Air power.........

Von Earlmann · 08-13-2008, 11:30 PM,

Silkster53 Wrote:[quote=K K Rossokolski]
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
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.

Ed

Ed,
You won't see any bombers in my PBEM scenarios............as to historical selection ...the designer can and should control that.................the CS air worked preetty ok as far as I was concerned.............can't really judge the AA fire........never actually been in any but I suspect it might make a pilot deviate a bit at times :-)

Earl

dgk196 · 08-14-2008, 02:06 AM,

Agreeing is a good thing........ don't you agree? :)

But, for me the 'airpower' aspects are 'broke'!

The level to which the 'airpower' should be simulated seems to be one of the first things to be considered.

I don't think I'd necessarily need to see aircraft 'intercepting' one another.

Some of those things might be relegated to the computer as to how many or if any of your support ac show up, sort of like it is now.

I'd like to see the target selection handled better. If you call for close air support against tanks, I think you should expect that tanks will be attacked when they are in the area.

Its kind of hard to explain, but the status of the 'airpower' in the game is just somewhat 'short' of reflecting its abilities.

It would be like not being able to 'indirect-fire' with your artillery pieces in the game. Or not being able to close-assault with your infantry. The units are still capable of attacking, they are just limited.

Dennis

K K Rossokolski · 08-14-2008, 07:09 AM,

dgk196 Wrote:I'd like to see the target selection handled better. If you call for close air support against tanks, I think you should expect that tanks will be attacked when they are in the area.

So would, I am sure, all those down in the dirt who call in airstrikes. A significant %age of strikes hit the wrong target, hit friendlies, came late or didn't show up. Still happens today, even with the advance of technology. Stuff doesn't always work as advertised.(IMO this should be included in the Principles of War)
Read my earlier post-very hard to pick up a target, even from a slow mover.
Any air simulation that met your expectations of success would be a totally unrealistic simulation.

Huib Versloot · 08-14-2008, 07:43 AM,

I think airpower is just fine in CS.
Designers just need to know what they're doing.
Mostly (but not always) all the airstrikes in a scn time frame were of the same type. If you design a battle where aircraft had a significant kill rate on enemy tanks for example, you just need to add a lot of strikes to the scenario and enemy armor WILL be hit, even if some strikes will be recalled and some pilots will target your own troops.
What dgk196 asks for close air support is not realistic for WW2. There was hardly such a thing as directed close air support. The Allied pilots simply shot at everything on the ground that moved basically. The milkman was just as likely to get shot from above as was the nearest Tiger.

Huib

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-14-2008, 08:28 AM,

Huib Wrote:The milkman was just as likely to get shot from above as was the nearest Tiger.
Huib

LOL! The milkman should not have been wearing an enemy uniform and driving an enemy truck? ;)

Ed

Von Earlmann · 08-14-2008, 09:05 AM,

Don't know if it's true or not but I was told the British navy in the Med avoided daylight ops because of the fleigercorps.........the Italian navy avoided daylight ops for the same reason..........seems the fleigercorps only wanted targets...didn't matter which navy they belonged to :-)

VE

dgk196 · 08-14-2008, 09:37 AM,

"What dgk196 asks for close air support is not realistic for WW2. There was hardly such a thing as directed close air support. "

This is interesting, I could talk about this subject all day. No fooling, some nations had very sophisticated ground support techniques, even back-up systems in case of a lack of radios or an interruption of communications.

Not to pick on anyone, as that is not the point of my post, but if anyone is interested, I would be happy to supply reference sources. This is one of my favorite aspects of WWII. Mainly because of the range of support and the quality. There are some very good examples of air to ground support, that make for very interesting reading.

If anyone is interested, you can PM me and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Dennis

Herr Straße Laufer · (This post was last modified: 08-14-2008, 10:24 AM by Herr Straße Laufer.)

dgk196 Wrote:Mainly because of the range of support and the quality. There are some very good examples of air to ground support, that make for very interesting reading.

If anyone is interested, you can PM me and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Dont "Bogart" the resources? ;) Though, my concern would be how the information within the resources fit the scale of the game.
There are many aspects of the game which are in a more abstract format, from planes, ships, artillery fire, etc.
Like Huib I find planes effective enough for the scenarios. I agree with both Earl and Huib, whom I believe to be incredibly talented scenario designers, that it is the scenario designer who can put planes in as needed. Even if some strafe the milkman. :)

Ed

K K Rossokolski · 08-14-2008, 11:08 AM,

Von Earlmann Wrote:Don't know if it's true or not but I was told the British navy in the Med avoided daylight ops because of the fleigercorps.........the Italian navy avoided daylight ops for the same reason..........seems the fleigercorps only wanted targets...didn't matter which navy they belonged to :-)

VE

That's simply untrue, Earl.
The RN in WWII fought as well if not better than anytime in it's long history. Under the very aggressive Cunningham as C-in-C Mediterranean, offensive action was the watchword. Certainly, Axis aircraft inflicted heavy losses..as Cunningham said at the time of Crete, when heavy ship losses put him under pressure to reduce his level of support to the Army.."It takes three years to build a ship, a thousand years to rebuild a tradition." Perhaps the German proclivity to bomb their Italian allies' ships showed an unfamiliarity with maritime operations noted in other areas of the German war effort.
That said, don't confuse an alleged avoidance of daylight with operational planning designed to use darkness if consistent with the aim.

Chuck10mtn · 08-14-2008, 12:45 PM,

I guess that like Von Earlman,Huib, and Silkster the airpower is well represented in the game. When people think of D-Day you don't think of the thousand plane bombing raid before. Not even the 5 thousand ship navy that got them there. Its the guy coming ashore men, tanks and the ground invasion force that garner all the accolades. Right or wrong I'll take the milkman getting smoked before i want to see a lot more changes to be made. and now the plane that knows what target to hit ,By an airstrike that was called in who knows how long ago ,with some shot up radio by a guy under fire from the panther in the woods 1000 meters away. Give me a break ,lets not FIX this.

Chuck