markh Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I have heard that we will not be able to set aircraft missions/targeting in CMRT or CMx3. Is this correct? If it is I think it would be a backward step. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I have heard that we will not be able to set aircraft missions/targeting in CMRT or CMx3. Is this correct? If it is I think it would be a backward step. There is likely a lively discussion to be had as overall (as Steve has repeatedly commented) probably the LEAST realistic model in CM is CAS. We have far too much control over it in CMBN and CMFI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithikial_AU Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I agree with ?Steve? / ?Battlefront? that the level of aircraft control is to 'good' for a 1940's simulation. (I'm assuming aircraft control in Black Sea isn't going to be an issue ). But at the same time I wouldn't want to remove complete control of aircraft from the player. Can't comment on East Front, as my knowledge is pretty much negligible on the topic, buy for the Western theater games there was some limited control by ground forces on aircraft targets. Off the top of my head the Irish Guards initial breakthrough at the start of their drive to Arnhem employed good (if a bit lucky) use of aircraft to break up German forces. Having aircraft being completely random wouldn't allow this to occur in certain scenarios like Paper Tiger's campaign missions. Perhaps a good in between option, for the Western theater games at least, would be: For aircraft available from the start of the mission. - Allow the player to select an aircraft 'area target' during deployment (along with longer delaying options) - Still a risk of aircraft going 'off target.' - Control of the aircraft is removed once battle commences. ie. whatever plan that was set up in the deployment phase you are stuck with. - Aircraft which are not assigned an area target will simply roam the vicinity looking for targets of interest. Aircraft coming on as Reserves - No control as they are assumed simply in the area of operations looking for targets in a general support role. This would allow scenario designers to continue to model preplanned aircraft sorties set up well before an engagement commences. (Usually a preplanned assault). By removing control after deployment, players must stick to their initial plan and timings if they want the best result and exploit the full effect of their support assets. So may actually put more pressure on the player than there is now. This still gives a level of control initially, while addressing the on the fly changes possible to aircraft missions which seems to the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Perhaps a good in between option, for the Western theater games at least, would be: For aircraft available from the start of the mission. - Allow the player to select an aircraft 'area target' during deployment (along with longer delaying options) - Still a risk of aircraft going 'off target.' - Control of the aircraft is removed once battle commences. ie. whatever plan that was set up in the deployment phase you are stuck with. - Aircraft which are not assigned an area target will simply roam the vicinity looking for targets of interest. Aircraft coming on as Reserves - No control as they are assumed simply in the area of operations looking for targets in a general support role. This would allow scenario designers to continue to model preplanned aircraft sorties set up well before an engagement commences. (Usually a preplanned assault). By removing control after deployment, players must stick to their initial plan and timings if they want the best result and exploit the full effect of their support assets. So may actually put more pressure on the player than there is now. This still gives a level of control initially, while addressing the on the fly changes possible to aircraft missions which seems to the issue. While a good stab at the beginnings of a rule, that seems a tad too restrictive in certain circumstances. Depending on the year and month and availability, the player should have an ability (set by the scenario designer) to mark targets on the fly. This would come with a risk that the aircraft might miss the mark and attack the wrong target—including friendly forces—or attack nothing at all. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I have heard that we will not be able to set aircraft missions/targeting in CMRT or CMx3. Is this correct? If it is I think it would be a backward step. AFAIK we only wont be able to directly set targeting orders for russian CAS missions in CMRT. German CAS msissions will work as usual. We have far too much control over it in CMBN and CMFI. My guess is that this the result of the CMx2 WW2 games beeing derived from CMSF. It is a very similar engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 markh, Have you been following the ever-growing mass of research accumulated in the Russian CAS thread? Thanks to a lot of digging and close reading, we now have a reasonable handle on the way the Russians did support of the ground forces, only part of which corresponds to CAS as we understand the concept. I fervently hope the way Russian CAS is modeled isn't simply a port from the Western Allies side of the fence. Enjoy the thread, if you haven't already explored it. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113499 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I am really looking forward to this. No more aircraft micromanagment. Imagine the prelude of a battle where 20 or more Aircraft attack on their own initiative targets throughout the whole map. Then after 15 Minutes your troops will arrive on the map. I once built a map for the unfinished japanese mod and the biggest pain in the ass was to give target areas for all of the 20 aircrafts in the beginning of the mission. Maybe when this feature will be implemented in CMBN I will finish the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsf Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 A canny developer would integrate an air sim into the ground sim. Nowadays games are played online by 'clans', so why not put a dozen 'pilots' together with a dozen 'tankers'? Regards Scott Fraser 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDog944 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Huh? Are you in the right forum? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Definitively neither the German side nor the Soviet side will have the ability to direct air activities. Overall this is the most realistic situation for ALL forces on ALL fronts almost ALL the time. The previous system of direct control for everybody in all circumstances was ridiculously unrealistic. But unfortunately necessary given our development priorities. I've said it a thousand times, but I will say it again. If people want to complain about how air support is handled from a realism standpoint, we can fix it by removing all air support completely and utterly. Because in the grand scheme of things, that is the absolutely most realistic portrayal of tactical air power at CM's level. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If people want to complain about how air support is handled from a realism standpoint, we can fix it by removing all air support completely and utterly. Because in the grand scheme of things, that is the absolutely most realistic portrayal of tactical air power at CM's level. Steve Yes, please! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Yes, please! Remove it from this time frame perhaps but the capability needs to remain in the engine to accommodate late 20th and 21st century conflicts. In fact I would like to see a less abstract interpretation for Black Sea 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placebo Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I like the move to non-player controlled air support, it is how it should be on the WW2 battlefield. I can't wait to see those IL-2 blasting everything in sight 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If people want to complain about how air support is handled from a realism standpoint, we can fix it by removing all air support completely and utterly. Yes, please! Remove it from this time frame perhaps but the capability needs to remain in the engine to accommodate late 20th and 21st century conflicts. lol. Battlefront adds flak guns and ground-to-air fire to their WW2 games (wich were both ask for by the community for a long time) and a couple of weeks later the community asks to completly remove CAS at all. Almost sounds like a joke . We dont know what we want, do we? To add to the confusion, i think CAS missions should stay in the WW2 games! I like them! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I like the move to non-player controlled air support, it is how it should be on the WW2 battlefield +1 to that lol. Battlefront adds flak guns and ground-to-air fire to their WW2 games (wich were both ask for by the community for a long time) and a couple of weeks later the community asks to completly remove CAS at all. Almost sounds like a joke . We dont know what we want, do we? As a collective no we are terribly inconsistent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 As a collective no we are terribly inconsistent Quite consistently too Tactical air is included in CM because of two reasons: 1. Too many people incorrectly expect it to be there. Sometimes we do have to bend to perception. 2. For many it's "fun". Add the two together and having no tactical air becomes a fight. Probably one we would never put to rest. So we've figured out a compromise, which is to have a decent portrayal of air support without getting distracted by it. Plus, as was pointed out before, tactical air *is* relevant to modern warfare. As is ground to air. Because of that it's not a big deal to make it available to WW2 timeframe. Especially because the AAA weaponry would be added anyway because of similar unrealistic but fun reasons. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Plus, as was pointed out before, tactical air *is* relevant to modern warfare. Steve, Care to comment on what changes to Tac Air you guys are making for Black Sea? CMSF does an adequate job of integrating Tac Air on the modern battlefield but I'm hoping you guys will kick it up a notch when you return to modern warfare .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 BFC certainly needs to keep CAS for those that want it, but my opponents and I never use it. That way it's totally realistic. The CAS never saw the target, hit something of opportunity on the way back to base, and missed it all to hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.