aircraft

[BigDog944]

Since they've already found they've used a build that introduces the "single storey building" bug to BN where it wasn't before, it wouldn't surprise me if the "FOs control CAS" switch is set wrong too.

Yes, the impression I've been left with is that the quality control of the 3.0 upgrades has been shoddy. I'm also of the impression that BFC needs to adjust their QA processes and stop heaping so much responsibility for release quality on to their unpaid beta testers. Just my impressions, though.

[blow56]

No, Yankeedog, we are talking a 3.0 upgrade problem, which now applies to all WWII CM (if you upgrade for it, which I have. It's a good upgrade, aircraft apart) You have no control over the aircraft anymore - you simply plan them into a scenario and they arrive when they like and do what they choose. I replayed the Normandy scenario and had two Typhoons bomb, in quick succession, a park of Bren carriers 1km from the FEBA - in the open and behind a defile to be unseen by enemy artillery - and the British Company mortars, in a cornfield shrouded by a fringe of trees and unseen by enemy artillery. It was 978m from the FEBA. That is now seven missions on CMRT and CMBN where aircraft have been involved in blue-on-blue - in fact, EVERY mission under the 3.0upgrade where I have assigned aircraft. That, to me, is a mess. And you are right - there is no FAC. Because there is no need for one; you have NO control over aircraft. I am sure the designers of CMRT thought this was a good idea - Russian front, a lack of liaison by Russian forces, a lack of aircraft on the German side, bigger maps etc etc - but even here it was annoying enough to mostly abandon the use of aircraft.

In Normandy (and CMFI and Market Garden) cab-rank air power was inherent in battles in these theatres and to have to abandon it is a travesty of history and makes for a bad game. There must be a way to fix it and I I cannot believe the designers, good people that they are, are satisfied with the modelling of airpower now.

Incidentally - if you upgrade to 3.0 every scenario, campaign etc, old and new, in your games will have the aircraft in it placed outwith your control.

[snarre]

aeroplanes are not brouken , im only see 2 time that aeroplane shoot own guys and both time there was fog , sou the risk to shoot was wery high. on good whether im newer soo aeroplanes attack to own troops and im played whit clan mate now ower 20 mp games and in ewery time we had 1-3 aeroplanes in game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The weather was clear in all of them, my troops were mostly in cover - and none of the strikes seemed to take it into account, one way or another.

I have not tested this, but my own experience plus comments from others does suggest that trees do not provide much concealment from aircraft. They should, of course, but the point is that when playing scenarios with air support present I assume all units to be effectively out in the open at all times.

[womble]

Looks like in at least some cases the Ostfront model of FAC (there aren't any!) has been applied to the NWE theatre. YankeeDog has said in another thread that he will raise it with the powers-that-be; he hasn't been involved in the testing of the 2.2 upgrade as he's a Mac head and they haven't called on him to test that yet.

[sburke]

Yes, the impression I've been left with is that the quality control of the 3.0 upgrades has been shoddy. I'm also of the impression that BFC needs to adjust their QA processes and stop heaping so much responsibility for release quality on to their unpaid beta testers. Just my impressions, though.

Well not sure where you are headed, but as a beta tester I don't agree. There is no magical other answer. Beta testers are the QA line. It is a pain on the ass totally unappreciated by a good part of the community but despite that still a privilege to be a part of. I am not afraid to say sorry if something gets past.

[BigDog944]

Well not sure where you are headed, but as a beta tester I don't agree. There is no magical other answer. Beta testers are the QA line. It is a pain on the ass totally unappreciated by a good part of the community but despite that still a privilege to be a part of. I am not afraid to say sorry if something gets past.

Not really going anywhere. I highly appreciate the work the beta testers do. However, I'm assuming that each individual beta tester is not beholden to put in X hours per day testing, so there is the possibility that if enough beta testers are busy elsewhere during any given test cycle, then more bugs will get through to release. What I'm saying is that if this is BFC's sole testing methodology it has holes in it and every now and then we're going to get a stinker.

At the end of the day, though, it's the players who do the real heavy work of testing the game just due to shear numbers alone. BFC at least listens for and addresses the problems found.

[Placebo]

I have not tested this, but my own experience plus comments from others does suggest that trees do not provide much concealment from aircraft. They should, of course, but the point is that when playing scenarios with air support present I assume all units to be effectively out in the open at all times.

I have found tree cover makes a huge difference, if your troops are in the open either sides planes will be like a magnet and drawn to an easy kill.

I think censorship cut out a lot of horror stories from the front line troops about blue on blue kills from arty and air support. Only anecdotal but I believe it really was common in WW2. Frustrating in the game but realistic.

[blow56]

It isn't realistic in the slightest. Cover, imo, is not an issue - Allies in Normandy and Western Front theatres in general had air supremacy and were careless about cover because they were seldom, if ever, attacked from the air by ANYONE. So parking vehicles out in the open was not a problem providing you couldn't be spotted by enemy artillery, which WAS a problem. The 3.0 upgrade of aircraft, I am afraid, is a crap shoot, regardless of whether your troops are in cover or not. I appreciate hugely the work that has gone into this, so it comes as a bewildering disappointment when I see something so flawed and yet allowed to perpetuate. Surely SOMEONE must have noticed that, instead of improving aircraft use, the 3.0 upgrade had removed all command and control to an AI which is just not clever enough to be doing that? At least give back a measure of control by allowing, say, a pre-battle delineation of an air operational area, the equivalent of someone saying to a pilot that 'south of the river/ridgeline/treeline are friendlies'.

[A Canadian Cat]

Surely SOMEONE must have noticed that, instead of improving aircraft use, the 3.0 upgrade had removed all command and control to an AI which is just not clever enough to be doing that?

OK, the removing of the control from air strikes in CMBN and CMFI has been acknowledged as a defect and was *not* intentional. Let BFC fix it. Then you / we can start investigating the friendly fire issues.

Should I sing warm kitty to help sooth everyone's nerves.

[BLSTK]

Only if you're wearing your Penny camo.

Then it won't matter what you're singing.

(Also, I like my cocoa hot.)

[Lethaface]

I have used air support in CMRT twice (to test the new planes) with plenty of other friendly troops and vehicles. I hid them in a forest, the planes went for the enemies although 2 out of 4 never attacked, I guess due to the enemy AAA.

It's not a representative test but at least it is not always blue on blue

[A Canadian Cat]

OK I started a little test scenario. @blow56 please have a look and try it out.

There are four attack lanes one platoon and a truck for each side in each lane. There is a hill separating the US from the Germans since I do not want any other casualties. Two of the lanes have a large wooded area for the Germans to hide in. In the other two lanes everyone is in the open.

In two of the lanes the US troops are 300m from the edge of the attack circle and in the other two they are 700m.

I ran the test twice and in all 8 CAS attacks no US solider got a scratch. The same cannot be said for the Germans. Sometimes the air planes do not see anyone in the woods and just give up but in both runs some was it in the first minute and all attacks were over in a little under 10 minutes.

While clearly not statistically significant it is a start.

These are for CMBN 2.12 Do not use 2.2 until the CAS hot fix comes out.

The scenario in case you want to tweak anything.

http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2014/CMBN%20CASFriendlyFireTest.btt

The saved game that you can just run

http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2014/CAS%20friendly%20fire%20test%20001.bts

[snarre]

ok sou CAS are brouken litle in normandy but in RT aeroplanes work fine. im not yet buyed this 3.0 patch to normandy.

[Jock Tamson]

Why are we testing CMBN 2.12 when the OP has reported the issue in 2.2 ?

[sburke]

Why are we testing CMBN 2.12 when the OP has reported the issue in 2.2 ?

Because it looks like it will be pulled out of 3.0 so why bother testing until that occurs? 2.12 behavior would more closely reflect the intent and that it can be compared to see what end state of 3.0 does.

[A Canadian Cat]

After @Jock Tamson's post I re-read the OP and follow up posts I actually thought the first post was about 2.12 behaviour not 3.0 behaviour. I see now after my re-read I was totally off on a wild goose chase.

Once the 3.0 update air issue is fixed I am sure all will be right with the world.

[Sailor Malan2]

Given BF has admitted an unintentional error in CAS in the 2 older western Front games why would anyone want to test anything yet. The spotted bug is highly likely to not be the whole issue. Wait until they find and nail the sucker, then worry about it.

And I am firmly of the belief that most advocates of change in the aircraft routines to make them more effective seriously need read up and analyse some stuff. CAS in a battalions rear area (in amongst the transport and mortars) is the closest most attacks were: 'A Bridge too far' 'fire the purple smoke' was very much the exception. Air power is powerful because something gets attacked near you most days (or aircraft fly over and you fear it)when you are 'safe' and not in the front line. NOT because some FO points his wand and cries out something in pig Latin like some Harry Potter clone!

[JasonC]

Sailor Malan2 - seconded. WW II CAS was a haphazard affair of random destruction occasionally visited on the enemy. Demoralizing and disruptive certainly, controllable like a scalpel or reliable in its tactical impact, ah no.

[LukeFF]

Heck, for a good example of how inaccurate WWII airpower could be, take a look at how many times American submarines were attacked by their own aircraft in the Pacific - often in areas that had been clearly declared to be "safety zones." I've read many of the submarine patrol reports, and at times it's astounding how bad aircraft were at differentiating friend from foe.

[LukeFF]

Heck, for a good example of how inaccurate WWII airpower could be, take a look at how many times American submarines were attacked by their own aircraft in the Pacific - often in areas that had been clearly declared to be "safety zones." I've read many of the submarine patrol reports, and at times it's astounding how bad aircraft were at differentiating friend from foe.

On that note, here's a good example. From the USS Spearfish, 29 November 1944:

0215 - Picked up voices in English on APR, listened to conversation very closely as follows:

"Look, a ship down there about four miles".

"No, I think it's a submarine at "two miles".

"Well, let's bomb the bastard anyway. Here we go, and use your rockets".

0221- Sighted Liberator distant about 4 miles, heading in from dead ahead. He apparently dropped as we ordered the bridge cleared, because a loud explosion was heard and felt just before the hatch was closed and the Officer of the Deck saw a large explosion plume about 700 yards away. He needs practice as well as briefing. Headed in toward our objective. It is noted that were were over twenty miles from any land when bombed and certainly not in an "enemy controlled harbor."

(Bolded for emphasis).

[blow56]

The USAAF saw the greatest innovations in 1944 under Gen. Elwood Quesada, commander of IX Tactical Air Command, supporting the First U.S. Army. He developed the "armored column cover", where on-call fighter-bombers maintained a high-level of availability for important tank advances, allowing armor units to maintain a high tempo of exploitation even when they outran their artillery assets. He also used a modified antiaircraft radar to track friendly attack aircraft to redirect them as necessary, and experimented with assigning fighter pilots to tours as forward air controllers to familiarize them with the ground perspective. In July 1944, Quesada provided VHF aircraft radios to tank crews in Normandy. When the armored units broke out of the Normandy beachhead, tank commanders were able to communicate directly with overhead fighter-bombers. However, despite the innovation, Quesada focused his aircraft on CAS only for major offensives. Typically, both British and American attack aircraft were tasked primarily to interdiction, even though later analysis showed them to be twice as dangerous as CAS.

I am aware that, after 1943, the Luftwaffe could not provide CAS and the Russians were not as sophisticated with it - but I think, for Western Theatres CM, some form of area control, however sketchy, should be allowed using a FAC.

That is all ... over and out

[DavidFields]

I don't recall a battle I have played which had aircraft, because most people know the call-them-in method was ahistorical.

But, like the Naval Ships in CMBN, there is the fun factor.

Somewhere in the war, there was likely at least once a "Saving Private Ryan" final battle scene, where the plane streaks over the battlefield and blunts an armor offensive. Giving the player the opportunity to perhaps recreate that is probably...fun.

Unrealistic dead bodies, no civilians, some of how off-board artillery is handled, the entire concept of being able to command all your forces in detail....many decisions were made which are not realistic....

And having planes be always hazardous, so as to "teach" players how bad CAS was would not be, I think, a good marketing move.

So I am glad they fixed the planes for CMBN/FI in the latest patch.

[JasonC]

blow56 - FACs on the ground could tell overhead fighters how far they had advanced, and thereby reduce friendly fire incidents (they by no means eliminated them). But that is still a far cry from the FAC seeing a specific target and talking the pilots onto it. That just didn't happen, even in the late WW II western front period you are talking about.

"We've reached Wheresville, don't bomb us. We have no units over the Heres river as of yet; you can hunt freely there. We are especially worried about any enemy armor or large motor vehicle convoys coming from the direction of Howsabout; that'd be a good area to hunt."

But then the pilots have to fly to the right locations, with their own navigation; they have to spot their own targets on the ground; they have to pick them out and choose them, based on their own assessments of the likely effectiveness of their weapons.

By Korea, a FAC is doing a very different job, like an artillery forward observer or a modern FAC. "Flight 62, give me two ships with napalm on hill 648. That is the big hill mass 2 miles southwest of my yellow smoke. Standing by."

That system, anything like that system, did not exist in WW II.

[JasonC]

Extending remarks... Here is Zaloga's description of the state of US CAS in Normandy and the innovation of fighter bomber cover for armored columns during Cobra -

Normandy pre breakout, bocage fighting period -

"The First Army had its own air force, the 9th Tactical Air Command (9th TAC). The 9th TAC had 18 fighter, fighter bomber, and reconnaissance groups with about 400 combat aircraft. During the bocage fighting, 9th TAC provided air support in two forms, pre-planned and immediate response missions. Pre-planned missions were usually requested a day in advance, and if approved, took place on the following day. Immediate missions wer requested by air support parties attached to army formations.

These requests were sent by radio to the joint combined operations center, and then passed on to the fighter-bomber groups. While a highly effective system in static warfare conditions, the "immediate" missions were not in fact so timely as their name would suggest."

The modification used during the breakout -

"Quesada (CO of 9th TAC) came up with the idea of dedicating a portion of the P-47 fighter-bomber force to the lead elements of the Cobra spearhead. A total of 4 to 8 Thunderbolts would fly along with the lead column, armed with 500 pound bombs. They could perform armed reconnaissance in front of the colun, and if the column encountered resistance, the aircraft would be available to attack the German position. Earlier attempts at this tactic had floundered as a result of the incompatibility of tank and aircraft radios, and the difficulty of identifying the targets to the pilots from the ground. To avoid these problems, Quesada arranged to have a limited number of M4 tanks modified to carry SCR-522 VHF radios operated by pilots more familiar with the

needs of the Thunderbolt crews. During Operation Cobra, 3 units, the 366th, 404th, and 368th Fighter Groups provided armored column cover."

Some stats on that radio... The SCR-522 had 4 preset channels (crystal controlled), and a power output of 6 watts. (For comparison, a Radio Shack hiker's pair of walkie talkies these days has a power output of 4 watts - basically that is what we are talking, in terms of range and signal clarity). It weighed 91 pounds, and used a quarter-wave vertical antenna. In practice it required a clear line of sight between the radio and the planes to be effective, and could communicate 120 to 150 miles if the planes were at altitude (10-15,000 feet). At low level the range drops dramatically to a few tens of miles. Those are long distances to the guys on the ground, but 20-30 minutes to the pilots, and only a couple of minutes flight distance at low altitude. The operating instructions point out that even just another plane between yours and the ground radio suffices to block reception.

Its normal use within the planes was to talk to a landing field on approach, and the like. The innovation was to put a few of those in some of the tanks, with a pilot on the ground inside those tanks, at the actual talk-switch. Note this means they are in the radio operators seat, right front hull of the Sherman, hull machinegunner position. With relatively limited visibility, though if the area was safe enough they could open their hatch. And it was by no means every tank, nor any tank formation commander who could talk directly to the planes, though one could relay through to such a FAC of course.

Also note that 3 groups at TOE would be 108 planes, but at the average actual group strength more like 70 planes - and that number assigned to the mission were required to keep just 4 to 8 "on orbit" over an advancing column.

Notice further that the difficulty of the ground guys IDing the targets for the planes are not really overcome, the only adaptation there is to have the ground FAC be a pilot so that he knows what to look for and how to describe things for the guys in the air. Also, the description of the main benefit as being armed recee ahead of the column - this was as much about the pilots spotting things and relying info to the ground, as it was about the FACs specifying targets to the pilots.