Reinforcements by airplane

[kgnord]

A quick question about reinforcements by airplane:

Are arrival times of reinforcements fixed, or should airfield victory point be secured before reinforcements can arrive?

I am currently playing Maleme as allied, and my initial strategy was to deny use of Maleme airport. Of course the main idea was to prevent arrival of axis reinforcements. I still had
half of the airfield in allied hands and that aussie AA battery was still in its fortification. This didn't help, units of axis GB division started to arrive. It looks
like my defending forces are going to be decimated. Do reinforcements by airplane at least take some extra damage, if airfield is not clearly secured?

[Rooster]

Wow.  Talk about historical outcomes.  I don't know if they will "automatically" take damage, but they should be juicy targets.

[Arjuna]

Arriving reinf units are subject to an initial direct fire from those nearby units with a valid LOS. So yes they should get hit. Further their cophesion will be very low and usually this will force them to reorg before moving out. During this time they are extremely vulnerable. However, there is a bug in the current code which fails to reorg on arrival. I have fixed this for the patch.

[kgnord]

How about control of the airfield, what is needed for the reinforcements to arrive? Clearly airfield does not have to be fully in axis hands for the ju52s to land, is control issue checked at all?

[JudgeDredd]

I think that's one of the little issues that niggle me about this game (and many others (CM anyone)...
 
I would like to see a game that denies reinforcements unless the reinforcement point is controlled by the forces expecting the reinforcements.
 
I know it's "kind of" taken care of by the scenario point system...but realistically, I would like to see reinforcements cancelled until such time as the "corridor" was opened. It would also add an extra strategy level, especially player v player whereby I could relieve pressure on a front by attacking a source of reinforcement entry point and force the enemy to divert forces etc.

[Grouchy]

A year earlier Valkenburg, Ockenburg and Ypenburg where not in german hands. Still the Ju-52's came.

[JudgeDredd]

By air...granted...if your going to ignore losses, then you could still send them in...still like the option though...at least delayed reinforcements to give the ground troops time to recapture the DZ....AND along with this, severe damage to incoming units should the forces have to land on occupied territory...just to make it essential that the defender try and recapture the DZs

[JudgeDredd]

I wanted to do this in CMBB...design a scenario where the allies were holding ground and had to keep 2 LZs open for reinforcements...unfortunately, you couldn't do it there anyway either...so the reinforcements came anyway.

[HansBolter]

I can appreciate that they should be able to bull their way through and land in the face of enemy fire, but the resultant losses should be greatly magnified.

The real question regarding how the game handles this is: Do the landing reinforcements take damage as if they are on the ground, having "gone to ground" or are they modeled in a way that makes them far, far more vulnerable for that short period of time while they are in the plane, under fire while landing and more vulnerable immediately following the "shot up" landing while they disembark under enemy fire?

Companies landing under fire should be considerably understrength as they lose whole platoons in shot up planes.

[Grouchy]

It is more a WWII Command & control problem not because they decided to ignore losses.
Once the machine was set in motion it was difficult to stop it or change it. That's why on 3 AF's the Junkers still came and later when the AF was back in dutch hands the english still bombed the now friendly AF. The resupply drops in september 1944 are another good example. What you want is modern C&C in WWII.

[HansBolter]

I agree from the standpoint of higher command level control of the unit in transit, but the decision to land under fire or to turn away is made by each pilot or the formation commander on the spot.

The point I was trying to make was that the game shouldn't be treating units aboard planes landing on an airstrip under fire and disembarking from a plane on an airstrip under fire the same as any other unit on the ground receiving enemy fire. While aboard the landing plane and while disembarking they should be considerably more vulnerable and the resultant casualties should be greatly magnified.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I agree from the standpoint of higher command level control of the unit in transit, but the decision to land under fire or to turn away is made by each pilot or the formation commander on the spot.

I beg to differ here HansBolter. On Crete the Germans knew in advance they were going to have to land regardless and those instructions were issued. There was no coming back with a full load.

The point I was trying to make was that the game shouldn't be treating units aboard planes landing on an airstrip under fire and disembarking from a plane on an airstrip under fire the same as any other unit on the ground receiving enemy fire. While aboard the landing plane and while disembarking they should be considerably more vulnerable and the resultant casualties should be greatly magnified.

Agreed. Let's review the matter after the patch is out. I think you will find the bug that I fixed that was stopping the arriving units from reorging will address this issue.

[JudgeDredd]

Me thinks there is a difference between what people expect to be able to do, and what they are being prevented from doing for historical accuracy.
 
I don't really give a rats ass about historical accuracy. I'm not playing COTA to have the same/similar outcome to what happened 65 years ago...I'm playing it because it's a war game. So, historically, I couldn't give a hoot. On the other hand, I don't want to see M1Abrhams trying to flank German Tigers (although to actually "SEE" that would be cool).
 
BUT...it is not unreasonable, I think, to say to myself..."I am the commander of this assault and I am giving you an order...fly to x. If x is in enemy hands, go to y...if y is in enemy hands come back" and then expect the troops on the ground to have the fight of their lives to get back and hold one of the LZs. I am not requesting modern C&C at all...I am asking that I give the orders...which is what the game is about, is it not?
 
Oh well....

[Golf33]

If it helps, you can think of yourself slightly further down the chain of command. "I am the commander of this assault, and my air waves are coming in at 0800 hours. If I don't capture the airfield by then, they'll get butchered."

Otherwise, I understand your point, it's just outside the scope and philosophy of this game...

Regards
Steve

[JudgeDredd]

I do like the idea of having to keep the LZ open though, otherwise no reinforcements. It's just something I'd like to see modelled for that extra challenge. Not making the LZ's worth any points at all...just having to keep it open for the duration of reinforcements and/or supplies.
 
It is modeled to some extent in the game by awarding VPs...but I'd just like to see the requirement based on hardware and men you'll get rather than Vps your going to get.

[HansBolter]

I was making a generalized statement that didn't necessarilly apply to Maleme. Granted that sometimes the overall commander back at the base is fully aware the airfield will be under fire and he directs his units to land under fire with full expectations of comensurate losses. In other situations, it is the pilots themselves and/or their squadron commander on the spot who makes the decision to land or drop under fire. Even then, not every pilot will demonstate sufficient strength of nerve to pull of the maneuver. Many, many pilots transporting paratroopers to Normandy veered away from their destination under heavy AA fire and dropped the troops wherever they could in spite of their orders to press on through the flak to their intended DZ. Even when the commander makes a decision for his units to press on, the implementation should be far less than 100% successful. Flying into an airfield under fire should be just as bloody an affair as a frontal assualt over open ground against a prepared position.

[kgnord]

Hmm, I am not that sure that increased reorg periods will fully address this issue. What I really would like to see is something which HansBolter is suggesting, meaning reinforcements by airplane suffering serious casualties before appearing if airfield is under enemy fire.

To my knowledge, with a bit of luck and a lot of determination it should have been possible for the allies to secure Maleme airfield. Currently it seems that there is no way to prevent axis getting foothold on Maleme.

On the other hand, if it was easy for the allied player to prevent the use the Maleme airfield, this would make this one a very dull scenario for axis player...

[Arjuna]

As I said, let's wait until the patch is out and we will review it then. One thing I have learnt in the game development business is that it is far better to advance in small bites.

[JudgeDredd]

Amen to that Dave...amen to that!