Air power.........

[dgk196]

I'm sure its come up before, but with the 'comprehensive' updates.......:stir:

Is 'air power' properly represented? :pig:

If so, make your case, please! :soap:

If not, why? What would you want to see? Again, make your case, please! :soap:

I'll hold off until later, on my 'position'...........

Dennis

[Filthy-Missile]

I suppose it is ok overall. My main complaint is calling in an air stike from a IL-2 or some such tank killer against a panther platoon...and have it attack a 1SP disrupted infantry unit in an ajoining hex instead!

I dunno maybe you could specify a vehicle or personel primary target? This is why I just play (and complain about) games and don't design them-I am not too good with solutions.

[K K Rossokolski]

I think airpower in CS was basically OK, in that it was offboard, came on task or didn't turn up not as ordered, didnt always attack its designated target, and sometimes gave a Blue on Blue attack. This randomness was actually quite a reasonable SIMULATION of how it was, needing IMO only some detail cleanup. I thought there were some weaknesses in the aircraft lists..eg P40s were hardly used in Northern Europe.
IMO, AA fire was too effective by a factor of 2 or 3. But all in all not too bad. Fortunately these arrangements still there.

What are the new additions?..."aircraft" that stay at their airfield, never get airborne, but can drop bombs 20 or so hexes away (Not sure how they manage that). A V1.03 special that is so pathetic it laughs at the rest of the game.
CS is a SIMULATION. By definition, therefore, anything that does not SIMULATE to a reasonable degree, such as these joke bombers, has no place here.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I think the original model for planes was O.K. even if they attacked the wrong target.
Some of the ability of certain units to "call in" air power is a bit of a reach. But, overall it was passable.
This is a landbased game that was designed to highlight actions on particular parts of the battlefield.

Ed

[Von Earlmann]

Air power can be properly represented (as least as close as possible) by the scenario designers. Just because they are there doesn't mean you have to use them. The randomness of the attacks represents the inability of some units to actually call in air strikes. The plane selecting a different target is quite realistic and probably happened quite frequently, as did the plane attacking friendly units. I basically use the air in my scenarios strictly for ground support.

I may at some time try and use long range bombers in a campaign but that would be about the only place. reason being they were at times fairly effective at disrupting enemy supply and reinforcement columns. Many of the Russian reserves took a fair beating at Kursk while moving to the front.

VE

[K K Rossokolski]

One point that must not be lost in any consideration of airpower addition/modification is that even today, it does not function 100% reliably. Newspaper reports doubtless exaggerate, but reports of friendly fire/blue on blue still appear.
My own experience tells me that even seeing a target from a low flying helicopter at 100 knots is hard enough, let alone identification and taking it under fire. Much trickier if one's own people were in contact. Therefore, we must accept that, for example an antitank aircraft will not always engage the specified target, or even an enemy tank, but might shoot at anything. He might be late, or not not turn up. He might attack his own Corps Commander.
What we have now is a quite reasonable SIMULATION...maybe needing some adjustments. As I said above, the AA is, I think, too effective. And the aircraft mix needs somework.

We do not need some pinball arcade "bombers" that can't fly but can project their bombs from the ground at very unlucky bad guys miles away out of sight!!!

[dgk196]

So far, it looks like 'not'!

I've had this discussion elsewhere, basically it came down to this.......

CS is a 'ground-game'. Some airpower was put in, but 'simplified'.

Well, one thing WWII was not was a ground war. It was a 'combined-arms' conflict.

I just thought, that given the attention to detail on some aspects of the game, and the continuing efforts, might it be possible to begin to expand the workings related to 'airpower'?

No effective commander who had access to airpower elected not to use it.
From direct support to interdiction to strategic uses. Granted 'strategic' wouldn't directly be used at this level, but the other two would.

A good comparison would be Naval warfare in WWII, think some of the battles would turn out differently, if you had a sim that did not include 'airpower', accurately?! Well, the ground war was pretty much the same.

Not convinced? Why where the Germans 'movements' limited from the time the allies landed on D-Day to the end of the war? How many games have you played, 1944+, and maneuvered, as the Germans, without any 'fear' of being attacked from the air? Why did the Germans need 'bad-weather' for their 'Bulge' offensive to have any chance at all? Remember Patton's 'weather' prayer? He new he needed airpower.

Many of the narratives of WWII battles are written either by the 'ground commanders or people relating the history of a certain division/corp/army and usually only mention airpower, in a limited way, relative to the events taking place generally.

I like the CS game very much, but, I would have to rate it a 3 on a 1 to 10 scale as regards its handling of airpower at this level. Will it get better? I think so, the team seem to be open to looking into just about every aspect of the game, a good thing!

I wish they would put together a team just to address the airpower in the game. Maybe get some feedback from the people who play it, surveys would be nice, with updates as to the methods being developed.

There is much to be gained from having all of the aspects of the game done to an equal level. If it where already a fact, the airpower being addressed, you would wonder how you ever played the game without it!

Dennis :)

[Montana Grizz]

Air attacks in CS border on worthless in terms of having any significant effect on the contest.

IF they show up, IF they hit an opponents forces, IF they happen to actually do some damage, it doesn't mean much.

I never use air attacks unless I can see a cluster of my opponents units in close proximity to each other and those units are likely to remain in the targeted hexes for several turns.

As KKR mentioned, the effectiveness of AA often causes me to hesitate to use my air power at all.

Pat

[John Given]

I noticed in Divided Ground - Vietnam there is a "Spooky" Hercules Gunship (a large armed cargo plane) that appears in some scenarios. This aircraft is very well armed, fast, and has a high defense factor. It can be moved around the board like any other unit, though if it goes "low ammo" it may not fire. It also has high victory point value...

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.

As far as how to handle any fixed, grounded, airport-based planes themselves (if I were designing the game), what I would do is make each one a single SP, give a low defense factor (they are stationary and unarmored), and firepower commensurate with a grounded bomber; i.e., a single 20mm or some such, which would represent the crew trying to protect their plane. 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. 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.

As far as the submarine KKR is upset about - I would think most subs, in game terms, would be able to offer resistance equivalent to a 37mm AAA gun, as they were often equipped with medium to large caliber AAA guns. Also, I would think that nothing short of tank fire would take one out, so they would likely have a fairly high (hard) defense value as well.

Fortunately, those kinds of above changes would be easy for Jason and the design team to implement. I'm impressed with the upcoming option to toggle the new assault and variable visibility rules too.

Anyway, my 2 cents on the things. Looking forward to your comments fellas.

:)

[dgk196]

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?

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

Dennis :)