Possible improvements?

[dgk196]

Hey,

Proximity shell effects!?

Dennis

[5 Leichte Div]

Gentlemen, Hello !

Just waking up from my nap ... and I see that some have mentioned before about airpower tweaks.
That XLVIII Pz. Korp guy and others have alluded to some kind of interdiction capability.
My goofy idea .. is that I like it ! Maybe it could work as a random factor -- a better percentage chance that the planes would arrive in the intended area , subject to AA fire,etc. Pretty much as it is now with the close air support. A neat factor would be to have road traffic more " visible " and thus more vulnerable. The goofy part could be a random " unintended gross error " factor , where the planes might come in over your lines - and get your guys instead. This also is somewhat like the current CAS chances.
This would at least give those mobile AA units some purpose of being with a column in transit. We might get a flavor of some air superiority.
This might be out of scale ... but some taste of it might be OK with the general fudge and compromise already present.
No major changes here -- just another option to try - nothing guarranteed as per diem.
Am I dreaming again ?

TS ( 5 Leichte Div )

[Kool Kat]

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 it moved. 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 before it even got to the fight.

Actually, this could be deadly!

In the medium to large EF scenarios, the Russians are usually "cursed" with a plethora of HQ's and "soft" truck transport. IMO, this proposed improvement could really wreck havoc with play balance.

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Actually, this could be deadly!

In the medium to large EF scenarios, the Russians are usually "cursed" with a plethora of HQ's and "soft" truck transport. IMO, this proposed improvement could really wreck havoc with play balance.

In medium or large scenarios both sides frequently have AA capable assets that now would be used for their true purpose; defending high value targets from air rather than direct fire infantry choppers. Even the Soviets have AA MG units which I think are currently viewed and used by most of us as "that better Russian MG".

As 5 Leicthe mentioned there now would be a real advantage to having an Ostwind or Wirbelwind moving with that column on the road. Perhaps I'm being a purist but I'm always in favor of situations that beg for players to use their equipment the way it's intended.

Consider for a moment; :chin: have any of us who have ever played a Normandy scenario as Axis truly experienced the futility of operating in an environment under complete Allied air domination? Absolutely not, because any sides air superioirity extends only as far as that sides LOS. We are free to form up our brilliant counterstrikes safely behind some ridge, out of LOS, and completely unmolested by the supposedly omnipresent AAF's. We may see CAS attacks which for all intents and purposes are just another artillery strike but we have not experienced the frustration of marching to reinforce a wavering line and being pounced on by P-47's 3-5 kilometers from the front, or struggled to concentrate a kampfgruppe for an attack only to be spotted and pummeled by Typhoons... and these are exactly the types of situations German ground commanders wailed about. It was precisely because of previously experienced Allied air superioirity that Rommel fought unsuccessfully to have the armor deployed near the beaches rather than as a central reserve. Rommel knew that march movement to deploy and tactical movement on the field would be near impossible, and history bore him out.

Now before anyone thinks I'm suggesting we create the "CS air interdiction game" let me loudly proclaim I'm not. However I would like to experience scenarios where I have to fearfully keep a wary eye over my shoulder to the air, and I think allowing some interdiction would go a long way to simulating that. :soap:

[dgk196]

Truer words where never spoken! 'Mission' types and their associated effects are needed in this game. And, there is nothing wrong with adding anything to the game that improves the simulation of the events that take place relative to the 'real life' circumstances, is there?

Dennis :)

[Jason Petho]

One could use the on-map bombers to simulate CAS or interdiction.

Not the airfield bombers, but the bombers that can fly around.

Jason Petho

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

One could use the on-map bombers to simulate CAS or interdiction.

Not the airfield bombers, but the bombers that can fly around.

Jason Petho

Perhaps so, but those attacks would be initiated by your opponent in his turn. To me that still does not convey the vulnerability or frustration one would feel being attacked by air when trying to move or fire a unit, anywhere on the map, during your own turn. I guess I'm just looking for that sense of vulnerability and uncertainty that operating under opposing air superiority would entail.

[Huib Versloot]

One could use the on-map bombers to simulate CAS or interdiction.

Not the airfield bombers, but the bombers that can fly around.

Jason Petho

Perhaps so, but those attacks would be initiated by your opponent in his turn. To me that still does not convey the vulnerability or frustration one would feel being attacked by air when trying to move or fire a unit, anywhere on the map, during your own turn. I guess I'm just looking for that sense of vulnerability and uncertainty that operating under opposing air superiority would entail.

Air superiority during battles is often greatly exaggerated. Transport columns were more vulnerable but that kind of supply is not represented in CS scale. If air support did play an important rol during a battle it is suficient to simply add a lot of aircraft, like I did in one of the Hamich scenarios. An unexpected airattack during your own turn (like a sort of OP fire) would not add anything to the game IMO.

[Kool Kat]

Now before anyone thinks I'm suggesting we create the "CS air interdiction game" let me loudly proclaim I'm not. However I would like to experience scenarios where I have to fearfully keep a wary eye over my shoulder to the air, and I think allowing some interdiction would go a long way to simulating that. :soap:

IMO, a kind of "air / artillery interdiction" capability is already build into the game. Get a fast recon unit behind enemy lines and take up an observation post in a clump of trees with a large viewing field - especially near crossroads and along possible supply transport routes. Now, you have the options of setting up an ambush, or calling in either air assets or artillery bombardments to disrupt sighted soft truck transport or target suspected enemy rear positions.

This tactic forces the enemy commander to be very careful moving transport to the front lines. It also delays some reinforcements since only a very desperate or suicidal commander will race truck mounted infantry and guns along open roadways. In any case, just the threat of such an enemy attack on exposed transport, will cause reinforcement delays; therefore simulating a kind of interdiction attack.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Air superiority during battles is often greatly exaggerated. Transport columns were more vulnerable but that kind of supply is not represented in CS scale. If air support did play an important role during a battle it is sufficient to simply add a lot of aircraft, like I did in one of the Hamich scenarios. An unexpected airattack during your own turn (like a sort of OP fire) would not add anything to the game IMO.

:smoke: 'Nuff said! Well said!