Couple new CMBN videos cropping up....

[GhostRider3/3]

I thought those building were standing up remarkably well, myself until he finally gave us a low angle camera shot towards the end and we saw a lot of blown-in facades. While watching I had to restrain myself from yell at the monitor "You're too high up! You're missing all the cool stuff!!!"

No doubt. The cool thing too is the Trees are all mangled and there are now alot of Huge holes troops can use as cover. I did notice in another VAAR that the troops were using advantage of craters.

[boresite]

Cueball909 said in a Youtube reply to the airstrike video

Cool to see, but pretty disappointing results. Looked like one rocket run, one bombing run, and two strafing runs with only a Kubelwagen and one damaged PzIV to show for it. And that's against a full German column, unmoving, out in the open on a road. How useful is air support when vehicles are in cover, spread out, etc?

I thought, this should be really good -- an easy way to show the effect of the Jabos on the German forces in Normandy at the start of a scenario -- but I was similarly surprised at the apparent ineffectiveness of a rocket attack on an unmoving armored column strung out along a road.

Anyone else think some tweaks are needed? To maximize top and rear hits, wouldn't a Jug pilot line up to run his rockets down the road as he flew forward?

Still, not to worry. Pavlovian response still triggered, Bf! ("I'm drooling waiting for CM:BN!")

[GhostRider3/3]

Cueball909 said in a Youtube reply to the airstrike video

I thought, this should be really good -- an easy way to show the effect of the Jabos on the German forces in Normandy at the start of a scenario -- but I was similarly surprised at the apparent ineffectiveness of a rocket attack on an unmoving armored column strung out along a road.

Anyone else think some tweaks are needed? To maximize top and rear hits, wouldn't a Jug pilot line up to run his rockets down the road as he flew forward?

Still, not to worry. Pavlovian response still triggered, Bf! ("I'm drooling waiting for CM:BN!")

I dont think the Rockets were that Acurate to begin with. After all they are unguided and straffing tanks with 50 cals really is not going to stop a Tank unless it somehow penetrates the rear and opens up fuel line or something. Also were the pilots Vetran, or Regular.... or does it matter.

Secondly realisticly the Germans would have staggard the column on the road if stopped and would have been near the trees for cover... )

[Echo]

I liked CM1 air support better. You didn't know when it was coming, or where it was going to hit.

[Dadekster88]

Does anyone know if blue on blue is modelled btw? Just curious as I suppose it lets you know how close you can cut it. I'm sure the HE is but I mean more along the lines of deliberate target select etc by the pilots.

[LongLeftFlank]

You call that an air strike.

Now

This is an air strike.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Though I still miss shockwaves. They might have looked hokey on the small stuff but never failed to put a grin on my face when hammering away with navy guns.

Agreed.

I wonder, is that modable?

[MikeyD]

Does anyone know if blue on blue is modelled btw?

Exploding HE doesn't discriminate. Nothing worse than mis-timing your assault and having that last friendly HE round land in the middle of your attacking troops.

[Dadekster88]

Copied that, which is the way it should be What I was curious about tho is if 'pilots' called in can accidentally target your troops? Tbh I'm not sure if that was a big issue in this timeframe as far as blue on blue goes but accidents can and do happen so wanted to know if its something the engine takes into consideration? In the airstrike vid it looks like they are deliberately targeting the armour as targets, can they (virtual pilots) accidentally target your soft targets or your armour by mistake? More worried about infantry type targets for obvious reasons.

[sburke]

Cueball909 said in a Youtube reply to the airstrike video

I thought, this should be really good -- an easy way to show the effect of the Jabos on the German forces in Normandy at the start of a scenario -- but I was similarly surprised at the apparent ineffectiveness of a rocket attack on an unmoving armored column strung out along a road.

Anyone else think some tweaks are needed? To maximize top and rear hits, wouldn't a Jug pilot line up to run his rockets down the road as he flew forward?

Still, not to worry. Pavlovian response still triggered, Bf! ("I'm drooling waiting for CM:BN!")

Perhaps it had to do with the way the strikes were called in. I would have targeted the halftracks rather than the tanks and would actually have been disappointed if the airstrikes had taken out multiple tanks. I don't believe in reality they would have been quite that effective. However the suppression effect shouldn't be underrated. Imagine having any knd of AT assets available once those panzers had buttoned up, had a bit of dust around them and possibly suffered some damage to optics etc.

[gunnergoz]

My initial impression was that the airstrike was somehow underwhelming. Don't know if they are still being tweaked in the game, or what.

Then I thought about it a bit more. Certainly the evidence from the Falaise Gap was that tac air fighters were very deadly against ground targets, but at the same time I don't know how many kills there were per pass, per aircraft.

On the other hand, actual WW2 gun camera footage I've seen had results consistent with the game video...one or at best two hits on ground targets per pass.

I suspect that I was just being over-optimistic in my first expectations, and upon reflection, I think the game results are probably fairly realistic.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Perhaps it had to do with the way the strikes were called in. I would have targeted the halftracks rather than the tanks and would actually have been disappointed if the airstrikes had taken out multiple tanks. I don't believe in reality they would have been quite that effective.

That was my thought as well. I'm actually rather surprised the aircraft even bothered targeting the tanks when there were juicy halftracks sitting right nearby. I would have thought the AI would have preferred softer targets.

No idea how much air strikes will cost, but for the small amount of damage dished out, I get the feeling they're not going to be a very good bang-for-the-buck value. But I'll withhold judgement until I can try it a dozen times and see what an "average" result looks like.

[Paper Tiger]

Does anyone know if blue on blue is modelled btw?

Allied v Allied is allowed, as is Axis v Axis if the player desires.

[Asmodeus]

You call that an air strike.

Now

This is an air strike.

You know when a fanboy hits..

but ArmA II just has some awesomeness innit!

[Dingchavez]

Hey guys.

I'm glad you liked those two videos.

To set things right, I made them after a few members of www.appui-feu.com asked me about airstrikes and biiiiig guns ^^

I simply selected a QB map, more or less randomly, then gaught an AO, firepower and here we go...

In both case the fire order has been geven during the deplyment phase, so I wouldn't wait for ages to get my fireworks blowing up (it takes about 20 minutes to shot biggest naval arty).

For the naval artillery id, I set an "in line" order randomly over the village.

For the air strike I was surprised that there were no way of setting an "in line" fire order, otherwise I would have set the road as the main target, not 3 randomly places points for my 3 P-47s (as you can see, when I issued fire orders, my boys couldn't see the germans, otherwise I would have targeted "soft" targets).

But as I always say, bear in mind that this is a beta version, a very good one, but the game will be much better.

Thanks. (and by the way, we can thank the QB maps creators, most of the maps are awesome)

[Wiggum]

My initial impression was that the airstrike was somehow underwhelming. Don't know if they are still being tweaked in the game, or what.

Then I thought about it a bit more. Certainly the evidence from the Falaise Gap was that tac air fighters were very deadly against ground targets, but at the same time I don't know how many kills there were per pass, per aircraft.

On the other hand, actual WW2 gun camera footage I've seen had results consistent with the game video...one or at best two hits on ground targets per pass.

I suspect that I was just being over-optimistic in my first expectations, and upon reflection, I think the game results are probably fairly realistic.

From the manual of another wargame:

Effects of Airstrikes:

Airstrikes have a very severe affect on the target’s effectiveness values.

Historically, units suffering airstrikes took a long time to recover and regroup.

The shock effect was more dramatic than any actual damage inflicted. That is why they were so effective at breaking up attacks and dislodging otherwise resolute defenders.

Fighter bombers can kill but the shock effect is much more important.

Its a old misbelieve that the allied fighter bombers killed the german tanks by the dozens. But the pure fear of airstrikes and the the terror unleashed by them on ground troops was enough to reduce their combat power temporarily.

[bodkin]

Is it just me or is the flashing red button alot more prominent than in CMSF and CMA, hopefully it wont be too noticable or distracting while playing.

[Peter Cairns]

I like both but if I have an issue it is with the Strafing in the air attack.

I liked the effect but surely even the most inexperienced pilot would have executed a turn and gone for a high speed run along the road line. Even if you had been told to attack a tank in the middle of the column you would still come in low and fast so that any missing rounds would hit something else in the convoy....

Maybe it was the type of targeting chosen? I'd like it if you could choose linear for air attacks (Did they call them Strikes in WW2?).

Where as with artillery they creep along the line it would make sense for aircraft to do it at a 90' angle in one pass.

An attacking P-51 with rockets or guns would hardly attack a trench line with a half dozen front on passes on a different part each time instead of raking it along its length in a single run.

The effects look great and I love them but the pilots tactics are all wrong.

Peter.

[GhostRider3/3]

One thing I'm slightly concerned about is the immense collateral damage to stonewalls when compared to their surroundings. In the middle of the village, he part where no rounds impacted, I saw a LOT of stonewalls that were toppled over by explosions that happened on the other side of a house, at last 50m away.

Well the blast radius from a 105mm which = a 4inch gun is significant. however the main thing is shrapnel radius etc. It is interesting though how just the intense concussion blast alone can do so much damage. If your talking on average of a 75-100m kill zone for Artillery.. I could imagine a 14" bombardment to be pretty lethal to Infantry. WWI was hell for infantry.

[Baneman]

I certainly would have thought that at least the pilots would have turned to come down/along the road for the guns pass - I've seen plenty of gun camera footage of rocket attacks which were angled or at 90 degrees to a road, so that doesn't seem too unlikely.

[scottie]

I second the applause for this 2nd map where the naval gunfire video was shot. Best map we've seen anywhere yet...

Agree is was a good may but have we seen pavements (sidewalks) at all with kerbs and cobbled streets ?

Principle components of a realistic town / village in many (but not all cases). May be my imagination , always feel something is missing from village/town maps. Realistic maps IMO is an important point.

[Peter Cairns]

Scottie,

In rural France in 1940?

In a village cobbled streets in the centre yes, but no pavements and even then sometimes just stone rather than cobbles.

Peter.

[Paper Tiger]

You have pavements and cobbled roads but no kerbs. If you look at the naval gunfire one more closely, you'll see the cobbled road at least. Pavements were in CMSF.

[LemoN]

Well the blast radius from a 105mm which = a 4inch gun is significant. however the main thing is shrapnel radius etc. It is interesting though how just the intense concussion blast alone can do so much damage. If your talking on average of a 75-100m kill zone for Artillery.. I could imagine a 14" bombardment to be pretty lethal to Infantry. WWI was hell for infantry.

I was more referring to the explosion happening behind houses with stonewalls "magically" toppling over, even if they're protected from the blast.

[scottie]

Scottie,

In rural France in 1940?

In a village cobbled streets in the centre yes, but no pavements and even then sometimes just stone rather than cobbles.

Peter.

Thanks for the reply Peter. Before posting i did a quick google image search for "french town ww2" , plenty of examples of kerbs/pavements. They maybe the exception mind you , i dont really know to be honest and BF have a history of avoiding the exception thats for sure IMO i do feel the realistic portrait of some villages or towns miss this aspect. On many maps designers tend to draw buildings with no fence or wall separations. In my experiences this is not the case. Hope that makes sense. Granted my visits to Normandy were in the last 10 - 20 years , things may have changed since then ... i guess the other point is that kerbs/pavements dont make a difference to game play so why spend the dev time.