Air support other than CAS

[Sailor Malan2]

I don't know if this has ever been suggested before, but I would love the ability to simulate battlefield air power other than at the 'direct fire' stage. CM has always just done 'on board' air power. I would love the ability to spend points in QBs (or even the editor) to buy deeper interdiction air power. Buy the aircraft, and specify the broad role (on map, transport interdiction, C&C attacks etc). Then, post selection of units and pre-deployment, a quick evaluation of an effect on the enemy could be done. Transport interdiction could have a chance to lower the ammo supplies to the enemy or delay reinforcements. C&C could hit quality of troops (tired due to attacks the night before etc), reduce off board arty support or again delay reinforcement.

Not hugely important to on map fighting (and the effect could easily be simulated 'outside' the game - lower the permitted points count following a die roll etc), but it would give a lovely feel for air power effects and immersion. Both players trying it at once could have a chance to cancel each other out.

Would need the effects carefully evaluated not to unbalance or overpower the game, but could be a good 'added re-playability' driver for scenarios or campaigns...

[Fizou]

This is outside of CM:s tactical scope. Not something I think will happen and not very keen on either. My 2 cents.

The effects can be simulated by the scenario designer already in a several ways.

[Michael Emrys]

The effects can be simulated by the scenario designer already in a several ways.

True, but QBs might profit from something like this. I would add one more mission, that would be air superiority. If the player has pure fighter types available, they could be dedicated to interfering with the other side's air missions. But I suspect we are getting into deeper waters than BFC wants to venture.

Michael

[womble]

I really don't think such "meta" effects would go down well in QBs. One of the biggest (unrealistic, gamey) point of QBs is the selection of your force. To have part of that force gimped or missing just because the opponent spent points would be abhorrent to me, at least. If you want such things, grab a QB map, assign some forces and make the adjustments you want. There are ways, with players who trust one another, to make such arrangements and preserve FoW. It has, IMO, no place in QBs.

[Sailor Malan2]

I really don't think such "meta" effects would go down well in QBs. One of the biggest (unrealistic, gamey) point of QBs is the selection of your force. To have part of that force gimped or missing just because the opponent spent points would be abhorrent to me, at least. If you want such things, grab a QB map, assign some forces and make the adjustments you want. There are ways, with players who trust one another, to make such arrangements and preserve FoW. It has, IMO, no place in QBs.

Interesting. You describe the practice of QB points optimisation as games or unrealistic, then reject my (admittedly very outline) suggestion to introduce some counter. Gamey is a good thing?

Could house rule not to use other than cas for you points accountants.

Not expecting this to happen, was just a thought for more realism in air support...

[YankeeDog]

I think "metagame" concepts like this are interesting, and I can see the potential value. Further, they certainly aren't aren't limited to air support. For example, it might be interesting if one could buy artillery in a QB and dedicate it to CB fire to have a shot a neutralizing your opponent's artillery.

However, given the sheer length of "The List", and all of the other in-game and on-map features players are clamoring for, I really don't think BFC is likely to delve into this area any time soon. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Rocky Balboa]

I think "metagame" concepts like this are interesting, and I can see the potential value. Further, they certainly aren't aren't limited to air support. For example, it might be interesting if one could buy artillery in a QB and dedicate it to CB fire to have a shot a neutralizing your opponent's artillery.

Absolutely agree ... this is even more important as CMx2 returns to modern combat. I would definitely be thrilled to see a treatment of counter battery techniques.

Modern formations should be forced to keep their on map indirect assets on the move to avoid being pinpointed and even off map assets should be subject to neutralization under appropriate conditions.

[womble]

Interesting. You describe the practice of QB points optimisation as games or unrealistic, then reject my (admittedly very outline) suggestion to introduce some counter. Gamey is a good thing?

QBs are what they are. Gamey is simply intrinsic to them (unless you have some non-standard way of force picking), simply because no commander in history got to pick "just the right mix" (according to his lights) of forces. Yet that's a chunk of their charm: pitting your force composition concepts against your opponent's. And that would go right out of the window if your opponent picked "Armour roam" for his JABOs, got lucky and your two Panthers didn't show up, or they picked "Anti-battery fire" and kyboshed your 105s. And how would you "cost" a variable asset that neither you nor your opponent had any influence over? Obviously it should cost less than the asset it might deny your opponent, since it might not, but how much less? And would that even begin to compensate for the wrench it might throw in the works; it could be as disruptive to a fun game as a first turn barrage on a 30m setup zone.

And it's not a "counter" to gaminess. It's another gamey metagame: "Did he spend anything on interdiction? I'd better put some points in air superiority just in case..." And you'd possibly never know how that all worked out; whether you'd both wasted your points, or just one of you. Or it would leave a sour taste for the one who did, or who got shafted by a "discount dice roll".

[Broadsword56]

And if we're talking about Bagration, the Soviets (who had air superiority) didn't use their air assets for interdiction (i.e., denial of roads and bridges and key terrain)although they could have if they had chosen to. Instead their doctrine at this time was to use air for CAS and to bomb targets (like HQ and troop concentrations) in the rear to hit the full depth of the axis position all at once ("deep battle.")

[Rocky Balboa]

And it's not a "counter" to gaminess. It's another gamey metagame: "Did he spend anything on interdiction? I'd better put some points in air superiority just in case..." And you'd possibly never know how that all worked out; whether you'd both wasted your points, or just one of you. Or it would leave a sour taste for the one who did, or who got shafted by a "discount dice roll".

There is a certain amount of gaminess within QB's however whether it's "fun" or not depends on how it's designed.

For example a counter battery meta game might look like this:

I can spend points on counter-battery but that's less point's I can spend on ground forces. So even though I might be successful at preventing my opponents 105's from having an impact on the battle, I might still lose the battle because I don't have enough ground forces to get the job done. In addition, depending on how may points I put into counter-battery might only succeed in delaying my opponent's indirect fire assets for a certain amount of time but he could still have access to them during some critical point in the game.

Another way of designing it could be to forgo assignment of points to counter battery during QB purchase but to add a new counter battery mission type to the indirect fire menu.

This could allow each player to determine during the battle if they want to commit a gun or battery to a counter battery mission for a certain amount of time.

[womble]

There is a certain amount of gaminess within QB's however whether it's "fun" or not depends on how it's designed.

For example a counter battery meta game might look like this:

I can spend points on counter-battery but that's less point's I can spend on ground forces. So even though I might be successful at preventing my opponents 105's from having an impact on the battle, I might still lose the battle because I don't have enough ground forces to get the job done. In addition, depending on how may points I put into counter-battery might only succeed in delaying my opponent's indirect fire assets for a certain amount of time but he could still have access to them during some critical point in the game.

I consider variable "crapshoot" assets like that to be the very pits of game design. Basically, you might as well say "I rolled a six for my offboard assets. I win." Or "Darn, I rolled a 1. I lose". Not the sort of game I'd want to play, or see BFC waste time on. Cos offboard assets with a chance to neutralise a certain number of points of enemy assets have (for balance) got to cost less than the assets they remove. Mathematically, they should cost less by the proportion of instances where they don't remove the enemy asset. So, if you've got something that works 10% of the time, it'll cost 10% of what it could remove. So it'll either be too powerful if it succeeds or too weak if it fails. And then you have to wonder whether it should cost a percentage of the purchaser's points, rather than a flat number, otherwise it favours the attacker too much.

It's sucky game design, since it takes control out of the field of the players in a medium (QBs) that is, at its heart, all about presenting a controlled environment for the players to manipulate. Players hate that. In every field of gaming in which I've been involved, which is pretty much all of them except professional military wargames.

Another way of designing it could be to forgo assignment of points to counter battery during QB purchase but to add a new counter battery mission type to the indirect fire menu.

This could allow each player to determine during the battle if they want to commit a gun or battery to a counter battery mission for a certain amount of time.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up.

[Rocky Balboa]

It's sucky game design, since it takes control out of the field of the players in a medium (QBs) that is, at its heart, all about presenting a controlled environment for the players to manipulate.

Nah .... since when has war been a controlled environment? Even the controlled environment that you think you have today is not a controlled environment. If two players have roughly the same numerically sized force, there are still so many factors that are left up to chance. If you had a truly controlled game environment it would be so boring no one would want to play it. Good gaming is all about making choices and weighing risks vs rewards.

Players hate that. In every field of gaming in which I've been involved, which is pretty much all of them except professional military wargames.

I guess you've never been involved with betting or gambling of any kind? Been around since the dawn of man and and is still the most successful and lucrative form of gaming there is.

[womble]

Nah .... since when has war been a controlled environment? Even the controlled environment that you think you have today is not a controlled environment.

It is an environment over which the players have control.

If two players have roughly the same numerically sized force, there are still so many factors that are left up to chance.

And you have the chance to influence those probabilities. See how Bil Hardenburger plays. He maximises his chances, very effectively. Having some bald "random embuggerance" unit choices is an entirely different kettle of fish, much more akin to the "chances" of a first turn setup zone bombardment killing a game.

If you had a truly controlled game environment it would be so boring no one would want to play it.

What? Like chess, go, draughts/checkers?

Good gaming is all about making choices and weighing risks vs rewards.

And when there's no way to weigh those risks and rewards?

I guess you've never been involved with betting or gambling of any kind? Been around since the dawn of man and and is still the most successful and lucrative form of gaming there is.

While it's managed to get itself called a game, "random" gambling, like slots and roulette aren't really games, they're just psychological conditioning designed to remove money off schmucks. See Skinner's Box. Then there are the games where the design tries to make you think you have some control over the reward delivery, like Blackjack. Then there are the proper games of "skill and chance" like Poker, where skill makes a difference.

Just because something is popular and lucrative, doesn't mean it's good. Look at large sections of modern telly. And just because something is niche and doesn't make huge piles of cash, doesn't mean it's bad: look at CM.

[Sailor Malan2]

Well, started a debate at least.

I think that a reduction in certainty in a QB set up is a good thing, however I am not a chess player, nor a games tournament player. I play for the experience and the atmosphere. A forlorn defense against superior kit, in which I KO an Ubercat and go down gloriously against heavy odds is as good to me as a straight 'fair' win. In fact I am a simulator rather than a gamer.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in to playing the first day of the Somme, but I like to be in the mind space of a commander - as I said, uncertainty is fun. I always found the tabletop ancients players who would spend months experimenting with WRG N+1th edition rules 10000pt armies to find the 'unbeatable optimum' rather sad and about as true to war as chess is. Same with QBs.

Some of these meta features add a degree of realism at probably little coding cost. QB force selection is effectively in a command role above that of the actual force commander in the game, so add a few extra choices at that level... Throw BFC enough ideas and they might like one or run with it and come up with something better. But just fun chatting while we wait.