rump Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi,I'm designing this simple scenario with an attacking red force and was wondering how to make them use artillery more often.When I test the scenario they seldom use artillery, although I gave them maximum support (but no priority points).Any tricks?Regards,Rump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 Well, there's two aspects.First, classic WP doctrine calls for rolling barrages on known and suspected enemy positions that are being released as phase lines are being crossed. So you should simply create artillery strikes that are being activated as a certain number of units enter regions that correspond with the impact zones in some sort of supporting manner. So, that part clearly is the mission designer's responsibility.Second, you need artillery observer units to roll along with your force. Unfortunately we only have the FIST-V at the moment so that they are relatively easy to make out. But you could also try and use helicopters in short-legged scouting routes with plenty of evasive routes should they come under fire. That way you will have a good observation platform that does more than just firing ATGMs in a more or less suicidal lemming rush.The more observers you have that can call for artillery fire, the bigger your chances that artillery actually will be fired. Having many tubes ready is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.Also, keep in mind that computers will only call for fire if they observe the target being stationary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 What about the M113FO? That should be a FO vehicle available to the AI.Next versions will also have dismount OP elements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 Well, yes, the M113FO is an option, but it is also M113 based and will therefore stick out like the proverbial sore thumb from the rest of a BMP or BTR based OpFor vehicle fleet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Which begs the question:BRM-2, BRDM2U and/or ACRV are planned for the future I assume?:biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 8, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 8, 2009 Of course you can throw in an MTLB to function as the FO, then have a condition on the rolling barrages to execute if the MTLB is still alive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 But you may just as well throw in an extra BRDM2 or BTR80/BMP.One of the main advantages of proper fire control vehicles is in enhanced ability to locate self and target, and increased responsiveness of fires.'Another APC' doesn't give this advantage, while a dedicated 'Red' ACV would do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LtGeorge Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I recall variants of the MTLB being rather specialized for fire support, or am I thinking of HQ post and battlefield radar? It may make an interesting aspect for the player - a MTLB near a pack of BMPs must be important enough to be shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 That would be the ACRV in its various battery command/OP/Fire direction versions.What the chassis is is somewhat irrelevant though, compared to the function of the vehicle.The FIST-V and M113FO give higher responsiveness to their Artillery assets. It is also possible to tie artillery support to the FO assets.MT-LB, BMP, BTR80, BRDM2 et al. do not offer any advantages at all, and there is no trivial but reliable method of tying artillery to FO assets. On a tactical scale this would appear to be even more important for WP tactics than for NATO, as doctrine assigns direct support 5 & 6" howitzers to even quite small foward detachments under the control of their own observers, but complicates support from general support elements assigned to the fire-plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 8, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 8, 2009 But you may just as well throw in an extra BRDM2 or BTR80/BMP.One of the main advantages of proper fire control vehicles is in enhanced ability to locate self and target, and increased responsiveness of fires.'Another APC' doesn't give this advantage, while a dedicated 'Red' ACV would do so.Yes, you could do that too, I was saying to use an MTLB if the scenario designer wanted a vehicle to represent the ACRV, while still having a soviet type vehicle appearance, and a vehicle which can stand out from all the rest (instead of just using another BMP or BTR). Obviously a dedicated ACRV would be nice that functions like the FISTV - but an MTLB which is tied to the execution of rolling/preplanned barrages would suffice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I'm not prejudice, I'll shoot anything. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 Thanks for the tips, will try.-Rump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.