Jump to content

A Modest(?) Proposal: Airpower and CM


Recommended Posts

I have to admit my only experience with flying WWII fighter-bombers comes from IL-2, not Real LifeĀ®. Now I imagine being ordered on a mission like this :

"Comrades, your orders are to start at 7:30 next morning, fly about 2 hours NW towards Vodkagradyinsk until you see the ruins of the power station, then turn west. Cross another 100 miles of open steppe until you reach your target (points to completely empty operational map, showing 10.000 square miles of completely empty steppe) here. It's an area 500 x 500m, supposed to be occupied by fascist troops of unknown composition. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait another 30 or 40 years until some imperialist nerd invents GPS, so you'll have to rely on your gut feelings to find that spot. Good luck to you. And good luck to our own troops in the area because they will be about 800m away from your well-hidden targets. By the way, I can't give you the air coordination frequency because it's top secret. Never mind, most of our radios aren't working, anyway."

I'd drop my bombs on my own hangars (for practice) and land again. Next mission.

IMHO, you couldn't allow ATRPs on rural/open/small maps, simply for the lack of landmarks identifiable from the air. Such landmarks that could be designated as target areas could be bridges or villages, provided they are not likely to be confused with other small villages nearby, etc. etc. A flying can of worms.

As I see it, AC in CM can not be regarded or used as dedicated support for your force (unlike artillery) but instead as random events. Nice to have them drop by but ultimately unreliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt Shultz wrote:

I think that one might be able to buy a Forward Air Controller(FAC) HQ-type unit seperate from any plane purchases and not go too far out of the scope of these battles.
Yeah, and the non-radio equipped FO's, would have a wire attached to the plane with a plastic controller where they could lead it around in a circle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the 'bomb-line' but would

also like to be able to call some limit on when the air attacks can take place - though nothing too defined.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

'No air attacks before move#'

or

'No air attacks after move #'

Perhaps with a computer defined +/- to keep some unpredictability in air use.

This would be defined during the setup phase, so a player couldnt just say "I want it now !"

Use of this would allow a player some way of avoiding a 'blue-on-blue'.

Each time i use aircraft they always seem to appear in the first couple of turns ... i'd like to be able to hold them back, as a little surprise ......especially in a long ME.

Well it's only my thoughts ... probably never see it but i can wish ! :rolleyes:

Lou2000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TSword:

We need air FOs that's all....

It's not really plausible to use those on the CM scale prior to late '44 in the ETO. I'm not sure exactly what the set up was on the East Front, but I haven't heard any so far to indicate they were as well off.

I think FACs are out for the foreseeable future of the game.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lou2000:

I like the idea of the 'bomb-line' but would

also like to be able to call some limit on when the air attacks can take place - though nothing too defined.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

'No air attacks before move#'

or

'No air attacks after move #'

Perhaps with a computer defined +/- to keep some unpredictability in air use.

This would be defined during the setup phase, so a player couldnt just say "I want it now !"

Use of this would allow a player some way of avoiding a 'blue-on-blue'.

Each time i use aircraft they always seem to appear in the first couple of turns ... i'd like to be able to hold them back, as a little surprise ......especially in a long ME.

Well it's only my thoughts ...

Just wanted to say that my thoughts are running along the same lines.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Hedges said:

....This would work basically like artillery does, except that the attack point indicated by the player would what the planes would attack if they found no better targets. The planes could even return on the second and subsequent turns if they still had ordinance.

I think that this would do a good job of both simulating a bomb line, and of reflecting those frequent occasions where troops waited for the planes to bomb before starting their approach.

I second that!

Regarding FO's: There was a version of the SPW 251 that was used for aircraft liaison. Not sure about any other details such as at what formation levels these were used (per a Squadran/Signal publication).

I tend to get Veteran aircraft. They seem to show up earlier when Veteran, but some design notes on this might be desirable.

I have a couple of comments regarding the Stuka B/D:</font>

  1. The version that has more than the main bomb seems to drop them separately. I thought that they were dropped together? Seems very dangerous to pull out of a high-G dive with ordinance hanging on.</font>
  2. It also seems unlikely that they would stick around for ~12 turns to strafe with their BB-gun.
    </font>

BTW, it seems that the price of airsupport for Operations is exaggerated since they only show up on one battle, whereas FO's are carried over from battle to battle.

To scenario designers: Using airsupport on small maps is silly!

Cheers!

-gabe-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I am sure that a lot of small units didn't have them, but I am reading a book by Erhard Raus that states that there was very close coordination by Luftwaffe air controllers attached to ground units as early as Feb 1942. Btn sized and over units had them and made sure that they were on the same page at all times as to where to go and what to hit and what not to hit. These were flying officers that accompanied all groupment commanders and participated in all pre-action briefings, as well as staying in LOS of the action as much as possible to render accurate assistance by way of radio communication to the planes overhead.

I will post quotes if you insist but that makes for a wad-o-copying and searching. I didn't think there was that much close coordination either until I read this book.

Granted it was not like modern day FAC-type action, and it wouldn't be very realistic for the tiny QBs a lot of folks play, but the FACs did get real close to the action, at least close enough to see the MLR.

Source Materiel - "Panzers on the Eastern Front" Gen. Erhard Raus and his Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945. printed 2002, Military Book Club. Edited by Peter G. Tsouras. It is a compilation of unit tactics phamplets, with notes and observations, written by Raus for the US Army after WWII.

To ensure historical accuracy, if implemented, this FAC HQ could be purchased only as part of a full Btn.

BTW, ther is even a section that mentions capturing a Russian Air Observer on the way to Leningrad, so even the commies had their act semi-together early. smile.gif

[ November 01, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Schultz ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another idea .... Give Btn HQs the ability to act as FACs. This would simulate that one of the HQ's party IS the FAC without adding another unit to the purchase mix.

This would make the Btn HQs more than just glorified Co. HQs and give yet another reason to buy full Btns rather than the stack-o-'toons the gamey ones seem to love. smile.gif

That is either a good idea or my meds need adjustment yet again. I have absolutely NO idea how hard/easy that would be to code in to the engine rewrite, but it sounds good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sgt. Schultz:

I will post quotes if you insist but that makes for a wad-o-copying and searching.

I'll try to spare you that smile.gif , but it would be helpful if you could find out anything about how they designated targets and how real-time was their control. In my original post, I was proceding on the assumption that the planning had to be done some hours previously. I don't mind the thought that some on-the-fly coƶrdination could have taken place now and then, but it is going to take some convincing to win me to the idea that it was routine.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sgt. Schultz:

Here is another idea .... Give Btn HQs the ability to act as FACs. This would simulate that one of the HQ's party IS the FAC without adding another unit to the purchase mix.

I dunno. This seems to me to cross over the line into ahistorical practice to me. I'm all in favor of trying to find a job for all those coy and batt HQs that mirror historical practice, but in this game for most of the time, there just wasn't that close of a coƶrdination between ground and air. Some indeed, but not like there were cab ranks of jabos they could call down at a moment's notice.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see if sober Schultz can think like drunken Schultz and come up with a compromise.

smile.gif

If planes are purchased and a Btn HQ is purchased, The Btn HQ may target a primary area for air attacks on the 1st turn only. No adjustments allowed, just like a prep barrage. No LOS is required as the pre-attack briefing would have covered the entire Area of Operations. This would simulate the pre-planning and take away the modern FAC use option. The plane will target any enemy units within 200 meters of said targeted area initially and then seek targets of opportunity.

That sounds risky enough(the plane could hit a toon inside the target zone when a tank is somewhere else outside the area) and still keeps one's Jabos from flattening one's own troops with the 1st bomb run.

I like the bomb line suggestions and a lot of the things posted earlier as well, I am just trying to add options without allowing gameyness to creep in.

EDIT - I try to only play Btn size(3000 points) and up games so my opinions may be quite a bit different than someone who plays tiny QBs and scenarios. - EDIT

[ November 02, 2002, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Sgt. Schultz ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sgt. Schultz:

If planes are purchased and a Btn HQ is purchased, The Btn HQ may target a primary area for air attacks on the 1st turn only. No adjustments allowed, just like a prep barrage. No LOS is required as the pre-attack briefing would have covered the entire Area of Operations. This would simulate the pre-planning and take away the modern FAC use option. The plane will target any enemy units within 200 meters of said targeted area initially and then seek targets of opportunity.

This sounds an awful lot like what I suggested in my first post. In which case, I agree with it. Mostly. smile.gif

That sounds risky enough(the plane could hit a toon inside the target zone when a tank is somewhere else outside the area) and still keeps one's Jabos from flattening one's own troops with the 1st bomb run.
That consideration is what got me to thinking about this whole thing. But I think I might be inclined to have some chance that the plane would abandoned the planned bomb zone if it spotted suspected enemy vehicles outside. It's a thought...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that Charles & Co. would insert variables in there somewhere re: targeting, as that seems to be their MO. smile.gif (that is... if they are reading this and even considering our suggestions here) The only difference I see from our positions now, after re-reading your initial post, is that you suggested an ATRP and I suggested giving the ability to a Btn HQ. ATRPs would allow someone with just a few toons to set airstrikes, and that seems like it would go outside the historical situation. That is why I retracted my seperate FAC idea.

The HQs are already there and I feel that they could benefit from having an actual job to do that would encourage buying Btns. Otherwise we are back to the toon-a-thon with someone buying ATRPs.

I like the target box idea as well, as opposed to a single point.

What is the threshold for getting a response from BFC on these little wish lists? Number of posts? Lucidity of posts? Being on page 1 when they are drinking their coffeee and looking at the boards? Inquiring minds want to know. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sgt. Schultz:

The only difference I see from our positions now, after re-reading your initial post, is that you suggested an ATRP and I suggested giving the ability to a Btn HQ. ATRPs would allow someone with just a few toons to set airstrikes, and that seems like it would go outside the historical situation. That is why I retracted my seperate FAC idea.

The HQs are already there and I feel that they could benefit from having an actual job to do that would encourage buying Btns. Otherwise we are back to the toon-a-thon with someone buying ATRPs.

I understand what you are saying. That's why in my original post I limited the ATRPs to only one per side and it must be placed in the Set Up phase, although the strike can be requested to occur at any point during the game. They represent planning that is going on at a higher echelon than what is on the map. Thus, it really doesn't matter whether what is on the map is a platoon or a regiment. It isn't the one doing the planning/requesting anyway.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sgt. Schultz:

What is the threshold for getting a response from BFC on these little wish lists? Number of posts? Lucidity of posts? Being on page 1 when they are drinking their coffeee and looking at the boards? Inquiring minds want to know. smile.gif

The gods of programming are inscrutable. Possibly capricious as well. Their ways are not known to mortal men, such as you and I are given to be. Forego meat and strong drink and lying with women and pehaps they will hear your prayers, my son.

Hardly seems worth it, doesn't it?

:D

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt. Schultz

Right on the spot !

Just one thing to add, the AirFO MUST be able to travel on/in a vehicle and target (If out of question due to code limits, then a dedicated vehicle type must be there, one tank (Commandtank), one car like vehicle, and one HT like).

Greets

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...