Let's talk about the artillery computer

[gibonez 18]

Anyone else wish the artillery computer from the game would be completely replaced with a less sophisticated and bit more complex system ?

I have noticed that due to the absurd ease of use of the Artillery Computer , indirect fire weapons are all but ignored in TVT and PVP missions.

Mission makers have all but ignored mortars, artillery guns , mlrs and self propelled artillery because of the artillery computer.

Is there a better way to encourage artillery in tvt missions outside of incorporating a more sophisticated means of calling in artillery ?

Edited February 5, 2015 by gibonez

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Anyone else wish the artillery computer from the game would be completely replaced with a less sophisticated and bit more complex system ?

I have noticed that due to the absurd ease of use of the Artillery Computer , indirect fire weapons are all but ignored in TVT and PVP missions.

Mission makers have all but ignored mortars, artillery guns , mlrs and self propelled artillery because of the artillery computer.

Is there a better way to encourage artillery in tvt missions outside of incorporating a more sophisticated means of calling in artillery ?

Perhaps the mission makers should stop incorporating useless systems such as Force trackers or allowing map icons for units so that the artillery computer doesn't become the death dealing machine it is on lower level difficulties.

By removing map icons you force the artillery operator to communicate with a forward observer (FO) to direct fire onto a target. Sure the arty operator may then try spamming known areas with indirect fire but that risks FF and then servers/missions can deal with that in the usual manner.

Also you'll probably find another reason those assets are moved is not neccessarily due to the ease of use (although that compounds the issue) but rather the lack of defense against artillery. More often than not you cannot shoot back at your attack and there is little you can do when the shells start falling. Airplanes/helos/tanks can all be shot back at in some form but artillery cannot (in a generalised term.)

[the_demongod 31]

I want this too. It needs to be less easy and more interesting to use, something like ACE.

Instead of just magically pulling data from the terrain, at least force people to enter 8-digit grid coordinates and the altitude of the target. That would at least require some skill in reading the map.

[gibonez 18]

Perhaps the mission makers should stop incorporating useless systems such as Force trackers or allowing map icons for units so that the artillery computer doesn't become the death dealing machine it is on lower level difficulties.

By removing map icons you force the artillery operator to communicate with a forward observer (FO) to direct fire onto a target. Sure the arty operator may then try spamming known areas with indirect fire but that risks FF and then servers/missions can deal with that in the usual manner.

Also you'll probably find another reason those assets are moved is not neccessarily due to the ease of use (although that compounds the issue) but rather the lack of defense against artillery. More often than not you cannot shoot back at your attack and there is little you can do when the shells start falling. Airplanes/helos/tanks can all be shot back at in some form but artillery cannot (in a generalised term.)

Yes map icons honestly should not appear in the map in any difficulty mode and yes I will agree that even removing that would help make artillery use more viable.

As to not having a way to retaliate against artillery I agree that is a problem. Just about any modern military has a means of detecting the direction and distance of artillery fire.

Counter battery functionality would be a great addition to many of the light armored transport vehicles in the game. It would also prove to be a fun game mechanic if artillery use is met with counter fire and each side shoots and scoots until they win over the opposition.

I want this too. It needs to be less easy and more interesting to use, something like ACE.

Instead of just magically pulling data from the terrain, at least force people to enter 8-digit grid coordinates and the altitude of the target. That would at least require some skill in reading the map.

Yes I also hold ACE artillery to a high regard and while amazing it might be a tiny bit too complex for vanilla arma. That is not to say that it has to be dumbed down, something like ACE without any of the manual loading of the shells with charges might work.

Those are two great examples of more skillful artillery computer systems.

The first one can be found here.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?187905-CODI_ArtilleryComputer

The second is a wip on AGM's perhaps future implementation and by god its nice.

[the_demongod 31]

I also think that part of the reason is that Arma's combat is simply not done on that big of a scale in most missions. Unless you're looking at Shacktac sized missions, there really isn't much use for it.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Perhaps the mission makers should stop incorporating useless systems such as Force trackers or allowing map icons for units so that the artillery computer doesn't become the death dealing machine it is on lower level difficulties.

By removing map icons you force the artillery operator to communicate with a forward observer (FO) to direct fire onto a target. Sure the arty operator may then try spamming known areas with indirect fire but that risks FF and then servers/missions can deal with that in the usual manner.

Also you'll probably find another reason those assets are moved is not neccessarily due to the ease of use (although that compounds the issue) but rather the lack of defense against artillery. More often than not you cannot shoot back at your attack and there is little you can do when the shells start falling. Airplanes/helos/tanks can all be shot back at in some form but artillery cannot (in a generalised term.)

Hi Imp :)

Map icons aren't displayed on the artillery computer display, but I suppose the operator can toggle back and forth between the arty computer and his actual map.

I suppose it would be relatively easy to disable the tracker system for a player if he's in the gunner position of a mortar/artillery vehicle, or has recently been in it. Does this sound reasonable compromise? The arty computer is too easy to use I agree.

In recent times, I simply put a very low number of shells available per time span. IE, on average for the M4 Scorcher there are only 12 shells available per hour ... This causes the artillery operator to either dump the shells and be left with nothing for other support requests, or be very sparing and use only 1-3 shells. Tends to limit the overpowering effect.

[gibonez 18]

I also think that part of the reason is that Arma's combat is simply not done on that big of a scale in most missions. Unless you're looking at Shacktac sized missions, there really isn't much use for it.

Is that true anymore though ?

The most popular missions are invade and annex, wasteland, king of the hill and atlis life and they all use the entirety of the map.

[the_demongod 31]

Is that true anymore though ?

The most popular missions are invade and annex, wasteland, king of the hill and atlis life and they all use the entirety of the map.

of the 4 you mentioned, one of them isn't even a military based mission, and two of them are completely unorganized. Also I've played KoTH a few times and it didn't use the whole map.

It could work in I&A, but I doubt somebody would want to sit through the whole mission waiting for Arty requests. I think having somebody on CAS is much more interesting for everyone involved and is a more active combat role, more interesting than just plugging in numbers and pressing "fire".

If Arma worked on the same scale as, say, DCS or VBS (150,000km^2 maps, much much larger forces and more players, etc) then it might work. I just think that anything much larger than Mortars isn't really for Arma, at least what I've seen. Who knows, maybe some of the ALiVE and Insurgency missions would warrant arty, but I've never played either.

[gibonez 18]

of the 4 you mentioned, one of them isn't even a military based mission, and two of them are completely unorganized. Also I've played KoTH a few times and it didn't use the whole map.

It could work in I&A, but I doubt somebody would want to sit through the whole mission waiting for Arty requests. I think having somebody on CAS is much more interesting for everyone involved and is a more active combat role, more interesting than just plugging in numbers and pressing "fire".

If Arma worked on the same scale as, say, DCS or VBS (150,000km^2 maps, much much larger forces and more players, etc) then it might work. I just think that anything much larger than Mortars isn't really for Arma, at least what I've seen. Who knows, maybe some of the ALiVE and Insurgency missions would warrant arty, but I've never played either.

Yea I will agree that MLRS and SPA is probably entirely too much for most Arma 3 missions due to the small size of the map.

However Large (120mm) Medium (81mm,82mm) and Light (60mm) mortars are the sweet spot for arma and would fit right in with most mission types.

That being said the current artillery computer is not conductive towards good gameplay even with mortars.

[pharoah 65]

Whilst the artillery is a key component of 'real world' ops, unfortunately employing it on most Invade/Annex or Domination type maps doesn't work. Why? Artillery does all the work....the 30 or so human players then get airlifted to the new AO....and everyone there is dead. Rinse and repeat and it gets boring as hell. Thats probably why we don't see them often.

However, mortars are better as the blast radius is smaller.

I still would prefer we make it difficult. ie. we have to communicate coordinates and shift fire from there.

[silentghoust 132]

I never really considered artillery "death dealing" outside of infantry, and people stuck in a static defensive role. Mechanized forces, and even motorized can survive barrages if they jump into their vehicles and if you find even a simple building, you can survive pretty easy(assuming the building doesn't get directly hit and collapses). I think most people don't use it simply because of the mobility that is often created in PvP situations, and the to easy static defensive co-ops.

I do agree that some adjustment to the artillery computer would be nice. Possibly requiring the player to do the full adjustments by hand, with only the computer giving you the solution.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Hi Imp :)

Map icons aren't displayed on the artillery computer display, but I suppose the operator can toggle back and forth between the arty computer and his actual map.

I suppose it would be relatively easy to disable the tracker system for a player if he's in the gunner position of a mortar/artillery vehicle, or has recently been in it. Does this sound reasonable compromise? The arty computer is too easy to use I agree.

In recent times, I simply put a very low number of shells available per time span. IE, on average for the M4 Scorcher there are only 12 shells available per hour ... This causes the artillery operator to either dump the shells and be left with nothing for other support requests, or be very sparing and use only 1-3 shells. Tends to limit the overpowering effect.

I beg to differ good sir!

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387230549

Personally I think map markers indicating a players exact position, and in some instances enemy positions, need to go from the community. I'm a bit hardcore like that though and understand that the average player probably isn't interested in trying to ID their position and navigate to their objective let alone call in a fire mission reasonably well.

There are other limits, some of which you've mentioned, that can be used to mitigate the power of arty without having to develop a new artillery system. Limited ammo is one, selected class restrictions is another (only the most dedicated arty players will sit in a mortar/SPG/MRLS for a whole match.)

I'd rather see a script that works something like this:

_rounds = mortar1 ammo "82mm_mortar";

If [_rounds < 1] then;

eject player;

hint "insert message here";

mortar1 lock = true;

sleep 300;

mortar1 lock = false;

*insert a reload script here or something

Anyway, how have you been mate? Where are you hiding these days? (PM me)

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I'd rather see a script that works something like this:

_rounds = mortar1 ammo "82mm_mortar";

If [_rounds < 1] then;

eject player;

hint "insert message here";

mortar1 lock = true;

sleep 300;

mortar1 lock = false;

*insert a reload script here or something

PMed

Such a (fully functional and MP compatible) system is in place on the server I sent in PM. Has to be reasonably robust to ensure MP synchronization and also to prevent exploitation, such as attempting to get more shells using slingable and towable vehicle ammo crates and of course the ammo trucks. Works fine I think, haven't been able to check it in a few weeks for reasons mentioned in the PM.

[pharoah 65]

for something as potentially OP as artillery in ARMA3, I reckon it should be difficult to use (not overly) but not something that anyone can just jump in and rain death on anyone/anything.

It should still be as we currently have it ie. the Artillery officer is provided with grid coordinates. They then compute the correct settings to put rounds on that target (starting with say a WP marker round, which is adjusted by the FAC). There should be an element of error in this process.

[gibonez 18]

for something as potentially OP as artillery in ARMA3, I reckon it should be difficult to use (not overly) but not something that anyone can just jump in and rain death on anyone/anything.

That is the thing Artillery is op in real life too, however artillery takes alot of skill and sophistication to get correctly and it very much is vulnerable to counter battery fire and air power in real world situations.

Due to the Artillery computer in game that skill and sophistication is non existent and due to no Counter battery radar features artillery remains relatively safe.

Really it's a shame because Artillery is such a vital and cool aspect of real warfare and if it was given some attention in Arma the entire game could benefit from it.

I am starting to see that perhaps the only way for Artillery and indirect fire to be a viable option in Multiplayer missions is if was almost identical to what is done in real life.

If they make it as complex and intricate to what is possible in real life then it opens up the doors to mistakes and errors that real life artillery encounter not to mention the environmental factors that cause dispersion of the munitions themselves.

Making Artillery nearly identical to real life might open the doors for its use in multiplayer this would of course be too much for 90 percent of the arma 3 population but is that such a bad thing ? Must every single thing in Arma 3 even the extremely powerful be extremely accessible to every single player ?

This is honestly the only way I can see indirect fire being used online.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

for something as potentially OP as artillery in ARMA3, I reckon it should be difficult to use (not overly) but not something that anyone can just jump in and rain death on anyone/anything.

It should still be as we currently have it ie. the Artillery officer is provided with grid coordinates. They then compute the correct settings to put rounds on that target (starting with say a WP marker round, which is adjusted by the FAC). There should be an element of error in this process.

There already is an element of error in using the artillery computer; the error margin radius. This increases the further you fire the shell (and get up to 150m variation in some instances – that’s a large distance to miss!). A savvy operator/FO team can then call in minor adjustments which can be tweaked via azimuth and elevation changes in the actual optic of the artillery piece.

What I find though is that in the majority of the time people just cannot be bothered with the patience and communication levels required to pull of that sort of co-ordination. The same goes for calling in air support, very very rarely do I see players attempting any semblance of combined arms play other than happening to be operating in the same area.

If you want to nerf the power of the artillery computer look at what else happens in the same battle space that makes it so simple to use. Force trackers + enemy markers + the ability to just slap down a marker on the map that everyone can see and it’s not hard to see why the arty computer can become so powerful.

Take that away and you’ll find one of two things:

A: Players won’t bother playing artillery as sitting in the arty computer screen waiting for a fire mission can get pretty boring pretty quickly and random firings will usually result in wasted ammo (which in itself should be a control measure) or FF

OR

B: Players will work together using a gunner/FO duo to find the enemy; relay grid co-ords; execute the fire mission and then correct inaccuracies – and if this happens there would have to be an inordinate amount of excellent communication skills and knowledge of map reading and artillery computer usage to pull off successful artillery support. At that point I’d say “ripper job mate†and let them continue!

Edit: Thanks for bringing up Arty radar again Gib, I'd forgotten to address that.

If this could be implemented somehow; fire an eventhandler upon firing that marks a rough location ( I don't know how accurate they are in real life?!) on the artillery computer screen or map that can allow counter battery fire to occur would be AMAZING and would open up an entirely whole new world. Shoot and scoot would become an entirely legitimate thing in Arma.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Imperator_Pete

[pharoah 65]

yeah fair enough. I haven't used arty enough unfortunately (most servers don't have any arty ie. Dom/insurgency/etc which is where i spend most of my time).

[gibonez 18]

B: Players will work together using a gunner/FO duo to find the enemy; relay grid co-ords; execute the fire mission and then correct inaccuracies – and if this happens there would have to be an inordinate amount of excellent communication skills and knowledge of map reading and artillery computer usage to pull off successful artillery support. At that point I’d say “ripper job mate†and let them continue!

Edit: Thanks for bringing up Arty radar again Gib, I'd forgotten to address that.

If this could be implemented somehow; fire an eventhandler upon firing that marks a rough location ( I don't know how accurate they are in real life?!) on the artillery computer screen or map that can allow counter battery fire to occur would be AMAZING and would open up an entirely whole new world. Shoot and scoot would become an entirely legitimate thing in Arma.

Man if a revamped artillery system ends up with B being the result It would make me extremely happy . It's like UAV's , they are pretty in depth and complex the vast majority of arma 3 players does not bother at all with them but when you actually have people who know how to use them to gain intel + laser designate with it you are in for a treat. I love that BI took a chance and included something relatively complex that not everyone will use like UAV's. These high reward yet high skill gap items are what enriches arma for me.

How would you feel if instead of the artillery computer you were only given azimuth and elevation and you then had a range chart with various charges and elevation solutions. The player then had to work out the solution himself without any help.

As for the artillery computer it could probably be integrated into some of the light vehicles in a pretty awesome way. The latest dev update adds a lifting periscope on the strider, why not have an action menu option to lift up a light counter artillery radar.

When incoming artillery rains within the vehicle it should show up on the map the marker does not fade or disappear but at any time the indirect fire team can relocate making returning fire a time sensitive matter.

Another way I can see Artillery playing a more vital role online in pvp is by introducing light mortars like m224a1.

http://i.imgur.com/Xnqk8k3.jpg (310 kB)

http://i.imgur.com/WcGMMMl.png (273 kB)

Super light weight , they could put light mortars + the baseplate and 10 rounds or so of ammo in a backpack and it would be a manageable weight.

http://i.imgur.com/BqjnU3T.jpg (160 kB)

Combine that with no artillery computer and purely an azimuth + elevation means of firing and the limited range of 3500m and you have a high skill , highly maneuverable and versatile weapon in the game that would be insanely fun.

Did some research on light counter artillery radar and most have a range of 10,000km and are accurate up to 100m of the firing position.

They are also super low cost and easy to use.

Edited February 6, 2015 by gibonez

[BL1P 35]

We need it to be as it was in ACE.

until then it won't be in any missions I make as its too easy OP.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

We need it to be as it was in ACE.

until then it won't be in any missions I make as its too easy OP.

I was telling Imperator that a cheap (but effective) way of managing the OP effect of artillery is just to limit the ammunition.

What is an MLRS operator giong to do with only 6 rockets per hour?

[gibonez 18]

I was telling Imperator that a cheap (but effective) way of managing the OP effect of artillery is just to limit the ammunition.

What is an MLRS operator giong to do with only 6 rockets per hour?

Even with 6 rockets per hour that mlrs can do alot of damage so long as the way its aimed remains the same. Especially against static targets.

[slim_pikins 12]

I was telling Imperator that a cheap (but effective) way of managing the OP effect of artillery is just to limit the ammunition.

I disagree with your option to me the current arty system is like having an aim bot, it should take training, skill, knowledge and maths yes maths (how else will you calculate the rotation of the earth while the shell is in the air) to fire a shell form a field gun.

[x3kj 1247]

Why is the Artillery Computer bad?

Because it takes no time to adjust elevation and traverse. You can click on points 360° around your position and you will be able to spam fire rounds all around you. It does not care about traverse and elevation limits of the artillery mount.

I do not agree that you should enter digits. Because its pointless, its just less convenient then clicking on the map. It does the same thing. Because if you'd use the map you would read the coordinates off the map (digital), then memorize the position and then type it in. Pointless. Math is not required, computers do it for you, we are not in WW2 anymore.

Not having map markers is the first solution to the "aimbot" problem. Having the artillery consider actual mountlimits (min and max traverse/elevation angles), and also consider the maximum rotation speeds. This way changing targets does require time. It also requires more time to transition from movement to firing.

An alternative solution I would find acceptable and more engaging is this:

Use the artillery to mark an area on the map. The artillery computer gives you elevation, traverse and required charge (we already have different charge amounts in vanilla - you cycle it by pressing F). The calculated results will be displayed in a little window in the gun optic. You then adjust the elevation, traverse and charge of the gun to match the calculated results and fire manually.

This would be very easy even, for the average joe. And it requires more user action.

[eymerich 11]

I like the artillery computer....

[slim_pikins 12]

Why is the Artillery Computer bad?

I dont think that the arty computer is bad "it does what it says on the tin" and it does it well but the rest of your post goes into the detail of why I don't like using the artillery computer, it has no skill to it and I like the challenge that was done with the ACE arty system and the interaction with your team mates relying on a FO for close support and not wiping out your squad, but that is just me.