DUST Search - Mobile Indirect Fire Platform (Field Artillery)

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

An excellent suggestion. I proposed something very similar a long time ago, but you have gone into much more detail than me. I would change this:

Instead of one cannon, have a MAV with multiple small cannons. Have them fire in a barrage, lets arbitrarily pick 5 cannons on this one MAV. All 5 fire at once (not neccesarily at the exact same time, but all cannons fire with a single trigger pull/button push, perhaps .2 seconds between cannon shots) This simulates a present day mortar section running a fire-for-effect mission.

For movement, have the MAV able to drive around at the speed of an HAV with the handling of an LAV, perhaps less flippable. Once it finds a good position, have it take time to deploy (say, 10 sec) and from there, can fire a barrage every 20 seconds. For balance, make it take a long time to undeploy in order to be able to move again, say 45 sec. This prevents people running as soon as it gets engaged.

As for dealing damage, have a painter with someone else, like you said. However, have the 5 shots be in a tight (relative) group out to optimal range, and from beyond optimal there the rounds get further and further apart the further from optimal you go. Different ammos increase optimal (more rounds on target from further out) but decrease in damage. As for the painter with the scout, remove scan resolution (not sure how you put it) and instead, militia to proto decreases time to send the targeting data for the MAV to get a firing solution. militia takes 6 sec, std takes 5, advanced 3.5, proto takes 2 seconds (numbers picked arbitrarily in order to demonstrate the point.

In conclusion, let the ammo type dictate the dispersion of the mortars at a given range, and make the painter paint faster as you go up tiers.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 5	Posted - 2013.11.11 02:53:00 - [1] - Quote (I apologize for this posts length) I am expecting a bunch of backlash from the community for proposing that CCP institutes a dedicated indirect fire platform from which many artillery shells would spam splash damage on objectives and important routes of travel but please read on as I will try to change your minds by showing you field artilleryGÇÖs importance in warfare in reality and how it could help evolve DUST into an even more tactical shooter where it would be equally as important in my eyes. First off I am going to put a few quotes from historical figures throughout history who sing praises of field artillery to help you understand the importance of it to its commanders. GÇ£Artillery is the god of war.GÇ¥ Stalin GÇ£I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did.GÇ¥ Gen. George S. Patton GÇ£With artillery, war is made.GÇ¥ Napoleon Bonaparte "The artillery was my strongest tool. Often it was my only reserve .... I repeatedly said it was more a matter of the infantry supporting the artillery than the artillery supporting the infantry.... I wish I knew the countless times that positions were taken or held due solely to TOT's ...." Major General R. 0. Barton GÇ£Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to- be respected arguments of the rights of kings.GÇ¥ Frederick the Great GÇ£Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.GÇ¥ J.F.C. Fuller I would hope that most of these names would be recognized by people with or without a military background. All of these men were successful leaders who regard artillery as being the backbone of the military. The American military refers to the infantry as the GÇ£queen of battleGÇ¥ and field artillery as the GÇ£king of battleGÇ¥ for two good reasons. First being that field artillery throughout history has accounted for more casualties inflicted than any other military occupational specialty in the military. Second being that the king being the most important piece on a chess board and the battle is lost without him, also referring to mobility in regards to field artillery not being very mobile for most of its life and the infantry being highly mobile and the queen can move in all directions. I am sure talking about the pure killing power of field artillery is not supporting my argument but I am at the moment just trying to show that all major wars were fought and more than likely won through use of field artillery. DUST may be a fictional war but it is still a war and commanders should have all the tools necessary for them to win the battle. You cannot play a game of chess if you are missing your king.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 5	Posted - 2013.11.11 02:53:00 - [2] - Quote Now let me try to entice you into the world of indirect fire which I feel DUST lacks completely at this point. Indirect fire is defined as being, fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer. Not all indirect fire is classified as GÇ£field artillery platformsGÇ¥ but I feel it would be the most practical way to implement indirect fire into DUST as well as creating some interesting and new dynamics in battles through different GÇ£applications of fireGÇ¥ that is required of field artillery. I will give the definition of these missions and also an example of how it relates into a DUST battle. Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system. Example: Simply put, artillery verse artillery. Team A is using their artillery to lock down objective bravo and keeping out any attackers from Team B. Team B then deploys their artillery to fire at Team AGÇÖs artillery position in an effort to destroy Team AGÇÖs artillery and allow Team BGÇÖs infantry to hack objective bravo without suppression. Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered. Example: Team A is controlling an area around objective delta and a scout from Team A in the area scans the area and reveals an enemy squad incoming on their position. Team AGÇÖs squad leader then orders a barrage of fire on the enemy squads position weakening the enemies squad before it engages Team AGÇÖs squad allowing them to have the upper hand in the engagement. Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms. Example: A squad from Team A is engaged with a squad from Team B and cannot proceed to their objective. Team A artillery then fires on the enemy squads position allowing Team AGÇÖs squad to either neutralize or break contact from the enemy squad. Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action. Example: Team A has the majority or all of the objectives held and switches from an offensive posture to a defensive posture. A squad from Team A digs in around objective alpha and encounters a heavy enemy presence in their area of operations or AO and falls under attack. Team A orders a barrage of strikes from their field artillery and repel the enemy attack on the objective. Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point. Example: Team A is deploying snipers on a rooftop where they would have a vantage point on objective bravo keeping anyone in Team B from hacking it. Team B orders their field artillery to continually bombard the rooftop preventing the snipers in Team A from getting in position allowing a squad from Team B to move in and take the objective. Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position. Example: Team A has a battle plan to capture objective echo from Team B. Team A believes that a squad from Team B may be in that location. Team A then orders a barrage of fire on objective echo weakening the enemy presence in the area allowing the squad to move in and capture the objective.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 5	Posted - 2013.11.11 02:54:00 - [3] - Quote Of course it would not be enjoyable to be on the receiving end of these attacks but dying in a battle is usually unable to be avoided. I just look at a commander in battle as a carpenter and the assets that are at a commanderGÇÖs disposal being his tools. Right now I feel as commanders who pursue this game tactically we are missing our hammers. Ever try to pound a nail in without one? DoesnGÇÖt work out so well for you does it. I have read quite a few posts on this forum where people state that they want DUST to go down the tactical shooter path more than the spray and pray path. Artillery definitely helps deliver that to the people. I could go on and on about examples where indirect fire you can control without war points or eve pilots would be useful as a commander directing your troops. Since I brought up tactical and orbital strikes let me stray from the importance of artillery and its usefulness and talk about the pros of using artillery for battles, the cons to using artillery, and how it could be balanced into the game without making tactical strikes obsolete. First I will go into how I believe you can have a field artillery platform you control and not take away from the importance of tactical strikes so we donGÇÖt lose that EVE to DUST connection which is so important. What we know about tactical strikes and orbital strikes is that they are complete devastation in a large area where anything not under cover is obliterated. In upcoming plans for DUST orbital strikes will not be in FW taking out the war point aspect in FW matches, tactical strikes will only be available if and when a EVE pilot fighting for the same faction is in the vicinity of a beacon near the planet you are on and there is not an enemy factionGÇÖs pilot vying for control of the beacon. What this translates to me is that indirect fire will no longer be available through war points, will be dependent on EVE pilots only, will only be available to the team who has a pilot in control of the beacon giving the team in control a much larger advantage than it should be. To me this almost makes an indirect fire platform for use by DUST marines a necessity given that an EVE pilot will not always be around to support us and we should not have to rely on EVE for such a tool that indirect fire is. I also do not think that DUST marines should have such power available to us that we make indirect fire we control more useful to us than a tactical strike if it were available. To accomplish this I think we could use such things as how much damage direct and splash damage will do, how fast it takes one cannon to send another volley, possible high price tag on equipment and finally I feel it should require a high level of training to use one. When it comes to damage output I donGÇÖt think a round from one artillery cannon should take out an enemy tank in one shot like a tactical strike is capable of. I feel this should take multiple rounds from one cannon or multiple cannons firing one round. Also the cannons optimal range system should be similar to that used in EVE. If you are not familiar with EVE the weapons the ships utilize have finite ammo that are loaded into each cannon. Each cannon has a certain base distance or optimal range that it can reach you at and the ammo you choose will affect the optimal range of your weapon. What this also affects is damage that the weapon actually does. Say for example you are using ammunition with the highest damage possible it will more than likely decrease your optimal range of the weapon, now if you use the ammo with the lowest damage possible more than likely it will increase the optimal range of your weapon. CCP has stated that vehicle ammo will be finite and could apply such properties to artillery weapons. For example if you want to reach enemies from your redline to theirs you would need to use the ammunition with the lowest damage output but greatest range available. What this could do is lower the damage inflicted through direct and splash damage possibly making it where some infantry will actually live through an explosionGÇÖs splash damage but still be wounded to where it is suppressed and needs to heal itself before engaging the enemy. On the opposite spectrum maybe you want to be closer to the enemies redline so you can inflict maximum damage but this also makes you more susceptible to attack so you would use the ammunition with the greatest damage output but lowering your optimal range and more than likely would kill basic infantry who are in range of splash damage. You could look at it in real artillery terms referring to neutralizing and suppressive fire. Suppressive fire from artillery is fire that is meant to degrade the performance of a target to the point it cannot complete its mission. Neutralizing fire is fire that is meant to render a target ineffective or unusable. By making the damage output and the area of affect much smaller than a tactical strike you then start making DUST artillery ask themselves if they want to be safe and impede the enemies movement or do I want to be more susceptible to attack but render the opposition useless. Basically artillery has the potential to impede the enemy without being as OP as a tactical strike can be. Also the rate of fire for artillery from barrage to barrage for a person with very little skills invested should be quite spread apart to me. This makes the team choose if they want more than one cannon to be used maybe even a few cannons. What this would do is take available squad members off the front line weakening their ability to take objectives but giving them some extra firepower.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 5	Posted - 2013.11.11 02:55:00 - [4] - Quote I believe field artillery should not be very mobile. Of course it donGÇÖt think it should be a cannon you drag behind some LAV but I think it should be required to have a set up time, by this I mean when you get to your position you then have to deploy your vehicle into a siege mode that takes so many seconds before you can fire your first volley also the opposite it takes so many seconds before you can start driving your vehicle again. What this creates is the inability to drive around and spam rounds also the inability to just pick up and drive away in an instant if the enemy assaults your position. Howitzer Artillery cannons fire at a maximum angle of 70 degrees and a minimum angle of 40 degrees I think and what this means is artillery in DUST would not be able to land a hit on a drop ship and that it cannot hit a target that is able to flank its position and attack it in close proximity. I believe that field artillery should also come with a steep price tag isk-wise to help keep the number of cannons off the field. This also will make people ask themselves if they want to risk the loss and further hurt their wallet if they keep losing cannons in the battle. Another way to keep everyone from being in a cannon is to make the skills required a higher level. In terms of EVE training think of it as training for a HAV would be a frigate and training for artillery would be like training for a battleship. The field artillery vehicle should also be a crew vehicle and by crew vehicle I do not mean it has a passenger seat. I am talking about the introduction of the forward observer role. Field artillery is useless without a spotter or Forward Observer (FO) in real life and should be the same in New Eden. This also would give another role to the scout class who is currently being used as recon. I do not think the FO observer role should take much skill to be proficient at. By this I mean one skill much like the active scanner skill that unlocks an equipment piece which would be used to GÇ£paintGÇ¥ an area which then relays it back to any field artillery in the area for them to fire at. The better the tier of equipment the smaller the area it scanned would be. Think in terms of militia scanners would scan an area in diameter of 15 meters and the prototype version would scan an area of 5 meters. How this would matter is if the person using the artillery platform has a low skill level and accuracy rating and the FO has the militia scanner the artillery round would land in a random location in the 15 meter circle maybe even a bit outside of the circle. This would make it harder for people with low skill levels to land precision strikes and be as big of an impact as people with perfect skills landing strikes close to the middle of a 5 meter circle. In a recap and conclusion I believe that the implication of a mobile indirect fire platform would greatly expand the tactical complexity of DUST as well as creating the new role of a forward observer and changing how people use the roles currently available to us. I do not feel that it would take away from the current EVE to DUST indirect fire connection we have if it was implemented and balanced correctly. It would not be a stretch for us DUST marines to have Howitzer type artillery seeing as in EVE there are currently Howitzers of different sizes. I understand that these artillery cannons are more of the naval vessel style guns than the cannons I am referring to, but Howitzers are still in New Eden. I feel that CCP has created a quality tactical shooter and many of us enjoy the tactical aspect to this game. Battles fake or real are often looked at like chess and we do not currently have all of the pieces to play the game. I ask all of you DUST marines out there to join in on a discussion about the induction of an artillery platform into the DUST universe. It does not matter if you enjoy the tactical style of game play I am trying to get to I welcome all views into this discussion, maybe even a devGÇÖs input would be nice as well. I am curious if the topic of indirect fire has ever come up before. (AGAIN I AM SOOOO SORRY FOR THE LENGTH, wrote it out in microsoft word)
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 10	Posted - 2013.11.11 03:02:00 - [5] - Quote Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Only it is more like a M109 Howitzer than a M1 Abrams tank. The Madrugar would be more like the Abrams.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 10	Posted - 2013.11.11 03:08:00 - [6] - Quote Well it wouldnt operate just like the M109 Howitzer in regards to the fact it would have to operate more like a dreadnaught in EVE that is using a siege module. It is immobile while active and the only way it can fire. It also takes time to deploy before it is operational.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 17	Posted - 2013.11.11 19:08:00 - [7] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: No cause we allready have enough twatts sitting in their redline. Dont want a vehicle which can spam the whole map from the redline and getting 100+ kills. Okay you are obviously the negative I am looking for even though you are confused on how the "MAV" would work. You say there are enough "twats" hiding behind the redline. One I never said that it should be able to fire from one redline to another, that was just my example of how to explain optimal ranges and how increasing your cannons optimal range would decrease its damage output but making the MAV safer as it is further away from the front line and the splash damage from one round would more than likely not kill an infantryman with basic armor. Now if you want more damage your optimal range would decrease drawing your MAV closer to the front line making you more susceptible to attack but also improving your contribution on the battle which would more than likely kill an infantryman with splash damage. Plus regardless twats will sit in their redline in public games, get involved with organized and tactical people and you wont have these twats padding their K/D ratio. The splash range would be no where near the range of a tactical strike (in my mind to achieve the area covered by a tactical strike you would need 4-6 MAV's firing as a battery in the same area greatly reducing your front line) but a bit larger than a hand grenade (one round from one MAV would be like a hand grenade going off in that location, no different than players spamming hand grenades in an area) so it wouldnt take out a whole squad with one round if it killed anyone with a round. The MAV's purpose is to support its infantry through indirect fire not to obliterate everyone on the map. In translation one round fired from one cannon into a group of enemies will lower their combat effectiveness allowing the allied infantry squad to get the upper hand. MAV's would not be used as tank busters, field artillery's role is not anti tank like it was back in WWI days. Anti-armor roles in reality switched over to infantry and other armor. The same should be for artillery in New Eden so we dont lose our anti armor roles we currently have. This means that tanks will take damage but will not make them as combat ineffective as it will infantry unless the other vehicle is another MAV as to encourage counterbattery applications of fire (a simple way to kill both snipers and other MAV's who sit behind the redlines, as the only current way that makes sense are orbital strikes). There would be pros and cons to having artillery deployed in your army. CONS: If you want two cannons (maybe more maybe less depending on your application of fire) this would take two soldiers off the front line who will not be able to help capture objectives lowering your teams front line combat effectiveness. If your enemy has all 16 of their soldiers attacking an objective and you respond with 14 this leaves you out numbered but not necessarily out gunned. Friendly fire would become a huge issue that could help break your team. An infantryman's worst enemy can often be his allied artillery. So without skilled MAV users and a talented FO you may be hurting yourself more than you are the enemy. Like I said make these vehicles EXPENSIVE so people really think about when and how they want to use these pieces. If you are careless with them they could be something that really hurts a corporations wallet. PROS: Teams have a tool that allows them to control indirect fire with out the need for someone outside the game. (again making sure that MAV's do not make tactical strikes obsolete) Being able to take out targets behind the enemy redline without relying on orbital or tactical strikes. Also able to target people who spawn droplinks on building tops that are otherwise unreachable by anything but drop ships. Further increases DUSTs tactical game play by adding new dynamics to battles through different applications of fire that artillery platforms are used for (see the original post above for examples and definitions). Also it seems like the overall consensus on DUST is that we want a more tactical but still fast paced FPS (Planetside, MAG, Battlefied) and not the more fast paced spray and pray FPS that we see so often (Call of Duty, HALO, Goldeneye). Would end up creating a new role for recon units referred to as a "forward observer" who spots the MAV's targets (as in a MAV could not operate with out its driver and an allied FO). I also have some interesting ideas on how this could be done so skilled teams could use an MRSI style over the more traditional and outdated style referred to as TOT. (find your nearest 13 bravo or 13 foxtrot for definitions) I can come up with more pros and cons. I dont think it would add an annoyance to the game as much as it would add a tool for people to use. I mean if you have a team with 8 MAV's and 8 people on the front line in my mind you should lose the game. Yeah they probably killed a lot of people but more than likely didnt do anything but pad their kill to death ratios. MAV's in my mind should never number more than 3 on a battle field. Some artillery could be close to the front line but mainly it is more of a "rear echelon" type of thing to me as it sits in the back (not always true though especially with older style guns and of course throughout vietnam) so using too many cannons would really take away from your teams ability to capture and defend objectives. Like I said the purpose of the MAV if implemented and balanced in correctly would be used to "assist" allied soldiers in their ability to capture and defend objectives not to "decimate" every living thing on the map. I said I wanted CCP to implement an indirect fire platform not a nuclear missle.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 17	Posted - 2013.11.11 19:10:00 - [8] - Quote dogmanpig wrote: no Thank you for all of your useful input on why you came to the conclusion of "no". I have no problem with people not agreeing but if you dont mind a sentence or two of why you disagree would be appreciated.
Cash Gash 1 36 Infantry Battalion 17	Posted - 2013.11.11 21:50:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: An excellent suggestion. I proposed something very similar a long time ago, but you have gone into much more detail than me. I would change this: Instead of one cannon, have a MAV with multiple small cannons. Have them fire in a barrage, lets arbitrarily pick 5 cannons on this one MAV. All 5 fire at once (not neccesarily at the exact same time, but all cannons fire with a single trigger pull/button push, perhaps .2 seconds between cannon shots) This simulates a present day mortar section running a fire-for-effect mission. For movement, have the MAV able to drive around at the speed of an HAV with the handling of an LAV, perhaps less flippable. Once it finds a good position, have it take time to deploy (say, 10 sec) and from there, can fire a barrage every 20 seconds. For balance, make it take a long time to undeploy in order to be able to move again, say 45 sec. This prevents people running as soon as it gets engaged. As for dealing damage, have a painter with someone else, like you said. However, have the 5 shots be in a tight (relative) group out to optimal range, and from beyond optimal there the rounds get further and further apart the further from optimal you go. Different ammos increase optimal (more rounds on target from further out) but decrease in damage. As for the painter with the scout, remove scan resolution (not sure how you put it) and instead, militia to proto decreases time to send the targeting data for the MAV to get a firing solution. militia takes 6 sec, std takes 5, advanced 3.5, proto takes 2 seconds (numbers picked arbitrarily in order to demonstrate the point. In conclusion, let the ammo type dictate the dispersion of the mortars at a given range, and make the painter paint faster as you go up tiers. I like your ideas and I can tell you have a clear understanding of what I am trying to go with here, especially when you talk about firing for effect. My only fear of having a vehicle that is a battery all on its own is the mass spam and only needing two MAV's to do it. Maybe the "MAV" skill could add the option of extra cannons at an extreme cpu/pg draw making it harder to fit modules. Overall I believe we are on the same page though. Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: What is preventing you from spamming artillery shots on a hack point and making it completely impossible to take? Well spamming objectives with rounds would be one of the applications of fire capable of the MAV. Now it would not be a continued barrage and my thoughts are if you have a perfect MAV pilot verses a hacker with perfect skill the MAV would win out on its second volley. Meaning it would take two volleys from one MAV or one volley from two MAVs to stop the hack. Now if you have a MAV pilot with the lowest skill possible and a hacker with the best possible skill he would not have a rate of fire fast enough to stop the hack himself and would only weaken the hacker. If allied infantry were in the area at this time they would have the upper hand in stopping the hack. Also what would prevent this spamming on objectives is another application of fire called counterbattery, meaning allied artillery attacks the enemy artillery spamming the area. Or you organize a squad of infantry to flank the battery (MAVs would not be able to fire below a certain angle meaning they are defenseless against attackers in close proximity. In other words if your enemy deploys the tactics of a MAV you would use tactics to counter the enemies movement whether it be through counterbattery or an air assault squad dropping on the enemy MAV or whatever you decide to do. If you decide to do nothing about the MAV then you are tactically choosing to let your enemy spam the objective with rounds.