Tac Air and AA

[Stardekk]

What do you guys think about Tac air and Helis in the game ? Are they realistic enough and effective to be bought  in QBs stuff like that that ? And if not, why ? I personally think air is underpowered in the game since it should not die as fast as it dies, Tactical AA should most of the time just prevent it from attacking, at least in the this era of the Cold War. And i don't think there should be a Max attacking zone. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Stardekk

[Redwolf]

Mostly fine as far as effect is concerned. Shootdown rate of helos is probably fine, fixed wing I might agree that they should be more discouraged than shot down. I think the games lacks a mechanism where a pilot just decides to pack it in and leave.

Having said that, in Quickbattles there is a real problem with overly cheap Hinds. They can be had for 30-70 points. They are more effective than that.

 

[Stardekk]

Agreed. The helicopters with the cheap rockets and cannons are more effective than the expensive ones with ATGM, I'de rather have 10 helicopters with light ordinance that could damage MBTs and kill everything else, and if one of them is down it won't matter that much than 2 expensive ones.

 

[Redwolf]

One other small thing that bothers me about fires in CMx2 is the hit probability of cluster munitions. They seem to spread over so wide an area that there is plenty vehicle-sized room between the average submunition impact. AFAIK in real life they are specifically spread (concentrated) to have less than vehicle size spacing on impact.

[Muzzleflash1990]

I am guessing it is Mk20 for air support? For the Mk20, what I could find, one source said the area was around 4800 square metres, another 10,000. That leaves means each submunition covers ~20 square meters in the ideal case and a T-72 occupies around ~25 square meters. From Hapless video, it seems like the distribution is uneven with way more near the center, but the density looked about right. A Norwegian report I found suggested the M483A1 with 88 bomblets covers an area of 18,000 square meters, making each bomblet cover ~200 square meters, and that the pattern from tube based artillery is uneven. Good thing they fire in batteries then.

[MikeyD]

I read a (real world) report awhile ago that said on average it would take ten cluster munition hits to guarantee a tank is knocked out. More if the fuel tanks and ammo racks aren't full. That would require an absurd concentration of submunition rounds over the target to achieve saturation. Their estimate may have included the usual high percentage of duds among the bomblets. The US concluded that cluster munitions are not effective antitank weapons. I had posted the relevant text somewhere on this site awhile ago.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Fairly sure that report is either linked or cited in some detail somewhere around here (because I recently read it too).

[Halmbarte]

Tube artillery cluster munitions (USA) don’t do a very good job of tank killing. They are much more effective at destroying BMPs and BTRs, and they do make the tanks button up and degrade subsystems. 
 

OTOH, in the direct fire realm, Mk19s take a lot of rounds (side hits) to kill a tank but they do seem to blind them pretty quick. 
 

H

[The_Capt]

21 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

Tube artillery cluster munitions (USA) don’t do a very good job of tank killing. They are much more effective at destroying BMPs and BTRs, and they do make the tanks button up and degrade subsystems. 
 

OTOH, in the direct fire realm, Mk19s take a lot of rounds (side hits) to kill a tank but they do seem to blind them pretty quick. 
 

H

In game (and matching sources) that is exactly their value.  They can kill a tank but primarily they are designed to strip off infantry, effectively breaking up the all arms team.  

[IMHO]

On 10/13/2021 at 1:02 AM, The_Capt said:

In game (and matching sources) that is exactly their value

I guess that's the same old tale isn't it? CMxx units are packed too dense to ease the gameplay so to compensate for this HE/HE-FRAG effects are limited in distance. And HE/HE-FRAG effects are further reduced to force a full-contact hack and slash as opposed to boring win through remote carpet bombing.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

I guess that's the same old tale isn't it? CMxx units are packed too dense to ease the gameplay so to compensate for this HE/HE-FRAG effects are limited in distance. And HE/HE-FRAG effects are further reduced to force a full-contact hack and slash as opposed to boring win through remote carpet bombing.

Not sure what you mean by "too dense" to be honest.  The frontages you see in the campaigns and most scenarios are pretty close to doctrine.  That and the fact was (is) that on the assault, which is what a lot of CM fights are really modelling at different resolutions you are looking for up to 6 to 1 force ratios so density is kinda a given.  Can't say thay HE/HE-FRAG are "reduced" for reasons of balancing, never was a conversation we had in development.  We try and find historical sources and go from there.

One thing we would like to see are multiple weapons releases from Tac Air.  Currently TAC Air is making single pass strikes using single weapon systems (one pass = one bomb or strafe).  In WW2 this made sense as most of those aircraft had limited payloads.  In the modern titles it mirrors what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan but in a WW3 scenario those planes would be making a single run and dropping everything on it, the air environment is just too dangerous to loiter.  That is something we had to balance in content development, but the change will have to wait for the new engine.

[Artkin]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure what you mean by "too dense" to be honest.

Infantry of the same squad being very close together and not having explosives kill as many as they should.

I've seen guys run right past 100mm+ explosions under their feet more than once 

[IMHO]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure what you mean by "too dense" to be honest. The frontages you see in the campaigns and most scenarios are pretty close to doctrine.  

Just like @Artkin said...

1. I don't mean mission level frontage I mean team/squad members are too close. If you set HE-FRAG lethal radius as it is IRL then any nearby explosion will be killing full squads outright. Though the decision to put squad members closer to each other was sound as well. It would be rather inconvenient to manage squads with RL distances between members on pre-CMCW maps.
2. Big campaign maps are the beauty of CMCW - CM used much smaller maps in the past instalments with mission level frontage was much tighter. And CMCW gameplay is different from those past titles. In CMCW you can concentrate more on how you approach your targets rather than on micro of terrain clearing. Yes, I admit I'm in love with CMCW  IMO the best mission/campaign/map pack in the history of CM.

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Can't say thay HE/HE-FRAG are "reduced" for reasons of balancing, never was a conversation we had in development.

If my memory does not fail me that was Charles who said this about 10 years ago. And I also posted articles on RL arty barrage effect on armour about 5-7 years ago. Though I had to delete them afterwards - I ran out of forum attachment quota  But I can try to find them again if you're interested. CM arty barrages are waaaay inefficient against armour as compared to RL. I guess the rationale was to force players to conduct maneuver warfare instead of boring "arty camping"

Edited November 18, 2021 by IMHO

[Redwolf]

We recently discussed that as part of on-map mortars being pretty deadly.

But the deadlieness of small HE in CMx2 doesn't seem to scale up to larger HE.

[IMHO]

46 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

We recently discussed that as part of on-map mortars being pretty deadly. But the deadlieness of small HE in CMx2 doesn't seem to scale up to larger HE.

From my observations HE effect on infantry is basically limited to the action square where the explosion takes place plus adjacent squares in case of higher calibers. So when compared to RL small caliber HEs in CM should be sufficiently close to RL whereas higher calibers are severely limited by this adjacent square rule. And even for higher calibers units in adjacent squares take waaaay smaller damage than the unit in the action square where the explosion takes place.

What I dislike is how HE-FRAG in CM does not affect armour enough. If a HE-FRAG hits an armoured vehicle and the caliber is not high enough to allow for an outright kill then the explosion can just slightly damage modules and even that is rather rare. If the shell falls VERY near the vehicle it can only damage tracks and no other modules. And if it falls even 3-4-5 meters away - no damage whatsoever. It basically changes the whole approach compared to RL. Non-precision HE-FRAG barrages are totally useless against armour. IMO the problem could have been solved in mission design by limiting the number of arty support instead of unrealistically cutting the effect of individual rounds. IRL E.g. 152/155mm can kill a tank in CM is it hits an engine compartment but not 120/122mm whereas IRL it will be mission kill at least in both cases if not a total write-off irrespective of where it hits. And both calibers severely degrade tank modules up to a mission/mobility kill IRL if they explode 10-15 meters. And for Russian IFVs/APCs even 82mm is deadly IRL within 10m. Even 82mm produces enough fragments of sufficient weight to pierce their armour.

BTW I didn't test much for open terrain but for the buildings HE damage is a constant. I.e. if an explosion takes place in the building square where an infantry unit is deployed then a fixed number of squad members will be hit if damage is dealt at all. The severity of damage to individual team members is random but the number of squad members affected is a constant. Actually there might be a constant damage pool as well with each level of damage severity - slightly wounded, severely wounded, dead - being assigned a certain weight so that the total always stays the same. Didn't lab-test for that but in a hindsight it may even work this way rather than individual damage being randomized. Anyway having the number of team members a constant helps immensely. If you test you'd know how many shells need to hit a section of the building to disable a possible enemy squad there. You just need to watch for near misses - they do not count.

Edited November 18, 2021 by IMHO

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, IMHO said:

What I dislike is how HE-FRAG in CM does not affect armour enough. If a HE-FRAG hits an armoured vehicle and the caliber is not high enough to allow for an outright kill then the explosion can just slightly damage modules and even that is rather rare. If the shell falls VERY near the vehicle it can only damage tracks and no other modules.

This is true. However,  this

4 hours ago, IMHO said:

From my observations HE effect on infantry is basically limited to the action square where the explosion takes place plus adjacent squares in case of higher calibers.

and this

4 hours ago, IMHO said:

 if an explosion takes place in the building square where an infantry unit is deployed then a fixed number of squad members will be hit if damage is dealt at all. The severity of damage to individual team members is random but the number of squad members affected is a constant.

are not.

[IMHO]

19 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

are not.

1. You sure about buildings? I did multiple tests - like 40-50 and I always got the same number of casualties if the same kind of ordnance is shot along the same vector and the same squad is in the building facing the shooter. I remember quite vividly that the number was the same all the time irrespective of where specifically the shell hits as long as it hits the building square the "victim squad" is made to face. I.e. if the "victim squad" faces one side and the shell hits another or misses a bit and hits a bit above or below the building's facing square then the results are certainly differ. Though it was one of the early CMBS - many years ago so may be something's changed.
2. As per the "adjacent squares" with HE explosions on the open terrain I should rephrase it to be more correct. I'm sure there's no rule coded-in that HE affects only the adjacent squares. Yet as fast as HE effect degrades with distance in CM it makes anything more than adjacent squares almost impossible to affect.

Your thoughts?

Edited November 18, 2021 by IMHO

[Redwolf]

6 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1.  
2. As per the "adjacent squares" with HE explosions on the open terrain I should rephrase it to be more correct. I'm sure there's no rule coded-in that HE affects only the adjacent squares. Yet as fast as HE effect degrades with distance in CM it makes anything more than adjacent squares almost impossible to affect.

Your thoughts?

Almost feels like the HE effect goes down with the power of 3 of distance, not power of 2 like it should.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

51 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. You sure about buildings? I did multiple tests - like 40-50 and I always got the same number of casualties if the same kind of ordnance is shot along the same vector and the same squad is in the building facing the shooter. I remember quite vividly that the number was the same all the time irrespective of where specifically the shell hits as long as it hits the building square the "victim squad" is made to face. I.e. if the "victim squad" faces one side and the shell hits another or misses a bit and hits a bit above or below the building's facing square then the results are certainly differ. Though it was one of the early CMBS - many years ago so may be something's changed.

I just tested this in Red Thunder, n=10. Casualties were:

Killed           Wounded

2                   1

1                    0

3                   0

2                   0

2                   2

1                    0

0                    1

3                    0

1                    1

3                    0

51 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. As per the "adjacent squares" with HE explosions on the open terrain I should rephrase it to be more correct. I'm sure there's no rule coded-in that HE affects only the adjacent squares. Yet as fast as HE effect degrades with distance in CM it makes anything more than adjacent squares almost impossible to affect.

I don't think so. I'll attach a Final Blitz test save file that shows why.

 

RT building test 001.bts FB 105L28 HE test 001.bts

Edited November 18, 2021 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Redwolf said:

Almost feels like the HE effect goes down with the power of 3 of distance, not power of 2 like it should.

 

I feel the opposite. If it went down with the power of 3, it would be very rare to see distanct casualties, and most common to see casualties very close to the place of impact.

The way I see it, there are too few casualties close to the point of impact, and too many far away.

[MikeyD]

Casualties differ depending on the terrain and weather. Rain down artillery on a waterlogged muddy field and you will see much of the blast effects get absorbed. Rain down artillery on hard dry rocky ground  and more of the blast effect is directed laterally. At least that's how it was working the last time I looked at it many many title releases ago.