Air power.........

K K Rossokolski · 08-12-2008, 05:29 PM,

John Given Wrote:IMO, the "stationary bomber" would probably be best handled by making it like the version in DG-VN I just described - i.e., making it a movable, flying unit. I've controlled those big gunships before, and I must say, it's enjoyable, and does not smack of anything gamey.

I fully agree with this in principle.

Quote: However, I'm not sure it's realistic that an aircrew would try to repel an enemy from inside a grounded bomber - I would think they'd just run when enemy troops approached...if they could not get airborne beforehand.

Totally unrealistic. The crew don't sit in an aeroplane waiting to open up on attackers...airfield defences do that. Nothing in the military world..as far as I know...is more defenceless than an aircraft on the ground.

Quote: It'd probably be more realistic to simply make the bomber a movable unit that would have to put itself in danger (getting close to the enemy) in order to attack.

Of course...that is why I condemn the farcical bombers. Would we accept tanks that cannot travel across country, or infantry that can't WALK!!? Of course not. But some seem quite happy to accept the farce of non-moving nonflying "aircraft" dropping bombs, from the ground, at indirect targets miles away. I thought the aim was to improve CS, and in most aspects this has been well achieved. The comic "bombers" and the bathtub "navy" are an exception to this, and do not qualify in any way to be called a simulation.

.

John Given · 08-12-2008, 11:45 PM,

Thanks for the input guys.

One thing I thought I should mention too;

The "Spooky" gunship was likely included in DG-VN (by Majog and Co.) as a movable, controllable unit because it, like the helicopters, had the ability to linger over the target. In fact, that's how they were meant to be deployed. In WWII, I would think that the only units that would qualify for this "loitering" behavior would be smaller, tactical bombers, and possibly some types of fighter planes. Big strategic bombers, as far as I'm aware, would never make strafing runs at an enemy, or linger over a battle looking for kills the way that the "Spooky" gunships would. I just thought I should clarify that.

I'd like to add that many of the U.S. fighter planes in WWII hadn't the fuel for this kind of loitering stuff until a front was opened in France (the allies had no further need to cross the channel, and they now had bases nearby). So I would think any WWII air units designed to be controllable would likely be A-25's and B-26 bombers and the like (with their lower firepower). Possibly P-51 Mustang fighters late in the war, maybe even P-47's in the Italian theater, but I digress.

I just kind of like the idea of a flying unit being able to be shot down - keeps the aircraft's owner on his toes, and keeps these types of units from being too powerful.

cheers

**Jason Petho** · 08-13-2008, 12:36 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:
John Given Wrote:IMO, the "stationary bomber" would probably be best handled by making it like the version in DG-VN I just described - i.e., making it a movable, flying unit. I've controlled those big gunships before, and I must say, it's enjoyable, and does not smack of anything gamey.
I fully agree with this in principle.

There are these as well in the Campaign Series.

K K Rossokolski Wrote:
John Given Wrote:However, I'm not sure it's realistic that an aircrew would try to repel an enemy from inside a grounded bomber - I would think they'd just run when enemy troops approached...if they could not get airborne beforehand.

Totally unrealistic. The crew don't sit in an aeroplane waiting to open up on attackers...airfield defences do that. Nothing in the military world..as far as I know...is more defenceless than an aircraft on the ground.

This is not their intention, as already explained.

Jason Petho

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-13-2008, 04:20 AM,

dgk196 Wrote:As with all things, everyone has a different perspective. And voicing them is good, makes you think about things you may not have considered.......

Now, its just my opinion, but since very little about 'air power' is addressed in the game, anyone addressing the 'subject' from a design aspect would be just about starting with a clean sheet of paper.

With so little simulated, changes would pretty much take the 'shape' of additions and not just 'changes'. This is better than a whole bunch of code related to an incorrect situation, as much on this subject would probably be 'new code'. Is it easier to write new code, than to try to get something to work with existing code?

And since most of the work would be additions, not just changes, could it be incorporated in sections rather than trying to work out the whole thing at one time?

All well and good but, the abstract nature of the air rules are an appeal that fits the game. Tinkering to make it an "air" game or add more "realism" to air power is just not the way to go.

dgk196 Wrote:Just for the fun of it......... wouldn't it be cool if the Stuka would actually dive on its target?

How about playing Panzer Gerneral 3-D?
The fleeting moments that air comes across the map is enough.
I do not think it would be kewl to have the Stukas do that.

Ed

dgk196 · 08-13-2008, 04:52 AM,

"All well and good but, the abstract nature of the air rules are an appeal that fits the game. Tinkering to make it an "air" game or add more "realism" to air power is just not the way to go."

Only because I'll wonder about it, but, why?

Dennis

Herr Straße Laufer · (This post was last modified: 08-13-2008, 05:18 AM by Herr Straße Laufer.)

Why?
Because it is not Panzer General 3-d. If that is what you want along with CS there is someone who is doing just that type of blend. Why ruin a game to add something never intended within the scale and parameters of a successful existing game?
To me that is more the question to ask then "why".

Ed

Ps. I am not sure that I will be allowed to continue the discussion. But, I really think the air rules as they stand are fine. It is an abstract and was meant to be that way. I do understand what you are saying. I hope I was clear?

Ed (again)

Tide1 · 08-13-2008, 05:46 AM,

Ed of course your more then welcome to continue the discussion. As is everyone. Within the parameters of the club rules cheers

PS Thanks for the congrats Ed :)

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-13-2008, 06:21 AM,

No worries Gary.
I know the rules. ;)

You'll do a good job.

Ed

K K Rossokolski · 08-13-2008, 07:23 AM,

Ed, I agree with you, that the air situation as it was is all CS needs. That said, the balance between the air attack and any AA fire IMO overly favours the AA, and some of the aircraft selections are historically doubtful.

Why did I support IN PRINCIPLE the idea of an aircraft that actually flies and does stuff as does the Spooky in DGVN. Because it seems to me that change for its own sake has an unstoppable momentum in our game, and if we are going to be adding all these things, lets do them right, even if they are unneeded and undesirable.

Interesting that all the ground unit changes have been for the better. Everything new on the ground, as far as I can see is an enhancement, does pretty much what it does in real life, and thus is a real Simulation. We do not have new infantry units that can't walk, new tanks that can't move.

Unfortunately, the results in the air and sea environments are much less satisfactory. The ridiculous bathtub navy and the comical "bombers" are not simulations, but a travesty thereof, and testament to the fact that not all change is for the good.

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-13-2008, 07:57 PM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:Ed, I agree with you, that the air situation as it was is all CS needs. That said, the balance between the air attack and any AA fire IMO overly favours the AA, and some of the aircraft selections are historically doubtful.
<snip>
Unfortunately, the results in the air and sea environments are much less satisfactory. The ridiculous bathtub navy and the comical "bombers" are not simulations, but a travesty thereof, and testament to the fact that not all change is for the good.

Rod,

I agree with you. I find that the AA is most effective and nine times out of ten the Germans get a significant boost in AA capablility from their scout cars, mg platoons etc. I've yet to be saved by a US scout car or HT which was equipped with a pretty good anti aircraft gun.
I won't belabor the discussion of fixed bomber groups. That is fine for those who have campaigns that can use them. I hope scenario designers that have PBEM in mind will not be using them.
The concept of the spotter planes, helicopters, and "spooky's" remaining on the map is O.K. by me. I just don't need to see airplanes being intercepted by other planes, or dive bombers "dive" out of the sky.
The naval graphics? They are a work in progress. I'm not as jazzed about them. And, I am interested to see how they improve in future upgrades.

Ed