Up Yours Flyboy!! or how the Air A.I. ruined my war

[xerxes]

.

[ December 02, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[Michael Emrys]

Xerxes got the point! Ah so...

Michael

[CombinedArms]

I think we should take into account KwazyDog's statement that this is a green P51. Green CAS is going to be pretty risky. Certainly the Allied CAS in Tunisia had many friendly fire incidents. Partly it was green pilots, partly poor ground-air communications. By late '44 in France, CAS from the Allied side had much improved.

That said, I also have to indicate that I've played Line of Defense several times from both sides and have never seen a friendly fire incident with the P51. I think I've had good luck where others have had bad. My guess is that anyone having 50% friendly fire incidents, even with a green FB, is just having a string of rotten luck, with others are having better luck. That string of luck either way can really color perceptions, but we'd need quite a large sample to see what the real friendly fire rate for green planes actually is.

It might be smart for scenario designers to take plane experience significantly into account, with green US pilots in Tunisia gradually tending to vet or crack late in the war. That improvement in experience level could reflect both actual pilot experience and improved training and command and control. I'm actually looking forward to playing with the variety of US and Brit attack planes late in the war. It would be fun to see what a flight of vet-crack Typhoons or P47s could do to a column of German armor. Similarly, we could see Stukas taking a shot at some of the British tin cans early in the war.

[CKibler]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

SPOILER

.

.

.

My one playthrough had the P-51 go after my StuH with its rockets, but I don't recall it doing any strafing; my opponent may remember it differently?

Nope, I remember "my" P51 behaving properly. IIRC, it only went after the bonifide bad guys.

[Thomas Goetz]

Some thoughts regarding CAS and Combat Mission. CAS was used frequently to help open a major attack, especially one where the lines had been relatively stable and prominent terrain features could be used to help pilots orient themselves and identify targets. Another use for air to ground attacks would be what the Air Force calls "interdiction", that is, roaming well behing the enemy lines to pounce on moving troops in the open. This is the type of air attack that restricted the Germans to moving at night during the Normandy campaign.

The type of CAS that is in CM is, in many ways, the least common of the methods used for air attacks on ground targets, and for exactly the reasons everyone is complaining about - without precise coordination between air and ground (I haven't seen any Forward Air Controllers in CM yet!) it is extremely difficult for pilots to correctly identify targets, and the likelihood of mistaken attacks is quite high.

I think it would be fair to say that the pilots disliked that sort of situation almost as much as the ground troops. Trying to provide CAS over an active battlefield means you are almost certain to be shot at by both sides, and you have a pretty good chance of attacking your own side. Maybe that's one of the reasons for the reluctance to fly such missions. BTW, far more Allied aircraft were shot down by ground fire than were ever destroyed in air combat - it was dangerous for the flyboys too.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Ant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you could kindly point to some hard facts or references stating something to the effect that by rookie pilots(line of def scen, green) flying cas support missions in the north african campaign, in cm mission situations, turned less than a 33% ff rate, would be much obliged,

OK. Hard facts.

Fact 1. Real life CAS missions were regularly requested and flown.

Fact 2. I seem to be getting an average of 50% Friendly fire with CM CAS missions

Fact 3. If real life CAS missions had a 50% Friendly fire rate then they wouldn't have been requested and flown

Fact 4 See fact 1

</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by CKibler:

Nope, I remember "my" P51 behaving properly. IIRC, it only went after the bonifide bad guys.

It attacked your cooks?

[Ant]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you could kindly point to some hard facts or references stating something to the effect that by rookie pilots(line of def scen, green) flying cas support missions in the north african campaign, in cm mission situations, turned less than a 33% ff rate, would be much obliged,

OK. Hard facts.

Fact 1. Real life CAS missions were regularly requested and flown.

Fact 2. I seem to be getting an average of 50% Friendly fire with CM CAS missions

Fact 3. If real life CAS missions had a 50% Friendly fire rate then they wouldn't have been requested and flown

Fact 4 See fact 1

</font>

[archi]

Hi all, I think it is largely a question of the quality of the pilot. I think the air support in this game is deadly, especially if taken as Germans against the Russians. I'm not sure how it will do against the US. Germans are more apt to have the troubling anti-aircraft rounds but I still like to take a strafer if I can afford it. It isn't worth it taking a green pilot, because they often strafe you. Veteran and Crack pilots are deadly. Definately worth the points. They have the ability to find enemy vehicles and destroy them easily.

I believe the problem with the green pilot in Line of Defense is that there are so many allied vehicles compared to axis vehicles. It seems like US and Axis vehicles looked very different. It seems to happen a lot in that scenario. I think it must have to do with the code where the pilot picks a target. Since he is green and there are 10 or more allied vehicles to axis vehicles, well the odds must be tilted.

[Mirv Sheelon]

Sorry but I have to add this - apparently - genuine WWII saying, and again sorry that I cant quote my source - Im pretty heavily into WWII and its in one of the myriad books I've read. Here goes:

"When the British fly over, the Germans duck. When the Germans fly over the Allies duck. When the Americans fly over EVERYBODY ducks..."

Not a reflection at all on the main culprits, but what can I say

Found *something*

http://www.crikey.com.au/columnists/2003/02/02-suiteachmilitary.html

Check out the bottom line...

[ December 03, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Mirv Sheelon ]

[Russkly]

Xerxes,

Quick and naive question:

What does "."?

[xerxes]

"." means I realized that this discussion is fruitless but I realized that only after I had made a post. There are some serious deficiencies in how CAS operates in CM but friendly fire isn't one of them. The deficiencies have already been discussed in the context of CMBB and until we get the full CMAK game it would be impossible to test out which of these have been fixed.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Ant:

What a load of Rubbish.

Yet more Grog 'let's split hairs so much that not only can't we see the wood for the trees, but we can't see the trees either because we're too busy splitting molecules' LOL

Fact. 1 So you're telling me that CAS missions weren't regularly called and flown? What was the point of the cab rank system then. a little sightseeing for pilots?

Fact. 2 I do seem to be getting 50% friendly fire. I don't say that I AM getting 50% friendly fire. I say that I SEEM to be getting 50% friendly fire....so that's a fact too.

Fact. 3 Are you seriously suggesting that if CAS missions had a constant 50% FF rate then they'd keep calling them in? Thank god you're not a real life commander.

Fact 4. See all the other facts.

As for supporting one's argument I certainly agree.....up to a point. Some people (such as yourself I suspect) go way beyond that into the land of the anally retentive. I posted something earlier on in this thread saying that the sun comes up in the morning. Do you want me to give you supporting evidence that that happens too? If I say that grass is green do you want a web-link to prove it?

If anybody posts a fact that's in contention with the generally accepted way of viewing things then I agree supporting evidence is necessary. However I think most people would accept those basic facts, therefore it falls upon yourself to provide evidence that I'm wrong. [/QB]

Again none of them are facts.

Fact one: non sequitur does not follow= Just because there was a cab rank system for the USAAF does not mean that it was successful nor had a low FF rate. Paraphrasing Andreas one does not measure outcomes/output by looking at the level of input.

Fact Two: This is silly to the extreme, your subjective generalisation now becomes a fact based merely on your say so? Buy a clue mate. I've played the scenario in question 7 times and every time the Mustang sprays rockets at the Panzers and/or shoots up a Jerry gun. The sample size is too small to make a definitive statement either way, never mind declare it as a fact. Hell you even you say it's a subjective generalisation "seems," that's not a fact that is a personal statement.

Idiotic and self defeating orders/war making do not go away because they cause failures, one can look to the example of ordering Infantry to carry out frontal assault in mud or uphill with 60pds of equipment on them. But time and time again we get expensive failed attacks of overburdened infantry attacking up hills and/or mud at Redan; Crimean war, Methuen and Spion Kop; Boer War, Somme and the third Ypres WWI. This is the Storied and long-lived British army yet in every one of these colossal failures the mistake of frontal assaults by encumbered infantry over poor ground are made again and again. What happens today (2000-2002)? lucky sods like me get to strap 30-40kgs of crap on my back and go hunt bad guys in the Jungle for queen and country. Hell before we went over we were being trained to fight with packs on our backs. The army as an institution prides itself on beating "common sense" out of people so that they will kill others and charge enemy trenches

Fact three: What does one have to do with the other? Here you're just begging the question

Fact four: again you're begging the question, your logic merely circling around because the premise and the conclusion are the same thing.

None of these are facts and disingenuously attempting to shift the burden of proof highlights how paper-thin your argument is.

You are the one attempting to show how CM gets this wrong, bloody well prove it. And next time bring a supported logical argument and not merely your subjective beliefs and wishful thinking tied up in a moronic circular argument.

(Edited to help with them grammers thingmebobs).

[ December 04, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Ant]

OK. Let's start again because I'm really not interested in a pissing contest.

I'm not screaming 'BFC fix or do sumfink' or attempting to scientifically prove that CM gets it wrong, or coming here saying it should be changed. I'm merely pointing out my experiences with CAS in CM and why I don't think it seems realistic to me, and in the process perhaps illicit other people's experiences to find out what they are seeing and to find out if my experiences are typical or just a blip. You said that you've played that scenario seven times, and each time the P51 targets the enemy.....fine, if that's what people are generally finding then I accept that I'm just unlucky. If you produced a document showing me that FF rates were indeed 50% then I'd say "Well blow me down I never would have believed it but I guess it's true"

WARNING POSSIBLE SPOILER++++++++++++++++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

I've only played that scenario twice. The first time as the US forces and flyboy took out two of my armoured vehicles with a rocket strike. The second time as the Germans......and flyboy took out my Tiger with a rocket strike. Now of course that's not sufficient spread of data to build a firm scientific conclusion but you can't deny that it's bloody annoying, not to mention the fact that a green pilot now has a 100% strike ratio with rockets. If it was just that one scenario on those two occasions then it would be down to terrible luck, but I seem to experience that sort of thing regularly in CM. I just want to know if I'm a jinx and my experiences are atypical or if there is any evidence to show that FF rates were as high as I seem to be experiencing.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Ant:

If you produced a document showing me that FF rates were indeed 50% then I'd say "Well blow me down I never would have believed it but I guess it's true"

Quiet as it's kept

The only one stating the 50% FF rate has been you, based on a grand total of TWO incidences. SO now you want me to prove your own faulty "Fact."

Everyone else has been stating FF incidences were "high". The only other fig posited has been 33% for "green aircrews."

[Ant]

The only one stating the 50% FF rate has been you, based on a grand total of TWO incidences. SO now you want me to prove your own faulty "Fact."

You really can't read properly can you? or are you just too thick to understand posts that don't involve reams of statistics? I've repeatedly stated that I'm talking about my experiences of CM as a whole including CMBO CMBB and CMAK, not just two incidences. Now should I repeat that in block capitals or should I draw you a picture so that you can understand? If you're having problems with big words please let me know.

I've also said (if you can't take in two paragraphs at once please lie down before you attempt this second bit) that I base the 50% on my own personnal experiences and that it's not scientific just my impression. I am allowed to give general impressions whilst talking about this game am I? Or do I need to produce half a dozen web-links to back up every word? and do I have to perform a statistical study every time I play a scenario?

The only one stating the 50% FF rate has been you

Really? Guess that illiteracy thing must be real hard to live with eh? If you bother to strain yourself and try to read the posts in this topic you'll see that Michael Emrys agreed with me about the 50% figure. He also says that it's not a scientifically arrived figure but just from rough experience.....as I have done. So we're either unlucky or our perceptions are wrong. Fine, I'm OK with that, Michael might be OK with that too. The only person who seems to have a problem is you.

But then as you seem to have such difficulty with the basics such as reading and comprehension your opinion matters not one jot really.

[Michael Emrys]

Heh. Calm down, Ant. We really don't require Bastables' approval on every point. He's right about an awful lot of stuff, so he's worth listening to. He's also wrong from time to time. But one thing you can count on is that he will take the same arrogant tone either way. It's just the way he posts and no point in getting bothered by it.

Now as regards CAS, you and I and a lot of people consider that there are problems with it. You and I both concede that many of them have not been rigorously tested for, so maybe the problems are real and maybe they are just strings of bad luck.

The point that I think Bastables is trying to make is that actual CAS as practiced in CM was pretty iffy in the real war as well, and for my part I am largely in agreement with him. I think that great strides were made in this regard by the Western Allies in the last year of the war, but it was still the preferred use of tactical airpower to strike far enough away from friendly troops so that they would not show up on the CM battlefield. I am less well informed about German and Soviet practice, but I suspect that it was similar except that they may have even more strigently tried to avoid the front lines where troops were closely engaged because of the FF problem as well as there usually being a lot of nasty light flak weapons in the vicinity of the front.

My own opinion is that airpower as it presently exists in CM is only a first approximation to the modeling of the event. It's one of those aspects of the game one hopes will see a gound up redesign in the new game engine. Toward that end, many suggestions have been put forward over the last couple of years, some of which I regard as quite sound (having made them myself ). In the end, we will all see what BFC thinks of the matter.

Our concept as players of the tactical use of airpower is still evolving.

Michael

[Russkly]

Hate to press, but how does one know it's a P51H? I didn't know they loaded missiles onto Mustangs; on this site it's listed as a "lightweight version" (presumably for recce work?):

http://www.smmof.org/p-51.htm

Does this appear in a German unit's kill score in the AAR report if it shoots it down? Alternatively, given the discussion thread, maybe a US unit would get credit for shooting it down!

[Ant]

Heh. Calm down, Ant. We really don't require Bastables' approval on every point. He's right about an awful lot of stuff, so he's worth listening to. He's also wrong from time to time. But one thing you can count on is that he will take the same arrogant tone either way. It's just the way he posts and no point in getting bothered by it.

Yeah, you're right. I've got no problem being wrong I just get a bit annoyed when I'm misquoted.

All I'm trying to do is figure out if I'm just unlucky or if FF really was that bad. Maybe a bit of both. It's moot anyway bacause I can't see it being changed before CMX2 and I think a lot more knowledgeable people than me will have some say on how CAS is implemented in that.

Thanks Michael.

[Le Tondu]

Everyone's comments not withstanding, I have yet to see any friendly fire with the P-51. While I believe them all, I played it again last night and true to form --he went for the Germans. Thats five times in a row.

[Wicky]

If you thought the P-51 pilot was rubbish just wait for the Luftwaffe...

The allies having access to ULTRA intelligence overheard the conclusions of a conference of Luftwaffe commanders on the 17th July 1944 reviewing the air situation.

"..It was instructive to know that already their opposite numbers, talking amongst themselves, believed that reinforcement pilots from Germany were useless: ....under-trained pilots were jettisoning their bombs: that experienced flight leaders were lacking: and that aircraft should avoid ground held by their own troops as they were liable to be shot down!"

Ultra Goes to War, The Secret Story

Ronald Lewin page 335

For realism in CMAK Ultra intelligence supplements should possibly be part of quite a few allied briefings

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Wicky:

For realism in CMAK Ultra intelligence supplements should possibly be part of quite a few allied briefings

Er, I don't think so. In the ETO those rarely made it to anyone lower than an army commander. Nobody who stood a chance of being captured by the enemy was even supposed to know of its existence.

Michael

[Lt. Badger]

Originally posted by Russkly:

Hate to press, but how does one know it's a P51H?

When it attacked me, I re-ran the action from different angles trying to see just what had happened. There was a text tag identifying the aircraft as a P-51H Mustang. I don't remember if the text tag was attached to the aircraft shadow or was up in the air where the aircraft would have been if there were a model for it.

BTW, my main reason for finding this forum and reading this thread is that I am a newbie to CM, have just been playing the CMAK demo, and in the Line of Defense scenario the P-51H attacked my Sherman tanks and knocked out the guns on the section leader's tank. That was on about turn 6 and I never saw the Mustang again - either he realized his mistake and went away to have a few drinks at the Officers' Club, or else maybe the Germans shot him down - I'm hoping for the latter, actually.

Lt. Badger

[Wicky]

Exactly, I can't be personally captured when playing as the CM commander.

Bill Williams, Intelligence Officer to Monty wrote.

"I was summoned to the caravan on August 15 or 16, 1942. The new army commander had uncomfortably piercing eyes, and his questions , in a sharp spinsterly voice, were much to the point. He wanted to know when Rommel would attack, where, and what with... He won his first battle at Alam Halfa, by accepting the intelligence with which he was furnished that morning."

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

For realism in CMAK Ultra intelligence supplements should possibly be part of quite a few allied briefings

Er, I don't think so. In the ETO those rarely made it to anyone lower than an army commander. Nobody who stood a chance of being captured by the enemy was even supposed to know of its existence.

Michael </font>

[Mad Russian]

Gentlemen, CM has it right. Who you need to be shouting at is the designer. I have made and posted more than 30 scenrios on the SD and I can tell you that the Friendly Fire quotient belongs to the designer. If you want a reasonable incidence of Friendly Fire, ie. not more than about 10% of the time you use crack pilots. If you want your pilots to perform at a high level of unit identification you use elite pilots.

It's that simple. I would venture to say that playtesting of scenarios would prove my point. You also have to consider if the scenario is a historical one what the actual results of the aircraft intervention was. In one of my scenarios the Luftwaffe actually HELPS the Panzers win the scenario. If they don't show up your ground forces will lose. So it all belongs to the designer.

Steve