Page 1 of 1
Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:48 pm
by Dili
In game there is an inherent bias - i am not saying this was on propose, intended - against close support aircraft, the slow airplanes that have say 100kg or a 250kg Bomb they seem almost useless.
I don't know if this idea would have worked but what about making this attackers hit more front line troops like infantry squads, machine guns, while level bombers are better against artillery and support troops? They should also work better in mountainous terrain.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:12 pm
by topeverest
Perhaps it is a scale issue. Success was measured in feet or positions taken, and CAS were excellent at this. The game has 46 mile hexes. Refresh my memory, but it took 84 days on Pelilieu. Of course, the name of the game in amphibious assault is disrupting or stripping supply from the defenders. Within the scale of this game, I don't know that the current values are inappropriate.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:29 pm
by Dili
I think there is a misunderstanding. I am just saying that when a close support aircraft attacks a LCU most of causalities should be infantry squads and like, ie: frontline troops, while when it is a level bomber it should get more odds to get causalities from support troops, artillery.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:49 am
by Captain Cruft
That would require a code change, so not going to happen.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:38 pm
by witpqs
Play Babes scenarios where flak has been calibrated and the Betas where flak works better. Low altitude gets PLENTY of penalty!
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:35 pm
by Dili
That would require a code change, so not going to happen.
Probably. Just in case some coder agrees and if the work to make it work is not dauting. Or an idea for another game.
witpqs i just want to make a place for those close support aircrafts. There was a reason the existed and i think the game doesn't make it fair. This is also valid for fighter bombers since it was evolution of close support in late war.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:18 pm
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Dili
That would require a code change, so not going to happen.
Probably. Just in case some coder agrees and if the work to make it work is not dauting. Or an idea for another game.
witpqs i just want to make a place for those close support aircrafts. There was a reason the existed and i think the game doesn't make it fair. This is also valid for fighter bombers since it was evolution of close support in late war.
So many "impossible to change" areas of the game have seen a resolution, if enough heads get together something may result.
A major gripe is the ineffectiveness of the Allied Air Forces in providing a historical level of ground support. We need to model Napalm & Air to Ground so that braving the AA is worth the risk.
RE: Close support aircraft against frontline troops?
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:29 am
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: Dili
In game there is an inherent bias - i am not saying this was on propose, intended - against close support aircraft, the slow airplanes that have say 100kg or a 250kg Bomb they seem almost useless.
I don't know if this idea would have worked but what about making this attackers hit more front line troops like infantry squads, machine guns, while level bombers are better against artillery and support troops? They should also work better in mountainous terrain.
Not exactly what you want, but it seems bomb size does not matter in ground attacks, so you can change bombload for close support planes into LOTS of small bombs, and they will be better in ground attacks, that level bombers.
What you suggest would require code change, but I do not think it would be that hard, because weapons already have build-in statistics for their closeness-to-front-position