Out of ammo...

[LLv34_Mika]

Hi!

I'm sure that is a stupid question but can anyone explain how I can use the ammo carriers to rearm my units??? I never understood that. Just driving near it? Or on the same hex? Or will I have to do something?

Thanks in advance

Michael

[Nikademus]

just drive up the unit you want to replenish to an adjacent hex to the ammo carrier.

Both carrier and unit have to have been stopped for a full turn before reloading can commence and it will only be several rounds per turn.

[LLv34_Mika]

Thanks!

can u also explain me why my Stukas were only available one time??? There are some factors in the game I can't understand...

but I love it

Mika

[Nikademus]

believe the plane issue will be fully addressed in ver 3.0 Aircraft unavailability after dropping its primary (usually a bomb) armament, even if undamaged has been a long standing SP issue.

Believe it has reared its ugly head in SP:WAW though my personal experiences have varied. In a recent desert scenerio (provided with the game, sorry forgot the title) Free French vs Italy, i (as the French player) was attacked repeatedly by pesky Italian C.R. 42's. Fortunately their little MG attacks were only a nuisance and no casualties were suffered.

[gdpsnake]

In the time frame of each scenario, I don't believe aircraft could fly home, refuel, rearm, debrief, brief, fly back and attack again. How tired are the pilots, how ready, how many A/C in maintenance or phase inspections. What kind of tempo has been going on at the front? The amount of MG ammo carried might not allow for multiple straifing runs and still carry some for protection back home. Most WW2 pilot stories talk about one or two passes in air-to-air combat before heading home. You pull the trigger on some of today's jets and everything is gone in a 2 second burst-so much for the movies where F-16s destroy the bad guys! I should know, I flew for 20 years in the Air Force. Some might have been intercepted enroute, forced to drop tanks and bombs, broke down, etc. Pilots might have priority target lists which divert them. All these factors mean that A/C should get one shot one the battlefield (the points spent represent that all these factors are taken into account). Alternatively, A/C could be more plentiful/cheaper but a random determines if they arrive at all. I get really beaked after the 30th B-25/Heinkel/Sturmovik rains death on my troops. CAS was not a science back then and was a great danger to any friendlies nearby which is why they were mostly used in pre-assualt attacks to 'soften' enemy positions or on interdiction behind the lines. I think A/C should only be used in the set-up phase and not show up at all during a battle except as a random 'pilot fying around-sees opportunity tank kill-hope its a bad guy!' Ground commanders weren't able to call up A/C resources for CAS. All A/C operations were handled at a much higher level than represented in the game.

[Major Destruction]

Originally posted by gdpsnake:
In the time frame of each scenario, I don't believe aircraft could fly home, refuel, rearm,
Ground commanders weren't able to call up A/C resources for CAS. All A/C operations were handled at a much higher level than represented in the game.

The Americans went into normandy with a close air support system based largely on British experience in the Desert. This system proved too unwieldy because of the centralised control of air assets. This system was used by IX Tactical Air command (IX TAC)and 1st US Army (FUSA).
By 10 June, a more decentralised system was being developed; IX TAC was given control of the fighter-bombers on the Continent, releasing control from the centre at Hillingdon House, England. In this system, aircraft would fly out of their base in England for the first mission then return to a French base for rearm and refuel until the end of the day, when they would return to England.
Until 17 June, all air support requests were routed through England. Since the HQ's of FUSA and IX TAC were only a hedgerow apart, they began to communicate directly, using Hillingdon House for requests for air support not already in theatre.
By July, a request for SAP support (soon as possible) would result in an airstrike within 4 hours. This was a great improvement from the situation in June.
Following Operation COBRA, SAP missions were eliminated and replaced by armored column cover (ACC). This of course was a direct result in the change from static bocage fighting to the breakout by FUSA towards the interior of France.
On 17 July, an ACC request by 116 IR near St Lo was answered successfully within 40 minutes and the airstrike by a squadron of thunderbolts lasted for one hour as the aircraft attacked identified targets in turn.

Having aircraft on station for a protracted period and able to attack targets identified by ground observers is the model that I would lkie to see portrayed in the game. Single-run sorties are fine in the early war years but by July 1944, the US, UK and Canadian airforces had begun to perfect the type of CAS described above.

My comments only apply to allied CAS in the ETO

[Paul Vebber]

THe problem with this more accurate portrayal is that while "real" soldiers would gladly take a break for 15-30 turns to let a couple of squadrons of Tac Air take out a stuborn defenser, taking a hiatus from combat for that long would not be very enjoyable in a gmae.

This is the problem you run into when you get near the border between operational and tactical levels of war. Tac Air was still largely operational in nature, and so th eproblems protraying it "realistically" in a tactical game.

THe folks complaining about hte AI coming at them with 30 or 40 planes are actually seeing the "more reaslitic" if less fun aspect of combat...

We have to try to balance realism and playability so the "flavor" of air ops is reflected, but doesn't turn a scenario into "sit there and let me pound you for 10 or 15 turns with dozens of Tac Air sorties".

Realistic perhaps, but not much fun to be on the receiving end of!