Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 No doubt true, Steve, but that doesn't help the player of QBs who wishes to play with ground forces that do not exceed veteran experience. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Well Michael, sounds like you get to live with some FF then. The game really does do a good job of modeling the air support and has a wide range of effects possible. I have had Russian aircraft continue to attack a Tiger tanks when it was dead, with a T-34/85 sitting right beside it!! Maybe the AI was goint after the T-34 and was just a bad a shot. Anyway good luck on the QB airsupport it's going to be spotty at best. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurryin Heinz Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Thing bout it aint if its modeled right or not, which imho, it is... but tis a matter of how lil control or influence anything we as players can do about it. Just makes it frustrating when everything goes fubar and all you did was upset ol allah. The chance to at least call off all further air support(still lose the points or possible support), mark areas with smoke to influence the pilots behavior(if only with a positive or negative modifier of some kind), or at least SOMETHING, would keep a very frustrating situation which DID happen much too often feel like such a seat in the pants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Let me air some facts here. During WWII the highest ranking American General killed was by the US Airforce. The air support was so bad that they pulled back a quarter of a mile and were still hit. Combat air support from the Western Allies point of view mainly consisted of missions behind the lines because it was so hard to hit the intended target. The Germans and Russians used air support at the level that you are wanting the Americans and British to use it. You guys wanting to mark your positions with smoke are showing your age. That was a Vietnam tactic not a WWII one. There were notable successes and failures for close in air support.(CAS) The truth of the matter is that the Western Allies weren't that good at CAS. The terrain was prohibitive...think about hedgerows and the Heurtgen Forest, the pilots weren't trained that well for it, and we didn't have a dedicated ground attack plane. The British did with the Typhoon but the Americans didn't. That alone shows how much emphasis the Americans placed on CAS. It was a secondary mission for us. The Russians painted their tanks on the TOPS for air recongition. The Germans have the famous photos of all those German flags draped over their tanks. Do you remember seeing any Western Allied equipment with air recognition markers? No. Because it wasn't expected to be that close most of the time. There should be a way to call off CAS but we are still talking 1943-45 and the Army was still in it's infancy for talking ground to air. So for my money and in my opinion you have what they had. WWII CAS. Imagine how you would feel if after capturing a hill with your armor the asked for CAS showed up and attacked you...knocking out most of your tanks and allowing the Germans to retake the hill. Read Caen: Anvil of Victory. It's in there. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 You guys wanting to mark your positions with smoke are showing your age. That was a Vietnam tactic not a WWII one.Sorry but you're wrong. Smoke was most definitely used to mark targets in WW2. It was further refined during Korea with specific FAC aircraft. By the time of Vietnam using smoke to mark targets was an old and very well established technique. Later in war, FAC located in leading elements with radio equipment to talk directly to cab rank. -targets marked by arty or mortars using coloured smoke or phosphorous. From: http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/courses/hist349/lecture7.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 When I played Line of Defence, as US, the P51 overflew the map several times, but I only noticed one rocket pass - which looked quite impressive - when it rocketed my men in the woods on the left. The second occassion that it was noteworthy was when it targetted two engineer squads and their HQ as I was pushing them through the vineyard on the right towards the large building. Although it didn't appear to fire, simply targetting them had the effect of making all three units turn about and flee back over the wall. On a general note, I have never, through CMBO to CMAK, had positive results with CAS. I have had an opponents CAS hit me hard in PBEM, but whenever I buy it CAS does nothing but use up valuable points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panther Commander: Let me air some facts here. During WWII the highest ranking American General killed was by the US Airforce. The air support was so bad that they pulled back a quarter of a mile and were still hit.But that wasn't Close Air Support. Medium and heavy bombers were used in the US and Commonwealth breakout attempts, not on an everyday basis. Originally posted by Panther Commander:Do you remember seeing any Western Allied equipment with air recognition markers?Yes. I have seen Shermans with panels on their rear decks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: [QB] Sorry but you're wrong. Smoke was most definitely used to mark targets in WW2. It was further refined during Korea with specific FAC aircraft. By the time of Vietnam using smoke to mark targets was an old and very well established technique. Sorry, what I got from the post was to pull out a smoke grenade and then mark your position. Like in Nam. If you want to call in artillery to spot the target that would work. However, a tank on the move is a bit hard to spot with mortar or artillery smoke. A building no problem, but individual tanks there is a problem. Once again you are correct the General wasn't killed with CAS it was my intention to show you how hard it was to hit the entire German front line. We tried it twice and they didn't hit it either time even though the Germans didn't move. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panther Commander: it was my intention to show you how hard it was to hit the entire German front line.The example you gave earlier was area targetting, not point targetting, though. The two are very different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 youReally? 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. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Originally posted by Sirocco: Exactly! If you can't hit the area target how accurate are you going to be hitting the pinpoint one? Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Originally posted by Panther Commander: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: Exactly! If you can't hit the area target how accurate are you going to be hitting the pinpoint one?</font>The method of attack between a Lancaster and Typhoon are as different as their payload. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.