Airpower and COTA et al

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

Still at work and so can't check (but have the time to write this [;)]) but does the game provide for aerial recce?? If not maybe it could be abstracted in some manner for future titles?? Maybe BFTB??

Rob. [:)]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
Hi all,

Still at work and so can't check (but have the time to write this [;)]) but does the game provide for aerial recce?? If not maybe it could be abstracted in some manner for future titles?? Maybe BFTB??

Rob. [:)]

At the scale of the Panther engine (average of 5 day battles involving 1 division on each side) tactical recce aircraft were only available at the divisional level - and then only for US forces from 1944 onwards, so turning the current tactical air missions into recce missions is
something that has been looked at in the past but for which there was little historical pressure. The intelligence side of things is also covered in the side briefings at scenario startup. Hints are given as to possible enemy locations and routes. The downside of doing it this way is that it relies entirely on the scenario designer being good at his job. So what's left is tactical ground recce which the player can do by sending a fast mobile recce company on a probe mission.

Summary : scenario briefings, initial intel reports and probe missions are the tools you've got in the Panther Games engine. Can it be improved ? Definitely. But given the resources available I think
they'll look carefully at the effort/reward side of this.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pergite!]

I have always regarder the whole intel and recce bit very well abstracted in this game. There is a staff somewhere that collects all bits and pieces and then places counters on my map of suspected enemy position and movements.

Talking about airpower... Is there anyone out there that has a good sound file to replace the default one when it comes to bombings? I dont know how much time and effort that has been placed in that sound clip (the same as in Httr), but I find it somewhat out of place. Exactly what are they saying in the background during the bombings, and why?

I want screaming Stukas to pound the Tommies that keep stalling my advance! [:)]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
I want screaming Stukas to pound the Tommies that keep stalling my advance! [:)]

Afaik there are no side-specific sound files - a Stuka siren might sound a tad a-historical when the Anzacs do a bombing run [;)]

There's a sound mod for HTTR that works ok in COTA - it replaces the "strike.wav" file - get it at :

http://www.worldwarhq.com/downloads/HTTRsounds.zip

The usual caveats about backing up the original sound files apply of course.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
Exactly what are they saying in the background during the bombings, and why?

Stretcher Bearer. Stretcher Bearer.
Is what they are saying, I'll let you guess why! [;)]
Ray

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Stretcher Bearer. Stretcher Bearer.

I always thought they were saying "much better, much better!"

well, it seemed to work for me.[8|]

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
I want screaming Stukas to pound the Tommies that keep stalling my advance! [:)]

Afaik there are no side-specific sound files - a Stuka siren might sound a tad a-historical when the Anzacs do a bombing run [;)]

There's a sound mod for HTTR that works ok in COTA - it replaces the "strike.wav" file - get it at :

http://www.worldwarhq.com/downloads/HTTRsounds.zip

The usual caveats about backing up the original sound files apply of course.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Thank you!

"Stretcher bearer"? ...and I have always though that they cried out in russian, wich to think of it really has made no sense at all. Is the clip from some kind of movie?

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
"Stretcher bearer"? ...and I have always though that they cried out in russian, wich to think of it really has made no sense at all. Is the clip from some kind of movie?

Well it is in some sort of strangulated Scottish accent, so you were nearly right! [;)]

I have no idea where it came from but I suspect it was part of the original game design from 1995 before most of us were born ... let it remain part of the unsolved mysteries of the AA engine, only to be wondered about when rediscovered by archaeologists in 700 years time.
Ray

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
Exactly what are they saying in the background during the bombings, and why?

Stretcher Bearer. Stretcher Bearer.
Is what they are saying, I'll let you guess why! [;)]
Ray

Thanks a lot. I have been straining to make out what is being said every time I get an airstrike!

[Fred98]

As a general rule the sounds don't give any indication as to what is happening or where it is happening.
 
I turn the sounds down low and at the sound of firing hit "pause" and then search the map for the firing.
 
 

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

As a general rule the sounds don't give any indication as to what is happening or where it is happening.

I turn the sounds down low and at the sound of firing hit "pause" and then search the map for the firing.

Yes, the original sound also seems to have stereo effects that can be rather disorientating.

[cabron66]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

At the scale of the Panther engine (average of 5 day battles involving 1 division on each side) tactical recce aircraft were only available at the divisional level - and then only for US forces from 1944 onwards, so turning the current tactical air missions into recce missions is
something that has been looked at in the past but for which there was little historical pressure. The intelligence side of things is also covered in the side briefings at scenario startup. Hints are given as to possible enemy locations and routes. The downside of doing it this way is that it relies entirely on the scenario designer being good at his job. So what's left is tactical ground recce which the player can do by sending a fast mobile recce company on a probe mission.

Summary : scenario briefings, initial intel reports and probe missions are the tools you've got in the Panther Games engine. Can it be improved ? Definitely. But given the resources available I think
they'll look carefully at the effort/reward side of this.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Panzer divisions made great use of aerial recce right up until attrition made it impossible to do so. Granted, this was not necessarily a direct link from plane to ground commander, but recce played an enormous role both in theory and in practice in the success of fast troops. I like CotA a great deal but, I'm sorry, it has missed the boat on this one.

Aircraft employed several methods for relaying information directly to ground troops including radio, dropping information and coloured flares to warn of infantry or tanks. In fact, anyone with even a limited library would have seen countless examples of German commanders singing the praises of aerial recce and the vital warnings it provided.

Much of Guderian's work revolved around aerial recce and the use of airpower as flying artillery. I find it hard to understand, not to mention disappointing, that so many games choose to simply ignore this fact.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. In fact, the entire genre seems to model airstrikes as being conducted in an information vacuum in which planes materialize just over the target, drop their bombs and then vapourize into thin air without seeing anything. In reality, interdiction aircraft played a vitally important role in providing intelligence on enemy movements. I realize this is no small task, but someday someone somewhere is actually going to have to model aircraft as units that follow a path, spot enemy units and report their positions. If they delay those reports, make them of low quality and/or erroneous, that's ok, but at least allow for aircraft to perform their historical roles.

[HansBolter]

Hmmm me wonders if they made extensive use of aerial recce or aerial recon, or if perhaps the Germans didn't use either the British or American terminology and instead had their own?

Another example of the differences in terminology between British and Americans we discussed in another thread. The common language barrier rears it's humorous head once again! [:D]

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hmmm me wonders if they made extensive use of aerial recce or aerial recon, or if perhaps the Germans didn't use either the British or American terminology and instead had their own?

Another example of the differences in terminology between British and Americans we discussed in another thread. The common language barrier rears it's humorous head once again! [:D]

But don't you agree that a RECCE has a certain ring to it?
It's so terribly English! "I say, old boy, lets go up the blue, swan over to Jerry's lines and take a gander, you know, a shufti, a recce."
RECON is so harsh. You can't say it with a cut glass British accent. I know; I tried. [;)]
Ray

[cabron66]

As far as I can tell, anything said with a British accent has a tendency to sound British. In any case, shouldn't the word be said with a French accent?

Cheers

Paul

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: cabron66
In any case, shouldn't the word be said with a French accent?
Paul

Touché

[:D] Ray

[Arjuna]

---

Paul,

One of the issues with simulating aircraft movement in conjunction with ground movement is the massive discrepency in speed. We can get away with a one minute time interval for ground movement, where a motorised unit can move 250m per minute. However, in that same time a WW2 fighter bomber is moving 5000m. Ideally you would want to reduce the time interval for air units. That way they will be able to observe locations they pass over before they are too far away from them.

Integrating the two is not a trivial undertaking. If we were to reduce the time interval then the game would slow down to a crawl as far as ground units are concerned. Probably the best method is to reduce the time interval, but only process ground units every minute anyway. This would be a BIG job as it's terribly low level. I would prefer to wait until cpu speeds were faster too. Interesting. Thanks.

[Fred98]

The Australia Army has used "recce"  for at least 40 years.
 
 

[cabron66]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

---

Paul,

One of the issues with simulating aircraft movement in conjunction with ground movement is the massive discrepency in speed. We can get away with a one minute time interval for ground movement, where a motorised unit can move 250m per minute. However, in that same time a WW2 fighter bomber is moving 5000m. Ideally you would want to reduce the time interval for air units. That way they will be able to observe locations they pass over before they are too far away from them.

Integrating the two is not a trivial undertaking. If we were to reduce the time interval then the game would slow down to a crawl as far as ground units are concerned. Probably the best method is to reduce the time interval, but only process ground units every minute anyway. This would be a BIG job as it's terribly low level. I would prefer to wait until cpu speeds were faster too. Interesting. Thanks.

Oh, I know it's a big job. In order for it to be done realistically you'd have to take so many things into account that it would end up being a huge amount of coding. In fact, I think it would be the kind of thing that would need to be done right from the beginning.

That whole post was wishful thinking on my part.

Cheers

Paul

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
The Australia Army has used "recce"  for at least 40 years.

Well, that's because you chaps speak with the same cut-glass accent. [:'(]
Ray