Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Hi,

I really have enjoyed playing the demo, and I'm seriously considering the purchase. The game gives that good old CMBB feeling.

There are a couple of things which puzzle me though:

1) In the tutorial scen, why does an infantry squad jump off its halftrack, when a 82mm mortar shell lands over 50 meters away, and there are no other threats nearby? Halftracks are there to give protection from splinters and small arms fire, so it doesn't make much sense, especially under scattered bombardment. Jumped off squad is then suppressed, won't accept orders, and is basically waiting for another shell to land on it. I think passengers should stay in their vehicles unless it is damaged, under heavy fire, or if there's a nearby threat. Also, when trying to keep units together, a logistical nightmare could be then avoided.

quote:


2) In the other scen the reinforcing tank platoon appears as a bundle, which is immediately attacked by a Sturmovik, which has an accuracy of a modern day Warthog (so there are actually three issues here), killing in the worst case two tanks out of the three. Either the platoon should appear with proper distances between the vehicles, or they should be given time to regroup before an air attack.

quote:


I'd also suggest tuning down the efficiency of air attacks, according to their historical performance (instead of the mythological claims of the pilots...).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
2) In the other scen the reinforcing tank platoon appears as a bundle, which is immediately attacked by a Sturmovik, which has an accuracy of a modern day Warthog (so there are actually three issues here), killing in the worst case two tanks out of the three.

The air attacks are pretty varied in their location and results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Thanks for the quick answers!

Regarding air attacks, their effect was often indirect, causing all sorts of delays and disruption, not forgetting the danger to soft vehicles, supply and artillery. It is the effect against tanks I'm questioning here. There are quality researches out there (for example, Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in North-Western Europe 1944—1945: Myths and Realities), which show how poor WWII aircrafts actually were against tanks, and how their kill claims were hugely exaggerated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I agree. But to have any affect on the tactical battlefield this sort of direct attack is increased. More realistic would be the gradual degrading of the tactical units because their supply line was impacted. That is too subtle to show in a tactical game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I agree. But to have any affect on the tactical battlefield this sort of direct attack is increased. More realistic would be the gradual degrading of the tactical units because their supply line was impacted. That is too subtle to show in a tactical game.

My idea would be that air attacks caused widespread suppression (ie. several units - shocks to the tank crew, I gather), and more minor damage instead of straight kills.

e: demo nightshift -> not enough sleep -> My English suffers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

Actually, what you describe above is what I see happen most often, though there are tank kills happening too. For the times I've played that scenario though, it's my 2 Jags that tank the brunt of the air assault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
But even without the air attack, that reinforcing platoon is in a pretty risky position. I often lose a couple of them within a couple of turns of arrival.

quote:


And your english is fine!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
My idea would be that air attacks caused widespread suppression (ie. several units - shocks to the tank crew, I gather), and more minor damage instead of straight kills.

e: demo nightshift -> not enough sleep -> My English suffers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Rocket attacks seem to have a widespread morale affect rather than actual tank losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Thanks for the quick answers!

Regarding air attacks, their effect was often indirect, causing all sorts of delays and disruption, not forgetting the danger to soft vehicles, supply and artillery. It is the effect against tanks I'm questioning here. There are quality researches out there (for example, Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in North-Western Europe 1944—1945: Myths and Realities), which show how poor WWII aircrafts actually were against tanks, and how their kill claims were hugely exaggerated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I don't read any of the studies done by the Allied ground forces about how poorly the Allied Airforces did in ground attack.

See what the Germans had to say. Look at the pictures of German vehicles in Normandy covered from top to bottom in camouflage. Read their accounts of fighter bomber attacks knocking out tanks all over France and how their battlefield effectiveness was continually eroded by the Jabos.

The Germans HATED Allied fighter bombers. That alone tells the real truth. Allied ground commanders hated them as well. The reasons are two fold.

1) They didn't have enough control over where they attacked and often they hit the wrong target or even friendly units. Sound familiar.

2) They couldn't give a lot of credit to the CAS. They had to downplay their part of the actions.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I don't read any of the studies done by the Allied ground forces about how poorly the Allied Airforces did in ground attack.

See what the Germans had to say. Look at the pictures of German vehicles in Normandy covered from top to bottom in camouflage. Read their accounts of fighter bomber attacks knocking out tanks all over France and how their battlefield effectiveness was continually eroded by the Jabos.

The Germans HATED Allied fighter bombers. That alone tells the real truth. Allied ground commanders hated them as well. The reasons are two fold.

1) They didn't have enough control over where they attacked and often they hit the wrong target or even friendly units. Sound familiar.

2) They couldn't give a lot of credit to the CAS. They had to downplay their part of the actions.

Good Hunting.

MR

So instead of quality research, the tank killing abilities are based on poor secondary sources? That is pretty unfortunate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive



2 Just like other games, if you play as Soviets the ILs won't hit anything but your own, play as Germans and they are deadly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

When the scenario is over would you check to see what experience level they are?

As in real life, the experience level of the pilot makes a difference in PCO.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

8.1. AIR STRIKES
Some scenarios may allow you to purchase one or more ground-attack planes for air support.
These planes are not under your control, but they’ve been assigned to your section of the
battle to support as they can. If purchased, they will arrive over the battlefield at a random
turn, weighted towards the beginning. When the air strike will arrive and what the planes will
attack is based on a number of factors. The experience of the pilot determines entry phase,
accuracy of fire, and how good it is at detecting nearby friendlies, with a chance for friendly fire
as follows: Elite = 5%, Veteran = 10%, and Green = 20%. Units in cover or special terrain are
shielded from LOS. Pilots attempt to pick clumps of enemies for maximum effect. The target
priority for air strikes, in order, is first guns, then tanks, then infantry.
Note that in cases where both sides can buy air support, the side with more purchased planes
is assumed to have air superiority and thus has a higher chance each turn of an air strike
arriving on the battlefield.
Check the Specs for each air strike on the scenario purchase
screen if you want to know the weaponry and firepower that it
can bring to bear, as air units are not under your control and do
not show up on your HUD once the battle begins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I don't read any of the studies done by the Allied ground forces about how poorly the Allied Airforces did in ground attack.

See what the Germans had to say. Look at the pictures of German vehicles in Normandy covered from top to bottom in camouflage. Read their accounts of fighter bomber attacks knocking out tanks all over France and how their battlefield effectiveness was continually eroded by the Jabos.

The Germans HATED Allied fighter bombers. That alone tells the real truth. Allied ground commanders hated them as well. The reasons are two fold.

1) They didn't have enough control over where they attacked and often they hit the wrong target or even friendly units. Sound familiar.

2) They couldn't give a lot of credit to the CAS. They had to downplay their part of the actions.

Good Hunting.

MR

So instead of quality research, the tank killing abilities are based on poor secondary sources? That is pretty unfortunate.

You think the German archives are poor secondary sources? That's pretty unfortunate.

I think you'll find as you play scenarios with CAS in them that it's pretty spot on in PCO as well.

I'm not taking anything away from the studies that were done after the fact. They were trying to get answers to the questions of how effective CAS is.

But looking at the results from the Allied side is putting a set of answers to a question where they have both the question and their own answers.

The ones to answer the question of how effective Allied airpower is/was are the Germans. They are the ones that were effected by it.

The studies I've seen are anything but conclusive. You have something 60% knocked out by AT weaponry, 15% knocked out by air weaponry and 25% knocked out to unknown causes. The deduction of the study is that CAS doesn't work.

When in fact that 25% for unknown causes could go in the CAS results. In many cases the studies were done by ground forces. They have a vested interest in those studies coming out with an anti-airforce bias.

The difference is the Allies have the end result and they think they know what happened. The Germans also have the end result and they know what happened. It's easy to choose which report to believe.

If you want to know how well the enemies airforces did ask the guys that were on the receiving end of them. If the IL-2 wasn't effective why did it have the German nickname of the "Butcher Bird"?

There has been a big effort by anti-airforce elements to down play the effects of CAS both during and after the war. The reality of the situation is that CAS in WWII was in it's infancy. There were lots of times it wasn't effective. There were equally as many times when it was.

Patton refused to allow the 2nd Allied Tactical Airforce to operate in his area for awhile. He called them the 2nd Luftwaffe Tactical Airforce. That's because of the number of mistaken ID attacks on his own forces. There was a British forward attack that was completely stopped by Typhoons.

If air attacks were so ineffective why did the Allies worry about friendly attacks from them? Because they weren't ineffective all the time. At times they could be devastating. The problem with CAS is how to make it work for you and not against you. In WWII that was a tough assignment.

What we've tried to do in PCO is separate the fact from the fiction. I personally think we've done a pretty good job. CAS can be your best friend or your worst enemy. As in real life, you just never know which is going to show up.

In regards to the studies done by the Allies to determine the effect of their airpower they asked the wrong questions. They found that for the most part there were more German tanks killed by means other than airpower. Do you think so? There were thousands of Allied tanks and a few hundred airplanes. I agree German tanks were usually knocked out by something other than an airplane.

What they should have done studies on was for each of those air attacks what was the results of those? And only those attacks. Then you'd have gotten a much more objective study.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Thanks J2D, So, if I understand this correctly, the aircrew experience is random per battle, and not linked to the date of the war? Also, if you are purchasing units, can you choose to pay extra for experienced crews?

quote:

EXPERIENCE: Click to cycle between “Green”, ”Veteran” and “Elite” forces. This option can also be
individually randomised with a right click if desired. An explanation of the difference between unit
experience levels can be found in the main game manual. This option doesn’t 100% ensure all your force
will be comprised of units with the selected experience, but rather changes the odds that they will be.
This was done so as to better reflect the realty of likely force composition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
So instead of quality research, the tank killing abilities are based on poor secondary sources? That is pretty unfortunate.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.