What's about aviation?

[Denis1973]

By now I've played 30+ scenarios but no one of them have a planes. Why? I've read a forum and made some tests. My conclusion is: this happens because of three 'too's' - too fast to response, too precise, too deadly for a company-sized force.

Beyond doubts model of aerial strike were taken from CMSF with only slight alterations and suffered from this.

What is BF team can do with this without huge codework?

I offer:

1/ Increase the arriving time. Yes, Allied fighter-bombers operated from waiting zones, but pilots still need time to find a target on map, then estimate his own position, then identify target and so on. German planes forced to operate from small remote fields so its approach must take even more time.

So maybe an 10-20 minutes for Allied and 25-40 minutes for Axis planes arriving time would be good figures.

2/ Delete the 'point target' from air support menu. WW2 era forces lacked laser sights to show exact target for airstrike. The only exception are noticeable landmarks (bridges, tall houses etc.) and targets for preplanned strikes (it picked during ground briefing some time before take-off).

'Point target' still can be accessible for prepfire, if this is not difficult for coding.

3/ Restrict the minimal radius for 'area target' to around 250-300 m. Remember -no laser sights, only map and eyes.

Suppose that TacAI can select a viable target (like tank) inside target area.

This changes will have to make players use their planes mostly preplanned, at expected enemy positions, not to knock out suddenly appeared armor or something like.

[George MC]

What size were the maps you playing on? Danger close for CAS was around 400 yards but I suspect friendly ground units would want way more than that distance between them and any enemy targets being engaged by rocket firing aircraft.

Small maps just ain't big enough to allow this and if CAS was included then you would get howls of protest as players experienced 'Blue on Blue'.

Another issue and which has been discussed is that arguably air support was more often used to harry enemy rear areas/supply lines etc rather than engage enemy front line troops. Although off course there are exceptions to this. I'm sure this debate will bubble up again

[Denis1973]

Small maps just ain't big enough to allow this and if CAS was included then you would get howls of protest as players experienced 'Blue on Blue'.

My offers makes air support very close to that we have had in old CMBB. Remember, there were not any 'radius' at all - target area were whole battlemap. Yes, this sometimes lead to friendly fire, but this is war, isn't it?

Another issue and which has been discussed is that arguably air support was more often used to harry enemy rear areas/supply lines etc rather than engage enemy front line troops.

But air attacks at frontline are happened from time to time? I'm not an expert on West front but at East front attacks often started after air strikes. Think this can be case at West too.

[phil stanbridge]

It's great that BFC included air support and I hope to see it much more in the commonwealth campaigns, along with heavier artillery. But I think there are a number of reasons why designers omit the inclusion in their scenarios. Firstly, it has a tendency to unbalance. Secondly, the maps are generally too small. Sure there are scenarios that seem to fit the bill perfectly, but these also omit air support, I'm guessing for unbalancing issues.

[Denis1973]

The Balance, yes. But at least a one third of scenarios are unbalanced because of historical reasons. And they big enough. But still lack aviation.

[Sgt Schultz]

I looked at air power from a design standpoint and discarded it for the time being. I will revisit it once I have more experience.

Unless the battle is quite large, I have found that air support can be too large a variable for my design practices.

If it works, it's extremely powerful. Strafing a platoon into a few screaming survivors is cool, but can ruin a battle's tempo and fun-factor.

If they do a blue on blue, it sucks. That can halt a battle just as quick, and with more moral outrage.

If they miss, it's a waste.

[slysniper]

I just finished a scenario not long ago in a HtoH match where the other player had air support that came twice in the battle. I found it to be most interesting. Playing as the German I felt in gave the scenario a feel that made another realistic challenge for me.

The first attach was at the start of the game, I had armor in woods, so I did not move them and to my suprize , it worked. No runs against my armor, but they sure did find a AT gun in a trench I had covering a road and did a number on it with 2 straffing runs. Sure placed a hole in my defenses but I was able to adjust and cover it.

The second attacks came after I had received infantry reinforcement, I had them moving to the front line locations to cover my flank that was crumbling to the enemy attack there. So needless to say, his planes came and caught my men moving in the open, I was just thankful I had them spread out, even though I was not thinking about that for air attack reasons. But every unit they targeted was goners, , I had units in fire teams, but I cannot remember anyone living past a good run on them.

So I found myself taking every unit scrambling for cover and then hiding until the danger was over and then I regrouped and moved on. Even after finding some type of cover, a few units were attacked by planes and completely destroyed.

I found it a good challenge and felt the scenario was still balenced, that my forces were likely about the correct amount with the losses included.

[Pak40]

By now I've played 30+ scenarios but no one of them have a planes. Why? I've read a forum and made some tests. My conclusion is: this happens because of three 'too's' - too fast to response, too precise, too deadly for a company-sized force.

I think the real reason is that it was actually very rare to have air support at the front lines, especially in the opening days of the Normandy Campaign where the line between friendly and enemy troops was as straight as a jigsaw puzzle piece. Ground attack planes were pretty free to engage open targets of opportunity behind the lines where it was obvious that the enemy was, in fact, the enemy.

[YankeeDog]

Yeah; as far as I'm concerned they could have left air support out of CMBN entirely and it wouldn't have gotten much more response from me than a half-hearted shrug. While a very important factor in the Normandy campaign overall, tactical air was only very rarely applicable at the CM scale, and even when applicable IMHO its effects are probably better represented as part of the scenario start conditions than as an actual part what happens within the bounds of the scenario time clock.

It is one of those things that wargamers seem to expect to be able to play with in a Normandy 1944 wargame, though. Not necessarily realistic. But fun, at least for some.

There are certainly improvements that could be made to the way CAS is represented in CM. For one thing, I'd love to see a scenario designer option that would limit airstrikes to setup phase pre-planned strikes (actually, I'd like to see this as a scenario design option for all heavy off-map support assets).

But since I rarely ever play with it, improving the aerial stuff isn't really a priority for me. Lots of other improvements/additions I'd put ahead of this on "The List."

[Sublime]

Well I like seeing it around. however when the strafing runs happen, I think the bullet's stream is too accurate. I feel it should disperse a little more. Also I think the planes spot small groups of men too easily.

I wish the AA could shoot back like In CMx1. That would make a huge difference. They dont need to model whether it hits or if the plane goes down. Just make a variable that if AA opens up, the plane should leave. If its one gun, make it a small percent each turn the plane leaves. this ideally would increase exponentially with each added AA gun.

I think thats the biggest reason its not used a lot in CM now, it feels one sided. Whether or not its truly gamey, it feels that way when I use it against an opponent.

[slysniper]

Well I like seeing it around. however when the strafing runs happen, I think the bullet's stream is too accurate. I feel it should disperse a little more. Also I think the planes spot small groups of men too easily.

I wish the AA could shoot back like In CMx1. That would make a huge difference. They dont need to model whether it hits or if the plane goes down. Just make a variable that if AA opens up, the plane should leave. If its one gun, make it a small percent each turn the plane leaves. this ideally would increase exponentially with each added AA gun.

I think thats the biggest reason its not used a lot in CM now, it feels one sided. Whether or not its truly gamey, it feels that way when I use it against an opponent.

I AGREE WITH THIS 100%

I like it in the game, really would not like to see it used too much in scenarios, but nice to have for designing, some battles it is nice to have the planes there just for the feel of the battle.

Your comment about

I think the bullet's stream is too accurate

More than just agree with that comment, it is like the plane is flying the perfect path for the entire burst and the bullets never vary from their point of aim, thus the reason every man dies in one run if the plane locks on to them.

It is not realistic at all. The beat pattern of the bullets should be shifting as the plane is not constantly at the perfect angle to the target.

[Denis1973]

Calm down, comrades!

I just want the BF made some light and easy to coded improvements to CAS model. Working AA guns and so on require too many codework that must be spent on other, more important things, as YankeeDog said.

[MikeyD]

On the U.S. side CAS was too much of a blunt instrument to be used reliably in Normandy tactical battles. That's why close air support along the line of contact was purposeflully avoided in the basegame. The Brits were known to be better at it than the yanks though, and this should result in airpower making an appearance more regularly in the module. By the time we get to the Bulge title I'd assume Brits and yanks will be considered on equal footing. The Germans are still out of the running, though. The chance of an Oberleutant phoning in a straffing run against attacking infantry was pretty much zero.

[Sgt Schultz]

I am hoping next iteration of the game will have AAA and shoot-downs, along with the above-mentioned tweaks.

That would put air right back on my design list.

[Michael Emrys]

But air attacks at frontline are happened from time to time?

Not very often in the first part of the period covered by the game; a bit more during August.

I'm not an expert on West front but at East front attacks often started after air strikes. Think this can be case at West too.

This is so for major operations, but these were usually preplanned days ahead and were not usually available on the level of a typical CMBN game. Artillery of some sort was usually available, sometimes lots of it.

Michael

[Bradley]

I have used it as a handicap to give the AI more of an advantage, making for some interesting if not fun 'what if' scenarios.