Visibility & Airstrikes

[Big Ivan]

CS Folks,

I'm directing this to some of the Air Force Vets out there regarding airstrikes availability as it relates to visibility in the CS system. But if anyone has an opinion chime in, please.

For scenario design purposes in WWII and the CS, is there any general rule of thumb on design regarding airstrike availability as it relates to visibility in the game system?

Obviously when the visibility is clear, overcast or hazy airstrikes should be available to some degree (visibility: 15 or higher). But how about when its Lt Rain/Snow or squals (visibility 8-14)? What about when visibility is Hvy Rain/Snow (visibility 5-8)?

I'm petty much convinced when its foggy or night forget about it (visibility 1-4) in WWII combat simply because the planes were not as advanced as today. Seems to me that in WWII most flying was done by sight and not instruments but if I am wrong correct me.

I'm curious if there would be a percentage drop off as the visibility drops. For example say I had a scenario in hazy visibility and allowed 10 airstrikes. If I would then change that visibility to something less, what would I then have to change/drop the original 10 airstrikes by to make it more realistic given the new visibility?

Thanks
Ivan the Big

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The one major factor in air strikes and visibility is that there needs to be a LOS to the hex where the strike was plotted, until the strike occurs. Otherwise if friendly units lose sight of the hex the strike is recalled.

Because of the original intent for an abstract air system the manual is limited on what it says that planes can do in relation to visibility.

This is what I found (including from 'observations').
___________________________
Page 59
5.16 Air Attacks
At the start of each turn, you will be informed of how many Air Attacks you have remaining for use during the entire scenario (which also includes the current turn). If you use all of your listed Air Attacks in one turn, you will not have any to use in following turns. Due to the importance and strength of Air Attacks, it is usually wise to be conservative in their usage. Not every scenario will have Air Attacks available.

<snip>

A plotted Air Attack has a 65% chance of arrival on each turn (and each turn thereafter until it arrives). An arriving Air Attack will not always attack the target you pick; it will “search” for a proper target within about a five hex radius of its plotted hex. The more targets that there are within that radius the less likely it is that the Air Attack will hit the plotted location. There is even a slight chance that an Air Attack may make a mistake and attack a “friendly” unit! Therefore, it is advisable not to request an Air Attack in an area that has a lot of friendly units.

Page 137

"Observations"

Air Attacks are handy for tank-busting, especially the heavier tanks that may be difficult for your ground units to damage or destroy. Don’t be in a rush to use your Air Attacks early as the mere threat of them can keep your opponent worried for a longer period of time. Watch for stationary tanks in clear hexes if possible, as Air Attacks against units in good defensive terrain aren’t as effective. Don’t be afraid to use them against larger-caliber AT guns and artillery, especially when they are out of your artillery’s range. Also, be wary of enemy AA as they can damage an Air Attack. When you are subject to enemy Air Attacks, remember that movement is the best defense. Not being where you’re expected to be (in case an opponent is presumptive in placing Air Attacks) may save you losses.

_________________

The concept was to be abstract and also did not have variable visibility when the airplanes were modeled for the game.
Not quite and answer to your question. But, it is how planes were supposed to work in CS.
On map aircraft have a completely different model.



HSL

[Scud]

John, though I don't know the answers, I found this while surfing:

http://aafcollection.info/items/detail.p...itle!up!20

Haven't had a chance to look at the PDFs too much yet, but they look really interesting, so thought I'd pass it on.

Dave

[Crossroads]

For what it's worth, I just finished reading the excellent The Guns of Normandy by George Blackburn, detailing his experiences as an artillery observer at Normandy as part of the Canadian 4th Field Regiment.

He often praises the work done by the Typhoons and Spitfires, mentioning how it was a practice for the FOOs to mark locations where enemy tanks and strongpoints were present with firing red smoke on top of them.

A couple of times this was even performed under quite strong overcast, with the pilots revving in just under the low hanging clouds, and not seeing the targets initially but trusting they would have just enough time to target their bomb and rocket loads seconds before they need to pull up again.

All this seems to match how Air attacks are carried out in JTCS, althoug in this case it would be justified that as part of the random event of an air strike being recalled they could also hit a random area around the target, similar to how indirect fire performs.

But yes, at least some visibility was required.

[Big Ivan]

All valid points Gentlemen, thanks!

I didn't look at any of the pdf's yet Dave but I will.

I did find a site where it discussed how navigation was done in heavy weather or night in straight level flight. What the pilots did was to home in a a particular radio signal from a control tower at a field. He knew what the select frequencies were of differnt fields before he took off. If they were left of that tower they would get a "dit-dah", if to the right a "dit-dit" on their radios. This way the pilot always knew his position to the field at all times. As he got closer there was a talk down by the tower and when he cleared the clouds/overcast "boom" there was the field!

Unfortunately for my discussion here there was no mention of the tactical aspects of flying in certain visibilities as it relates to aircraft availability and hitting ground targets with ordnance. I'm beginning to believe that the tactical aspect of flying a fighter or fighter bomber and hunting for enemy targets took place in relatively good weather with good visibility. When the weather got worse they just wouldn't fly probably because it was to risky.

As Ed implied, the whole business of tactical airstrikes in the game is abstractly presented given the game engine and its limitations. The 65% rule kind of handles that availability for us abet abstractly.

I guess its up to the designer as to when and if airstrikes are available with a given visibility in a given scenario. I would think that if you have a scenario with 7 or 8 visibility the allotment of airstrikes when designing it would be much lower than a scenario with 15 or 16 visibility. But how much lower is the real question. I think a lot!, but that's just my opinion.

I'll keep looking for a answer if there is one.
Thanks

ItB

[Kool Kat]

I guess its up to the designer as to when and if airstrikes are available with a given visibility in a given scenario.

Hey John:

Ultimately... "yes" it is up to the individual scenario designer to either include or not include airstrikes.

I think that a decision to include airstrikes would be more in the case of hypothetical battles? In historical or semi-historical scenarios, research would reveal if close support aircraft were present... and depending on how detailed the account... maybe the aircraft type too.

Then a "best guess" in terms of visibility (if aircraft are present) would have to be made by the scenario designer.

[Huib Versloot]

The visibility system in CS is very optimistic. In real life you can observe far less than in CS if used a high visibility. Try seeing as detailed as CS 3 or 4 km far with heavy rain/snow. Impossible.
Another drawback of high visibility settings is that units who have nothing to do with eachother will spot for eachother to a greater extent. Having a hex based 3d model this also adds to oddness (if that is a proper english word).
Even for clear weather I hardly go over a visibility of 14, simply because that is more in line with what you really can see and recognize (and place in the larger picture of the battle) in real life. In real life there are also far more LOS blocking/blurring obstacles than in the game. (Tree lines, hedges etc)
Aircraft and visibilty settings are the least of my concerns to be honest.
If airpower had a lot of impact on a certain battle I ususally add a lot of aircraft, all of the same type. If I don't have that info, I leave them out entirely. I don't look what weather it was.

Huib

[K K Rossokolski]

I fully support Huib's views on visibility.

[Crossroads]

For what its worth, I've kept the visibility on my few scenarios down to 7 or 8. I feel two clicks is still quite a distance to slug each other with direct fire given the WW II timeframe...

For indirect fire, this requires units you've specifically have sent scouting, so it is a good thing too imho.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I fully support Huib's views on visibility.

+1

HSL