A few basic Q's about Air Support

[G. Smiley]

I'm a longtime CM player that have returned to the game after a few years hiatus and picked up CW and SF2 so I'm new to the modern titles. I never really learnt how air support worked in the WWII titles and therefore have a few basic questions. I've read the CM2 manual on the subject.

• When Delivery time is stated as "<1 min, 16 min later" - does that mean <1 min if ordered in the setup phase, and 16 min after action has begun?
• It seems the defender in the air strike gets a sound cue a couple of minutes before the actual attack, warning for the incoming helis/aircraft - is that correct? When hearing this sound, would one know how many minutes before the actual strike?
• When under air attack, natural instict would be to take cover, both to avoid being spotted from the air as well as getting protection from direct hits and shrapnel. Is there anything more one should do when an air attack is imminent?
• How to use AA assets in the best way? I assume they need to be placed in the open with good line of sight? How close do they need to be to the troops or the spot being the designated target? Is having the AA assets on higher ground an advantage?
• Is having a spotter and/or a designated target considerably more efficient compared to assigning an area that is not spotted as a target?

 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by G. Smiley

[womble]

1 hour ago, G. Smiley said:

• When Delivery time is stated as "<1 min, 16 min later" - does that mean <1 min if ordered in the setup phase, and 16 min after action has begun?

Aye, that's right; it's the same as setting up an arty mission in that respect (among other, obvious ones  ).

[chuckdyke]

CM Engine Manual v4 page 78 onwards explains it all. Easy way to see what happens is play against yourself on Hotseat on the easiest setting. Just select a game you already played to avoid spoilers. 

[G. Smiley]

7 hours ago, womble said:

Aye, that's right; it's the same as setting up an arty mission in that respect (among other, obvious ones  ).

Thanks for confirming Womble!

[G. Smiley]

6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

CM Engine Manual v4 page 78 onwards explains it all. 

Really? I must have real crappy reading comprehension then (or maybe I'm just thick?) as I had just read that section (as mentioned in my op) before asking these questions... how embarrassing!

[chuckdyke]

23 minutes ago, G. Smiley said:

Really? I must have real crappy reading comprehension then (or maybe I'm just thick?) as I had just read that section (as mentioned in my op) before asking these questions... how embarrassing!

Aircraft in the WW2 setting are no longer controlled by Spotters. Available WW2 Air Support will now prowl the battlefield independently, without the player being able to command them.  

 

8 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

I never really learnt how air support worked in the WWII titles and therefore have a few basic questions.

That was written on page 76.

Edited June 20, 2021 by chuckdyke

[G. Smiley]

8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Aircraft in the WW2 setting are no longer controlled by Spotters. Available WW2 Air Support will now prowl the battlefield independently, without the player being able to command them.  

 

That was written on page 76.

Thanks Chuck - just so I don't misunderstand - which of my questions (the five bullets) are you referring to?

[domfluff]

9 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

• When Delivery time is stated as "<1 min, 16 min later" - does that mean <1 min if ordered in the setup phase, and 16 min after action has begun?

Yes.

9 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

• It seems the defender in the air strike gets a sound cue a couple of minutes before the actual attack, warning for the incoming helis/aircraft - is that correct? When hearing this sound, would one know how many minutes before the actual strike?

Actual time varies, but generally within a minute or two. It's enough time to fast move into the treeline, or disembark AA assets.

9 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

• When under air attack, natural instict would be to take cover, both to avoid being spotted from the air as well as getting protection from direct hits and shrapnel. Is there anything more one should do when an air attack is imminent?

You really have two options - get into cover, or to leave the area as fast as possible (air missions, like artillery, will be called in on a limited area of the field. Which is better will depend on a number of things, including the air assets that are attacking you (e.g., air assets with thermals won't be as degraded by trees as one relying on visual cues only).

9 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

• How to use AA assets in the best way? I assume they need to be placed in the open with good line of sight? How close do they need to be to the troops or the spot being the designated target? Is having the AA assets on higher ground an advantage?

This will vary. The game does simulate air assets as being in a specific location, relative to the map, which means that they need LOS to that attack run - putting AA assets in a position where they can have an unobstructed view of the sky will maximise those chances.

How close they need to be depends entirely on the asset, but the general rule is that you want to keep them close to what you want to protect. Clearly anti-air missiles are going to have a longer effective range than the cheap Syrian option, of sticking machine guns on the back of pickup trucks.

Anti-air assets can't be relied on to actually shoot down aircraft, with the possible exception of the Tunguska in CMBS (more on this point later). This means that they're really there to give you enough time to get under cover, or the hell away from that area. AA fire can cancel attack runs and provide you with some extra time. If you're lucky they can actually hit something.
 

9 hours ago, G. Smiley said:

Is having a spotter and/or a designated target considerably more efficient compared to assigning an area that is not spotted as a target?

Yes. Point targets from a dedicated air controller will lead to faster call-in times and more accurate shooting. Further, in the modern titles you'll have laser guided munitions that require an observer with a laser designator to fire at all. Smaller target areas (small radiuses, or point targets) will also make it easier for the aircraft to spot targets.

***

Now, a more fundamental point:

The way that CM models air is pretty bad, in general, and I'm generally of the mind that the game would be better for not having it, as it currently exists.

The WW2 titles have far too much control over the air assets - that kind of co-ordination on CM scale is wildly unrealistic. The modern titles have too little control (the aircraft behave like the WW2 assets), and since the aircraft behaviour was changed from the original CMSF, they're significantly less useful.

In a tactical sense (especially against a human opponent), they're a highly random asset, that can be blind-countered by anti-air assets, which are also highly random. Air assets as-is will tend to do pretty much nothing, or delete things, at random, and there's little you can reasonably do to influence this, so there aren't any interesting decisions to make. It's random and it's boring, and doesn't add to the game.

Still, in the modern titles (especially Shock Force), you can't really get away from it or explain it away with scenario design, so some possible solutions using the existing structure:

My preference in the modern titles would be for fast jets to specialise in being point-target destroyers. They would call in and either deny a small, specific area of space, or be called in on a target to delete a specific building or attack some oncoming armour/whatever. This would probably mean dumping all of their ammunition in a single pass, or something close to that. The purpose of jets would then be single, highly destructive asset, one and done.

I'd then like helicopters to behave far more like they do in CMSF 1 and CM:A, with increased loiter time and 2-3 passes over a two minute period. That would mean that you'd be able to use helicopters to support an assault by suppressing specific targets, rather than having a strafe Hind come in, strafe something random, then disappear for 5-6 minutes, giving them time to recover.

Clearly the latter would be hilariously vulnerable to anti-air, and I think that's sort-of the point - it means that employing this kind of thing would involve ensuring that anti-air assets are neutralised beforehand - this would add decisions, not take them away.

For the WW2 titles, I'd like to see air assets disappear entirely, since they're completely inappropriate for the period and scale. I appreciate that this won't be popular, so if they have to exist, I'd like all WW2 air to work the same way as it does in CMRT - i.e., with zero control, and as much of a risk to your own forces as the enemy.

Edited June 20, 2021 by domfluff

[G. Smiley]

28 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Yes.

Actual time varies, but generally within a minute or two. It's enough time to fast move into the treeline, or disembark AA assets.

You really have two options - get into cover, or to leave the area as fast as possible (air missions, like artillery, will be called in on a limited area of the field. Which is better will depend on a number of things, including the air assets that are attacking you (e.g., air assets with thermals won't be as degraded by trees as one relying on visual cues only).

This will vary. The game does simulate air assets as being in a specific location, relative to the map, which means that they need LOS to that attack run - putting AA assets in a position where they can have an unobstructed view of the sky will maximise those chances.

How close they need to be depends entirely on the asset, but the general rule is that you want to keep them close to what you want to protect. Clearly anti-air missiles are going to have a longer effective range than the cheap Syrian option, of sticking machine guns on the back of pickup trucks.

Anti-air assets can't be relied on to actually shoot down aircraft, with the possible exception of the Tunguska in CMBS (more on this point later). This means that they're really there to give you enough time to get under cover, or the hell away from that area. AA fire can cancel attack runs and provide you with some extra time. If you're lucky they can actually hit something.
 

Yes. Point targets from a dedicated air controller will lead to faster call-in times and more accurate shooting. Further, in the modern titles you'll have laser guided munitions that require an observer with a laser designator to fire at all. Smaller target areas (small radiuses, or point targets) will also make it easier for the aircraft to spot targets.

***

Now, a more fundamental point:

The way that CM models air is pretty bad, in general, and I'm generally of the mind that the game would be better for not having it, as it currently exists.

The WW2 titles have far too much control over the air assets - that kind of co-ordination on CM scale is wildly unrealistic. The modern titles have too little control (the aircraft behave like the WW2 assets), and since the aircraft behaviour was changed from the original CMSF, they're significantly less useful.

In a multiplayer sense, they're a highly random asset, that can be blind-countered by anti-air assets, which are also highly random. Air assets as-is will tend to do pretty much nothing, or delete things, at random, and there's little you can reasonably do to influence this, so there aren't any interesting decisions to make. It's random and it's boring, and doesn't add to the game.

Still, in the modern titles (especially Shock Force), you can't really get away from it or explain it away with scenario design, so some possible solutions using the existing structure:

My preference in the modern titles would be for fast jets to specialise in being point-target destroyers. They would call in and either deny a small, specific area of space, or be called in on a target to delete a specific building or attack some oncoming armour/whatever. This would probably mean dumping all of their ammunition in a single pass, or something close to that. The purpose of jets would then be single, highly destructive asset, one and done.

I'd then like helicopters to behave far more like they do in CMSF 1 and CM:A, with increased loiter time and 2-3 passes over a two minute period. That would mean that you'd be able to use helicopters to support an assault by suppressing specific targets, rather than having a strafe Hind come in, strafe something random, then disappear for 5-6 minutes, giving them time to recover.

Clearly the latter would be hilariously vulnerable to anti-air, and I think that's sort-of the point - it means that employing this kind of thing would involve ensuring that anti-air assets are neutralised beforehand - this would add decisions, not take them away.

For the WW2 titles, I'd like to see air assets disappear entirely, since they're completely inappropriate for the period and scale. I appreciate that this won't be popular, so if they have to exist, I'd like all WW2 air to work the same way as it does in CMRT - i.e., with zero control, and as much of a risk to your own forces as the enemy.

Thank you very much for your extensive response, very, very helpful!

[c3k]

AA: Any vehicles with AA mounts (machineguns, cannon) will stop any movement order (it'll show "Pause") and they will engage the aircraft (if able).

This is for WWII.  So, if your TCs are unbuttoned, you have a chance of shooting down the Jabos.   

For modern, dedicated anti-air assets will engage. (<- I'm not sure if they'll stop moving to do so, or, if they're moving if they can engage.)

[domfluff]

Ah yes, they will stop moving in the modern titles as well. One thing I tend to do is put Anti-air assets on short target arcs, so that they won't waste their limited rounds on ground targets (unless I want them to). The short arcs have no effect on their ability to engage aircraft.

[G. Smiley]

Good to know, thanks!

35 minutes ago, c3k said:

AA: Any vehicles with AA mounts (machineguns, cannon) will stop any movement order (it'll show "Pause") and they will engage the aircraft (if able).

This is for WWII.  So, if your TCs are unbuttoned, you have a chance of shooting down the Jabos.   

For modern, dedicated anti-air assets will engage. (<- I'm not sure if they'll stop moving to do so, or, if they're moving if they can engage.)

 

32 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Ah yes, they will stop moving in the modern titles as well. One thing I tend to do is put Anti-air assets on short target arcs, so that they won't waste their limited rounds on ground targets (unless I want them to). The short arcs have no effect on their ability to engage aircraft.

 

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Aircraft in the WW2 setting are no longer controlled by Spotters. Available WW2 Air Support will now prowl the battlefield independently, without the player being able to command them.  

The 4.0 Engine Manual has a few inaccuracies in it.

Roving aircraft is only true for CM Red Thunder.  All other titles have directed airstrikes.     

[SimpleSimon]

The way airplanes are implemented in RT makes them useless, and is a waste of a mechanic. I'd say to just remove them too, but not because I don't want airplanes in the game. Intricate and detailed attack parameters are totally reasonable to set during the player's planning phase, but since we can't do that for no good reason what's the point in even having them at all? 

As for the other games it's yeah not very realistic that we can get near-JDAMs accuracy out of FW190s on call-in airstrikes, but that's way less of a problem than RT's weird roving air attacks the VVS most certainly did not do. It seems to me that the community has these really built in ideas of what CAS looked like in the 1940s-it wasn't like a less sophisticated version of today's AirLand Battle concepts for instance-but removing it entirely isn't appropriate either. Airstrikes could be very intricate and surprisingly accurate for the day, it just took a lot more effort to manage. The Stuka was clever but also very clearly a gimmick, and the way it bombed it was still necessary to send whole squadrons than just one or two airplanes like the games suggest. CAS did indeed happen a lot in the 2nd World War, and it wasn't unusual to see 40+ airplanes attack a "point" target instead of 2 using a laser guided bomb like we're used to now. That's why you sent many of them. We just can't do that in the WW2 titles because the rules governing airstrikes are fundamentally Shock Force's and they Do Not Work for 1940s. 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[domfluff]

7 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

CAS did indeed happen a lot in the 2nd World War, and it wasn't unusual to see 40+ airplanes attack a "point" target instead of 2 using a laser guided bomb like we're used to now. That's why you sent many of them. We just can't do that in the WW2 titles because the rules governing airstrikes are fundamentally Shock Force's and they Do Not Work for 1940s. 

At least based on Closing with the Enemy, CAS - at least at the extreme low level of focus we see in the Combat Mission series - really didn't happen at all. There were a tiny number of attempts at coordination on that level, and they were notable for two main reasons - firstly that they were a large exception to the norm, and secondly that they were very rarely less than a disaster.

Air was very important in the second world war, naturally, and attacking ground targets was a thing, but supporting an individual rifle company is pretty implausible.

Edited June 20, 2021 by domfluff

[chuckdyke]

What I have picked up by playing SF2. Ground attack aircraft can spot AFV's independently but not infantry. Time your air units with operations on the ground. Backed up my scimitars with Apache Gunships which made a very effective recon. During an attack, helicopters take out enemy units inside buildings if engaged. Keep your units well outside the area you have nominated for your air-units. World War 2 I think we should have less control on company level and time it inside the first 15 minutes of a game. We can always make our own adaptions of the game at home. 

[E5K]

59 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

What I have picked up by playing SF2. Ground attack aircraft can spot AFV's independently but not infantry. Time your air units with operations on the ground. Backed up my scimitars with Apache Gunships which made a very effective recon. During an attack, helicopters take out enemy units inside buildings if engaged. Keep your units well outside the area you have nominated for your air-units. World War 2 I think we should have less control on company level and time it inside the first 15 minutes of a game. We can always make our own adaptions of the game at home. 

 

59 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

We can always make our own adaptions of the game at home. 

I would say leave it in the game. And people can decide if they want to use it or not.

[G. Smiley]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

What I have picked up by playing SF2. Ground attack aircraft can spot AFV's independently but not infantry. Time your air units with operations on the ground. Backed up my scimitars with Apache Gunships which made a very effective recon. During an attack, helicopters take out enemy units inside buildings if engaged. Keep your units well outside the area you have nominated for your air-units. World War 2 I think we should have less control on company level and time it inside the first 15 minutes of a game. We can always make our own adaptions of the game at home. 

Thanks Chuck, that is helpful!

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, c3k said:

AA: Any vehicles with AA mounts (machineguns, cannon) will stop any movement order (it'll show "Pause") and they will engage the aircraft (if able).

This is for WWII.  So, if your TCs are unbuttoned, you have a chance of shooting down the Jabos.   

I don't think US tank commanders will use their .50 against aircraft, and the German tanks don't have their turret mounted MG42, so no TC defence against JaBos as far as I know.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[c3k]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think US tank commanders will use their .50 against aircraft, and the German tanks don't have their turret mounted MG42, so no TC defence against JaBos as far as I know.

Hmm. Other vehicles do.

(Of course, why don't shermans (for example) engage. Something to look at...)

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, c3k said:

Hmm. Other vehicles do.

Which tank commanders engage aircraft? I only have CMBN and CMFB so might not have seen these tanks.

[c3k]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Which tank commanders engage aircraft? I only have CMBN and CMFB so might not have seen these tanks.

Halftracks, armored cars, others. It was especially evident in Tukums, from CMRT.

[domfluff]

I haven't seen anything which isn't a specific anti-air asset firing at air targets, but then I haven't played around with WW2 air all that much.

There's a bit of a design trade-off there - Bren guns, .50 cal, etc. were intended for the anti-air role, but weren't very good at it, and firing ineffectually at air assets is a great way to give away your location, especially given the gods-eye view of the battlefield in CM. Since there is currently no method of preventing anti-air assets from firing at air targets, this is a real concern.

So... would you rather have a practically-zero chance of defending yourself against air attack, versus a very likely chance of revealing your position? Clearly "practically zero" isn't zero, so there's some reason why squads and vehicles should try to defend themselves with MG fire, but it seems to me like the trade-off is far too great - wasting ammunition and revealing your position to your opponent.

[Bulletpoint]

12 minutes ago, c3k said:

Halftracks, armored cars, others. It was especially evident in Tukums, from CMRT.

Is this a new thing in Fire & Rubble? I've never seen any halftrack or armoured car fire on aircraft in CMBN or CMFB.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Which tank commanders engage aircraft?

It was the purpose of the .50 Cal. David Fletcher of 'The Tank Museum Bovington' said the following: "A British tanker buttoned up and waited, on the other hand an American tanker tried to shoot the plane down. But that was typical."