On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please?

[Dan Caviness]

Thanks everyone for your input.

As stated, I'm OK with or without, but it certainly appears as though the vast majority viewpoint (of Blitz-Grognards, opinions that I value) are saying NO to on map aircraft.

So...away they go...off with their heads!...wings...whichever...and thanks again guys.

Regards,

Dan

[Hawk Kriegsman]

How are you doing Erik?

Still killing everything in sight?

Nice to hear from you.

Not sure what they plan to do with them (both on and off map) in the long run but you're right, the off board attacks are very chaotic and random as well.

My addiction to late war scenarios often results in my trying to model fights that include lots of air support...so I'd like to get it right.

I'm counting your vote as a "no" for ON MAP aircraft.

Regards,

Dan

Hi Dan,

All is well here.

Hope the same for you.

Yes my vote would be no for onboard aircraft.

Thanx!

Erik

---

I quite like that there is a disconnect between calling a normal air strike and it happening and also the player has no effect on it once it is called either in time or location.

I don't disagree with you in principal, but airstrikes are so ineffective due to the nature of IGO / YOGO. As constituted right now there is no good way to simulate air superiority. It does not matter how many airstrikes the designer gives a side if the opponent keeps his quality units out of LOS. This happens a late with late war WF scenarios. The Allies have massive air superiority, but as long as the German payer keeps the Tigers and Panthers out of LOS the airstrikes are rendered useless.

I also would like to see the ability of plotting an airstrike as opp fire so that when those Tigers and Panthers do appear there would be a chance of an airstrike on them.

I am not advocating total control of airstrikes, just better control.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Otto von Blotto]

All good points Erik and your right it would be much easier and a better simulation of the real situation to do in WEGO game.

The op-fire air strike idea is a nice suggestion and may add a higher tension level to the game.

[Kool Kat]

I also would like to see the ability of plotting an airstrike as opp fire so that when those Tigers and Panthers do appear there would be a chance of an airstrike on them.

I am not advocating total control of airstrikes, just better control.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hey Erik:

Good to see the "Hawk" swooping in for some forum discussion!

My vote is to remove the on board aircraft too. No realism here at all.

I really like your idea of plotting an airstrike as opportunity fire!

How about it Jason and Berto? Sounds like a great add-on to the 1.05 patch?

[Dan Caviness]

If it could be done...I think it would be awesome...excellent idea Erik.

As for the current "off map" airstrikes and their system...not saying I'm defending them or anything but...

The chaotic randomness of it has always been (wonderfully) frustrating...it does force you to try and pick well isolated quality targets...and still costs you angst when all your well laid plans come to naught and your P-51's take out those unloaded horse wagons next to those Panthers...

Still...airstrikes did often come in and hit the wrong targets...and in many cases even caused friendly fire casualties. They were chaotic as Hell during the war as well.

In the end airstrikes rarely turn a scenario.

They do have effect on play however, and the good players are forced to husband AA units to counter them. I kind of like that aspect of it, since it's more realistic (historically accurate) then many of our tendencies to roll up AA trucks and halftracks and use them for mobile infantry elimination units.

Not saying I don't enjoy rolling up a Quad 50 halftrack and blasting dawags' infantry straight to Hell...I enjoy it immensely...just saying it may not be all that realistic.

I usually end up feeling bad about it.
Later though...much later...like after I post the game results...(:O)

[Crossroads]

There's been quite a few good suggestions in this thread. Perhaps post them to Matrix Forum's MCS Wish List thread to ensure the Matrix team sees them? Ideas like these easily get buried in the numerous threads in forums.

Here's the link for it:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1545815

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hello All,

Glad many like the plotting of an airstrike as opp fire.

Just think about it. It is all very exciting!

Late war allies are advancing. The German armor comes into LOS and is about to lay waste to the Allied armor when an air strike (or more depending on how many were plotted) comes zooming across the board in to attack German armor, the German AA within range opens up to no avail. The air strike swoops in and attacks!!

.........the empty wagons 2 hexes away!

Thanx!

Hawk

[Crossroads]

Ahh, the famous Wagons to d5 Panthers to e5 Albin Countergambit!

[Huib Versloot]

Another thing on airstrikes

The scenario designer has to do proper research on the availabilty of airstrikes in a given battle. There a lot of scenarios that have "some" airstrikes with "some" random types of planes.

If airstrikes should have impact on a battle, the designer has to allocate a sufficient number of airstrikes, of the right type of aircraft. Mostly that would be just one type. (For example in Holland 1944/1945 these would be nearly always Hawker Typhoons.)

The current simple airstrike routine in CS is actually quite good, if the # of strikes and the type of plane is integrated properly in the scenario.

Another thing is the player. Personally I prefer to plot a lot of airstrikes in the same turn when an opportunity presents itself. I've also seen players who seem to plot single airstrikes quite randomly over a long period and then complain that the wrong target was attacked. Plot more and there is a bigger chance the right target will be hit as well.

[K K Rossokolski]

Huib said: "The current simple airstrike routine in CS is actually quite good, if the # of strikes and the type of plane is integrated properly in the scenario."

Absolutely.