Combat air patrol

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Combat air patrol

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Combat air patrol

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat air patrol - 9/26/2000 11:18:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

I was thinking that if there is counter battery fire, couldn't there be counter air operations? In practise, it would work like this: Those planes that aren't ground attack specialists and have MG's would be on CAP in your area of operations. When your troops are under air attack by a nasty Shturmovik, your Focke-Wulf would intercept the attacker if it saw the Shturmovik by himself (exp throw) or if he is in radio contact so he can be called to help. And if your Focke-Wulf saw enemy transports (exp throw again) he could try to shoot them down. I know, this is probably too big a thing to add to the game at this stage of evelopment, but we can always dream

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 9/26/2000 11:28:00 PM

Jon Grasham

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline

Well,I made my own on map fighters one time, out of boredom... and man was it weird seein g 'em do a 180 while stopped. :-) (after about 5 minutes and some good laughs, never did it again. :-) I couldn't quite place it, but the dogfights seemed a bit odd.... :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 2

- 9/26/2000 11:41:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

I didn't mean that they would become on-board, controllable units

, rather an extension of the counter-battery fire procedure to include airplanes, so that you could buy fighters to counter enemy's ground attack planes and bombers. The attack itself would of course be automatic and would happen if your fighter saw the enemy or if your fighter was called in to help by your troops.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 3

- 9/27/2000 12:14:00 AM

Peregrine Falcon

Posts: 165
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Hey - Also my old idea for Steel Panthers too!

Would be nice because you could destroy some/all enemy bombers before they could reach to bomb your troops... Maybe each aircraft should then have attack/defense-ratings...like: Fighter (attack) = 4 Bomber (defense) = 1 = One burning bomber very likely Dont know if that could be done - but great idea(s) anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by Kharan: I didn't mean that they would become on-board, controllable units , rather an extension of the counter-battery fire procedure to include airplanes, so that you could buy fighters to counter enemy's ground attack planes and bombers. The attack itself would of course be automatic and would happen if your fighter saw the enemy or if your fighter was called in to help by your troops.

_____________________________

--Peregrine Falcon--

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 4

- 9/27/2000 4:29:00 AM

Grumble

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline

Believe it's already simulated by the occasional lack of response one gets when calling for CAS. "No contact" doesn't have to mean just can't get 'em on the radio: could be that there are no available A/C to service your request because they are themselves under attack or diverted.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 5

- 9/27/2000 5:01:00 AM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

Aircraft being out of contact could also mean that the pilot is having his complimentary tea and biscuits, but how fun and involving is that?

Besides, if there was air-to-air battles and intercepts, you could buy fighters to combat the threat from enemy a/c, just like you can buy artillery to negate enemy's artillery.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 6

- 9/27/2000 4:44:00 PM

renwor

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline

Just for fun, try to search the board for thread subject "CAP"

, for your info, it's from may this year

No reproach meant, it's just funny how some ideas just don't go away

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 7

- 9/27/2000 5:49:00 PM

Grisha

Posts: 355
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Seattle
Status: offline

Air combat in WWII could be spread out over tens of miles in a matter of minutes, so if such an idea as intercepting fighters were ever to be implemented in SPWAW, the actual combat should be handled much like counter-battery fire: off-board. The results of that air combat would determine what sort of air support a player actually had.

_____________________________

Best regards,
Greg Guerrero

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 8

- 9/27/2000 6:46:00 PM

herr1

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/8/2000
From: Worcester, Worcestershire, UK
Status: offline

What about ground attack aircraft being able to attack off board artillary? counter-battery operations was one of the roles of ground attack aircraft in WW2. Again this cold be handled like counter battery fire is with artillary

_____________________________

Dr Rob H

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 9

- 9/27/2000 7:46:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

gotta disagree on this one. Aircraft IMHO already come into the game with enough checks and balances without making them even more a (potential) waste of points by the physical inclusion of a CAP. Unless tweaked by the preference menu the availablity of planes in general for tactical ground support is based on deciding which side has "air supremacy". Also, since playing WAW i've noticed that planes, even dedicated ground attack versions (a.k.a. rocket equiped) are not nearly as all-powerful as they used to be, making aircraft useful, but no longer a 'sure thing'. also given that aircraft sometimes go 'out of contact' like artilery further chks them. Adding the pos of fighter interception would unbalance them and make em not worth the points they cost. [This message has been edited by Nikademus (edited September 27, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 10

- 9/27/2000 8:12:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Adding the pos of fighter interception would unbalance them and make em not worth the points they cost.

yeah, and then you'd need to buy escorts also

.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 11

- 9/27/2000 10:57:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Nikademus: I have to counter you assertion that air is no longer effective. I don't know about the rocket variety, but although my conclusions are only based on three attacks (1 HEIIIH, 2 Ju88A4s) these are roughly the results: 1 HEIIIH pass: approx. 5 0r 6 kills (no armor in hexes) BTW, when I say "kill" I mean the wiping out of an entire squad or tank. 1 JU88A4 pass: approx. 6 or 7 kills (no armor in hexes) 1 Ju88A4 pass: Precisely 9 kills including 2 Polish "dw" tanks. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 27, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 12

- 9/27/2000 11:38:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles22: [B]Nikademus: I have to counter you assertion that air is no longer effective. I did'nt say that airpower was not effective, just that it was no longer the domineering force that routinely overwhelmed a player (usually latewar German) Back in the SP-I days i lost count of how many times an allied player took out my key units with small sections of ground attack aircraft. Players had to resort to always buying the cheapest effective vehicle one could find (usually STuG's or Hetzers) knowing that spending those points on Panther or Tiger(II) would be a waste. Now, it can still happen but its alot tougher, especially if one has AA defences waiting for them. In my last battle (on ze Eastern Front, out of over a dozen flybys by Ju87g and He-129, i netted one destroyed tank and four damaged. Not bad, but not decisive either which is how it should be.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 13

- 9/27/2000 11:57:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Nikademus: It seems that we're viewing air losses differently. I know what you're talking about though. I remember the ridiculous rate of vehicle loss that some of the earlier SPs had. On the other hand, as I'm seeing it, the air is MUCH more effective, albeit, just in a different way. Do you ever recall any earlier SPs ever coming close to wiping 9 "total" sqauds ( I do admit the two tanks were exceptional to what one can expect with air anti-armor). You see? The level bombers are much more devastating, but the anti-armor types are pretty non-effective. It's good to know that though, because I suspected the Stukas had lost a lot, but with the artillery becoming more effective the level bombers are being devastating (at least against soft targets).

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 14

- 9/28/2000 12:21:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

agreed there, one of the biggest improvements i've seen in ver 4.0 is the rout/rally routines. My airwing may have only aced one tank, but their numerous attacks caused several heavy KV to rout and/or button up which helped keep my Panzers intact.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kharan)

Post #: 15