Fire Support Enhancements

[pmaidhof]

MajorH,

Once again some of this may have already been requested and is by no means exhaustive.

The ability to coordinate combine arms is a force multiplier for those forces able to pull off such operations. A good example of this is the ability to coordinate a time on target effect with indirect fires.

1. A "Time On Target" feature in the Artillery Support dialogue that would allow the user to designate a time equal to or greater than the program generated arrival time. This could be made available for both artillery and airstrikes.

This feature would enhance SEAD and smoke employment, provide for better sequenced movement as ground forces close with known or suspected enemy positions, and allow for coordinated impacts of multiple batteries in support.

2. Another enhancement would be the ability to sequence single battery fires. User could order the first salvo GC123456 then shift to GC123789, etc. One salvo - then shift to the next target (all within the shift radius).

3. A third proposal would be the ability to employ linear targets and/or enable a sheaf. This proposal would use the Fire Support ability to mark a target. Once the point target is indicated, a direction and distance could be input to provide for a linear target. The ability to conduct a linear target with multiple batteries participating would be even better.

Thoughts?

 

[Hub]

MajorH,

Once again some of this may have already been requested and is by no means exhaustive.

The ability to coordinate combine arms is a force multiplier for those forces able to pull off such operations. A good example of this is the ability to coordinate a time on target effect with indirect fires.

1. A "Time On Target" feature in the Artillery Support dialogue that would allow the user to designate a time equal to or greater than the program generated arrival time. This could be made available for both artillery and airstrikes.

This feature would enhance SEAD and smoke employment, provide for better sequenced movement as ground forces close with known or suspected enemy positions, and allow for coordinated impacts of multiple batteries in support.

2. Another enhancement would be the ability to sequence single battery fires. User could order the first salvo GC123456 then shift to GC123789, etc. One salvo - then shift to the next target (all within the shift radius).

3. A third proposal would be the ability to employ linear targets and/or enable a sheaf. This proposal would use the Fire Support ability to mark a target. Once the point target is indicated, a direction and distance could be input to provide for a linear target. The ability to conduct a linear target with multiple batteries participating would be even better.

Thoughts?

I like the sound of that. This is all done in another game represented in the forums, and although I'm not overly wild about the game, I do like the artillery routines built into it.

 

[Dr Zaius]

What about FASCAM? It may be in there somewhere and I'm just missing it.

 

[Hub]

What about FASCAM? It may be in there somewhere and I'm just missing it.

There is a segment in the User Manual, I think it's under FAQ's, about why FASCAM wasn't included. I think MajorH said it was because of conflicting professional opinion on how quickly an effective barrier minefield could be established within the time frame of a typical scenario. Still, given what Peter has already stated, it would be nice to throw them in, too...

 

[pmaidhof]

I like the sound of that. This is all done in another game represented in the forums, and although I'm not overly wild about the game, I do like the artillery routines built into it.

I agree that I liked the FS. I fell off the wagon some time ago.

 

[dhuffjr]

From things I have read, mostly in military fiction, one use of FASCAM is to drop in on top of a moving unit. You would get some kills likely directly but it also would sow confusion. As a side benefit follow on forces would likely move to go around rather than go through it presenting their weaker armored sides to the defenders. For this type of purpose it could have benefit but the density would have to be low because of the short period of time, of course the game could keep track of the # of salvos fired in a given area and increase the mine density accordingly.

 

[pmaidhof]

What about FASCAM? It may be in there somewhere and I'm just missing it.

My USMC infantry/fire support experience has always seen FASCAM husbanded so tightly at levels such as MEF (the highest field command). Apparently there is even an institutional hesitancy to employ it, as at a chokepoint, because it will impede the inevitable advance.

Not saying it is right, just my experience.

 

[Hub]

From things I have read, mostly in military fiction, one use of FASCAM is to drop in on top of a moving unit. You would get some kills likely directly but it also would sow confusion. As a side benefit follow on forces would likely move to go around rather than go through it presenting their weaker armored sides to the defenders. For this type of purpose it could have benefit but the density would have to be low because of the short period of time, of course the game could keep track of the # of salvos fired in a given area and increase the mine density accordingly.

I think to get the density required in a timely manner would probably take more assets than a unit would be lucky enough to call on. As far as sprinkling a moving column with them, it would probably be just as beneficial to drop ICM's on it, if there was a choice to be had.

 

[GCoyote]

Fascam

I think to get the density required in a timely manner would probably take more assets than a unit would be lucky enough to call on. As far as sprinkling a moving column with them, it would probably be just as beneficial to drop ICM's on it, if there was a choice to be had.

I'd say I concur with Hub.

I don't remember being allowed more than few (3-5) arty delivered FASCAM fields in a division level exercise.

 

[Redwolf]

The idea of preplanned walking barrages always appealed to me.

I think it will be greatly needed for any tactical wargame on the Eastern Front in WW2, otherwise you get into a pretty good mess modeling Soviet artillery. Without it you can basically only choose between making it too weak by super-long delays, or too strong by too much flexibility.

The main problem for such an enhancement would, as often, be the user interface.

However, it occurs to me that allowing the user to do Control-Click on the map on several subsequent points (as opposed to just one point as for a normal barrage) would allow this is a pretty straightforward way and has few potential to confuse the casual user (who plays Blue against the AI right now anyway).

The next problem is accuracy, obviously you cannot allow accuracy 5 walking barrages without TRPs in the game.

An Obvious Solution (tm) is to allow the plotting of accuracy 5 walking fire only in setup when you are allowed to place foxholes. One more thing needed in that case is an initial delay and possibly delays in between barrage points.

There should probably be an umpire option to allow the plotting of a walking barrage during a game in case something went wrong initially.

 

[GCoyote]

Artillery Enhancements

1. A "Time On Target" feature in the Artillery Support dialogue that would allow the user to designate a time equal to or greater than the program generated arrival time. This could be made available for both artillery and airstrikes.

Definitely my number 1 arty enhancement.
Proposal - Selecting TOT allows the user bump the time of impact up in intervals of 15 sec so that impact occurs at the beginning of the desired 15 sec impulse of combat. If that is too hard, I'd settle for the first seconds of the following turn. That is probably more realistic anyway.

2. Another enhancement would be the ability to sequence single battery fires. User could order the first salvo GC123456 then shift to GC123789, etc. One salvo - then shift to the next target (all within the shift radius).

I think this would enhance CPX play. The artillery could be plotted several turns ahead, just as the manuver is.

 

[pmaidhof]

MajorH - thoughts?

 

[pmaidhof]

Bump...

 

[Redwolf]

Hm, seems we are a bit stalled on new things. Hopefully it is because the Major finishes up 5.x without disturbance from side projects.

 

[MajorH]

The problem is that I am getting a lot of intrusions from the real world right now. Makes it too hard to get much effective work done on TacOps.

Also, I have not quite forgiven all you guys for the lack of support for the WWII mod.

 

[GCoyote]

Getting back to the topic of fire support, Major, do you have a "template" for indirect fire like those weapons and units? Something that describes the area of effect and effectiveness of the impacting rounds vs various target units.

 

[MajorH]

I have a series of mortar and arty combat results tables with modifiers.

 

[GCoyote]

I have a series of mortar and arty combat results tables with modifiers.

So if, for example, I wanted to add 8" HE and ICM, what data points would I have to provide you with to give you enough info to fill in the remainder of your table?
Given an example, I could probably extrapolate any table for like munition in a different caliber.
I assume you need range and ROF for each weapon but the lethality data would have to be for the type of round, correct?

 

[MajorH]

Who uses 8" HE and ICM? What/who is it that you want added?

 

[GCoyote]

Cold War Systems

Who uses 8" HE and ICM? What/who is it that you want added?

Past-tense. Part of my on going research. The US had 8" from WWII up until the end of Desert Storm [several batteries at least]. The Israeli's used the 175mm during the 1970-1971 war of attrition through the mid 80s at least. I have all of the stats for both as gound units [same chassis], but if I can't come up with consistent data on their relative lethality there would not be much point in asking you to add them.
But let me know if that would be too much hassel to add them. I have plenty of other projects to devote the time too.