Ground attack.....

[dgk196]

Does the ground attack by aircraft work the way you think it should?

I invite you to take a position, yes or no, and defend your position (expound on it)!

Dennis [;)]

[countblue]

To a certain extent ,yes. [:)]

Arguments why that air support doesnt work "exact" in the game:
First:
I guess in "real life" in WWII it wasn´t that easy to coordinate air and ground troops to that perfection we might be used to today.
Second:
Map scale is 250 m each hex so we are talking about hitting targets pretty on spot.
A Ju-87 Stuka had one dive to accomplish his task, not much room for errors or second tries.
Third:
Timescale, we are talkinga bouta  6 minute window for each turn.
 A unit coming a little late or off spot can never hit the "prime" target.
Fourth:
Ususally airplanes had more than one target, so attacking the wrong unit in the "same" hex could be blamed on that.

I see it that way:
EF is giving you that historical "grain" of uncertainity which was usually involved in those days with air support.

Countblue [8D]

[dgk196]

Well, to limit myself, I think that individual armies and era's need to be taken into consideration. Units either preplanned the missions, based on intelligence that may be hours old. Or where assigned missions with the info as to where the targets where. Now, this 'info update' could be anything from signal 'panels' place on the ground to forward units marking  targets with flares and tracer fire, real 'close support'! Or actual communications from the 'ground' units to the air support aircraft. And all of the methods may be used depending on the level of equipment available to the units involved! The 'aborting of missions' is too 'tight' Given that, for some era's flares and panels where how targets where marked. The time delay involved would make this type of attack impossible currently. I don't care if two, or more turns have elapsed since the request for an attack, someone is getting bombed!!! More to come!

Dennis [&o]

[auHobbes37]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Well, to limit myself, I think that individual armies and era's need to be taken into consideration. Units either preplanned the missions, based on intelligence that may be hours old. Or where assigned missions with the info as to where the targets where. Now, this 'info update' could be anything from signal 'panels' place on the ground to forward units marking targets with flares and tracer fire, real 'close support'! Or actual communications from the 'ground' units to the air support aircraft. And all of the methods may be used depending on the level of equipment available to the units involved! The 'aborting of missions' is too 'tight' Given that, for some era's flares and panels where how targets where marked. The time delay involved would make this type of attack impossible currently. I don't care if two, or more turns have elapsed since the request for an attack, someone is getting bombed!!! More to come!

Dennis [&o]

Someone may be getting bombed... the oxcart that the Japanese/American pilot thinks is a supply wagon...

one of the very first DCG games I played was the invasion of France in the old TalonSoft WF and one of my very own PZ 35 got blown all to hell by my own Stuka..i thought that was realistic as things like that really happened... witness the Swordfish attack on what they thought was the Bismark and turned out to be the Sheffield.

I am satisfied with the air component... this is 1939-45 and not 2005, so the air attacks should be iffy.

[Borst50]

LOL...IFFY????

I do believe air to ground support was a little beyond the iffy stage...at least by the time of WW2. Please dont misunderstand me...friendly fire happens all the time...mistakes will be made...no matter how advanced the technology gets...its that human error thing....prime example; To wit: During the first Gulf War...you remember...the one Old man Busch decided we needed to become involved in then backed out of the occupation thing??? Remember that one? Well...one of OUR pilots. (USA), mistook a British column for an Iraqui Armoured formation and proceeded to bomb the poogies out of it, killing several British nationals in the process. The only reason I remember this is because the surviving member of those familes SUED the US goverment for damages from friendly fire.

HMMMMM....so much for modern technology!

[dgk196]

Yeah, I'm in agreement. Depending on the year and the nationality, air support was decidedly beyond the 'iffy stage'. There are always instances of superior equipment and inferior personal and the opposite might be true too. There actually where organizations and tactics used in all aspects of air power. And so it should be in the game. IMHO!

Equipment does not always equal ability. Sometimes outdated or outclassed equipment was used to good effect, situations and personnel not withstanding.

I guess that I would just like to see a more reliable air component in the game. And as always, make its use optional!

Dennis [;)]