My 2 cents on CAS, again

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Darryl60]

What I find odd is that every time the AI opponent gets CAS in QBs the plane seems to NEVER bomb the AI's units.

Instead it always seems to strike my units...and strike them hard.

On the other hand,my own CAS seems to be "iffy". Sometimes it hits the enemy,sometimes it hits me.

Has me wondering if there is any coding difference between AI player and Human player CAS.

Or maybe the AI is having a run of good luck with it's CAS...it's hard to tell if it's just the luck factor,or something needing to be tweeked.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Nonsense.

CM gives you the ability to command a company or battalion in action, with the abilities - generally speaking - of his real life counterpart.

Directing the fires of supporting artillery was one of those capabilities.

Ordering friendly aircraft to do interdiction missions was not.

Michael, Michael, Michael. You're entirely missing the point. Think for a minute. When the player is in the unit purchasing screen, he isn't role playing the battalion or company commander. He's playing someone much further up the chain of command. Someone who is deciding large-scale operations and assigning forces to missions. If he is deciding to use tac air, he is high up enough to decide whether he wants it applied at the front edge of the battlefield (i.e., CAS) or further back (i.e., interdiction).

Historically in the US Army in the ETO, this was usually done at the army level in consutation with an officer of the Air Force who was either a part of his staff or coördinating closely with him. I suppose something more or less similar was happening in other armies.

Again, the point is that if the player can order tac air, he can have some option of how it is to be employed.

Michael

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Historically in the US Army in the ETO, this was usually done at the army level in consutation with an officer of the Air Force who was either a part of his staff or coördinating closely with him.

Oh, they're coördinating the strikes. That explains why the CAS works like it does.

/SirReal

[Abteilung]

For what it's worth, I agree with the concept of actually not being in the field commander's seat when choosing the OOB. Not too sure regimental/battaltion command could affect the level of decision making we are capable of wrt force selection. What that entitles us to in terms of increased flexibility for CAS selections, I'm not exactly sure. Sounds good, though.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Abteilung:

For what it's worth, I agree with the concept of actually not being in the field commander's seat when choosing the OOB.

Right. Can you imagine a battalion commander, given the mission of attacking at dawn, then scurrying all over the battlefield searching for a friendly company of tanks that doesn't have a previous assignment and is willing to come along to the party? It may have happened once or twice, but it was definitely not SOP.

Michael