noob Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I have just had a look on at the TO&E of CMBN and i cant see any dedicated AA guns. is this correct ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 With the air force cover and the huge number of 0.50" calibre HMG's I am not sure a great need for the US. troops : ) Perhaps destined for the expansions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 With the air force cover and the huge number of 0.50" calibre HMG's I am not sure a great need for the US. troops : ) Perhaps destined for the expansions. I was talking more about the Axis forces, in fact aren't they essential given the Allied air power in that theatre at that time ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 In total, III Flak Corps entered combat in Normandy with 27 heavy batteries, 26 light batteries and some 12,000 men. - Wikipedia. http://www.nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs5/Flak%20German%20AntiAircraft%20Defenses%20-%201914-1945%20.pdf Page 175 shows how they got chewed up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 In total, III Flak Corps entered combat in Normandy with 27 heavy batteries, 26 light batteries and some 12,000 men. - Wikipedia. http://www.nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs5/Flak%20German%20AntiAircraft%20Defenses%20-%201914-1945%20.pdf Page 175 shows how they got chewed up. "After the landings, Flak Corps III moved forward to support German forces near the Normandy beaches, playing a key role in slowing the advance of Allied armored forces in June and July" "In initial operations, the corps claimed twenty-five aircraft destroyed while suffering "considerable" material and personnel losses" Those are quotes from the source you sent me, so that proves a/ the Axis "had" FLAK weapons in the area and b/ they were effective up to a point. So i dont see how your link backs up the fact that there doesnt seem to be any in CMBN, and also theres such a thing as "what if" scenarios as well. But if it could be modelled in CMx1 why isnt it in CMx2, is it so difficult with this new engine ? its such a fundamental oversight not having Light AA weapons in a game where there is the option of having air strikes it beggars belief ?!?!?! I was looking forward to seeing the air strikes in the CMBN operation im going to run as ive been told the sounds are awesome, but how can i put them in now when the Axis will be defenceless against them ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 But if it could be modelled in CMx1 why isnt it in CMx2, is it so difficult with this new engine ? its such a fundamental oversight not having Light AA weapons in a game where there is the option of having air strikes it beggars belief ?!?!?! I was looking forward to seeing the air strikes in the CMBN operation im going to run as ive been told the sounds are awesome, but how can i put them in now when the Axis will be defenceless against them ? They don't have an unlimited amount of time to make the perfect war simulation noob, so perhaps you can indicate which feature you would like cut for CM:BN so that this can make it in. Considering how rarely air power actually raises its head in-game, and how often they attack their own troops, I'm not very worried about it. I believe the plan is to get it in by Bulge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 They don't have an unlimited amount of time to make the perfect war simulation noob, so perhaps you can indicate which feature you would like cut for CM:BN so that this can make it in. Considering how rarely air power actually raises its head in-game, and how often they attack their own troops, I'm not very worried about it. I believe the plan is to get it in by Bulge. Im aware that time can be a factor but couldnt they have dispensed with the naval guns ? I mean how many people are going to be pissed if theres no off map naval artillery compared to the people who are going to be pissed at having to defend against air strikes with nothing ? Well air power will be even rarer in custom built scenarios now theres no counter to it !!! Hang on, is this a joke, they are going to get it in for the Bulge, lol, when the weather was too bad too use it most of the time in the real thing, i feel like im in a Terry Gilliam movie ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Im aware that time can be a factor but couldnt they have dispensed with the naval guns ? I mean how many people are going to be pissed if theres no off map naval artillery compared to the people who are going to be pissed at having to defend against air strikes with nothing ? The naval guns require almost no effort. Simply a matter of changing some numbers around. With AA you require 3D artwork, 2D artwork, AI changes, animations, anti-aircraft fire, AI to accompany that, Debug the AI to accompany that, lots of new code changes to accomdate AA fire, debug all that stuff too, time spent teasing out the details for how AA fire will work and affect aircraft, etc, etc. The two aren't anywhere near the same from a development standpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Well air power will be even rarer in custom built scenarios now theres no counter to it !!! There's no counter to artillery. Shall we cut that as well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever click on a link that says "www.nazi.org.uk" Either they're Nazis or idiots, or both. No intention of ever finding out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 The naval guns require almost no effort. Simply a matter of changing some numbers around. With AA you require 3D artwork, 2D artwork, AI changes, animations, anti-aircraft fire, AI to accompany that, Debug the AI to accompany that, lots of new code changes to accomdate AA fire, debug all that stuff too, time spent teasing out the details for how AA fire will work and affect aircraft, etc, etc. The two aren't anywhere near the same from a development standpoint. There are 11 types of axis half track so couldnt they have dispensed with one of them to build a FLAK 38 ? But to be honest this whole subject is ridiculous, i just cant see how anyone could not put at least one type of Light AA weapon in a game with Air strikes, i mean CMBN has been cooking for so long would whatever time it would take to build it have been so bad given the neccesity and prevelance of the weapon in a WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noltyboy Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 There are 11 types of axis half track so couldnt they have dispensed with one of them to build a FLAK 38 ? But to be honest this whole subject is ridiculous, i just cant see how anyone could not put at least one type of Light AA weapon in a game with Air strikes, i mean CMBN has been cooking for so long would whatever time it would take to build it have been so bad given the neccesity and prevelance of the weapon in a WW2 sim ! No there isnt there is two with several different versions of each. Most of which is things like changing the loadout so pioneers can get charges etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 There's no counter to artillery. Shall we cut that as well? Hang on, there was no counter to artillery in the real world apart from counter battery fire and hiding, well we "can" hide in CMBN and any fool can see why it would be impossible to model counter battery fire given the size of the battlemaps, but there is no historical or technical reason why there cannot be an AA weapon in this game as they have already shown it is possible in CMx1 so your reply just doesnt hold water im afraid and frankly you must be on the payroll to even consider trying to defend such a blinding oversight. However as im no programmer, if there is a technical reason why an AA weapon could not of been in this release i will back off, but using excuses like time just doesnt wash in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 No there isnt there is two with several different versions of each. Most of which is things like changing the loadout so pioneers can get charges etc. Fair enough but i still dont see how such a fundamental weapon like Light AA could be left out in a game with air strikes, can nobody see this, am i the only one that sees this ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 using excuses like time just doesnt wash in my opinion. What other currency would you suggest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Hang on, there was no counter to artillery in the real world apart from counter battery fire and hiding, well we "can" hide in CMBN and any fool can see why it would be impossible to model counter battery fire given the size of the battlemaps, but there is no historical or technical reason why there cannot be an AA weapon in this game as they have already shown it is possible in CMx1 so your reply just doesnt hold water im afraid and frankly you must be on the payroll to even consider trying to defend such a blinding oversight. However as im no programmer, if there is a technical reason why an AA weapon could not of been in this release i will back off, but using excuses like time just doesnt wash in my opinion. Actually I think it's an omission that should be corrected, I was merely giving you the reasons for why it was. There's no need to accuse me of being a shill just because I won't freak out with you about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 The naval guns require almost no effort. Simply a matter of changing some numbers around. With AA you require 3D artwork, 2D artwork, AI changes, animations, anti-aircraft fire, AI to accompany that, Debug the AI to accompany that, lots of new code changes to accomdate AA fire, debug all that stuff too, time spent teasing out the details for how AA fire will work and affect aircraft, etc, etc. The two aren't anywhere near the same from a development standpoint. They did it in CMx1 ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 Actually I think it's an omission that should be corrected, I was merely giving you the reasons for why it was. There's no need to accuse me of being a shill just because I won't freak out with you about it. Well dont say things like "There's no counter to artillery. Shall we cut that as well?" thats just asking for a freak out. And while we are at it, im an emotional type of guy that likes to speak his mind so dont take it personally but if you are going to start defending what i think is indefensable you are going to get an honest and clear response from me .... but see im smiling now, im not freaking out now , i do calm down eventually but its in my nature to freak so you will have to forgive me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 The in-game counters to artillery are all available against air too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 They did it in CMx1 ! Unfortunetly that is completely irrelevant. CMx1 wasn't made in such a way they can just reuse the code; it just doesn't work like that. That's part of the reason CMx2 was made to have features be easy to carry forward. But it also means they have to be made from the ground up the first time in CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 LLF - it has the WOT green marker. And if it is providing genuine resource I do not take a name as being a turn-off. Normal Dude thanks for the info. No biggie in the scheme of things. I have visions that most of the III Flak AA would be positioned for guarding strategically important targets know to the Allies. Having an AA gun in the front line might actually draw attention to itself by firing and annoy the fighter-bombers or the artillery boys. The problem of supplying the odd AA gun must also be a concern. I think the formal AA batteries were clumped together for supply and for mass fire effect. But I am guessing. At most the battlefield is 4kms deep so the swooping fighter will be in and out in roughly 4 seconds so I am not sure that any on battlefield AA would be that much use in stopping delivery. And of course effective range for 20mm and 37mm is not that great , with the 20mm topping out at 2200metres. Details of the 37mm are here . I have to admit to surprise at seeing how late they commenced the Flak 43 and how few were built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_FlaK_43 Still I will see if I can find anything on mobile AA usage as opposed to the motorised III Flak Corps moving their kit into Normandy and their fighting record. I imagine in theory each PZ Divison would have some tracked AA but I suspect not a lot and enemy planes taking a great care to wipe them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 Unfortunetly that is completely irrelevant. CMx1 wasn't made in such a way they can just reuse the code; it just doesn't work like that. That's part of the reason CMx2 was made to have features be easy to carry forward. But it also means they have to be made from the ground up the first time in CMx2. That fair enough, but if its not "impossible" to model in the CMx2 engine then "time" is the only reason to omit it and considering the length of time people have been waiting for this i cant see that any extra time would of been that bad unless its some esoteric reason that i am not privy to as i dont work in the industry, so if someone could explain to me why getting the game out in April rather than say June the 6th is so important i would be most gratefull as i dont like mysteries 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 There are 11 types of axis half track so couldnt they have dispensed with one of them to build a FLAK 38 ? But to be honest this whole subject is ridiculous, i just cant see how anyone could not put at least one type of Light AA weapon in a game with Air strikes, i mean CMBN has been cooking for so long would whatever time it would take to build it have been so bad given the necessity and prevalence of the weapon in a WW2 sim ! The subject may be ridiculous, but I think there are many different opinions here of which subject it is that we are referring to as being ridiculous. In CMBO, all my AA did was give away their positions when aircraft came along. I can't really say they had much success. In terms of the effectiveness of AA in the sources previously discussed. I can't say those numbers 1 sound very quantitatively impressive and 2 don't note aircraft type. How successful do we think they really were against P51s and P47s as opposed to recon lightweight, slow aircraft and level bombers? As one noted example in "Dying for St Lo" they talk about an allied air strike against the St Lo train station witnessed by a Frenchman and his comments were that basically the German AA was humiliatingly ineffective. I raised this subject on another post about friendly fire and the response I got was basically beware of using air power. Danger close is just about anywhere at the game scale. So yes the allies have air strikes, but honestly it doesn't seem to be something BFC wants to focus on at this scale and carries risk for both sides. I think your perspective is being driven by your desire to fight at an operational tempo using a tactical wargame and you have to ask yourself does that necessarily jive with what BFC is trying to produce? Though the game is capable of doing large scale battles, I don't think that they intended that to be it's focus as opposed to a capability. All of this gets pretty subjective, but as you are the one raising the question as to who would want what- personally I think BFC got it right. Allied ship borne artillery is a much bigger potential impact than aircaft at the tactical level for the specific period of this module. And the first designer who wanted to build a scenario for Omaha beach would be just as flipped out about the lack of naval firepower as you are about German AA. As to trading one unit type for another, I think you missed the point. To do AA fire you don't just build a unit, you have to model the AA fire. Now considering the effort for ballistics modeling that BFC has put into the product do you think they (or anyone else including yourself) isn't going to be spending thread after thread about whether or not they got that right. "but my wirbelwind has a turn capability of 30 degrees in 2 seconds firing 150 rounds per second of ......" Before you go off about how dumb their focus is or lack of capability think about what you are saying and ask yourself this- Are you prepared to wait another year to play ANY scenario just to be able to shoot back rather ineffectively? On a personal note, no offense but calm the theatrics. Some of us have a few years behind us and a few less hairs except for what is growing in our ears. Throwing a fit because of a single item that you want but is inherently going to complicate the game puts people like myself off. It will in the end run hurt your chances of involving folks in the campaign game you want to do simply because we don't want have to deal with that kind of behavior. Reasoned thought out discussion is very appealing, if I want to hear a fit I just listen for my neighbors kid to fall off his swing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 What other currency would you suggest? I dont know, if it is to model AA in CMx2 then time is the only factor in its omission and given that people have been waiting a long time since it was hinted at im really curious to know why April is such an important time to release it as opposed to June the 6th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 The in-game counters to artillery are all available against air too. Not sure what you mean by that but it looks like im going to have to use the air missions function in Normandy 44 to have air power in my operation at all without causing a mutiny 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.