact that you can fly and see as a God eye, forcing the tanks to shoot there where they do not see the targets.
It is the first "feature" to completely remove from the game.
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Shadrach
Major
****
Posts: 94


« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2016, 09:48:50 AM »

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You are using the fact that you can fly and see as a God eye, forcing the tanks to shoot there where they do not see the targets.
It is the first "feature" to completely remove from the game.

Well, you are the developers, you decide whether something stays in the game or not... I am guessing you are also not removing indirect (ground) fire from Mortars, that would be kind of strange, given you are doing guides like this  Smiley

But for tanks, I don't agree that area/ground fire is unrealistic, there are situations where it would be used.

For instance;
- Spotting enemy forces moving into a small wood, losing contact, I want to use tanks to fire HE into the trees.
- Spotting enemy dug-in defences in an area, but not spotting any enemy movement. Fire HE just be be sure, maybe get something to fire back.
- Laying a line of smoke for advancing infantry.
- Suppressing fire at enemy defences, not direct fire at individual troops.

Logged
hnbdgr
Major
****
Posts: 50



« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2016, 12:17:26 PM »

Why don't you remove the attack ground command and introduce 2 stages of firing for troops? 1. Visible target (enemy icon is visible) 2. Possible Target (enemy icon looks like the little yellow soldier and is stationary). First one would be as it is now, second one would target a wider area around the (presumed) target and would last a limited amount of time.

Or you could have the attack ground command conditional. The tank would only respect an attack ground command if there are possible targets in vicinity(50m) of the Possible/Presumed target icon
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2016, 07:04:37 PM »

I am guessing you are also not removing indirect (ground) fire from Mortars,
Automatic indirect fire is a good and realistic feature. Player can not affect to behavior using the knowledge obtained from the camera directly, and of course it is not going anywhere.
But ground fire is pure cheat - player can directly set targets using God eye. It is not good and not realistic. It is gamely feature from RTS games, not from real life.


But for tanks, I don't agree that area/ground fire is unrealistic, there are situations where it would be used.

For instance;
- Spotting enemy forces moving into a small wood, losing contact, I want to use tanks to fire HE into the trees.
- Spotting enemy dug-in defences in an area, but not spotting any enemy movement. Fire HE just be be sure, maybe get something to fire back.
- Laying a line of smoke for advancing infantry.
- Suppressing fire at enemy defences, not direct fire at individual troops.

Yes, there are some tasks that are not yet solved automatically, that's why the shooting on the ground even in the game.
But that does not make it more realistic.
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2016, 09:15:38 PM »

Why don't you remove the attack ground command and introduce 2 stages of firing for troops? 1. Visible target (enemy icon is visible) 2. Possible Target (enemy icon looks like the little yellow soldier and is stationary). First one would be as it is now, second one would target a wider area around the (presumed) target and would last a limited amount of time.
Units are shooting automatically to discovered and visible targets.

How to put a smokescreen? How to fire to the expected (calculated) place where the enemy can be? How to destroy defenses or a view-mask (which can not be as target)?
All this is solved now, but it will not be solved by the method proposed by you.
This will add micromanagement, and will not solve the problems. Why do it?


Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1073

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2016, 03:15:51 PM »

Why don't you remove the attack ground command and introduce 2 stages of firing for troops? 1. Visible target (enemy icon is visible) 2. Possible Target (enemy icon looks like the little yellow soldier and is stationary). First one would be as it is now, second one would target a wider area around the (presumed) target and would last a limited amount of time.
Units are shooting automatically to discovered and visible targets.

How to put a smokescreen? How to fire to the expected (calculated) place where the enemy can be? How to destroy defenses or a view-mask (which can not be as target)?
All this is solved now, but it will not be solved by the method proposed by you.
This will add micromanagement, and will not solve the problems. Why do it?



When you write "all this is solved now", do you mean that the game engine presently automatically does reconnaissance by fire, that is firing at possible enemy places of concealment ?
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 4433


Jerk developer


« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2016, 09:31:45 PM »

Why don't you remove the attack ground command and introduce 2 stages of firing for troops? 1. Visible target (enemy icon is visible) 2. Possible Target (enemy icon looks like the little yellow soldier and is stationary). First one would be as it is now, second one would target a wider area around the (presumed) target and would last a limited amount of time.
Units are shooting automatically to discovered and visible targets.

How to put a smokescreen? How to fire to the expected (calculated) place where the enemy can be? How to destroy defenses or a view-mask (which can not be as target)?
All this is solved now, but it will not be solved by the method proposed by you.
This will add micromanagement, and will not solve the problems. Why do it?



When you write "all this is solved now", do you mean that the game engine presently automatically does reconnaissance by fire, that is firing at possible enemy places of concealment ?

Solve through "Fire ground" order. This is the reason that this order is still in the game despite its disadvantages.

automatically does reconnaissance by fire, that is firing at possible enemy places of concealment ?
A few patches ago, when AI changed, for his troops had such opportunity, too, in automatic mode.
It can concentrate firepower on the hills and other suitable places and make preventive fire to potential locations where your troops can be.
Logged

"Огонь, парни в 20 метров от противника, встают, разворачиваются спиной и гибнут, кто выжил уже не может сражаться" (с) Baalleon
Hetzer_II
Oberleutnant
**
Posts: 8


« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2016, 07:31:44 AM »

One more question to this topic...

Ive no problem to order indirect fire within a given battery i.e. using the battery commander as spotter via wire-link.
But so far i havent been able to call indirect fire with any unit outside the battery itself i.e. superior units or other commanders of infantry.
Is it possible at all to request indirect fire-missions with units outside the firing-battery?

How do i setup such a scenario in the "QMB"? Do they have to be within in the same group?
Logged
Shadrach
Major
****
Posts: 94


« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2016, 10:40:04 PM »

But so far i havent been able to call indirect fire with any unit outside the battery itself i.e. superior units or other commanders of infantry.
Is it possible at all to request indirect fire-missions with units outside the firing-battery?

Yeah, this is something I've been wondering about too. Like in Combat Mission games your spotter unit can either be a dedicated FO, or another HQ unit, as long as said unit is in contact with the artillery unit HQ. It would make sense if this was in GTMF but not sure how it would be implemented in practice, or if it would fit Soviet doctrine at the time, i.e. would a unit not in direct line of command be able to give fire orders?

It would explain how sometimes the AI has superior spotting, simply because it uses other units to spot, while you are stuck using the battery commander which often is far from where good spotting can be done.
Logged
orson
Major
****
Posts: 72


« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2016, 10:24:47 PM »

 The German and Russian off board artillery seem to work roughly the same , are there any coded differences between the two sides ? ..
given that there would in real terms be a significant difference between them .

Russian artillery was less flexible than German , making corrective bombardments a lengthy process . I read that of all the forces during WW2 ,the Americans had about the fastest response times of around 2-5 mins , the Finns coming second with 5-12 , British 12-15 , Germans 15-20 and Russian 30-60 . In general , Russian arty was for pre set bombardments and rolling fire .

I still find the arty in game to be too accurate , in 1942 you had a map to guide you , and relied on the guns of the battery being trued to the same vector , a difficult process .. as with any large recoiling weapons , a certain amount of wiggle will occur when firing multiple rounds .. everything from that point on is just approximate  .. with rounds landing in the general area , thats why they relied on huge barrages , to flatten areas .
  Arty against dug in troops is mainly just to suppress them until ground troops can get within effective distance , but in game you can almost rely on wiping out dug in troops .. how about making the defences a bit more effective ..or just decrease the fatality of artillery , but increase the suppression value ?

buh,idunno :/
Logged

minimi66
Major
****
Posts: 62


« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2017, 09:02:37 AM »

I have to say i don't agree that "area fire" or "fire at ground" is cheating at all?

As a former Marine Infantryman of 23 years, i can tell you that from basic training and onwards we were told to plot, observe and if necessary engage "likely enemy positions."  This would be especially true in a non-counter insurgency high intensity conflict like WW2 where there were few worries or concerns about civilian casualties or collateral damage.  Especially on The Eastern Front!!

If you see suspicious movement to your front from a defensive position and confirm that no friendly troops are out there, you are not going to wait until you are being shot at or shelled before you engage the area where that movement was seen.  This would obviously be dependent on your orders for opening fire but from an obvious dug in company size defensive position i can tell you that this would most definitely be an option if your command ordered it.

Also, another scenario is enemy being seen or heard moving into assembly areas or forming up positions for a possible imminent attack.  It is very unlikely since the days of the Napoleonic Wars that the enemy will march out onto a hillside and form up to attack right in front of your position.  They will use darkness and/or a covered approach to move into an area of dead ground (FUP) out of sight to your position and form up into attack formation there before crossing the line of departure to asssault your position.  

One of the main uses for artillery or any form of indirect fire is to break up enemy infantry attacks.  Again, you would not wait for the enemy pre-attack artillery barrage to start raining down on you if you had the chance to use "area fire" on their possible FUP to stop the attack before it even started?

All mortars and medium/heavy machine guns in a defensive position will have registered defensive fire (DF) tasks recorded for immediate targeting should movement or noise be detected from those areas.  The gunners will have there sight settings recorded for these DF's and it only takes seconds for a well trained crew to set the sights and engage that location regardless of whether actual enemy forces have been seen and identified there.

Also in the British forces (where i served) we have a tachnique called Map Predicted Fire (i'm certain many other forces use it too).  The tactic is used with our 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Guns fitted with the C2 81mm Mortar sight.

Map predicted fire is and it isn't like mortar fire. Indirect but a smaller area covered.

Useful in defence situations as you can map out potential enemy FUPs and have observation posts or listening posts (O.P/L.P.) out to your front. As soon as you see or hear the enemy move into one, O.P/L.P. gets on the radio/field telephone and lets the machine gun platoon know.

Makes your day/night pretty rotten if you're lying in the FUP waiting to go when a hail of 7.62mm starts landing on you and you can't even see where it's coming from!!!!

Can also be used for route denial, covering obstacles in dead ground, suppressing known enemy depth positions and various other tasks. A GPMG section (3 guns) could make a beaten zone big enough to do real damage to a dismounted infantry company in a FUP.

Just another support weapon like the mortar and highly effective.

Sorry but as you can see "area fire"  or "fire at ground" is most definitely NOT cheating?  Its a real world tactic that has been around for 60-70 years and is still in use today.

Welcome comments and thoughts?

The Americans call it "recon by fire" and use it to this day in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

GPMG S.F. (Sustained Fire) fitted with C2 Sight as used for Map Predicted Fire.  Note elevation of the barrel for indirect fire into dead ground or beyond visual range.



German MG34 with  Wehrmacht Optical Sight Zf40



Krabb: Added image tags.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 01:00:13 PM by Krabb » Logged
waypoint
Oberleutnant
**
Posts: 28


« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2017, 12:07:07 PM »

Sorry but as you can see "area fire"  or "fire at ground" is most definitely NOT cheating?  Its a real world tactic that has been around for 60-70 years and is still in use today.

Welcome comments and thoughts?
Of course area fire is not cheating, but "fire at ground" order can be easily exploited within the game. Imagine a scout team spotting the enemy hidden in a house somewhere, and then the player immediately orders a random tank platoon located a thousand meters away to fire at the exact spot where the enemy is located. Scouts had no radio, there were no communication or observation of any kind and no exchange of fire, but since the player sees the enemy he can immediately use any unit to fire at the enemy's exact location by issuing the "fire at ground" order.

When it comes to area fire, in the game the AI often shells suspected enemy locations, and the player can do the same. And there is still a "fire at ground" order for all your recon by fire needs.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!