• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Artillery uncertainty

barakas

Grizzled Veteran
May 15, 2009
402
210
I'm just wondering how consistent artillery is going to be in RO2.

In RO1, artillery had a fairly consistent spread, so you could be pretty sure it would only land within a certain distance of the designated area.

Obviously there's a need to balance team killing with this, but it would be good to know how much random variance there will be in artillery spread, and the chances of having an "outlying" shell that falls pretty far from the target.

I think having a slight element of certainty would be good to keep artillery usage interesting, and to stop people from using artillery In greatly unrealistic ways because they know its never going to drift off target.

It would be great to see it contribute to at least some level of use for the tactics of hugging the enemy, though I understand it may not be practical for gameplay purposes.

Also, is there will there be any possibility of artillery "adjustment", so that if a commander notices the artillery is landing slightly off target, then he can call in the radio for it to be adjusted mid barrage? Not sure how realistic this would be, but I've seen it in a few films, so it must have happened :p
 
Last edited:
From the facts thread:



Fire Support:
There are 3 types of fire support: mortars, artillery, and rockets. Mortars cause a small amount of damage in a small area, rockets cause a large amount of damage over a large area. Artillery falls in between. Fire support takes longer to arrive depending on its size (mortars arrive the fastest, rockets the slowest) (Sources: GDN Gamescom Article Crosshairs at TWI)

As for exactly how each one will behave, I think we'll just have to wait for the Open Beta and see.

Personally, I'd kill for anything showing off the rocket barrage! Even just a screenshot! I can only hope they've managed to make it as terrifying as is was IRL. If they have, those will probably stand for my favourite moments in this game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alvin Fuchs
Upvote 0
it was most annoying in Kassel Stalingrad map ... so prepare for random deaths :) jk , I have no idea about that.

I'm the only one that thinks that the soldiers seen blown in the first footage of the mp HD trailer from artillery , looks like they are flying and not blown away?

Ofc I don't know how it looks like in RL , and I hope I'll never will but it seems a bit weird tbh.
 
Upvote 0
it was map-specific because the mappers chose whether to use mortars/105s/150s or whatver they were (also, the epically massive barrages in blackdayjuly :D ).

what he was talking about was more in the realm of bell-curves and the landing distance from the x the commander placed - to minimise people throwing arty at the houses across the road and everyone knowing ( :p ) that they won't be killed because they're on the other side of an imaginary line, that there was a possibility of a shell landing short and hitting the friendly house.

May be useful, if my team can't predict where the shells will land it will make it harder for them to lay down under them :D
 
Upvote 0
what he was talking about was more in the realm of bell-curves and the landing distance from the x the commander placed - to minimise people throwing arty at the houses across the road and everyone knowing ( :p ) that they won't be killed because they're on the other side of an imaginary line, that there was a possibility of a shell landing short and hitting the friendly house.

Yes, this is what I was referring to.

I know artillery will have spread in RO2 like it does in RO1, but in RO1 there was never a time I used artillery where I was surprised by a shell landing too far from where it was supposed to go.

Some sort of bell curve where most artillery shells will land within a certain spread most of the time, but a small percentage won't, would seem to promote more realistic fear of artillery, and less gamey skirting round the edges of artillery because you know you won't be hit.

It would also seem to promote 'hugging the enemy' since the proximity artillery can be safely used would be decreased, but its accuracy would not be significantly effected.

I have no idea how accurate artillery was in real life, but I have a feeling that commanders wouldn't feel safe routinely calling in artillery to say 50 meters away and safely stand there knowing they would not be hit.
 
Upvote 0
I have no idea how accurate artillery was in real life, but I have a feeling that commanders wouldn't feel safe routinely calling in artillery to say 50 meters away and safely stand there knowing they would not be hit.
neither do i, but i do know that 50m is way too close even if the artillery all fire on the precise spot. shrapnel can go a long way.

but i believe artillery was pretty inaccurate, used to barrage the enemy positions before your own assault(while you're FAR away from them)
 
Upvote 0
I also hope the artillery and other strikes wont be dead on where you set them, but lets wait for dde beta to see :)

Ya it'd be nice if there was a random chance that arty could fall within a certain distance of your spotted zone. I dunno though that could be very irritating in clan matches and the like. Still a nice idea. Maybe an option for pub servers?
 
Upvote 0
It would be nice if someone in the know could confirm or deny the presence of random artillery. Personally I hated it with a passion but I have a feeling, looking at one of the gameplay sequences in one of the vids that it's in.

I loved random while creating maps. And its not that hard to predict where they will hit and you could hear them coming in.

For normal artillery I don't mind where they drop. As long as its in or close to the area the commander wanted it.

I guess some realism fans would like it when it had the option to fire some shots to measure accuracy. Then adjust the fire and drop the artillery on the desired area. Next thing we need an Artillery Observer class which only role is to give information to the commander..... As thats how it worked back then.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Should clan matches defy physics? Because it's a beloved balance issue, remember both teams' artillery will share the same pattern of less-than-one-hundred-percent accuracy.

Yes but the same argument could be used for jamming. Both teams have jams, doesn't make them less annoying for some people.

I personally don't care about random factors like artillery not entirely accurate. If it occurs relatively often (1 in 10 strikes), people will even adjust their mental safety range to take into account the misses.
 
Upvote 0
Yes but the same argument could be used for jamming. Both teams have jams, doesn't make them less annoying for some people.

I personally don't care about random factors like artillery not entirely accurate. If it occurs relatively often (1 in 10 strikes), people will even adjust their mental safety range to take into account the misses.

I agree 100%. Eventhough it is a realism-focused game at the end of the day it is still just a game and for that reason people will always find the best way to play. Meaning adding some uncertainty to the arty strikes won't have the completely desired effect on overall gameplay as the OP is hoping for. We are afterall not playing with our real lives....hehe
 
Upvote 0
From "Voices from Stalingrad" by Jonathan Bastable p138
Anonymous Red Army Soldier said:
Our gunners made a huge contribution to the battle for Stalingrad. It was often the case that one side of a street would be in our hands and the other in the enemy's, or even that one half of a building would be in our hands and the other half in the enemy's. In such situations our gunners really showed their skill. I remember one time when the commander of an infantry battalion telephoned the artillery to ask for some help. He explained that his lads had dislodged the enemy from one half of a hotel, but could not drive them out of the other half. He told them what part of the building they needed to aim at. Our gunners were wary at first, worried they could end up firing at our own lads. But they still said they'd give it a go, and asked him to observe a test shell. The test shell slammed straight into the section of the building where the fascists were holed up, and once the gunners received the signal "Good shot!" they fired off two salvoes and a column of smoke and dust rose up above the hotel. A little later, the battalion commander thanked the gunners for their excellent shooting. Our soldiers had dislodged the enemy from the building without sustaining any losses.


The battle went on long enough that the gunners got sighted in on most things with pinpoint accuracy. There was even a sniperist movement for artillerymen. I suspect that this would really only work in the city, not on the plains, but I'm mostly guessing about that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
From "Voices from Stalingrad" by Jonathan Bastable p138



The battle went on long enough that the gunners got sighted in on most things with pinpoint accuracy. There was even a sniperist movement for artillerymen. I suspect that this would really only work in the city, not on the plains, but I'm mostly guessing about that.
veterancy goes a long way
perhaps artillery strikes should become more accurate as the match goes on?
 
Upvote 0