Use of CAS is gamey recon ? (Well, kinda sort of :-)

[Guest tero]

The CAS experiment tread brought this on. Tongue in cheek with a serious twist.

Thesis: The CAS in CM is always on target.

Ergo: The Allied player gets a hint of the German general disposition if the CAS indeed does not pull a no-show and does not choose to attack friedlies.

It must follow: use of CAS is gamey recon IF we know it is invariably on target and CAS attacks real, previously unspotted, enemy positions.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi Tero, a couple of thoughts...

* I have seen bomb drops miss by a good distance before from their intended target, sometimes up to 50m away. This can be especially confusing in hilly terrain.

* If the aircraft didnt have a target, why would he be bombing that location?

I do see your point, but to be honest I dont really see this as gamey. In reality, I imagine a commander seeing an aircraft dropping at a certain location may think to himself hmmmmm. there may be some bad guys there

[Guest tero]

That would stand to reason. Except IRL the commander does not know FOR SURE the attack was made on real targets. He would have to take into account the possibility that the strike was made on a hay stack beside a barn.

As for bombs falling off target: that does tend to happen.

But wouldn't you agree that if they strike in front of a hill you can surmise the target is either behind the hill, or behind the hill in fron to the impact or indeed in a position in the general area ? The bigger the map the greater the advantage of this advance warning. 50 meters is not THAT far in CM scale.

[Degrees of Frost]

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

* If the aircraft didnt have a target, why would he be bombing that location?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the pilot felt like it

I have no idea what "motivates" those flyboys.

The ENIGMATIC flyer - "Will I turn up today ? ... maybe"

The INDECISIVE flyer "I best wait till the battle is decided by units on the ground before I attack. I wouldn't want to have any actual effect on the result."

The FEARFUL flyer - "Oh **** .... somebody down there is shooting at me ! ... imagine that .... I never should have called them sprites ... well I best buzz off now ... Oh hang on am I a sprite ? ... ouch my brain hurts"

The FOCUSSED flyer "Bugger - my bombs missed - well even though there are soft targets running about the place I will spend the rest of my ammo banging away at some buttoned up tank I can't hurt"

The AGRESSIVE flyer "There's something ... bombs away !!!! Oops its one of mine ... well chalk that up as my first kill ... all those practice runs when I didn't hit anything ... wait till the boys back at base see this film ... bang on target"

The TYPICAL flyer "zzzzzzz .... zzzzzzzzz .... zzzzzzzz"

[Slapdragon]

Tero,

US tanks had the ability to talk with CAS planes and even tactical recon fighters like the P-51A. Your fighter pilot or recon pilot would just say "hey, I am dropping on some tanks here". CAS recon is not gamey at all since in reality it should be even better than it is!

[Guest tero]

>US tanks had the ability to talk with CAS planes and even tactical recon fighters like the P-51A.

I am aware of that. What was the procedure for ordering CAS ? Was it ordered on spotted enemy targets, suspected enemy targets or emplacements or was it ordered on "targets of opportunity in this area" ? Who did the actual ordering ? In general terms that is.

>Your fighter pilot or recon pilot would just say "hey, I am dropping on some tanks here".

I would say the statement would go more accurately "hey, I'm dropping on some targets that I think are tanks here". Depends on the self esteem of the pilot of course.

>CAS recon is not gamey at all since in reality it should be even better than it is!

Since there is NO possibility CAS strikes are made on bogus targets I think it is gamey recon.

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Polar]

Another POed German player.

CAS was an unfair advantage in many ways by that point in the war. Deal with it.

If you don't like it, join the allied cause!

Joe

[Guest tero]

>Another POed German player.

Not so much POed as annoyed

>CAS was an unfair advantage in many ways by that point in the war. Deal with it.

I deal with it by buying beaucoup AAA.

I can also deal with the losses to CAS.

But I have a hard time dealing with the fact that there clearly is a built in advantage for the Allies that can be used in a gamey fashion.

Since it is deemed gamey to use ahistorical unit types suitable for recon in recon so should this particular FEATURE of the game discussed (and deemed gamey

>If you don't like it, join the allied cause!

Actually I am engaged now in a PBEM as the British (and the CAS will not comply by pointing me towards the German defences

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Tero,

US tanks had the ability to talk with CAS planes and even tactical recon fighters like the P-51A. Your fighter pilot or recon pilot would just say "hey, I am dropping on some tanks here". CAS recon is not gamey at all since in reality it should be even better than it is!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First time I hear that - interesting. All tanks all the time or just the FAC? I thought WW 2 radio technology was not advanced enough for that?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest KwazyDog]

So tero, are you suggesting that there are times youd like to see your aircraft drop their bombs at random across the map?

Honestly, Im not sure why you see fighters attacking targets as gamey. I agree, it does give you a general indicator of the direction of the enemy, but you have no idea what the target was, and you dont even have an exact location.

For all you know, your FB just hit a lone sniper running across a feild

[Guest tero]

>So tero, are you suggesting that there are times youd like to see your aircraft drop their bombs at random across the map?

It did happen often IRL so why not in CM.

There should not be any indication that the strike on a bogus target is just that. That means that the guns of the aircraft should engage the bogus target, not just the bombs/rockets.

>Honestly, Im not sure why you see fighters attacking targets as gamey.

In itself it is not gamey. How could it be. But it does allow the owner of the CAS determine the general direction of the enemy. There are times when this will become gamey recon. Say, the defender is poised for a thrust against the attackers flank and is about to take him by complete surprise when hey, presto the attacker sees his CAS bomb a perfectly nondescript, innocent and overlooked clump of trees on his flank out of his LOS. The counterattack is blown as CAS in CM invariably attacks legitimate targets only.

>I agree, it does give you a general indicator of the direction of the enemy, but you have no idea what the target was, and you dont even have an exact location.

With tanks the exact location is seldom a certainty.

>For all you know, your FB just hit a lone sniper running across a feild

Agreed. But I just got a hint that there is something worth investigating in that direction. Snipers seldom move alone. Unless it is on a gamey recon mission.

If there is no smoke rising after the strike chances are the tank behind the sniper was spared

[tailz]

Pretty expensive recon, those fighterbombers... maybe you shouldn't play battles that give players so many points to burn on the 'whiz-bang' toys?

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

"Poor, poor, pitiful me... these young

girls won't let me be... woe is me!" Warren Zevon

[Jasper]

"All tanks all the time or just the FAC? I thought WW 2 radio technology was not advanced enough for that?"

Just the Forward Air Controller. Radio technology had nothing to do with it. Different techniques were tried at different times to communicate with the pilots to let them know which areas or targets to hit. Or more importantly which targets not to hit!

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Just the Forward Air Controller. Radio technology had nothing to do with it. Different techniques were tried at different times to communicate with the pilots to let them know which areas or targets to hit. Or more importantly which targets not to hit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way I understood how the system worked, radios were tuned via crystals. (For the UK) Tanks would be on a squadron or regimental net, command tanks would tap into the next higher net. FOO, FAC, CO tanks often had the gun removed to make space for the additional radio sets necessary, since nets could not be changed by just flicking a switch (unlike today). Since only FACs could communicate with FBs, you would need one present to achieve communication, otherwise you would have the FBs operate independently from the ground forces.

How frequent were FACs in 1944-5? For what kind of ops were they present, and attached at what level?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Slapdragon]

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

First time I hear that - interesting. All tanks all the time or just the FAC? I thought WW 2 radio technology was not advanced enough for that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a change in radio tuning for the tanks and some ground nets done after everyone figured out how much it sucked not to be able to talk with CAS. CM simulates artillery like all units used the German system of spotting teams tied directly to batteries and roaming CAS without ground control, but the US had an "every battery and every plane" in sight system so that any platoon commander could go all the way to Division with a fire request and get not only the company level 81s but everything else if it was really needed (or be refused it if it was firing at something else!).

US tanks and company level radio nets could communicate on CAS nets through a tuning in the standard radio sets. That was the only way in which the famous "Cab-Rank" worked.

"Cab-Rank" was invented after air power, which had been pretty inneffective during the first days of Normandy, was given the ability to talk with the company level ground commanders and tanks with reequipped radios. Any company level commander could call for air to help bust up stubborn defence, and could also get tactical recon information.

(Until that time tactical recon was not very tactical since the information was sent back to England, gunsight pictures looked at, the information was processed, and a week later it was in the Division Commander's hands -- the ability of a tact recon flyer in a Mustang to say "there are tanks in those woods" and cut through the process time was a major breakthrough)

I should note that the US every gun in firing distance was never adopted by the UK and Commonwealth, who used a system much closer to German dedicated FO system. And, all of this is academic since CM solves the problem of every platoon being able to spot artillery in the US Army by not giving them the ability, and by not using a "Cab Rank" system of airpower but a roaming / random system.

That means Tero, it is not that you are at an unfair disadvantage, but you are actually catching a break, since the makers of CM have reduced the power of CAS, not simulated air recon talking to the tactical nets, and even taken away a well known US ability of platoon level leader to direct anything up to and including corps level artillery (not that it would be available all the time though).

[Jeff Heidman]

In any case, it is not "gamey". It might not be accurate, but it isn't gamey.

Gamey is using a limitation or defect in the game system to obtain a result well out of proportion to the cost. In this case, the recon is a relatively small consequence of the actual purpose of air support. No-body is going to run out and spend the serious bucks for air support in the hope that it might give them an extrmely general idea about where the bad guys, said idea they would almost certainly have anyway.

In another sense, you could say that this is not even a problem at all. It is just the way the game works. You get all sorts of information from your units you would not normally have. Why should aircraft be any different?

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

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

"All tanks all the time or just the FAC? I thought WW 2 radio technology was not advanced enough for that?"

Just the Forward Air Controller. Radio technology had nothing to do with it. Different techniques were tried at different times to communicate with the pilots to let them know which areas or targets to hit. Or more importantly which targets not to hit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In US service Company Commanders and above, and Platoon commanders talking to company and battalion, could control Cab-Rank attack planes and talk with tac recon planes assigned to their section. The way it worked was Army Air Force units would be given an area to work, and a defined FEBA. They would then fly in big circles over the attacking battalions. Company commanders would call for help to Battalion and have that call relayed to a FAC who would detail some planes to the call, give them the company commander's freq, and a map coordinate to look for. Cab-rank would then change nets and get a direct from the commander closest to the action. The commander would pop smoke, layout air panels, wave flags about, or some other thing to mark their position, give a description of where the trouble was in comparison, and duck.

When an attack stalled, or when the front was static, Cab-Rank would be given roaming papers. Then they would just fly to FEBA and not knowing what net to tune to find some US units, fly a little more, and start looking for trouble.

The Cab-Rank system was not in use during June and some of July 1944 casuing a lot of accidents and a loss of effectiveness in air support. It should also be noted that the German Army and Airforce never did work that well together even in the famous days of blitzkrieg, German airmen mostly attacking ground forces at choke points rather than providing direct support, so when Cab-Rank was finally worked out by the Allies it was a real shock to the Germans.

[Priest]

Tero if I am not mistaken (and this is probably out of CM scope) but thank god that Steve and Charles didn't simulate the Piper Cub. How would you like your American playing opponent to start the game with a lot of german symbols showing up as a result of what the Piper Cub saw a 1/2 an hour earlier?

Just a waker upper!

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Priest:

>How would you like your American playing opponent to start the game with a lot of german symbols showing up as a result of what the Piper Cub saw a 1/2 an hour earlier?

Just a waker upper!

Not a wake upper when you think about it. You make a valid point.

I would not think that the inclusion of said Piper Cub recce intel would be out of line at all. The thing is we might have to debate what the Piper Cub actually saw ie. how accurate the intel would, could and should actually be. The accuratish identification of a random number of AAA (which engaged the said Piper Cub) and non-dug in units in scantily covered terrain would perhaps be OK. But under no circumstances should all the units be made visible, even as contacts.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

>In any case, it is not "gamey". It might not be accurate, but it isn't gamey.

I think it is gamey when is 100% accurate when it comes to target selection.

>Gamey is using a limitation or defect in the game system to obtain a result well out of proportion to the cost.

Why does it always have to be a limitation or a defect that is used to commit a gamey act ? Why can we not deem the use of a 100% fool proof (IF it is not a no-show or IF it does not choose a friendly unit for a target ) feature of the game as gamey under the right circumstances ? The use of Kamikaze jeeps is considered gamey eventhough they can be used in that fashion without abusing the game engine itself in any way. Why would it not be gamey to use the CAS as a target indicator ?

>In this case, the recon is a relatively small consequence of the actual purpose of air support.

Agreed. But that collateral benefit can be at times way out of proportion to its historical value. You get to knock out the enemy assest AND you know FOR CERTAIN their general disposition.

>No-body is going to run out and spend the serious bucks for air support in the hope that it might give them an extrmely general idea about where the bad guys, said idea they would almost certainly have anyway.

Agreed. But if you score big time that around 300pts is well spent out of proportion to the true, historical effectiveness.

I agree most of the time there would not be no surprises revealed but the few times they do reveal someting the revelation does in my oppinion constitute gamey recon, just like the use of Kamikaze jeeps would.

>In another sense, you could say that this is not even a problem at all. It is just the way the game works. You get all sorts of information from your units you would not normally have. Why should aircraft be any different?

Because historically CAS did not pick valid targets 100% of the time. They could see a the pole they attach the horses in a horse cart protruding out of a hay stack and they would most certainly rack it up as a Tiger kill.

As things stand now in CM you can bet your trousers your CAS hit a valid target in 100 % of the passes it made on the enemy. No more, no less.

[Firefly]

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

The way I understood how the system worked, radios were tuned via crystals. (For the UK) Tanks would be on a squadron or regimental net, command tanks would tap into the next higher net. FOO, FAC, CO tanks often had the gun removed to make space for the additional radio sets necessary, since nets could not be changed by just flicking a switch (unlike today). Since only FACs could communicate with FBs, you would need one present to achieve communication, otherwise you would have the FBs operate independently from the ground forces.

How frequent were FACs in 1944-5? For what kind of ops were they present, and attached at what level?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Over Christmas I read Keith Jones' '64 Days in a Normandy Summer'. Jones was a captain in a Cromwell armed armoured recon regiment in 11th Armoured. He describes the squadron and regimental nets pretty much as you do, but the responsibilty for monitoring the regimental net was given to the rear-link tank, who would pass orders from Regimental HQ to the squadron commander and alert him if the CO needed to speak directly to the commander. The squadron commander spent most of his time monitoring the squadron net and giving orders. Jones commanded the rear-lnk tank himself for a while and gives a semi-amusing description of how he had to phically deliver the messages when the Squadron CO had been wounded in the ear, causing temporary deafness.

The only mention he makes of a FAC (or RAFLO - RAF Liaison Officer) refers to an RAF officer and crew in an RAF half-track attached to the regimental HQ. In Normandy the troops on the ground would communicate with the pilots by firing smoke at the target or by laying out large yellow arrows on the ground pointing to the target.

[This message has been edited by Firefly (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Guest tero]

>In Normandy the troops on the ground would communicate with the pilots by firing smoke at the target or by laying out large yellow arrows on the ground pointing to the target.

Not very scientific and accurate target indication, is it. "We are here, the Germans are thataway".

The Finns used an innovative target indiaction system during the summer of 1944. As there were few radios they agreed that the artillery would fire a salvo to the four corners of the target area once the air assets were in place.

[Slapdragon]

[i should note again that the British did not adopt the US air control or artillery net system until the sixties. It is now known as the abca system.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Over Christmas I read Keith Jones' '64 Days in a Normandy Summer'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is where my info came from. Very good book.

The amount of friendly fire that UK units received leads me to suspect that they did not have good comms to upstairs.

Slapdragon, by what time had the US instituted the system you describe? Winter or earlier?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Slapdragon]

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

That is where my info came from. Very good book.

The amount of friendly fire that UK units received leads me to suspect that they did not have good comms to upstairs.

Slapdragon, by what time had the US instituted the system you describe? Winter or earlier?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For regular artillery it was in place in 1943. For CAS it took a couple of months to get it correct, no one expected how vital it would be, but by October it was standard in US units, with many tanks getting new sets that could tune air frequencies. It's biggest problem was that it did not work on cloudy days even though CAS could still hunt under the cloud layer, since it required the flyer to be able to identify ground targets.