Air power.........

Steelrain60 · (This post was last modified: 08-14-2008, 01:21 PM by Steelrain60.)

As some others in this thread have noted, air srikes on the wrong target, air strikes on friendly troops, air strikes not arriving at all - all of these were common to air support during WWII. This being the case, and with CS being primarily designed to model GROUND combat and on a TACTICAL scale only, I'm fairly satisfied with the way CS handles air support at the front, and wouldn't want to see massive changes in any future updates.

A few points:

1) The one area in which I can see room for improvement might be a small change to enable some aircraft, such as the Ju-87G or Hs 129, or even Il-2 to favor targeting tanks in a hex as opposed to infantry. I realize that it might have been difficult for pilots to pick out targets in a combat environment with tracers streaming past their cockpits, but I have to believe that pilots like Rudel didn't rack up the massive numbers of tank kills that they did by simply unloading on anything that they saw.

2) Not sure about AA being overly effective; in my experience, it seems to me that most AA, short of the deadly 4-barrelled German 20mm and American .50 cal flak guns, tend to be fairly irrelevant to the game, except for use against soft ground targets.

3) Totally agree that the addition of bombers, and the way it was implemented in the recent patches, was totally ridiculous and unnecessary. I would hesitate to play any game with enemy bombers that could hit my forces without even taking off, and I would certainly never incorporate them into any scenarios that I design. On a more general note, I think CS was never designed to handle bomber strikes of any size, and it would be an unwelcome change if future versions were modified to make it so. The massive saturation bombings of tactical units such as occurred before Operation Cobra or at Monte Cassino cannot be modeled in CS as currently constructed - nor IMHO should they be.

K K Rossokolski · 08-14-2008, 05:31 PM,

An excellent post, thank you. The only point I would make about Rudel is that he, and other A/T aces, was probably both a very good shot and very discerning in his choice of targets. It may be that the average joe in the squadron, geschwader, etc was less so. After all, not everyone wins the Ritterkreuz or its equivalent.

Whilst acknowledging that CS as it is now(except the imbecile nonflying bombers) rightly and properly decides that air-ground ops are a less than exact science, we don't IMO need to change any settings (except perhaps the AA). I don't know what
%age doesnt hit the specified target..does anyone? At any rate, it "feels" right.

Old saying..Ain't broke, don't fix.

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-14-2008, 07:46 PM,

Steelrain60 and KKR, well said by both!

cheers

dgk196 · (This post was last modified: 08-16-2008, 01:42 PM by dgk196.)

I love it when everyone else makes my case, saves me a lot of time..

So, I guess this question remains in the 'not' category! On to the next question. Thanks for all your input!!!!

Dennis :cool:

XLVIII Pz. Korp · 08-16-2008, 01:50 PM,

How about if airstrikes could be set to op-fire with no on board LOS requirements? Kind of like having aircraft on station for targets of opportunity that they and only they could spot.

Imagine taking 4 or 5 JU-87's, assigning them to op-fire, and then hearing your opponent moan about how one of his HQ's got taken out by an airstrike when he moved it. Or even better the satisfaction of finding that a column of T-34's rushing to meet your breakthrough was wrecked on the roads by air interdiction. Big Grin

dgk196 · (This post was last modified: 08-16-2008, 02:53 PM by dgk196.)

A 'standing patrol'.........

I don't like the air units not 'functioning' as air units, but its an excellent example of a mission type, just one example that can't be simulated presently, but used frequently IRL! Another is an interdiction mission, also used frequently and to great effect, also not possible at present!

One of the effects of airpower was the 'suppression' of operations. The mere presence of aircraft could restrict certain operations. For example, a 'standing patrol' in full view of the opposing forces might make them restrict their use of artillery for support missions. Why risk an aerial attack just to 'take out' a 'secondary target'? And 'opening up' with your artillery in full view of an air unit is inviting an attack!

Interdiction, taking place between 'ground forces' of one side and 'air units' of the other. No 'friendly' ground units 'spotting'. The 'side' with air superiority, or supremacy, should have a significant tactical advantage, but not in this game!

Food for thought........ there were probably as many, if not more, aircraft made as tanks........... an awful lot of time, money and manpower on all sides............

I understand when someone says they think it works well enough for the game.......... everyone has different expectations................

Dennis

Herr Straße Laufer · (This post was last modified: 08-16-2008, 10:52 PM by Herr Straße Laufer.)

It's not if you can do something "kewl" it is the scale of the game.
You want an "operation" messed up by air power in a "tactical" game?
A scenario designer can already build that into the scenario design.

You should start an artillery thread where we can discuss artillery effects that last through the enemy turn and continue to attack a hex in the friendly turn. Then you won't have snippets of six minute artillery fire that you can drive through with no effect?

But, the game works well within the original parameters. Tinkering with something that works, and has worked, just to make a "kewl" change is really not what I want to see. Especially if it changes the parameters of the game. Then you might as well play the Tiller Panzer Campaigns Series. That is operational. Or, TOAW?
It truly is all about scale and playablility, while giving the most historical "flavor" that counts?

I really don't understand the comments about numbers of planes and tanks. My only thought is that if you want to play an air combat game? Buy an air combat game. :smoke:

Ed

dgk196 · 08-17-2008, 02:11 AM,

"You want an "operation" messed up by air power in a "tactical" game?"

Yep, that's exactly it, only in my opinion having air power available and operating as it should is far from 'messing' anything up. In fact, from my point of view not having what should be a major aspect of a conflict simulated to at least a comparable level with the rest of the features of the game is whats 'messed' up! As to the 'scale', this is exactly were it belongs, why do you think they call it 'tactical' air support?

"You should start an artillery thread where we can discuss artillery effects that last through the enemy turn and continue to attack a hex in the friendly turn. Then you won't have snippets of six minute artillery fire that you can drive through with no effect?"

Why would I want to do that? I can stay focused on this subject. And its an area that has always interested me anyway, so I guess I'll just continue on! But its a good observation and might work out to be an interesting optional feature in the game, so go ahead open up another thread, you have my blessing!

"But, the game works well within the original parameters. Tinkering with something that works, and has worked, just to make a "kewl" change is really not what I want to see."

Nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo! And there's nothing wrong with improving a game either! Optional air power rules are just the thing! Why would anyone 'tinker' with something that 'works'? "Works' is your opinion, something you are entitled to. "Kewl"? Thats for 'gamers', you know the 'type', attend 'conventions' and run around like 54 year old going on 12 years old! I don't remember saying you had to change what you want, did I? And you don't have to.

"Then you might as well play the Tiller Panzer Campaigns Series. That is operational. Or, TOAW?"

I do, and the 'air power' could use some improvement in those games to. Especially the PzC series!

"It truly is all about scale and playablility, while giving the most historical "flavor" that counts?"

I think you asked and answered your own question!

"I really don't understand the comments about numbers of planes and tanks."

Simple really, its something of a question and a statement! Why do you think they went to all that trouble to build so many air craft? Why did they establish units for 'tactical' support?

"My only thought is that if you want to play an air combat game? Buy an air combat game."

Well when it comes to what I want to 'do', I certainly don't need any suggestions from anyone.

Have a nice day! :)

Dennis

Herr Straße Laufer · 08-17-2008, 07:22 AM,

dgk196 Wrote:Well when it comes to what I want to 'do', I certainly don't need any suggestions from anyone.

No one here would deny you that? :chin:

Ed

Steelrain60 · 08-17-2008, 10:31 PM,

XLVIII Pz. Korp Wrote:How about if airstrikes could be set to op-fire with no on board LOS requirements? Kind of like having aircraft on station for targets of opportunity that they and only they could spot.

Imagine taking 4 or 5 JU-87's, assigning them to op-fire, and then hearing your opponent moan about how one of his HQ's got taken out by an airstrike when he moved it. Or even better the satisfaction of finding that a column of T-34's rushing to meet your breakthrough was wrecked on the roads by air interdiction.

I actually like this idea; there would have to be a time limit for this though, say 1-3 turns of availability after being set, after which (if no targets were spotted) the airstrike would be recalled, and lost. It's also well within the scope of the game. From a historical standpoint, I've not researched this, but I get the impression that use of airpower for battlefield interdiction was far more common during the war than coordinated close air support. Any thoughts?