Lt. Badger Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 One more reason to learn how to edit CMAK scenarios: TO GET RID OF THE #@!%^ CLOSE AIR SUPPORT! (Yes, I'm shouting!) OK, I know I haven't played enough CM to have any sort of statistical sample of CAS attacks. Maybe I've just been really really unlucky. But every time those aircraft show up in a game I'm playing, the ones that are supposed to be working for me do way more damage to my forces than they do to the enemy. Tonight I was playing the On the Edge scenario in CMAK - German paratroops attacking an Allied AA battery in Crete. Even with my "newbie bonus" of 25% extra troops on my side, it was a very tough fight, but by turn 12 I had managed to take out 3 of the 4 AA guns and was well-positioned to take out the 4th. Then a Stuka shows up and drops two bombs. One lands on the edge of the woods right between two of my squads, killing all but 1 man in each squad and also the 4 man HQ unit that was nearby. The second bomb landed right next to one of the sandbagged AA emplacements - one that I had just overrun, where I had three squads and their HQ unit resting in the foxholes. Two squads and the HQ unit completely wiped out, and about 33% casualties in the 3rd squad. I figure those two bombs together cost me about 48 men, probably a few more than that actually but I'm not sure of the casualty status of those squads before the bombs hit. Also, by killing the HQ units, the bombs left the survivors out of command until I could bring up a Hauptmann, and also deprived me of mortar spotters for that area of the fight. I did manage to finally take out that 4th AA gun, but the score at the end was a draw where I had expected a decent victory - until those two bombs fell. Lt. Badger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Clearly the answer is...give the CAS to the side you don't intend to play! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 But in all seriousness, I really do wonder why designers put CAS into their scenarios. It is clearly an element of pure randomness... I can't really see how that adds value to a tactical game. In historic scenarios, sure. If you are trying to simulate the confusion and frustration felt by troops under friendly fire, then do that. But other than that, it seems like a pointless addition to a scenario: you can't plan anything based on it, and you can have the best plan working well only to be wiped out by it... GaJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: But in all seriousness, I really do wonder why designers put CAS into their scenarios. It is clearly an element of pure randomness... I can't really see how that adds value to a tactical game. In historic scenarios, sure. If you are trying to simulate the confusion and frustration felt by troops under friendly fire, then do that. But other than that, it seems like a pointless addition to a scenario: you can't plan anything based on it, and you can have the best plan working well only to be wiped out by it... I think you answered the question pretty well. If a scenario designer wants the game to be a training tool, then you need to just keep making effective decisions, in the face of being thwarted by circumstances. Confusion, mistakes and time-stress should be maxed out to see if you have the right stuff to hold a command position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 CAS is spectacular when they hit you, but you rarely notice what it does for you - sometimes you see a tank gone, but in many cases you just wonder "why'd he drop his bombs there" and on the AAR screen see the two AT guns that never bothered you in the game for some reason apex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1966 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I'm not sure, but I am curious as to how the game (engine/AI - not sure what terminology I should use here) decides when your CAS is going to start dropping bombs on your own troops. Or how it picks its targets at all for that matter. In ASL you actually chose (perhaps unrealistically) the intial target and the system allowed for the pilot to accidentally pick another target neaby which could include your forces if they were nearby. So you could always avoid friendly fire as long as you picked targets that were nowhere near your own units. (Well that's how I remember it - It has been a while) Of course in CM you have no control whatsoever as to what is targetted and this is what causes (perhaps realistically) such frustration. I'm not that experienced a CM player (in fact, I'm a bit rubbish ) but the two scenarios that have caused me the most hair tearing with regard to CAS were... ***SPOILER*** ...."Wittman" in East" (from CMBB) and the one mentioned at the start of this thread: "On the Edge" (CMAK) which I played a couple of days ago. In the former (as the Germans), the CAS support seems to spend most of its time attacking Russian Armor but you usually expect to lose one or two PanzerIV's to it as well. In my experience, they were nowhere near any Russians but I suppose distance is a relative thing on the big old Russian Steppe. However, in "On the Edge" (as the Germans) it would seem that the most effective allied defense is your own CAS. I'm not entirely sure whether they ever targetted anything but my own troops (which maybe unfair as has pointed out, you do tend to notice the friendly fire more than when they're doing it right) and they certainly killed more of my men than the ANZACs did... I lost (as in wiped out) at least two full squads in seperate direct hits from from Stuka bombs (ie they were the targets not just nearby hits) and numerous casualties and major morale drops (panic and broken from good order)from nearby hits and strafings. :mad: Now this is a mainly infantry scenario in quite "close" country so I suppose this is certainly more realistic - In all cases my troops were in close contact with the allies. However, I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me how the game generates these incidents (and how it picks targets altogether for that matter) as there must hopefully be a way for the forces on the ground to try and minimize the number of such incidents. Or perhaps there isn't... Apologies if this is covered elsewhere :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Badger Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: But in all seriousness, I really do wonder why designers put CAS into their scenarios. It is clearly an element of pure randomness... I can't really see how that adds value to a tactical game. In historic scenarios, sure. If you are trying to simulate the confusion and frustration felt by troops under friendly fire, then do that. But other than that, it seems like a pointless addition to a scenario: you can't plan anything based on it, and you can have the best plan working well only to be wiped out by it... I think you answered the question pretty well. If a scenario designer wants the game to be a training tool, then you need to just keep making effective decisions, in the face of being thwarted by circumstances. Confusion, mistakes and time-stress should be maxed out to see if you have the right stuff to hold a command position. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 What is the key complaint: 1) CAS is makes scenarios too "random". 2) CAS attacks your own troops to often. Because of #1 designers are using CAS less and less I think since CMBO (don't have the numbers). It is never used in battles for 2-player or tournaments to my knownledge. Designers know people invest a lot of time in playing the scenarios. So random events - even though it simulates this aspect tactical warfare - can really piss folks off. Number #2 could be fixed via code I guess. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluf Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 If a designer wants to make a scenario historically accurate, then close air support may be required, if it was there in the battle being modeled. And you only need to read the account of the Falaise gap battle in the South Alberta Regiment history by Donald E. Graves to see that friendly fire incidents from CAS aircraft occurred very frequently under some conditions. Since the Combat Mission simulators are intended to be as realistic as possible, then they must include this aspect of the WWII experience. It is a reality that ground commanders had to live with. Some of them certainly hated CAS too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Well, in a recent QB with a good friend of mine, I certainly wished he had decided to avoid buying CAS. We were playing CMBB, and he bought one...just one, veteran IL2-3M. That single aircraft destroyed 5 of my tanks using a combination bombs, rockets, and strafing runs. The irony was my opponent never knew what was happening, as all my tanks were out of LOS at the time. CAS can truly be a nuisance to your own side when you buy it, but sometimes it can be frightfully effective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 If the RAF showed up the germans hide If the luffewaffer showed up the Allies hide If the usaf showed up both teh allies and the germans hide hehe its a funny joke but true.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Matthias: If the RAF showed up the germans hide If the luffewaffer showed up the Allies hide If the usaf showed up both teh allies and the germans hide hehe its a funny joke but true.... Yeah and both the germans and the brits told it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 hahah and being half german and half english i like it even more 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btm Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Matthias: If the RAF showed up the germans hide If the luffewaffer showed up the Allies hide If the usaf showed up both teh allies and the germans hide hehe its a funny joke but true.... Horsesh1t. The U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Corps were able to develop the most advanced system of close air support that the world had ever seen to that point in time. Granted this took time, and the system was not perfect, but it was extremely valuable and effective. Try reading any of the following books to educate yourselves: Patton's Air Force: Forging a Legendary Air-Ground Team by David Spires Angels Zero: P-47 Close Air Support in Europe by Robert Bulle Tactical Air Interdiction by the USAAF in WW2 (Series) by Col. Dupuy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Whats all this about bombing your own troops? Am I the only one who this doesn't (perhaps should read rarely) happen to? CAS is in the game because it would be totally unrealistic to have the Allies assault a strongly held objective without airpower overhead. You read the memoir 'Death Traps' and it sounds like after a typical Thunderbolt attack American troops would be marching forward over the bodies of their slain enemies. You also read at the start of Operation Cobra airpower managed to kill about 600 of their own troops! Not to mention CAS is a hoot. One German bomber in the game drops 98 bomblets in one go, can ravage half the map. And in CMAK with its smoke and dust it's loads of fun to watch too! A good excuse to play with a few M16 HTs and 40mm Bofors guns. [ December 19, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 ahhaha u go on and belive everything u hear, just like how the usa won the space race ...apart from the fact they were second in everything apart from getting men to the moon...so they won...makes perfect sense! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Another good book is "Over Lord" with the focus on Pete Quesada's development of the air-ground battle team that saved countless Allied lives. The author is Thomas Hughes. Kevin Edited to correct spelling ... [ December 20, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Kevin Kinscherf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: CAS is in the game because it would be totally unrealistic to have the Allies assault a strongly held objective without airpower overhead.I would take issue with that. By far the most common use of tactical airpower in the theaters represented by CM would be off a playing map, even the largest ones that can be generated. Although some "softening up" of front-line enemy postitions was certainly done, that was usually with the friendly troops well back and hours before they jumped off into the attack. Effective and relatively safe use of Close Air Support as depicted in the game did not occur until the last eight or nine months of the war in Europe. Apparently the USN/Marines had it going a bit earlier in the Pacific. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherf: Another good book is "Overload" with the focus on Pate Quesada's development of the air-ground battle team that saved countless Allied lives. The author is Thomas Hughes.Mister Picky says that the book is called Over Lord (note also two words) and the General's first name was Pete. Otherwise, I agree with you warmly. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherf: Another good book is "Overload" with the focus on Pate Quesada's development of the air-ground battle team that saved countless Allied lives. The author is Thomas Hughes.Mister Picky says that the book is called Over Lord (note also two words) and the General's first name was Pete. Otherwise, I agree with you warmly. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Ahh. Yes. Aircrew. Wake up and smell the smart kids who can do maths. They'd all have been doctors you know. If they'd had a shred of compassion. What's the line in the Hitchcock film?: they're at the top of the Big Wheel, looking down. The Psycho says: 'Look at them. Like ants. What does it matter if a few of them stop moving?' Isn't it a shame how aircrew are always so brutally abused once they're shot down over enemy territory? Moves me to tears of pity it does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Determinant: Isn't it a shame how aircrew are always so brutally abused once they're shot down over enemy territory? Moves me to tears of pity it does. Er...have issues, do you? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Determinant: Isn't it a shame how aircrew are always so brutally abused once they're shot down over enemy territory? Moves me to tears of pity it does. Er...have issues, do you? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 WARNING: I've included CAS in Descent on Maleme so run for your life. The real battle is rife with CAS, but without guidance from the ground. (In other words the CM variety) There are several recorded instances where CAS attacked germans instead of Commonwealth. And in one case a CAS strike proved to be a crtical battle winning event. However In all my playings of the operation (and Leros) CAS has never hit friendly forces yet but has nailed enemy forces a number of times. BTW the higher the skill level the better chance that CAS hits where it's supposed to. LT Badger sez: "I play the game for fun, and random disasters don't add anything to the fun for me." Moon, Steve, can you make a note of that? The next time a CM game is released mark one of the "Fun-non chaos" versions for LT Badger. After all ramdom disasters have no place in the carefuly controlled environment that an accurate world war 2 game should be. But put aside one of the "Fun-Chaos included" versions for me... Los [ December 19, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Los ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 There are a few obvious optimizations to make: 1a) shooting a friendly tank when both sides have tanks and are mangled in a meeting engagement? - Fine 1b) shooting an attacking tank when the defender has no vehicles? - Not fine, at least not often 2a) on a run, choosing the best of multiple targets and bomb it? - Fine 2b) on a run, dropping your bombs even if no valuable targets are in sight, bombing a half-squad in lack of better targets? - Not realistic. Circle and when no valuable targets are exposed after a period of time, go home. 3a) planes attacking when and where they please? - Fine 3b) a commanding officer of a battalion+ force not even being able to say "skip the planned attack" or "wait a few minutes"? - Only occasionally fine Variants of 1b): - shooting guns facing the enemy side? Not fine - in an attack, shooting infantry that slowly moves towards the direction where the enemy line is? Not fine Variants of 1a): - shooting vehicles or infantry behind the enemy line? Fine - missing your target and bomb nothing? Fine 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.