Aerial Recce

Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge takes the highly acclaimed Airborne Assault engine back to the West Front for the crucial engagements during the Ardennes Offensive. Test your command skills in the fiery crucible of Airborne Assault’s “pausable continuous time” uber-realistic game engine. It's up to you to develop the strategy, issue the orders, set the pace, and try to win the laurels of victory in the cold, shadowy Ardennes.
Command Ops: Highway to the Reich brings us to the setting of one of the most epic and controversial battles of World War II: Operation Market-Garden, covering every major engagement along Hell’s Highway, from the surprise capture of Joe’s Bridge by the Irish Guards a week before the offensive to the final battles on “The Island” south of Arnhem.

Moderators: Panther Paul, Arjuna

Post Reply
User avatar
Deathtreader
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada.

Aerial Recce

Post by Deathtreader »

Hi all,

Lately I've been fooling around with some scenarios where I've eliminated air strikes for both sides..... and man-o-man do they ever play differently -- especially for the Allies. Much, much harder to win. Got me to wondering about aerial recce -- I don't believe the engine provides that functionality now but given the huge part tactical airpower played I assume that it must have made a significant difference in a recce context as well. Maybe a nifty little recce feature for CO2??

Rob.[:)]
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
navwarcol
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm
Contact:

RE: Aerial Recce

Post by navwarcol »

I agree. I had gone over a lot of first hand accounts of the German side, and always was left with the impression how huge of a force multiplier control of the skies was for the Allied side- really from about '43 till the end. Recon. for sure, but also interdiction, air strikes, and then the invisible effects of simply slowing down the movement of the still powerful German panzer and motorized units.

I have wondered if the game deals with some of that under the hood so to speak as a few times I have been attacked with artillery after an air raid in a position that there were no enemies to see my troops.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Aerial Recce

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

I agree. I had gone over a lot of first hand accounts of the German side, and always was left with the impression how huge of a force multiplier control of the skies was for the Allied side- really from about '43 till the end. Recon. for sure, but also interdiction, air strikes, and then the invisible effects of simply slowing down the movement of the still powerful German panzer and motorized units.

I have wondered if the game deals with some of that under the hood so to speak as a few times I have been attacked with artillery after an air raid in a position that there were no enemies to see my troops.

On a broader basis, I'd like to see better modeling for the proliferation of radios within specific force structures, particularly as it relates to air / ground coordination.

There's an assumption within the game that all friendly units communicate, but those forces with a broader availability of radio equipment should end up more responsive to battle changes than those which rely on wired, or human dependent (messenger / signal flare) communications during the ebb and flow of battle.

Matters such as aircraft recce, bombardment, air strikes, and in some cases even unit cohesion during operations, would be affected by the flexibility of the communications net for the particular force.
Take care,

jim
navwarcol
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm
Contact:

RE: Aerial Recce

Post by navwarcol »

^^^^ +1
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Aerial Recce

Post by dazkaz15 »

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


On a broader basis, I'd like to see better modeling for the proliferation of radios within specific force structures, particularly as it relates to air / ground coordination.
I think this is already covered to a degree by the orders delay timings. Orders for foot units take longer to filter down (they are less responsive) than wheeled units, because it is assumed that mobile, wheeled units have better, more powerful radios.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Aerial Recce

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


On a broader basis, I'd like to see better modeling for the proliferation of radios within specific force structures, particularly as it relates to air / ground coordination.
I think this is already covered to a degree by the orders delay timings. Orders for foot units take longer to filter down (they are less responsive) than wheeled units, because it is assumed that mobile, wheeled units have better, more powerful radios.
It's emulated based on the criteria you cite, but not modeled based on the actual distribution of radio equipment.

As an example those countries which allocated radio assets only to higher echelon command vehicles in mechanized units (Russia and to some extent Germany) should be less tactically responsive than those countries where a radio was allocated to each platform (USA and Britain).

I've found nothing in the Estabs or Scenario criteria which relates back to allocation of communications equipment other than the abstract command load.





Take care,

jim
Post Reply

Return to “Command Ops Series”