CAS in CM:N

[Tux]

I was thinking today about how air support should/ could be modelled in CM:N. I had the following idea:

Now, we all know that air support was extremely difficult to coordinate properly in WWII and was rarely, if ever, able to inflict significant material damage to troops and vehicles involved in frontline combat. The vast majority of the damage done was to supply trains and military columns behind the lines, which translated into fewer/ less effective forces at the front. In CM:N, then, how about if Air Support is a purchasable option with three possible outcomes:

Most likely, it would translate into an off-map, pre-battle strike by aircraft which would translate into the battle as increased pre-battle attrition to the target team. For example, force casualties may be set at 10%, then the Allied player buys Air Support, which translates into an additional 0% (unlikely), 3-7% (likely) or 10% (unlikely) casualties, condition deterioration or ammunition shortage for the Germans before the units arrive on map.

Secondly, the Air Support Could arrive on map in the form of one or sometimes two aircraft in a similar way to the CMx1 series, causing serious morale deterioration to targetted soft troops or inexperienced AFV crews, but little material damage (apart from the odd 500lb landscape remodelling effort ).

Thirdly, Air Support could appear as a reduced pre-battle attrition effect on the enemy and a drastically reduced-duration appearance on-map at an earlier (on average) stage of the battle. This third option is there mainly in order to avoid players 'knowing' what support will turn up in-game by the effects seen on pre-battle attrition.

Players could choose to purchase any of these three options, in preference to the default random assignment, but that would only marginally increase the odds of the preferred option occurring.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking odds could be 70% pure off-map attrition effect, 20% on-map arrival and 10% a bit of both. Everything in this idea is biased towards 'CAS' being unpredictable in every way, but potentially very damaging to the enemy.

What do people think?

At the same time, buying AA assets could have a small adverse effect on the effectiveness of Air Support by slightly reducing the damage taken in pre-battle strikes and/ or by deterring on-map aircraft from making as many attack runs as they usually would (heavy AAA presence may even completely deter CAS pilots from making any more than one, hurried attack).

P.S. Obviously BF have already decided how to model Air Support in CM:N but, since I don't know their preferred system and thought this sounded like a good idea, I thought I'd stick it out there for light-hearted discussion, at least.

[Michael Emrys]

Like you, I don't know where BFC is going with air support, but I like your ideas.

One quibble though,

...(heavy AAA presence may even completely deter CAS pilots from making any more than one, hurried attack).

It was actually light AA that was most likely to interfere with dive and fighter bombers. Heavy AA usually could not be trained quickly enough nor did it have the ROF necessary to seriously threaten low-flying aircraft. It was hell for medium to high altitude bombers though, so if those make an appearance in the game, then heavy AA could have some effect on them.

Michael

[JonS]

Like you, I don't know where BFC is going with air support, but I like your ideas.

One quibble though,

It was actually light AA that was most likely to interfere with dive and fighter bombers. Heavy AA usually could not be trained quickly enough nor did it have the ROF necessary to seriously threaten low-flying aircraft. It was hell for medium to high altitude bombers though, so if those make an appearance in the game, then heavy AA could have some effect on them.

Michael

Depends whether he meant heavy as in 88mm/3.7-in, or heavy as in 'a lot'

There've been a couple of CAS in CMN threads in the last year or so. A search should find them.

[Michael Emrys]

Depends whether he meant heavy as in 88mm/3.7-in, or heavy as in 'a lot'

True, however since he seemed to know what he was talking about, I will go with him using standard definitions until shown otherwise. BTW, for these purposes, should 75mm be classified as heavy or something else? There were still a few around in that caliber and god knows the Germans put to use anything they could lay their hands on. (Doubtful they would show up in the game though.)

Michael

[JonS]

True, however since he seemed to know what he was talking about, I will go with him using standard definitions until shown otherwise.

I like to think I know what I'm talking about, and would describe a large volume of LAA fire as 'heavy'.

Yeah, 75mm would be heavy. 88/3.7 were examples of the class, not an exhaustive list.

In other news: *shrug*

[Tux]

Yeah, I meant heavy as in a large number of light AA units. I realise that the only real place for heavy AA in CM is as an AT unit, ironically.

The WWII Air War is actually kind of my speciality, as opposed to the ground war. I find both fascinating though and would love to see the effects of CAS accurately modelled in a game such as CM.

I realise there are other threads but I always find that, once they have run their course, there's no harm in opening a new one in order to run a fresh idea through the mill. Otherwise it would just be a forgotten footnote to a hundred other technically related comments.

P.S. I would consider 75mm as 'heavy' as well, although 'medium' might be a more suitable description. As far as I'm concerned, light AA only counts rifle calibre up to 37mm autocannon. 40mm Bofors would be medium, for example.

[AslakH]

pre-battle attrition should just be set up in the editor. No need for expansive CAS, I think it'll end up like in CMx1. Or maybe something like the choppers in CMSF. They're always "coming around".

If I go to battle with 2 Panthers, and the briefing said I should have six but some P-47s raped me, it would eliminate that random machinery all together. See?

It would be like in CMA, where some units are half-size because snowball thought they should force attrition on the player.

[Tux]

I'm not sure I understand you mate, sorry. What 'random machinery' would be eliminated?

If you buy 6 Panthers, lose four to pre-battle attrition and two to additional attrition as a result of an off-map Allied CAS strike hitting their fuel supply, you end up with zero Panthers. Welcome to warfare!

The fun in CM games is in making do with what you have, whatever that ends up being. I think my idea adds yet another frustrating but engrossing level to the unpredictability that should permeate every level of a game aiming to accurately portray Normandy 1944.

[akd]

My opinion: eliminate on-map CAS from WWII title and take all saved time and devote it to a CMSF patch to make CAS more interesting to use, i.e. add actual weapon loadouts and stores selection (or at least notification) and allow observer units to request an attack run-in direction. You end with both games being more realistic and fun! In my opinion "realistic" and "fun" WWII CAS are somewhat mutually exclusive at the CM battlefield scale.

[JonS]

The fun in CM games is in making do with what you have, whatever that ends up being. I think my idea adds yet another frustrating but engrossing level

Frustrating: yes.

Engrossing: eh. Not so much.

While BAI was indeed one of the most significant effects of Allied airpower (probably much more important that destruction of enemy stuff while in contact with friendly troops), the problem - as far as CM goes - is that it's 'out of scope', and more importantly the player has absolutely no say in the matter. IMO, CM should be about making a series of cost benefit decisions, in which you decisions and actions have an obvious effect - positive or negative - on the outcome of the battle.

Pre-battle CAS is NOT a cost-benefit decision, since the player has no input. They just get told of the effect of decisions made by someone else - it'd be a sort-of deus ex machina element.

Now, I will grant that my position on this is a little inconsistent, since I whole-heartedly support pre-battle cas (PBC), which are also the designers decision, are set in the editor, and have a random element. So, in a lot of ways PBC are quite similar to your idea of BAI in lieu of CAS. Nevertheless, I will continue to support PBC, but am not keen on BAI

Jon

[c3k]

I would think that Stukas would be a different kettle of fish. They were used quite extensively against enemy command and control nodes, as well as striking targets at the front line. Thoughts?

[AslakH]

I'm not sure I understand you mate, sorry. What 'random machinery' would be eliminated?

If you buy 6 Panthers, lose four to pre-battle attrition and two to additional attrition as a result of an off-map Allied CAS strike hitting their fuel supply, you end up with zero Panthers. Welcome to warfare!

The fun in CM games is in making do with what you have, whatever that ends up being. I think my idea adds yet another frustrating but engrossing level to the unpredictability that should permeate every level of a game aiming to accurately portray Normandy 1944.

What random machinery?

The coding that is required.

Well, if you look at CM today, and then say "we need some extra random stuff to happen pre-battle!", I'm not for it.

CM is not loose at all, it's a ridgid game, so having this new CAS feature would complicate things to no end.

Snowball probably thought the same thing when having attrition in the soviet TO&E, instead of the player being able to choose.

"Welcome to warfare!" - that is my point. Let the briefing tell you the attrition, not having attrition + random factors. It would piss off the old players, I can assure you.

Would be fun for some other game, like Hearts of Iron, etc.

Even a "select attrition" selector in the editor would be better. Select attrition - 0-15%, etc.

Making it somewhat random.

I'm tired, and the pain medication makes my head all soupey. Let me know if I'm making sense at all. Just don't be a bitch about it.

[YankeeDog]

I would think that Stukas would be a different kettle of fish. They were used quite extensively against enemy command and control nodes, as well as striking targets at the front line. Thoughts?

Well, obviously not in Normandy 1944. A Stuka's lifespan in the air over Northern France in 1944 would probably be measured in seconds. Stukas were shown to be extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters over England in 1940. By 1944, they were obsolete anywhere the enemy had significant fighter presence. There are a few accounts of a Stuka or other German tactical bomber somehow sneaking in and making a daytime bombing run in the ETO, but it was a very rare occurrence.

Even looking at the war as a whole, within the time frame of a typical CM fight, and as close to friendly troops as a CM map typically depicts, precision dive bombing by Luftwaffe Stukas and JU-88s would not be as much of a factor as the movies and pop history would have you think.

While Stukas were used in close coordination with ground attacks, it was usually in the form of pre-planned strikes on known enemy strongpoints, rather than in response to on-the-fly requests from ground tactical commanders.

So, when and if CMx2:WWII goes somewhere that the Germans have a significant air presence (such as the Ost Front), I think something along the lines of CMx1's "pre-planned" artillery strikes, where the plotting and timing of the strike is all done prior to the start of the battle, might be a good way to simulate Stukas (or JU-88s, or whatever) hitting an obvious target like a ridgeline or bridge as part of an overall, pre-planned, coordinated assault plan.

But in general, a Wehrmacht company or battalion commander wasn't able to "call in" tactical airstrikes, and expect the bombs to drop on a time frame that would matter in a rapidly developing tactical situation.

As far as I know, the only WWII forces to widely use a CAS system something like how we know it today, where front-line spotters are able call in and direct precision airstrikes within view of friendly lines, and reasonably consistently see a quick, accurate response, were the USMC in the PTO, and other Allied forces very late in the ETO.

Cheers,

YD

[Tux]

You are making sense, Aslakh, I just didn't understand the first time. Perhaps you're right. I just think that air power would be great to simulate in CM but, if it is simulated, it must be unpredictable in every way, otherwise it won't be realistic and will ruin immersion rather than enhance it.

Perhaps Yankeedog has the best idea - players could buy CAS strikes as just another form of off-map artillery, but one which must be used during the setup phase on a pre-registered target. The time of the strike should be random and no indication given to the user as to when it would arrive.

Better?

[Michael Emrys]

The time of the strike should be random and no indication given to the user as to when it would arrive.

Better?

I would prefer a semi-random timing. That is, the player would assign a turn when he wanted it, but there would be a variable probability that it would arrive then; on another turn; or not at all. The probability being determined by the scenario designer or in the case of a QB by the side being played and the date of the engagement.

But I don't think this is going to happen any time soon either.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Perhaps Yankeedog has the best idea - players could buy CAS strikes as just another form of off-map artillery, but one which must be used during the setup phase on a pre-registered target. The time of the strike should be random and no indication given to the user as to when it would arrive.

Better?

IMHO, to be most realistic, it shouldn't be completely random, but at the same time the player also shouldn't know the timing of any air support down to the second.

Most Tac Air plans I've seen from the period usually specify a time range during which air strikes will hit a target. e.g., "Stukas hit enemy held ridge behind objective to suppress gun positions from 0800 to 0830."

Note that it's also generally multiple sorties hitting a general area, not a single plane flying overhead, and then picking a target and dropping a single bomb, then maybe following up with strafing run or two. Overall, it's much more like a heavy artillery strike than a modern, precision CAS mission.

Something like that.

[JonS]

This is a previous thread on CAS, in which I made the following suggestion:

Broad brush, for CMx2:Normandy, I'd see air support for the Allies as something like:

June: you buy a/c, and they might turn up at some point during the battle and will pick their own targets from anywhere on the entire map. They'll try to avoid blue on blue (modified by a/c skill and experience).

July: You buy a/c and get to pick an area target at startup. The a/c will probably appear within 10-20 minutes of battles start, and probably attack something within that area (modified by a/c skill and experience).

August: Same as July, but you can also buy (very expensive) CabRank (RAF) or ACC (USAAF). In that case you get a ground-based FAC who can specify a point- or small-area-target at any time during the battle and the a/c will probably attack within the next five-ten minutes (modified by FAC skill and experience). The accuracy of the attack would be modified by a/c skill and experience. If the FAC is killed, the associated a/c revert to 'June' functionality.

It's a bit rough, but it gives the flavour. 'June' functionality could also be purchased in July and August. It models a/c returning from deeper interdiction missions and being tasked to attack something in your AO, as well as the generally abysmal coordination between air and ground in June.

'July' models the reasonably well run pre-planned air request, which had to be submitted no later than 1800hrs (or thereabouts) the day before the attack was required - so, not very responsive. July functionality would also be purchaseable in August.

[MikeyD]

I was just rereading Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" yesterday and the only German close air support he mentions is precisely the kind we're most likely to NOT see - blind night area bombing using butterfly cluster bombs.

I can imagine gameplay 'control freaks' being driven absolutely crazy by the lack of fine control in a June/July '44 air support mission. Especially after CMSF where you could request pinpoint 2000 lb JDAM attacks with 5 minutes notice. Hey, there was a reason why allied vehicle all had big white stars and fluorescent orange air reconition panels on the engine deck!

[JonS]

... the only German close air support he mentions is precisely the kind we're most likely to NOT see - blind night area bombing using butterfly cluster bombs.

That's a pretty loose definition of CAS you're using there

[scottie]

I was just rereading Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" yesterday and the only German close air support he mentions is precisely the kind we're most likely to NOT see - blind night area bombing using butterfly cluster bombs.

I can imagine gameplay 'control freaks' being driven absolutely crazy by the lack of fine control in a June/July '44 air support mission. Especially after CMSF where you could request pinpoint 2000 lb JDAM attacks with 5 minutes notice. Hey, there was a reason why allied vehicle all had big white stars and fluorescent orange air reconition panels on the engine deck!

Interesting stuff, just had a quick look on the net and found this on the Butter Fly bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb

I learn loads of stuff on BF forums

[Noltyboy]

Yeah You do!

[scottie]

awesome vid ... its little wonder cluster bombs are being band , they are devastating.

[Noltyboy]

awesome vid ... its little wonder cluster bombs are being band , they are devastating.

The whole series is very good, lots of action, lots of romance lots of bombs.

[Steiner14]

Now, we all know that air support was extremely difficult to coordinate properly in WWII and was rarely, if ever, able to inflict significant material damage to troops and vehicles involved in frontline combat.

Hoho. I suggest you inform yourself about German Blitzkrieg-tactics and the role of the Luftwaffe in this concept, especially of the Stuka JU87...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I suggest you do.

CAS, the support of troops engaged in combat, pretty much didn't happen. Not even by that awesome wunderwaffe, the Ju 87.