Commonwealth campaign - air support and heavier artillery?

[phil stanbridge]

One of the major disappointments for me in the two US campagins was not being able to use air support or heavier artillery. Considering the enormous amount of ordnance available to the Allied forces in the area during the campaign I was quite surprised at this omission. So I was wondering, will we see air support and perhaps naval artillery in the British campaigns?

[Paper Tiger]

No naval artillery planned for the Commonwealth campaign at the moment. I'd like to use it but it's just too precise to be believable. I wanted to use it in the opening mission of the Montebourg campaign but I removed it for that reason. When I call in a strike from a cruiser or a battleship, I don't expect the rounds to fall in a tight pattern like they do in the game and so I won't use it.

I don't have any problems with air support though . And you got some really big guns to throw around in a couple of Montebourg missions ('Le Ham' immediately springs to mind). You'll get some in the Commonwealth campaign too.

[phil stanbridge]

Thanks for the confirmation Paper Tiger, appreciate it. I had expected Naval artillery to be perhaps a little out of the scope of the campaign I suppose, but air support and some heavy stuff should definitely feature so that's good.

I enjoyed using the 155 in Montebourg but I was hoping for more of it, or some special heavier stuff Let's be honest, one thing the British did well was support their men with an enormous quantity of artillery, so I hope it flows liberally in the coming campaigns.

[Erwin]

I can envisage the fun of super heavy arty on a large urban map just to see the scale of destruction.

But, since lucky/unlucky strikes could wipe out the targets it seems out of place in a game like CM which features maops/scenarios tat are small compared to CM1 scenarfios. Maybe vs the AI you can turn an impossible mission into a winnable one, but I wouldn't want to be the target player in a human-human game.

[phil stanbridge]

That's my point Erwin - I am really hoping to see much bigger battles this time round. The British attacks were not small skirmishes by and large, they were built upon huge operations. I realise to model an entire operation is perhaps a little optimisitc, but I hope to see at least a resemblance of one in the campaign, including lots of arty and air support. The battles that we are used to currently do nothing (or very little) for the atmosphere in my opinion. They could be a generic battle on a generic battlefield.

Just to add, the British didn't go into battle without artillery support (unless planned), so I hope we don't get the 'attack first and your artillery will arrive 20 minutes later'

[Erwin]

Well yes, I hope for larger scenarios on the scale we used to have in CM1. And also more opportunity for maneuver and Combined Arms. (I really miss not having more tanks and vehicles in the infantry-centric CMBN.)

[Michael Emrys]

That's my point Erwin - I am really hoping to see much bigger battles this time round. The British attacks were not small skirmishes by and large, they were built upon huge operations. I realise to model an entire operation is perhaps a little optimisitc...

That's why I keep returning to what is for me a fact set in stone. And that is, that you can't really depict WW II operations in a comprehensible way at the level of squad tactics. Yes, I know, we can get into all sorts of other interesting facets at the CM level and that's perfectly fine. But to understand operations and major battles on the Western Front, you are pretty much are obliged to jump up several levels to where the basic maneuver unit is the battalion. If you are on the Eastern Front, it's more like divisions and corps.

It is always going to be frustrating to game anything larger than a firefight in CM. Even if your computer could handle it, could you? Given the necessity to be able to take control of even teams, can a single player handle more than a few dozen of those in a competent manner? That's why in real armies there are chains of command. Otherwise, the information overload quickly becomes overwhelming.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

Battalion-level is the maximum scale I think CMBN does a good job with.

[Michael Emrys]

Battalion-level is the maximum scale I think CMBN does a good job with.

You misunderstand me. CM is a squad level game. The largest action it can depict is that of maybe a battalion over a period of a few hours. A campaign in CM might extend over a day or two. But WW II operations were normally multi-divisional affairs that extended over days and weeks. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

Michael

[wombat_of_war]

well the accuracy of naval gunfire on a beach landing could be put down to direct fire but yeah it still doesnt cover fighting further in land

[YankeeDog]

well the accuracy of naval gunfire on a beach landing could be put down to direct fire but yeah it still doesnt cover fighting further in land

Yep; the salvo spread from Naval gunfire in game is better than what the naval guns of the period were capable achieving under even ideal target range conditions IRL. Especially for the big battleship guns, the spread should be wider and MUCH deeper. For example, the guns were usually fired in parallel, not converging sheaf. So at an absolute minimum, lateral spread from the 14" guns of the USS Texas would be AT LEAST the distance from the front turret to the rear turret -- a distance of at least 100m.

And since the USS Texas' was only capable of relatively shallow angle fire (her main battery couldn't elevate more than about 20 degrees), you'd expect to see a fairly large range dispersion unless she were firing at a terrain feature like the front slope of a ridge, which would tend to "catch" the shells, and compress the range deviation.

It's not a very big deal to me because naval gunfire in direct, close support of ground combat (as opposed to deeper interdiction fires, dueling with shore batteries etc.) played a lot smaller role in Normandy than most people seem to think. And it only really played role in the first two of weeks of ground combat -- after this, the line of engagement was generally beyond the range of even the battleships' guns.

Still, there were a few specific incidents were it played a very important role, would be nice to have this adjusted, even if only for representing these situations.

[Michael Emrys]

Yep; the salvo spread from Naval gunfire in game is better than what the naval guns of the period were capable achieving under even ideal target range conditions IRL. Especially for the big battleship guns, the spread should be wider and MUCH deeper. For example, the guns were usually fired in parallel, not converging sheaf. So at an absolute minimum, lateral spread from the 14" guns of the USS Texas would be AT LEAST the distance from the front turret to the rear turret -- a distance of at least 100m.

Okay, but ISTR that in delivering on-call fire, they seldom if ever fired full broadsides. Mostly it was a single turret that was engaging; sometimes only a single gun (but that may have been for harassment more than for FPF situations).

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Okay, but ISTR that in delivering on-call fire, they seldom if ever fired full broadsides. Mostly it was a single turret that was engaging; sometimes only a single gun (but that may have been for harassment more than for FPF situations).

Michael

I think you're right; from what I recall, actual completely simultaneous broadsides wasn't the way they preferred to fire because the turbulence and shockwaves of adjacent shells the same turret could actually interfere with each other a little in the air degrade accuracy even further. There were even documented incidents on the gunnery range of shells fired simultaneously from the same turret "kissing" in mid-air (which did wonders for accuracy, I'm sure).

I would be great if the game represented naval gunfire as a rolling salvo, with each gun from a turret firing in sequence, a second or two apart, or something like that. But from what little I've played with Naval guns in the game, this doesn't seem to be what happens -- you seem to get more or less a full salvo all at once.

[Erwin]

What you're saying sounds believable. But documentary footage does show em firing broadsides - at least for the cameras.

[phil stanbridge]

I really enjoy all levels of Combat Mission, but I particularly enjoy battalion sized engagements. That's why I just replayed the C&F campaign once again. Although I dislike the campaign per se, that's the only set of battles that allows for a multi-pronged assault of that size. It reminds me so much of the operations in Cmx1, although it wasn't as good in my opinion

I play games of that size exclusively WEGO and sink plenty of time into them. Each turn can take a while to organise of course, but I'm in no hurry, plus you have the added benefit of being able to save part way through, replay the action and sit back and drink tea. It's great. Battalion sized engagements are crying out to be made! There is so much potential and in my opinion the current CM engine can handle the size fine.

But this is what I really hope to see as the 'family' progresses, hence my original question.

[Erwin]

I agree... I miss the huge CM1 scenarios. In addition, CM1 was more of an armor/maneuver game with inf as support (which I really liked). CMBN is more of an infantry sim game with armor in support.

It's the average players' computers that have problems with battalion and larger scenarios. The CM2 engine needs to be optimized, or we all have to buy a new generation of computers to run it.

[Michael Emrys]

What you're saying sounds believable. But documentary footage does show em firing broadsides - at least for the cameras.

Right. Those films were probably shot during exercises or in naval battles where they did indeed fire full broadsides. Also, the initial bombardments prior to landings may have used them. But for on-call support of ground forces, I don't think that happened. In fact, I was a bit surprised myself to see films of single guns being fired for that purpose. Then I did a bit of reading that supported the idea.

Michael