Objects still mising in CM

[Siege]

To go back to a couple older topics here. The road/rail issue may be better solved by a more intuitive map designer. Rather than a "tile by tile" approach, a more friendly "Draw Road" tool may solve a lot of the problems. I am thinking of something akin to the road/rail methods used in games such as Sim-City.

Here is something to toss out regarding Close Air Support... Perhaps model in an additional FO tasked along with the air support that would be purchased separate from the aircraft. With the FO it would reduce friendly fire and improve accuracy, with a degree of ability to choose the target area (but not specific targets). It could also be used to indicate the time until the tac-air arrives on scene, and their status. If the FO gets eliminated, it would default to a situation similiar to the current air support.

Similarly, perhaps introduce light observation aircraft such as the L-4 to use for artillery spotting and directing airstrikes. However you would have to disconnect them from any spotting of troops in the ground battle most likely.

I'd have to go back to my reading to find historical references in the theatres involved in CMAK for those ideas, but you guys would probably be much better at finding that information than I would.

-Hans

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

The Rusky really put AA guns in bunkers like 76 mm Flak „Lender" L/30 and used them as field guns.

Oh, okay. Just as long as their FoF is limited and they can't shoot at planes.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Alsatian:

And as for movement within the trench, the point that it takes a while for a squad to "get in line," is a good one. But once in line, shouldn't they move along decently.

Dorosh has already addressed the speed of movement of individuals in a trench. But however quickly an individual moves, it requires not only his time of transit, but the last guy in the line as well to satisfy the movement model in CM.

Look at it this way: Say you were tasked with figuring out how long it takes for a train to go from St. Louis to Chicago. The time required is inclusive of the time the engine pulls out of St. Louis to the time the caboose pulls into Chicago. Thats more time than just the engine going from point to point. In other words, if you were sitting by the track with a stop watch, you would be timing how long it took for the entire train to pass your point. I hope you get it this time. I don't think I can make it any clearer in words.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Siege:

Here is something to toss out regarding Close Air Support... Perhaps model in an additional FO tasked along with the air support that would be purchased separate from the aircraft. With the FO it would reduce friendly fire and improve accuracy, with a degree of ability to choose the target area (but not specific targets). It could also be used to indicate the time until the tac-air arrives on scene, and their status. If the FO gets eliminated, it would default to a situation similiar to the current air support.

Similarly, perhaps introduce light observation aircraft such as the L-4 to use for artillery spotting and directing airstrikes. However you would have to disconnect them from any spotting of troops in the ground battle most likely.

Those are all good suggestions. I don't think the light spotter planes were directing airstrikes, although the leader of the squadron sometimes did. Probably should just drop that part altogether. Using spotter planes to adjust arty on points out of sight of ground observers was a common practice, but more likely to be applied to targets well behind the FEBA (such as artillery emplacements, for instance) rather than the part of the battlefield that CM is concerned with.

Michael

[Cabron66]

OK, from what I gather the argument is this. CM attempts to portray realistically the effects of close air support on the tactical level. As CM is a game concentrating on smaller actions of units of up to batallion strength, what the game includes is sufficient.

I agree that CMBB (definitely not CMBO) includes the capacity to model one kind of scenario involving CAS. This is the unorganized attack of a few aircraft (usually 1 or 2) on unspecified targets in an unspecified area. If this were the only possible scenario I would agree with the aforementioned argument. Clearly, however, it is not.

CMBB does not give the scenario designer or player control over these aircraft in any way beyond the ability to place a certain number of them in a battle. This is where my criticism begins.

It continues with the resulting near omission of airpower from the game by both scenario designers and players (beyond ocassionally being mentioned in briefings as some kind of abstract concept).

It ends with the impotence of these aircraft even when included in scenarios in significant numbers.

From what I have read in numerous GI accounts, the impact of air strikes was both physically and psychologically damaging. In fact, these accounts are usually as impressive as those from tank crews facing 88s in the desert. Accounts from Polish, Belgian and French soldiers, from the invasions of their respective countries, clearly show the terror caused by the wailing Stuka and the subsequent impact of its ordnance. Accounts from British soldiers, waiting on the beach at Dunkirk, are remarkably similar. German accounts from the Falaise Pocket seem to concur.

As a 31 year old man living in the modern world I find it hard to imagine what a young man from the 40's must have felt when being attacked from the skies. If I were lucky enough to have the option of hiding in a tank I would have felt protected to a degree, but since tanks were vastly outnumbered by infantry a small percentage of soldiers must have had that luxury. Perhaps fighter bombers were not terrific tank killers or perhaps they were, but the impact of a pair of 500, 750 or 1000 lb bombs was probably no joke to softer targets(easily the most common kind of target on the battlefields of WWII). Light vehicles, trucks and even light armour could be cut in half by them.

To me it is evident that aircraft were a terrifying presence on the battlefield for their actual or imagined capacity to wreak havoc. Either way, they were impressive enough to forever change warfare by prompting any capable country to later amass tens of thousands of them (the vast majority fighter-bombers or interceptors). Clearly somebody thinks CAS is important and you can bet they think so because of lessons learned in WWII.

So, I agree with aircraft remaining uncommon on the CM battlefield, but I do not agree with them remaining impotent. Furthermore, since they frequently operated in groups larger than 1 or 2 airplanes, and were able to even mount an organized attack (having radios they were able to communicate with each other) I do not agree with them remaining as rogue elements following their own mystifying logic.

In addition, since I am sure the Canadian Army (and fairly certain others) frequently had FOs dedicated solely to directing air strikes with binoculars and a radio I see no reason to not include them in some capacity in the game. Also, since air strikes were often directed by men on the ground, I see no reason not to give the scenario designer the option to give the player some degree of influence over the actions of his supporting aircraft.

Lastly, if no effort is to be made to make aircraft an integral part of the CM battlefield then at least an effort should be made to show their presence in the war.

Perhaps the problem is one of the chicken or the egg. CM is a game of mainly tank and infantry tactics so people fond of that vision of war are prone to enjoy it. Take the upcoming CMAK for example. Almost all of the attention is being overwhelmingly focused on what new vehicles will be available and how "cool" they will look. Never mind that the US played a fairly minor role in North Africa and that tanks in general were hard to come by. This situation changed in Italy, but I do not see many people screaming for more detailed infantry models or a more realistic set of rules governing command. The real excitement comes from the tanks which were, in many respects and instances, hardly omnipotent or omnipresent on the battlefield either.

In the aforementioned counterattack (by the 21st Panzer Division) the British managed to destroy approximately 40 tanks (I don't remember the exact number) during the entire battle. This was enough to stop the 21st in its tracks even though they were left with around 100 battle tanks (mainly Pz IVs). If this battle were to be portrayed in CM, given the scale of a single map, how many tanks would appear? How many would be destroyed in a single game of 40 or 50 turns? Clearly, realism is a subjective term.

[ September 05, 2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

From what I have read in numerous GI accounts, the impact of air strikes was both physically and psychologically damaging. In fact, these accounts are usually as impressive as those from tank crews facing 88s in the desert. Accounts from Polish, Belgian and French soldiers, from the invasions of their respective countries, clearly show the terror caused by the wailing Stuka and the subsequent impact of its ordnance. Accounts from British soldiers, waiting on the beach at Dunkirk, are remarkably similar. German accounts from the Falaise Pocket seem to concur.

How many of these accounts are from the actual CM battlefield, i.e. not on the approach march, the retreat, or while in a trench but not under ground attack? Clearly the two you mention (beaches of Dunkerque and Falaise) are not.

[Cabron66]

Actually, I mentioned four examples, but that is irrelevant to my argument. I am trying to say that the numerous accounts of GIs paint a very different picture from that painted by CM and that, in the future, this should be rectified. As I see it. Clearly air strikes could be controlled, precise and devastating. Something not apparent from their place in a CM battle.

Underlying my argument is the unsaid assertion that it is far more important than providing players with more detailed buildings, for example.

[Andreas]

Sorry, but I can only see two examples, unless the generic term 'invasion of their countries' is meant to be a substitute for one or two of them. From your post it is totally unclear whether these terrifying airstrikes happened in a CM battle. From your two examples it is clear that they did not. I am at a loss what can be so difficult to understand about it?

Again, I am not sure whether air strikes could be controlled and precise with the precision you want, on the CM battlefield. Certainly none of your examples shows that, and there is very scant evidence of it happening in Real Life.

There are certainly ways to improve CM's handling of air strikes, but great care has to be taken not to turn them into an ahistorical Uberweapon, which is what the terms 'controlled and precise' would indicate to me.

One way of simulating a precise and devastating airstrike in a scenario is very simple. As a designer, put a few craters and a smouldering house or two on the map. Buy a heavily depleted platoon and put them in foxholes in the area. Set them to Panicked/exhausted. Hey presto, not as satisfying as watching it, but the same result. Of course only possible in scenarios.

[Cabron66]

Observations:

I see you are a student of the "attack the premise" school of thought.

While I found your trademarking of real life to be witty, your clever use of sarcasm is not.

Obviously, your strategy is to bog the argument down in specifics forcing me to elaborate ad nauseum. Luckily I am a patient man and one prone to thinking before expressing himself. This is not an insult, but merely a statement regarding my dislike of responding to an argument I do not fully understand.

Is your argument that air strikes were not ever terrifying, precise or controlled? Not one of these things or not all of them? My argument is that they are capable of being one or a combination of these things, but that within the confines of CMBB never are.

Do you feel that CM accurately reflects (independantly of the efforts of inventive scenario designers) the influence of airpower in WWII?

Are you attacking my use of GI accounts because you have drawn a different conclusion from others that you have read?

Are you saying it is the job of the scenario designer to include the effects of air power in a WWII game that prides itself on realism?

Lastly, I do not suggest aircraft be converted into superweapons or want them to be included in the game for any such childish reason. I simply said that I found a glaring difference between GI accounts of air strikes and what is seen in CM.

[ September 05, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Alsatian]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

And as for movement within the trench, the point that it takes a while for a squad to "get in line," is a good one. But once in line, shouldn't they move along decently.

Dorosh has already addressed the speed of movement of individuals in a trench. But however quickly an individual moves, it requires not only his time of transit, but the last guy in the line as well to satisfy the movement model in CM.

Look at it this way: Say you were tasked with figuring out how long it takes for a train to go from St. Louis to Chicago. The time required is inclusive of the time the engine pulls out of St. Louis to the time the caboose pulls into Chicago. Thats more time than just the engine going from point to point. In other words, if you were sitting by the track with a stop watch, you would be timing how long it took for the entire train to pass your point. I hope you get it this time. I don't think I can make it any clearer in words.

Michael </font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

In the aforementioned counterattack (by the 21st Panzer Division) the British managed to destroy approximately 40 tanks (I don't remember the exact number) during the entire battle. This was enough to stop the 21st in its tracks even though they were left with around 100 battle tanks (mainly Pz IVs). If this battle were to be portrayed in CM, given the scale of a single map, how many tanks would appear? How many would be destroyed in a single game of 40 or 50 turns? Clearly, realism is a subjective term.

None of this or the battle itself supports your faulty argument that air power was the dominant factor in halting German formations. Zetterling has several examples including the fact that formations such as 12 SSPz suffered their highest losses during "rainy" periods.

The idea that CMBO made to represent at its heights level reinforced Battalion versus reinforced battalion sort of makes your "subjective realism" throw away observation utterly pointless. To see/model 21st Pz on the attack you'd be better off with an ?operational scale? game...

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Obviously, your strategy is to bog the argument down in specifics forcing me to elaborate ad nauseum. Luckily I am a patient man and one prone to thinking before expressing himself. This is not an insult, but merely a statement regarding my dislike of responding to an argument I do not fully understand.

Andreas line of questioning is apt at the level/scale at which this game deals with. History at this level is about specifics, if you can't elaborate on them preferring to make up incidents, deal in generalities and rabbit on about debating techniques as opposed to Andreas points you're wasting everyone?s time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Alsatian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

And as for movement within the trench, the point that it takes a while for a squad to "get in line," is a good one. But once in line, shouldn't they move along decently.

Dorosh has already addressed the speed of movement of individuals in a trench. But however quickly an individual moves, it requires not only his time of transit, but the last guy in the line as well to satisfy the movement model in CM.

Look at it this way: Say you were tasked with figuring out how long it takes for a train to go from St. Louis to Chicago. The time required is inclusive of the time the engine pulls out of St. Louis to the time the caboose pulls into Chicago. Thats more time than just the engine going from point to point. In other words, if you were sitting by the track with a stop watch, you would be timing how long it took for the entire train to pass your point. I hope you get it this time. I don't think I can make it any clearer in words.

Michael </font>

[IntelWeenie]

I think a lot of folks have gotten the idea from various flight sims that it's easy to make "precision attacks" with WWII-era a/c. Get inside an airplane (even a Cessna) and fly around at 1000 feet and try to pick out specific targets. It's hard to do and that Cessna is only moving 1/2 as fast as a typical warbird and no one's shooting at you. Well, maybe they are depending on where you live.

I have to side with Andreas on the uber-weapon thing. Being able to designate a target (even within a hundred meters or so) is not a trivial excercise. Give the ability for precise targeting like that available to Arty FOs and I think it would not be historically accurate. I like the idea of designated a/c FOs, but only to the extent that they would give the TacAI a boost to aircraft attack accuracy and help prevent friendly fire.

Sure, air attacks were scary for the troops to endure. But I'd guess that guys on both sides of the line ducked when they heard a plane coming in...

[Cabron66]

Bastables

I tend to avoid getting into specifics for two reasons. Neither of them malicious. The first, I travel a lot so I often don't have access to my personal library. Second, my memory for particulars is clearly not as good as that of others and so puts me at a disadvantage if I choose to challenge points in anything more than a general sense.

Actually, I just finished a book about the British and Canadian actions in Normandy (and have already forgotten the title) and was referring to it. That author felt that the 21st suffered badly from airstrikes and I seem to remember him being very convincing. In this case I suggest we chalk this one up to having read the opinions of different experts. I apologize if I can't come up with anything more concrete for you.

Upon retrospect your version of what happened that day is credible as the Germans frequently suffered from their own complicated chain of command. However, convoys frequently suffered from air strikes and on that day in particular the 1000s of sorties flown by fighter-bombers, the Germans being forced to use radio transmissions due to a heavily damaged infrastructure (from air strikes) and the Allied ability to target convoys based on their radio emissions leads me to believe that my expert's version was at least possible and at best credible.

I had a professor that claimed Stalin was not responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people and another who argued Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust. I once read an account of the war from a Spanish author that asserted the war was essentially over before the Allies ever set foot on Sicilian soil. In his view the real war was fought on the Eastern Front and in North Africa and everything after was just a formality (including D-Day which he felt was just the Allies racing to get to Germany so they could split it with Russia).

In short, opinions vary. I usually make an effort to listen to even the most twisted points of view. My reaction to your post was probably not aimed at the content of it, but rather at the less than respectful manner in which it was worded.

I agree with Intelweenie, but as a long time player of this game I simply was never impressed by the effect of air strikes. In CM, at least, nobody is ducking.

[ September 05, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Charlie Rock]

I understand the train analogy perfectly well. The assumption that you are making, however, is incorrect. Because a squad leader cannot see his squad as well in the zig zags of a trench, squads in trenches are tighter together. In a trench soldiers are stacked next to each other in the offense---otherwise they could not communicate.

In the open they are 5-10 meters apart--3-5 times further apart. In a trench they are not. This principle is similar to in buildings, except in a trench you are in a "pipe" and movement is much simpler then running around a house. attacking down a trench is similar to room clearing--a grenade around the corner and 3-4 guys rushing to the next traverse.

The pass time for soldiers in a trench is shorter then in the open. 30-40 feet vice 50-100 yards.

At any rate, speeding up movement in a trench will not make the attacks appreciably faster--you still will face extremely close in engagements that are at best 1 on 1 squad. My chief reason for recommending this was in a Tobruk type of situation where letting the defender deploy reserves laterally through a trenchline represents the chief reason why trenches were built. It is the lateral movement that is their chief advantage over foxholes.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/ch4.htm#d7

and here:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/ch2.htm#s3p8

[Keke]

nevermind

[ September 05, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Charlie Rock]

Night rule recommendations:

Pine trees: You can see through pine trees for a fairly long distance because pine trees block the sun and prevent undergrowth. At night they are DARK—black cat in a coal mine dark.

Muzzle flashes at night—easy to spot.

Spotting ability of a unit near a burning object—much reduced.

Looking past a burning object at an object in the dark—should be really hard.

Lighting up a tank and setting it afire should make a bonfire that helps spot nearby objects. This MAY encourage firing up armor to set them a fire to help spot other objects.

Weather. At night the two main variables are percent illume—the moon phase (full, half, new) and cloud cover. Under one specific circumstance – a full moon, partly cloudy, high winds – I could see the visibility jumping back and forth as clouds pass in front of the moon. This could be an interesting concept – if a formation was 200-300 meters away from a position and the visibility “jumped” up or down.

Back to the trench issue:

Ran a quick test. After a 21 second pause to get the order, in 39 sec a German squad can cover:

Pavement 155m

Open 145 m

Scattered trees 140 m

Pine trees 138 m

Woods 105 m

Rough 70 m

Trench 43 m

Shallow ford 35 m

Marsh 30 m

I recommend relooking this – if it was increased to 2 to 2.5 m/ second—somewhere between woods and rough – I think that’s realistic.

Let’s say we are doing an attack on a strongpoint—trenches in a circular pattern, commo trenches like spokes of a wheel. If an attacker was to drive too close to a trench, it is hard for a defender to have an AT team run down a trench and throw their AT mine or demo charge at the tank. This is because it is hard to reposition AT teams because they move so slowly.

Conversely, if an attacker has breached a path into a trench, the SOP is the attackers will stay in the trench and clear down it. In a desert scenario I imagine the open areas between the trench will not be wooded or steppe but a piece of ground with an exposure of 99% or so. The overwatch element will shoot up anyone who hops out of the trench and makes a break for it. No one will run across the open ‘because it’s faster’ Another issue is that it will probably be very hard for infantrymen to get into the trench, due to the norms of defensive fire and movement in the open we are familiar with. They will be strung out at the breach point and will run down the trench to get to the fight and catch up. Allowing faster movement due to terrain will allow both sides to move more rapidly down undefended portions—of course if you run into a hidden unit you’ll probably get attritted really badly really fast. SO faster movement will not make clearing go faster – it will help the attacker get the second and third wave into the fight faster and conversely will help the defender reinforce the breach faster.

I could imagine a 1941 “Men against tanks” scenario where the defender would want to run his AT teams laterally down a trench line because unsupported armor is bearing down on his line – and this is before fausts and shreks were widespread. Unopposed trench movement speed will become a more important issue.

My .02$. Thanks for listening. Appreciate the hard work.

CR

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Bastables

I tend to avoid getting into specifics for two reasons. Neither of them malicious. The first, I travel a lot so I often don't have access to my personal library. Second, my memory for particulars is clearly not as good as that of others and so puts me at a disadvantage if I choose to challenge points in anything more than a general sense.

Actually, I just finished a book about the British and Canadian actions in Normandy (and have already forgotten the title) and was referring to it.

In short, opinions vary. I usually make an effort to listen to even the most twisted points of view. My reaction to your post was probably not aimed at the content of it, but rather at the less than respectful manner in which it was worded.

Good God. I haven't actually gotten caught up on this thread, but your defense against accusations of sweeping generalization, vagueness and inaccuracy are that you don't have any access to sources, and that you can't remember anything significant about what you've recently read other than your own assumptions about what they had to say about what you felt was true?

And you're getting shirty with other people about their reaction to your unsupported statements regarding things they've called into question because you don't feel they've been properly deferential?

Well, let me join you in chastising these bloody idjits.

Andreas, Bastables! You stupid buggers! Can you actually supply even one scrap of support, one single citation, one bit of evidence that might possibly indicate that Close Air Support wasn't capable of deciding the entire ground war? I thought not!

It's about time that you bloody grogs realize that, in the face of unsupported, opinionated, and yet thoroughly definitive Statements of Reality, that all your arguments are so much marsh gas and crop circles.

Gods, how I hate all you knowledgeable people, and your whinging attempts to seek any sort of certainty.

After all, I know what I know. Why don't you know it as well?

[Michael Emrys]

CR,

Excellent post. Thanks.

As far as spotting and visibility, I think your remarks are dead on. Whether the new game engine would be able to handle those features (along with flares, illuminating rounds spotlights, etc.), we'll have to wait to find out. But these are at least goals to look toward.

Re trenches: Thanks for providing hard data on rates of movement. You've won me over. I didn't realize that trench movement was quite that slow. Increasing it to a figure of 70-80m/minute wouldn't strike me as unreasonable either.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

After all, I know what I know. Why don't you know it as well?

Ye gods! And to think of all the time I've spent reading books! What a fool I've been. I hang my head in shame.

Truly, Seanachai, you have brought me to the light and now I understand, now is clear what before was dark and murky. A vast new world lies open at my feet! I too know what I know (I think...) and all who disagree with me are merely flaming assholes. Ah, liberation! Free at last! I knew I was always right...somehow.

Seanachai, I will be forever in your debt for turning the key in my lock. Therefore, I am sending someone to have you garrotted. I can't have creditors cluttering up the landscape, you know.

Eternally your friend and comrade,

Michael

[Cabron66]

Just when I thought I had seen the peak of Mt. Ludicrous this guy shows up to show me how far I have yet to go.

For the same reason I refrain from sustaining any kind of dialogue with those who can quote the Bible I will now refrain from opening one with you.

However, since you are obviously the Jerry Lewis of our time I will grant you a snicker, just one, for ingenuity.

[Sailor Malan]

There is a problem with the debate about air support in the games, that is somewhat fundamental, has been causing confusion, and hasn't been picked up on yet. I think there are people who think that all close air support is used as a sort of 'super direct fire weapon' - a tank, or infantry squad when being fired on by an AFV or 88 or something effectively had a choice of using a ground based weapon (AFV or mg or something), or an aircaft. Since CM doesn't effectively allow this, there is something wrong: hence the 'look at all the formations decimated by air power posts'.

Originally posted by Cabron66:

... From what I have read in numerous GI accounts, the impact of air strikes was both physically and psychologically damaging. In fact, these accounts are usually as impressive as those from tank crews facing 88s in the desert. Accounts from Polish, Belgian and French soldiers, from the invasions of their respective countries, clearly show the terror caused by the wailing Stuka and the subsequent impact of its ordnance. Accounts from British soldiers, waiting on the beach at Dunkirk, are remarkably similar. German accounts from the Falaise Pocket seem to concur.

As a 31 year old man living in the modern world I find it hard to imagine what a young man from the 40's must have felt when being attacked from the skies. If I were lucky enough to have the option of hiding in a tank I would have felt protected to a degree, but since tanks were vastly outnumbered by infantry a small percentage of soldiers must have had that luxury. Perhaps fighter bombers were not terrific tank killers or perhaps they were, but the impact of a pair of 500, 750 or 1000 lb bombs was probably no joke to softer targets(easily the most common kind of target on the battlefields of WWII). Light vehicles, trucks and even light armour could be cut in half by them.

To me it is evident that aircraft were a terrifying presence on the battlefield for their actual or imagined capacity to wreak havoc. Either way, they were impressive enough to forever change warfare by prompting any capable country to later amass tens of thousands of them (the vast majority fighter-bombers or interceptors). Clearly somebody thinks CAS is important and you can bet they think so because of lessons learned in WWII.

There are occasions when air power was used as a sort of direct fire weapon, but the problems of controlling the strike are considerable. Modern laser designation, GPS etc go some way to over come this, but Blue on blue is still much too common to treat CAS as really suitable for this role. Even the German example cited somewhere correctly points out that if a town/village was felt to be too heavily held, they would PULL BACK, and arrange air. This is a pre-planned strike (albeit arranged in a short timescale - a couple of hours, not a day). The attack would go in as it finished (but from 1000yds or more back, not closer).

By far the most usual/effective use of CAS is to attack postions back from the direct front line - columns of vehicles, HQ and rear unit areas, units forming up for attack etc. It will be these attacks that get air power the reputation, and can be much more effective than single 'direct fire' type support for the attacking troops. If you see a ATG, and want your tank to get past it, an aircraft may knock it out, and on you go 100yds to the next one. If you want to throw a regt of tanks 5 miles through a defended area, send an larger airstrike in 10 mins before you attack, but attacking 1000yds plus behind the absolute front line, attacking ammo dumps, HQ, liason vehicles, gun positions, anything they can see. The enemy will feel that no one is safe, and the confusion caused may well mean that, after the initial forward positions are overcome, there is very poor and ill controlled response, resulting in an easier (quicker/lower loss) victory. This is what gives air power its reputation, and is almost completely beyond the scope of CM. It means that reinforcements that might appear do not, troops are tired, possibly short of ammo, etc, in other words it effects the settings of a scenario, not the destruction of individual targets.

So, I agree with aircraft remaining uncommon on the CM battlefield, but I do not agree with them remaining impotent. Furthermore, since they frequently operated in groups larger than 1 or 2 airplanes, and were able to even mount an organized attack (having radios they were able to communicate with each other) I do not agree with them remaining as rogue elements following their own mystifying logic.

In addition, since I am sure the Canadian Army (and fairly certain others) frequently had FOs dedicated solely to directing air strikes with binoculars and a radio I see no reason to not include them in some capacity in the game. Also, since air strikes were often directed by men on the ground, I see no reason not to give the scenario designer the option to give the player some degree of influence over the actions of his supporting aircraft.

Lastly, if no effort is to be made to make aircraft an integral part of the CM battlefield then at least an effort should be made to show their presence in the war.

I sympathise with the issues that the reality throws up, but CM is the wrong game to show the REAL effect of airpower in WW2. I am sorry, but within the game scale, more common, more effective a/c is just not on. You MIGHT see the effects inna long operation (multi-day), but in reality you would need an operational level game (battalion/brigade/division), multi-mile maps to see it.

Perhaps the problem is one of the chicken or the egg. CM is a game of mainly tank and infantry tactics so people fond of that vision of war are prone to enjoy it. Take the upcoming CMAK for example. Almost all of the attention is being overwhelmingly focused on what new vehicles will be available and how "cool" they will look. Never mind that the US played a fairly minor role in North Africa and that tanks in general were hard to come by. This situation changed in Italy, but I do not see many people screaming for more detailed infantry models or a more realistic set of rules governing command. The real excitement comes from the tanks which were, in many respects and instances, hardly omnipotent or omnipresent on the battlefield either.

There is an unrealistic average number of AFVs on your average battle in CM, but this is a natural desire by the players to play the more 'interesting' battles. For every encounter with tanks, there were (I don't know, but guessing) 10 (or 100?) with not a vehicle in sight. As CM players, we just don't play those, any more than we play the ones where a platoon position in a village gets hit by a divisional barrage, and then a full Btn attack - not a good game for either player! CM is not a good way of assessing good AFV, because it only deals with one aspect of the production and use: the KT may be great on the CM battlefield (apart from points), in reality it was expensive, unreliable, and of MUCH less influence on WW2 than most CM games might imply. Thus (in reverse) is CAS.

In the aforementioned counterattack (by the 21st Panzer Division) the British managed to destroy approximately 40 tanks (I don't remember the exact number) during the entire battle. This was enough to stop the 21st in its tracks even though they were left with around 100 battle tanks (mainly Pz IVs). If this battle were to be portrayed in CM, given the scale of a single map, how many tanks would appear? How many would be destroyed in a single game of 40 or 50 turns? Clearly, realism is a subjective term.

And this last point sums up my post exactly: How would CMBO (in this case) model this attack? Certainly not by allowing even a Pzr regt, on the GE side, and all the weapons that attacked the Division on the other.

CM isn't wrong on its modelling of air power, it is the wrong game scale to show its full effects. (IMHO)

[Michael Emrys]

Thank you, Sailor. I think you put that very clearly and accurately.

I too believe that the air aspect of CM could benefit from some tinkering and have made suggestions along that line for years. But the player should only have a modicum of control over it to reflect the historical reality. On the front line tactical level that CM models, airpower was a very blunt instrument. Precise control just wasn't in it.

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Actually, I mentioned four examples, but that is irrelevant to my argument. I am trying to say that the numerous accounts of GIs paint a very different picture from that painted by CM and that, in the future, this should be rectified. As I see it. Clearly air strikes could be controlled, precise and devastating. Something not apparent from their place in a CM battle.

Numerous GI accounts also portray every German gun as an 88 and every 2nd tank as a Tiger. Subjective viewpoints are not verity in themselves.