phil stanbridge Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Playing the latest beta, have the air strikes been tweaked at all since 1.05? I've noticed that they are on the scene almost immediately and are absolutely lethal. Aces all of them I'd say. One example without any spoiler info. One scenario I have played a few times in 1.05 the aircraft would appear middle to late in the battle. Now it appears straight away, ie. first or second turn and hits you very hard. Even with three flak guns and machine gun fire suppression this mutha keeps on attacking. I have lost numerous vehicles and men to it, it flies off, rearms and comes back for me. It makes a game almost unplayable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe F Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Whats the name of the scenario?? I would like to test it out myself.. Rgs, Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 Bridgehead to Benicourt. See for yourself. Play as the axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kelly Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 I haven't noticed that the pilots are all that terrific. Unless, of course, they are veteran or above. In a quick battle, one is lucky to have even a regular. In the scenario, "Schijndel Road" the plane is fairly inept. As the American commander, I watched in disgust as my plane bombed a house and strafed a deserted vehicle...all while ignoring a lethal Panther tank. I say leave them alone. I'm quite sure the pilot of the plane in question was regular or less. Cheers, John [This message has been edited by John Kelly (edited 12-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 What I meant by this is having played several games in 1.05 and then a couple more of the same scenerio with the beta patch I can see a marked difference with the air strikes. To me it suggests they've been tweaked in some way but maybe it is just a random setting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 We'll my USAAF can't seem to hit the side of a barn. Three strikes in my game, and not a sratch to the German armor. Gonna cost me the game. I say it needs to be INCREASED in accuracy ... but that's my experience. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Tac air is commonly thought to have been very effective at CAS, which is the role it is performing in CM. However, statistical evidence suggests otherwise. Check _Spearhead for Blitzkrieg_, whose author's name escaps me at the moment (a Luftwaffe general officer). In his endnotes the is a reference to a US survey of damaged vehicles that points to the fact that VERY few were taken out by aircraft-launched ordnance, and further that tanks were particularly hard to kill. Rockets, so often touted as a great weapon, were quite inaccurate. My feeling is that the price of fighter-bomber support (paricularly for the Allies) could be toned down, and the accuracy decreased substantially. The likelihood of taking out a tank with air-launched ordnance should be quite low, IMHO, and most positive results should probably be mobility kills caused by near-miss iron bombs. All of this said, and in an effort to preemptively stop some anticipated flames, Allied tac air was much more effective at interdiction and performed an important role in keeping German troops and equipment from reaching the front, but it was not terribly good at killing them once they got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 That has sort of shot me down in flames. I have only experienced increased accuracy with air strikes. I guess if there is some random factor involved then I haven't tested it enough. To give you some idea of how it is effecting me: SPOILER info *** In Bridgehead to Benicourt in the first turn I had air support fire either rockets or bombs at me and that immobilized one tank and killed the commander of another. In the second turn I lost several HT's and nearly a dozen men to machine gun fire. At this point I had one 20mm gun firing and sveral mounted machine guns firing at the plane. Not enough suppression it would seem. In the third turn I had the plane again strafe my hidden troops and a hetzer that I had hidden in scattered trees. My tank was damaged and I lost 6 men. Following few turns the plane again strafed whatever it could see. This has resulted in the loss of 6 HT's about 20 men and a couple of tanks have been rendered useless. I spread my tanks etc out, I used cover where I could. This has happened three times on the trot using the beta patch. [This message has been edited by phil stanbridge (edited 12-08-2000).] [This message has been edited by phil stanbridge (edited 12-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bimmer: My feeling is that the price of fighter-bomber support (paricularly for the Allies) could be toned down, and the accuracy decreased substantially.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is somewhat in line with what I suggested in another thread a few months ago. Allied air support was regularly used as "many on many", i.e. many attack aircraft launched their ordnance within a small time frame, at a fairly tight larger formation (company or more) of tanks. As noted, most rockets didn't hit their intended target, but if many enough are fired, some rockets are bound to hit something vital. My suggestion was that Allied (primarily US) aircraft should only be available at larger qualities, about five at a time. However, this doesn't fit in with the intended use in CM, so your suggestion about lower cost and accuracy seem much better, IMO. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Not sure what possible relevance this may have to you, but here's how I approach it. If you look at aars/reports from as late as the Gulf War and the recent unpleasantness vs the Serbian Army in Kosovo, you'll see that a great many bombs and missiles have been expended for the loss of - in Kosovo at least- what appears to be relatively few enemy vehicles and tanks. Im citing the famous GAO report for the Gulf War and perhaps less reliable press reports for the Kosovo stuff. Not to say that we didn't hurt the Iraqi army, just that it took a lot of explosives to do it, and that putting steel on target is not as easy as some people would have you believe. And this is in the days of computerized fire control and laser designation, etc. All of which makes me very grateful when the fighter bombers in CM show up and distract the enemy let alone hit ANYTHING at all. Terence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 This brings up another point which I didn't mention before. Air attacks, for whatever material damage they did or did not do, were feared and hated by those on the receiving end, even those troops that were not harmed by the attack. I have to wonder if some sort of increased global morale effect caused by continued air bombardment wouldn't be a bad thing if its not already there (anyone? BTS?) I suppose this might work out on its own if my suggestion of less accurate but more frequent Allied tac air support were to be implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts