AA guns in CMBN ?

[WineCape]

.... 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

There you go. You got round to finding some (partial) solution on your own. At least the comments here provided impetus for you to do just that.

[Vark]

I thought the primary role of AA was to degrade the accuracy of the airstrike, actually shooting down a plane was a bonus.

[noob]

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.

Thats fair enough, but my experience with it in CMAK was such that i was extremely impressed with it, notable was a scenario where Stukas ruled unless you set up your AA correctly then the effect was noticable so to me it was always an essential part of the CM game, just like tanks, troops and guns, if it wasnt effective why was it put in in the first place ?

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.

Well i guess BFC are responsible then for conditioning me through the old CM to see AA as a vital part of the mechanics of the game and the only viable weapon against air power, it all worked for me in CMx1 so you must forgive me my reaction as i was shellshocked to find that it had been omitted in CMBN irrespective of the reasons.

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.

I agree, naval power gives the game options and i am glad it is in for the very reason you mention, even more so as it will play a vital part of the opening of my operation so i for one am glad its there but one must admit its a niche weapon thats not going to appear in the bulk of the scenarios in play whereas air strikes probably will but as was pointed out its easy to put in so it was a bad example for me to use.

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 ......".

I will defer to you greater knowledge of the logisitics of adding such a weapon and if it would cause a years delay as you point out i can see the point of leaving it out as BF has to recoup expenses and a year generating no income from the game is notable.

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?

If it would delay the game for a year then i would not like that, so if someone had explained that to me initially i would of accepted it.

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.

Well the human race is a diverse thing and according to Jung we have different personality types so i guess mine doesnt chime with yours and yes i am a theatrical type of person, which has its upsides like being creative but also its downsides like being outwardly emotional which will by default irritate the opposite types to me, however i am not a sociopath and once the initial shock of having my desires thwarted wears off i can be as reasonable as the next reasonable guy but i can assure you its in my nature to let off steam when im pissed so i guess that may put off people of your personality type in getting involved in my ventures which is fair enough, one cannot please everybody and i dont try to as thats been a failing of mine in the past and leads to me berating myself for being disingenuous,

[noob]

I thought the primary role of AA was to degrade the accuracy of the airstrike, actually shooting down a plane was a bonus.

That will do for me, in CMAK it made the Stukas miss the tanks

[noob]

There you go. You got round to finding some (partial) solution on your own. At least the comments here provided impetus for you to do just that.

Yes, thats true, silver linings et al....well silverplated linings at least

[sburke]

Thats fair enough, but my experience with it in CMAK was such that i was extremely impressed with it, notable was a scenario where Stukas ruled unless you set up your AA correctly then the effect was noticable so to me it was always an essential part of the CM game, just like tanks, troops and guns, if it wasnt effective why was it put in in the first place ?

True but as I noted it isn't just a generic point of aircraft, but when and where. The hedgerows were bad enough for Infantry to see who was shooting at them. For aircraft, direct ground support was extremely difficult. I am reading of one incident on the drive to St Lo where the infantry was asked to put out red and white markers for the aircraft....which they didn't of course have. :-P Using CMAK as an example doesn't quite reflect the same conditions. Now when we get to the period of the battles in Lorraine, that may be a different story and perhaps by the then BFC will have determined how they want to model this.

I will defer to you greater knowledge of the logisitics of adding such a weapon and if it would cause a years delay as you point out i can see the point of leaving it out as BF has to recoup expenses and a year generating no income from the game is notable.

If it would delay the game for a year then i would not like that, so if someone had explained that to me initially i would of accepted it.

Ha "my greater knowledge? Sorry I have to admit to none. I am just trying to understand what it would mean for them to try and include and suggesting that before decrying their lack of forethought that you may want to try and reason out what effort it MIGHT take to do this. Personally after reading the threads on ballistics modeling in the recent Shermans vs MkIV AAR I would hate to be in their shoes when they do model this.

yes i am a theatrical type of person, which has its upsides like being creative but also its downsides like being outwardly emotional which will by default irritate the opposite types to me, however i am not a sociopath and once the initial shock of having my desires thwarted wears off i can be as reasonable as the next reasonable guy

All true and from your postings one can understand your passion for the game which is not at all a bad thing. Just perhaps it might be best to review your post a few times and edit the superlatives some before posting. It can only help your cause.

[Wengart]

Since there is no light AA in the game it is just left up to the scenario designer to work out its affect, if any in game.

For example the designer could cut the number of strikes in half (4 planes becomes 2) or he could reduce the experience and motivation of the pilots (representing the ability of AA to dissuade a pilot from making the run).

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

Hiding and fortifications, or was it smoke?

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

Your advocating feature creep, which in general is bad news. If we hold off on the release 4 weeks AA can get in. But wait! if we push it back another 2 weeks we can get tank riders! and in another 5 weeks we can get fire into the game! Then suddenly your missing the intended release date by 11 weeks.

Point is at some point they have to call it quits and shove their game out the door. It just so happened that AA got stuck on the after release side of things.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not really interested in AAA in terms of firing at aircraft. I am interested in AAA in terms of ground fire though. There are a lot of personal accounts and small unit actions that involved AAA firing on ground targets and without AAA modeled those scenarios can't be created if you want them to be true to the historical situation.

I do hope that AAA gets into the game at some point - for ground fire purposes.

[noob]

Since there is no light AA in the game it is just left up to the scenario designer to work out its affect, if any in game.

For example the designer could cut the number of strikes in half (4 planes becomes 2) or he could reduce the experience and motivation of the pilots (representing the ability of AA to dissuade a pilot from making the run).

What a beautifull solution, in my operation if the attacker requests an airstrike to support their attack on a hex and the defender has a FLAK battery in his OOB then i could do as you say, some dice rolling with the parameters being the shooting down of the plane/s at one extreme going through various degrees up to completely missing which would allow the plane unfettered access to the Axis forces ...thank you very much for that excellent suggestion

Your advocating feature creep, which in general is bad news. If we hold off on the release 4 weeks AA can get in. But wait! if we push it back another 2 weeks we can get tank riders! and in another 5 weeks we can get fire into the game! Then suddenly your missing the intended release date by 11 weeks.

Point is at some point they have to call it quits and shove their game out the door. It just so happened that AA got stuck on the after release side of things.

Feature creep, what a great expression, i've never heard that before, i like it, good name for a band and yes i can see what you mean when you put it like that, but i guess i just assumed that AA guns, like in the old CM, where taken as read.

[noob]

All true and from your postings one can understand your passion for the game which is not at all a bad thing. Just perhaps it might be best to review your post a few times and edit the superlatives some before posting. It can only help your cause.

lol.........i will put a sign on top of my monitor saying "Do not submit reply for 10 minutes!!!"

[Baneman]

lol.........i will put a sign on top of my monitor saying "Do not submit reply for 10 minutes!!!"

Which is a good idea for at least half ( probably more ) of the people reading and responding on forums

[boresite]

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.

You, sir, risk the wrath of the many who have been impatiently waiting for the end of April so they can get their fix of WW II pixeltrupen goodness! I for one do not want to wait for June 6th, just so you can have flak!

[Vark]

Interesting way of looking at the effectiveness of air power, by reviewing the reports of friendly fire.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000026.html

The commanding officer of 1st South African Divisions comment is a classic.

[Michael Emrys]

You, sir, risk the wrath of the many who have been impatiently waiting for the end of April so they can get their fix of WW II pixeltrupen goodness! I for one do not want to wait for June 6th, just so you can have flak!

Yeah, I was going to say that BFC already has a bunch of guys out here peeing in their pants with impatience because the game wasn't released last Christmas! If they don't want that selfsame bunch of guys showing up outside the office some night carrying torches and pitchforks, they'd better get a move on!

Michael

[Wengart]

I'm not really interested in AAA in terms of firing at aircraft. I am interested in AAA in terms of ground fire though. There are a lot of personal accounts and small unit actions that involved AAA firing on ground targets and without AAA modeled those scenarios can't be created if you want them to be true to the historical situation.

I completely agree. And with any luck we will see some show up, I mean CM:A and CM:SF Nato got the ZSU.

What a beautifull solution, in my operation if the attacker requests an airstrike to support their attack on a hex and the defender has a FLAK battery in his OOB then i could do as you say, some dice rolling with the parameters being the shooting down of the plane/s at one extreme going through various degrees up to completely missing which would allow the plane unfettered access to the Axis forces ...thank you very much for that excellent suggestion

You would be surprised by how many things you can simulate by just messing with the units present and their motivation/experience. Just off the top of my head it could be used to simulate some counter-battery fire or a surprise morning assault.

[noob]

You, sir, risk the wrath of the many who have been impatiently waiting for the end of April so they can get their fix of WW II pixeltrupen goodness! I for one do not want to wait for June 6th, just so you can have flak!

Flaking hell, what the Flak is going on for Flak's sake, i didnt know i'd get Flak for talking about Flak !!! Flak off

[JonS]

Given the date/time of your campaign (June 6/7), you shouldn't be using air power anyway. For either side.

[noob]

Given the date/time of your campaign (June 6/7), you shouldn't be using air power anyway. For either side.

Go tell John Tiller that , it says air power is available in the Normandy 44 scenario and there is a list of various US planes favailable for strikes from the Mustang to the Marauder so im defering to his wisdom on the matter.

[noob]

Would the Axis armoured cars shoot at the planes in CMBN ?

[JonS]

Go tell John Tiller that , it says air power is available in the Normandy 44 scenario and there is a list of various US planes favailable for strikes from the Mustang to the Marauder so im defering to his wisdom on the matter.

Yes ... well ... John Tiller also has Bomber Command, and 2TAF, providing air support over Anzio in another of the PzC modules. I'm not terribly impressed by the level of research that went into those games, and wouldn't use the base versions as evidence of anything much more ambitious than that there was a battle at that location at about that time.

Edit; that aside, true close air support was beyond the capabilities of the US and UK in early June in normandy. They'd mostly sorted it out in the Mediterranean, but it would take till mid/late July to get their act together in NWE.

[noob]

Yes ... well ... John Tiller also has Bomber Command, and 2TAF, providing air support over Anzio in another of the PzC modules. I'm not terribly impressed by the level of research that went into those games, and wouldn't use the base versions as evidence of anything much more ambitious than that there was a battle at that location at about that time.

Edit; that aside, true close air support was beyond the capabilities of the US and UK in early June in normandy. They'd mostly sorted it out in the Mediterranean, but it would take till mid/late July to get their act together in NWE.

Well that solves a problem then, now i can swap the mobile FLAK 38's in N44 for CMBN Armoured Cars and dispense with any air strikes, thanks for the input.

[Yak Meister]

The inclusion of full scale airstrikes and AA protection would add a burdensome layer to the game imho. CM is renowned for small unit battles combined with armour and artillery. Why try to fix something that isnt broke?

[WineCape]

Interesting way of looking at the effectiveness of air power, by reviewing the reports of friendly fire.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000026.html

The commanding officer of 1st South African Divisions comment is a classic.

South Africans get to the point quickly and are renowned for not mincing words. Parallels to Yorkshire's inhabitants can be drawn.

[boresite]

Flaking hell, what the Flak is going on for Flak's sake, i didnt know i'd get Flak for talking about Flak !!! Flak off

No one expects the flaking inquisition!

[Fetchez la Vache]

Never noticed there weren't any AA in the CMBN TOE list. Shame that. I like the 'sandbox' potential of games such as these and AA would be nice to have. Hopefully in later modules yes?