My 2 cents on CAS, again

[Emar]

Have been in the process of playtesting a new Op in which German air support plays a factor. Having read the earlier posts on the subject I never the less decided that since the historical attack had Stuka suport my Op should too. Gave The Germans a Stuka set to Crack level on a 800m by 1600 map.

I have played through the Op 17 times now and in 14 of those attempts my wannabe Hans Ulrich Rudel has either bombed, strafed or combined both against his own attacking German forces. :mad: I even tried changing the setting to elite for the past 2 playthroughs but the slaughter continued in both attempts.

Now I realize that friendly fire is a fact of war and was even more so in WWII. But, having said that I think if the percentage for these mishaps was truly 5 out of every 6 times a bomb was dropped or a strafing run was performed, that both sides would have suspended the entire concept as sheer folly.

Am I just having a bad statistical run or does this truly need to be tweaked in a patch. Dont seem to recall the friendly fire incidents being so high in CMBB :confused:

[ January 22, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

[Redwolf]

They attack what they can see.

Obviously, if your side is on the attack that day, and the enemy is east, you would not bomb forces advancing east that day.

Yes I know the usual suspects will defend this as realistic.

The same usual suspects are also refusing to consider any kind of statistics. If if could happen in reality and happens in the game, the game is right - no matter what chances and probalilities are.

[V]

Personally, I haven't noticed much of a problem.

Granted, I might not have played as many scenarios with CAS as others. But in the ones I have played and designed and tested, it has not had too many cases of friendly fire.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Emar:

Am I just having a bad statistical run or does this truly need to be tweaked in a patch.

Could be both. There is something of a consensus (of which I am a member) that several things are wrong, or at least questionable, about CAS. That said, your run strikes me as a bit abnormally bad. I don't really expect much of a change in any patch we are likely to see, though.

Michael

[Emar]

Originally posted by redwolf:

They attack what they can see.

If that is the case than it would explain a lot. My Op has Gebirgsjaeger advancing in open country with light cover against defenders mostly in buildings in a town.

Still would think that a crack or elite setting for the pilot should help to offset such a high occurence of mistaken identity. Would hope that a good pilot without a solid target would not just go for anything that moves but instead would scrub the mission. Especially when the troops that are visible are approaching from known friendly sectors.

[Redwolf]

I think it's very simple:

the problem is that they are too eager to attack anything. If they only see one side they attack that one, which is not generally realistic if it is an attacking force which is not even being shot at yet.

Or in other words: the probability of friendy fire should be the same whether the enemy has releaved himself yet or not. This is not the case in CM.

[Michael Emrys]

In real life he would have been told to bomb the town and that would have been that.

One of the suggestions I made many months ago was to be able to specify the type of target that was allowable, buildings, vehicles, patches of woods, or simply anything that looks suspicous. If the plane can't find anything that matches his target list, he goes home.

Michael

[JasonC]

Correct Michael. The problem is that planes don't do "area fire" type attacks on probable enemy locations. Instead they get perfect locations of specific units, and attack them with unrealistically high accuracy (particularly strafing). The stuka would look for vehicles in the town, only, and target any he saw. If he didn't see any, he'd target a prominent building in the town and drop his bombs on that. He then might make 1-2 passes looking for strafing opportunities over the town. If he didn't see any he'd leave.

[Michael Dorosh]

The manual states that Combat Mission scenarios start after preliminary bombardments and air strikes go in. If you want to simulate the effects of air support, I would suggest this should be done in the editor, with forces starting the scenario depleted as necessary.

I do like Michael and JasonC's ideas about specifiying targets in advance.

Cue Berli and JonS to talk about cab rank....

[Monty's Double]

Would it be possible to change aircraft behaviour, so that if they were on the attacking side there was a chance they would unload on a flag if they couldn't find anything definite? It does seem that CAS goes for whatever they can see, making them really only any use to defenders (just ask my PBEM oppo!).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The manual states that Combat Mission scenarios start after preliminary bombardments and air strikes go in. If you want to simulate the effects of air support, I would suggest this should be done in the editor, with forces starting the scenario depleted as necessary.

This is somewhat related to a suggestion I made several months ago that a player buying air support could have the option of choosing to commit it to interdiction rather than CAS. The way I see it working is that the computer would cross reference the amount and quality of the player's air support against various factors, and randomly delay any reinforcements. There would also be a slight chance that they would suffer casualties along the way.

Obviously this will only work in those games where the opposing player is due to receive reinforcements. A player could gamble and go ahead and commit his air to interdiction if there were no reinforcements due; it would simply be wasted. Fortunes of war. But at least he wouldn't be bombing his own troops.

Michael

[Abteilung]

I am building a scenario for my own personal edification, however, I can't seem to get the CAS to figure in like I want it to.

I have U.S. and German tanks of varying flavors both with air support in 44 (August).

What I can't seem to make happen is puzzling me. Only the American tanks shoot back at the marauding aircraft. I cannot seem to get the Germans to use their AA MG's. OTOH, the American seems to perform nicely, even under direct fire from mortar, the American tanks will stay unbuttoned and deliver what appears to be Bagdad on CNN.

Anyone know how I can make the Germans use their AA MG's?

[JasonC]

German tanks don't have AA MGs. They have coaxial MGs and they have hull MGs. If you want German vehicles shooting back at planes, give them a flakwagen or two.

[Abteilung]

Originally posted by JasonC:

German tanks don't have AA MGs. They have coaxial MGs and they have hull MGs. If you want German vehicles shooting back at planes, give them a flakwagen or two.

I, see. Do you mean to say the game simply doesn't model them with AA MG's or that they historically did not have them and thus are not ingame?

Edit: To clarify, the previous statement was not an issue of challenge, simply requesting more info. I know everytime I think I know something, digging into the grognard files reveals quite the opposite.

[ January 23, 2004, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Abteilung ]

[Emar]

Perhaps in the future designers could have the option of giving a commander probable target markers for aircraft.

At the setup phase the comander receiving air support could place them on the map over suspected enemy positions and the AI could be programmed to have a higher chance of hitting targets near that marker.

You could still leave in the chance that mistakes and disasters happen but it would make the AI more likely to emphasize the enemy positions over your own. If a historical scenario did not have specified CAS then the designer would not include the markers and the CAS would be random.

:cool:

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Abteilung:

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

German tanks don't have AA MGs. They have coaxial MGs and they have hull MGs. If you want German vehicles shooting back at planes, give them a flakwagen or two.

I, see. Do you mean to say the game simply doesn't model them with AA MG's or that they historically did not have them and thus are not ingame?

</font>

[Redwolf]

I think BFC made it clear that targets for airplanes will not get into a CM1 game.

What I think would help a lot is a simple piece of code which says "if my force is attacking towards the west, drop the probability to do friendly fire on units moving or facing east by a factor of [x]".

[x] would be pretty large, lets say 8.

That would solve what I think is the biggest problem with the current model: that of attacking forces regularily being bombed to death just because the airplane showed up before the defender revealed himself.

I can live with the friendly fire probability in general, but not in this situation.

[ January 23, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[DevilDog]

It looks like a possible interm solution might be for scenario designers to use CAS only as reinforcements and not allow them until at least 1/3 of the scenario turns have expired. It seems that CAS as currently coded will light up whatever they can see, even if all they see are friendly forces. If the entry of the CAS is delayed to allow time for the ground forces to engage, the percentage of friendly fire occurrences may decrease somewhat.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

The manual states that Combat Mission scenarios start after preliminary bombardments and air strikes go in. If you want to simulate the effects of air support, I would suggest this should be done in the editor, with forces starting the scenario depleted as necessary.

This is somewhat related to a suggestion I made several months ago that a player buying air support could have the option of choosing to commit it to interdiction rather than CAS. The way I see it working is that the computer would cross reference the amount and quality of the player's air support against various factors, and randomly delay any reinforcements. There would also be a slight chance that they would suffer casualties along the way.

Obviously this will only work in those games where the opposing player is due to receive reinforcements. A player could gamble and go ahead and commit his air to interdiction if there were no reinforcements due; it would simply be wasted. Fortunes of war. But at least he wouldn't be bombing his own troops.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

It looks like a possible interm solution might be for scenario designers to use CAS only as reinforcements and not allow them until at least 1/3 of the scenario turns have expired. It seems that CAS as currently coded will light up whatever they can see, even if all they see are friendly forces. If the entry of the CAS is delayed to allow time for the ground forces to engage, the percentage of friendly fire occurrences may decrease somewhat.

But this is directly contrary to historical practice and for the wrong reasons. Historically, the air strike, if one was planned, went in first before the attacking troops left their own lines. It was done this way partly to avoid the FF situations we are complaining about.

A better solution, and one closer to historical practice would be to draw a bomb line or zone on the map. Planes would be instructed to drop only on one side of it. You would keep your own troops out of that zone until the bombing mission was completed. There would still be a probability of bombs/straffing occurring against your own troops (things are still hard to indentify from the air and mistakes will occur), but it wouldn't happen with such regularity as we see now.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...the decision to have interdiction aircraft did not fall on the battalion commander - whom the player is representing. Those decisions were generally made by the AAF/RAF, no?

You are of course correct, but—as in most wargames—in CM the player is actually assuming many rolls. Historically, it wasn't the battalion commander who decided whether he got corps-level artillery either.

Michael

[DevilDog]

Michael:

Of course what I suggested is historically inaccurate. But the CAS code is not going to be changed until the engine rewrite. My suggestion is a possible work around with the current code so that those who move to contacts slowly don't consistantly get wasted by their own CAS.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

Michael:

Of course what I suggested is historically inaccurate. But the CAS code is not going to be changed until the engine rewrite. My suggestion is a possible work around with the current code so that those who move to contacts slowly don't consistantly get wasted by their own CAS.

Okay, I can understand, but I would suggest that a better work around for the present is to buy lots of heavy artillery instead of a plane and set it to go on the first turn. It's totally reliable, has about the same effect on the enemy, and gives you more bang for the buck. What's not to like?

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It's my firm believe that the Wicked Witch of the West is renting her flying monkeys as Combat Mission airmen.

[Peterk]

In short CM pilots do not attend mission briefings, don't listen to their radios have no idea what in hell is going on on the battlefield. They head out because they heard a rumor of an attack and bomb/strafe the crap out of the first thing they see (usually your guys in the the open) totally ignoring the trenches, pillboxes and other obvious (and usually highly visible from the air) targets of your assault. Sorry, it's _not_ all that realistic.

Don't take it too seriously or you will lose your mind. I threw a tantrum six months ago and zapped CMBB off my drive in fury (...it's recently back now though).

My advice, assume that the air missions took place before your boys go over the top if possible, don't use planes in scenarios (or if you do just use one to avoid total heartache). CM is a great infantry and tank game - leave it there.

And, yes it was bad in CMBB too.