HE Shells and Flying Machines

[Walt]

I'll try to make this an excercise in brevity.

1). In the final version, will tanks and guns use HE on unarmored and lightly armored vehicles? I would think that a 76mm HE shell would work better than AP against a half track or armored car. The Marines had to switch to HE when fighting the (crappy) Japanese tanks on a few occasions because the shot would penitrate and exit without causing much damage. Then there's the effects of fragments against exposed crew, tires, and unarmored weapons and components. I checked, and the M18s in LD were only using AP against the german half tracks. Was that the case in combat during that period?

2). I searched up what I could on air support. What I've been able to piece together was a). You don't get to pick what you get, and . there won't be representations of the aircraft, only shadowns (this could have changed, I don't know).

I want to know what aircraft and loadouts will be available to each side. What will I get if I call for support as the USA? What will be the characteristics and firepower ratings for the bombs, rockets, and guns we will see employed in the final version?

[Fionn]

I think that a HT would have warranted a nice AP round. HE works fine too. In fact, in a recent POTD I showed one of my StuH42s despatching a US HT with a HE shell. Basically tanks will fire AP at ANY armoured target until they run low, then they'll start using HE to conserve AP for any heavily armoured targets they might meet. It's all quite realistic.

2. You are correct. Don't know about the loadouts.. I know one version has two BIG bombs and another version has mainly rockets. Either version is pretty damned deadly to tanks ;(

[Colin]

Just a couple of points.

YOu don't call for airstrikes so to speak. You're just notified that they're in the area and could come in (or something like that). Also there are no specific aircraft. These are abstratcted (and rightly so). Loadouts are based on Nationality somewhat. British Typhoon's tended to use rockets so there might be a slightly higher chance you'll have a plane with rockets. Hope this helps.

I haven't seen any German aircraft. Are there any in the game? I know they didn't have much historically but it would add something.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Guest Madmatt]

Tsk tsk tsk Colin! I DID show a German plane before... Don't remember the pic offhand but YES Germans do get planes too, although their use should be handled sparingly by would be scenario/operations designers.

Madmatt...

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

combathq.thegamers.net

[Colin]

I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm sorry I don't recall that. I've failed...bang...ouch.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Lee]

I certainly hope that scenario designers will be able to select

which aircraft and loadout (of those available for that type

of plane) they want to make available to each side in a scenario.

That kind of flexibility is important for letting the designer

tailor the air threat to what he thinks is appropriate for the

level of balance he is trying to achieve in his scenario.

[Fionn]

Lee,

Not really necessary. Trust me on this. To a groundpounder it doesn't matter if the plane drops 2 bombs or a bunch of rockets.

Both loadouts have almost the exact same lethality vs tanks. Bombs are a little bit more lethal against infantry IMO but the difference isn't so big as to get all excited over.

basically, my point is that any "choice" would be quite illusory.

[Lee]

Well, there are two points that you didn't mention.

Some aircraft have cannon that would punch through armor much

better than a .303 British or .50 cal. And I think the scenario

designer should be able choose whether he wants that extra

strafing power or not. And also I would hope there would be an

option to have the aircraft without external ordnance at all and

just let it strafe. This kind of flexibility would allow the designer

to make a scenario with a very wide range of aerial threats. All

the way from a P-51 with just guns to a Typhoon with full

ordnance load. This allows the designer to give one side air

support that only represents a modest threat to the enemy (the

enemy won't know that and will sweat it out waiting for the bombs

to drop ).

Even if CM doesn't allow one to pick the exact weapons load,

I would ask that there at least be an option to pick plane type

and whether the plane will have an external weapons load or just

have guns/cannon only. If you choose to let the plane carry extra

ordnance, then the computer could pick what exact loadout it will

use at random.

That seems a very reasonable request to me.

[Fionn]

ALL planes are assumed to carry either rockets or bombs AND cannon.

Options:

Rockets + MGs

Rockets + Cannon

Bombs + MGs

Bombs + Cannon

It is more realistic to leave the determination of exactly what you get to the computer IMO. On the eastern front where A-G support was provided by vastly varying aircraft extra differentiation will be needed IMO but not in the west.

Ps. I see where ur coming from but believe me. It is too late to go into the release version. Maybe a later patch as work on CM2 progresses.

[Lee]

Oh well, if we have to wait for a patch that's ok with me.

For the record: I realize that the 1.0 version of the game

is close to release and I know that no new features/enhancements

are likely to go in at this point prior to release. But it's not

like I just brought this up today and expect it all of a sudden to

be included out of the blue. I requested this feature like 6

months ago (maybe more). Just don't want anyone to think that

I'm asking at the last minute for something to be tossed into

the game that I had never bothered to mention before.

One of the great things about CM is that we can spend time thinking

about relatively minor issues like this because we know that

Steve and Charles have taken care of all the really important stuff

already. It's a nice luxury to have such a fantastic wargame

that we can do this sort of thing and not have to worry about major

problems at all. We are very lucky to have two such fine

fellows working on a game we are so looking forward to.

And I can't wait to hear the announcement of the winner for this

year's "Wargame of the Year" from Computer Gaming World (sort of

the Oscars of game awards ). If there is any justice in the

world, Combat Mission is guaranteed to win (name one wargame

that could conceivably be better or more deserving ).

[Walt]

I'm not sure (WWII isn't my area of expertise, as I have proven), was napalm used in WWII? I seem to remember napalm being introduced towards the end of WWII. Maybe it wasn't used too often in this theater. It would be a usefull.

It certainly wouldn't be important to nit pick on specific aircraft varients, BUT... Since the loadouts can very so much, I think you should be able to pick between, for example, a P51 wondering around looking for something to shoot at with a pair of 500lb bombs and 6 .50 cals, or a B-25 with a 75mm cannon and a buttload of bombs. Averaging out the aircraft makes air power less decisive or more dicisive than it really was. It's really not that big a deal though, CM is still the most realistic WWII tactical war game ever.

I'd also like to get an AC-130U every once in a while, but I don't think I'm going to get it. Some people are just TOO into realism.

[Fionn]

Lee,

I see your point but as a groundpounder the only thing that concerns me about airplanes is which side they're on.

Regardless of their nationality all fighter-bombers in the game have enough in their loadout for one good bombing/rocket attack and a couple of strafing runs. It really doesn't matter if a rocket killed you or if a bomb killed you. you're still dead either way.

[Guest Big Time Software]

You guys have a point about choice when it comes to loadout. We'll look into that for the future, but in CM1 it is decided by the game and not the player.

As for napalm, the US started limited use of it in late 1944 IIRC. However, the employment seems to have been quite limited. Nothing like what happened with napalm in Vietnam, not even close.

Steve

[Lee]

Ok Steve, that's cool. This will be one of the features that

I most look forward to. Hopefully it will be able to be added into

CM1 at a later date.

Steve, do different planes have different values for toughness

(i.e., resistance to being damaged or shot down by AA fire)?

Something like a P-51 could be quite vulnerable but a beast

like a P-47 was very well known for it's ability to shrug off

hits.

[Walt]

"US started limited use of it in late 1944 IIRC"

Once more history conspires to ruin my fun.

Next thing you're going to tell me no on the AC-130U because it came 50 years too late. What's a few decades any way

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Lee,

I see your point but as a groundpounder the only thing that concerns me about airplanes is which side they're on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a groundpounder, all you should care about wrt Jabos is which side they're hitting!

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Bryan Corkill]

We already know that only stealth planes are German on the Western Front.

[Eridani]

your telling me I don't get any A-10 support???

Man... life blows sometimes

(You want a plane that can shrug off AA fire while punishing ur enemy beyond belief... Hell, just give me the A-10's chin-gun on a tank, that would be fun too )

-EridanMan

[Lee]

Yeah, the A-10 kicks major rear. They didn't name it the Thunderbolt II

for nothing.

[Walt]

I'd still take my AC-130.

Maybe in CM3 or 4 I'll be able to defend my Special Forces A-Team firebase from NVA infantry. Wave after wave of incoming aircraft, interupted only by incoming 105mm, 155mm, and 203mm artilliary... That would be fun to watch.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

A-10 and AC-130 are my favorite modern-day aircraft! . I definitely am going to fly one of them.

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Guest Captain Foobar]

Yeah, "Puff the Magic Dragon" would be a nice asset for the Amis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lee and others,

One thing you have GOT to keep in mind is that airpower in a CM sized battle should RARELY exist. In fact, I can't think of even one "final" scenario that I have tested (I haven't tested all yet) that has even one plane in it. We even debated long ago about not having airpower represented at all. However, there is more than a good case to make for it being included on a minor scale so we quickly decided it had a place in CM. We just hope it isn't abused.

Airstrikes are VERY expensive, and I can tell you that spending those bucks on something like a good piece of artillery is a much better idea. Far more flexible and a sure thing when it comes to being used. Planes, on the other hand, might not even show up, bomb friendly forces, or get spooked by enemy AA fire. Of course when aircraft do their thing well they are deadly.

Air power is, at best, a minor element for CM as a whole and therefore we decided to not spend too much time making it into someting that really is overkill. That design decision is not likely to change in the future. We'll keep in mind chosing loadout, but *if* we even do that it will probably be the only change.

Steve