Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air target priorities

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Air target priorities Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air target priorities - 2/28/2001 9:17:00 AM   
Dean Robb

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: Va Beach, VA USA
Status: offline
Is there any way to keep air from attacking vehicles over troops? Was testing the General Order #1 scenario (available in the Depot...download it now!) and would call in B-17s to blast the columns of troops coming down the road only to have the Forts veer WAY off course to bomb a damn halftrack. Can we set a target priority here? Also...shouldn't planes with large bombloads drop on more than just two hexes? I'd think a string of 4 or so if I'm dropping some 8+ bombs.

_____________________________

Job Security: Being a Micro$oft lawyer...
Post #: 1
- 2/28/2001 9:50:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline
With out having played the scenario I'll take a stab here. A bunch of things can come into play. Aircraft angle, can they see the intended target well. AA fire, is the aircraft supressed. Can the FO see the target, this is a guess on my part but I would think aircraft might be handled a bit like artillery accuracy. Aircraft skill level probably comes into play at least hitting the target not sure about picking the target. Probably some others that escape me for the moment. There was a time in the Steel Panthers history when aircraft blindly flew to the target hex. There could be forty damn targets all around that hex, but that aircraft wouldn't move one bit towards them. I don't recall which version finally changed this, but I was glad to see it. I'm with you though when you call in a strike on that strong point and the damn thing blows up a truck in the rear it can be frustrating. Those 17's are sure murder though. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 2
- 2/28/2001 7:59:00 PM   
Dedas

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 12/19/2000
From: Ucklum, Sweden
Status: offline
The planes should use the hex you targetted as the primary target, if there isnt a unit there the plane should search the hexes nearby. (this is what I think...!) As we all know this isnt the case... We need some changes here maties!

_____________________________

Glory to the brave

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 3
- 2/28/2001 8:28:00 PM   
Lars Remmen

 

Posts: 357
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Dedas: The planes should use the hex you targetted as the primary target, if there isnt a unit there the plane should search the hexes nearby. (this is what I think...!) As we all know this isnt the case... We need some changes here maties!
So, a Typhoon comes in towards the target hex at 350 mph. By the time the pilot realizes that there are no targets in the area it is way too late to look around for a new target. And even if he did see one he probably couldn't alter his course fast enough to make a pass with any chance of success. But I have said it before and will again: It would be great if we could have two different air attack modes. One as the air support work now with the pilots going after the targets easy to spot and presigious to kill. And one mode to allow the player to say: Bomb hex x,y (or as close as you can) no matter what targets you should otherwise see - a bit like in SP1. ------------------ Lars Nec Temere - Nec Timide

_____________________________

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 4
- 3/1/2001 4:50:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline
"So, a Typhoon comes in towards the target hex at 350 mph. By the time the pilot realizes that there are no targets in the area it is way too late to look around for a new target. And even if he did see one he probably couldn't alter his course fast enough to make a pass with any chance of success." Very true. There's also the Positive ID issue as well; WAS that REALLY a Panther I just saw? Further away from the FEBA it's not an issue IRL, but since in the SPWAW world all airstrikes are CAS, this is actually a realistic way to simulate target ID problems. Another issue is the way FOs (FACs actually) direct the strike: There's no target marking for the FO/FAC to "talk" the striker on to. If this is abstracted, then it's not done too well. A target marking routine that would increase the chances of the airstrike hitting the targets YOU designate would alleviate this problem and still give one the frustration of seeing your CAS missions hitting the wrong spot-also RL... "But I have said it before and will again: It would be great if we could have two different air attack modes. One as the air support work now with the pilots going after the targets easy to spot and presigious to kill. And one mode to allow the player to say: Bomb hex x,y (or as close as you can) no matter what targets you should otherwise see - a bit like in SP1." In another post, discussion ensued about B17s going away to be replaced by a possible "level bomber" airstrike. If so, then what you propose is EXACTLY how these aircraft were used. These missions were all pre=planned based on geography, either an easily ID'd terrain feature or a "kill box". In order to accurately simulate these weapon systems, their missions should be fixed at game start. No way could a battalion CP request such a strike and get it approved, and bombers diverted in 1-2 hours of game time (not to mention briefing crews on FEBA, enemy threat etc).

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 5
- 3/1/2001 10:11:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
Yes - all true, but the much maligned new level bombers will attack the vicinity of the target hex you select, not a unit. You must target them during the pre-planned bombardment and assign a turn they will enter. You can decide if that is an improvement or a "bunch of crap" that only a bunch of whiners want...

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 6
- 3/1/2001 1:18:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline
I'll take it and enjoy it...WB ====================== ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 7
- 3/1/2001 4:20:00 PM   
Kharan

 

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline
Sounds good... Will they be generic for all countries, bombing from so high you won't see them, thus not needing icons and freeing up much needed OOB slots?

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 8
- 3/1/2001 7:20:00 PM   
Thornado

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Seems like the highaltitude bombers at last is going to work in a more reaslistic manner. Assigning a B-26 or B-17 against a single target seemed like a tad bit of overkill. Excellent that you have to assign a target hex and a entranceturn. This adds a new layer to the battleplanning.... "Hmm, how am I to lure his main Infantrybody to stay in that wood for another three turns, so my Big Ones can bomb the sh*t out of 'em?" ------------------ Thornado - You'll never know what hit you -

_____________________________

Thornado - You'll never know what hit you -

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 9
- 3/1/2001 8:57:00 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
They are more like artillery now - you hear the drone of engines and whistle of the bombs and the booms, but no icons, and a fair variety of numbers and types of bomb loads, so you buy the bomb load you want and don;t care what platforms the Flyboys have to use to deleiver it. Each "mission" covers a "box" between 200x 200 yards to about 350x350 depending on the type. That was pretty much the way such assets were assigned. They are probaly too accurate, but making them fall too wildly and nobody would buy them...As it is they are a bit difficult to use, but when they work...BOY DO THEY WORK [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 01, 2001).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 10
- 3/2/2001 12:27:00 AM   
timc

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/28/2000
From: Lincoln, NE USA
Status: offline
Sounds good to me. It will eliminate the curious "B-17 diving to attack" message as well as small-caliber AAA and even small arms hitting and shooting down level bombers. These level bombers should be immune to AA, right? Or are large calber weapons (88 AA, 90mm, 3in etc) going to shoot at them?

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 11
- 3/2/2001 12:57:00 AM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline
Interesting question Timc. Maybe the bigger AA gun could operate in counter battery mode against the bomber since the level bomber are not on the map |-)

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 12
- 3/2/2001 1:24:00 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: I'll take it and enjoy it...WB ======================
He'll take it and we'll be at the sharp end of it. As if WB doesn't have enough "toys" to make his scenarios cunning and darn near impossible to win. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 13
- 3/2/2001 3:32:00 AM   
ZinZan

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/9/2000
From: Leicester, England
Status: offline
Sounds like an excellent solution to the problem of B17's low level bombing. I'm all in favour of this one. more realistic, encourages and rewards good planning and frees up OOB slots. great idea ------------------ peter@myhelliconia.freeserve.co.uk http://www.myhelliconia.freeserve.co.uk

_____________________________

ZinZan <br/> Peace is an extension of war by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter - and much safer. <br/> Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein.

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 14
- 3/2/2001 7:17:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline
"You can decide if that is an improvement or a 'bunch of crap' that only a bunch of whiners want..." Improvement! Though, I'm not one of those control-freak I-have-to-do-everything-even-though-it's-not-a-good-simulation-of-reality types either. I suspect you will need some cheese for them

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 15
- 3/2/2001 12:57:00 PM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
"These level bombers should be immune to AA, right? Or are large calber weapons (88 AA, 90mm, 3in etc) going to shoot at them?" They should. Tactical bombing, to the extent that a four engine bomber did so, might be high enough to avoid light AA; but flying above the "heavy" guns would make hitting the designated target all but impossible. Depending on the cloud cover, the 37-40mm guns may get a piece of the action as well; but if the bombers have to fly low enough to be hit by the 20s they would probably just fly home... [This message has been edited by Igor (edited March 02, 2001).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 16
- 3/2/2001 1:03:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I won't mind if a B-17 drops several tons of bombs, but I always seem to attract stuka or Tomahawk or what ever type bomber that drops 8-12 bombs per attack? ( I once was attacked by 24 Stukas each dropping 12 bombs, my gallent Battle group looked at me (the few left standing) and said "See ya" ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 17
- 3/2/2001 8:52:00 PM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline
Have anyone seems to notice that a mass of AAMgs are much more effective against aircrafts in the current version of spwaw than dedicate AA? Do anyone knows the historic statistics for this? In the Vietnam war, it was much more difficult to brings down aircrafts with small arms fire as compared to larger AA. How was it with WW2?

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 18
- 3/2/2001 10:42:00 PM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline
I think that Level Bombers are an improvement. I think that combination of Level and Tactical Bomber is much more realistic that what the only choice that we have now. Having said, that I like to do a couple of questions: Will enemy air superiority and bad time affect Level Bombers availability just like they do with the other tactical planes right now? An about tactical bombers (i.e. Typhoon): Don’t you think that some times they see more that they should? I mean: A Stuka gets into the attack and localize a large column of T-34 rolling in a road and attack them. Great. That’s that it should be. A Typhoon gets into the attack and localize a Panther that is on the open ground although there is smoke around. Fine. I can accept that. But... a P-47 drives into the attack and localize and attack a JPIV that is stationary in a leafy wood ... uhm... Is this realistic? ... This tank should be very well camouflaged and be very difficult to see from the air...

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 19
- 3/2/2001 11:36:00 PM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline
But... a P-47 drives into the attack and localize and attack a JPIV that is stationary in a leafy wood ... uhm... Is this realistic? ... This tank should be very well camouflaged and be very difficult to see from the air..." It depends. If the FAC noticed the vehicle moving into the woods, he could talk the P47 to the woods with instructions to hit whatever's in there-assuming no friendlies close by. Very realistic. On the other hand, if this is a target of opportunity, then yes you have a point, unless the FAC's instructions were "hit that grove of trees" in order to flush out any threats there.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 20
- 3/3/2001 12:30:00 AM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
Hi, I won't mind if a B-17 drops several tons of bombs, but I always seem to attract stuka or Tomahawk or what ever type bomber that drops 8-12 bombs per attack? ( I once was attacked by 24 Stukas each dropping 12 bombs, my gallent Battle group looked at me (the few left standing) and said "See ya" end quote What we have here is a tactical bomber under the influence of the unlimited ammo selection in the preferences screen. Switch that over to limited ammo and the Stukas will stop doing their B-29 impression.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 21
- 3/6/2001 9:07:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline
Uhm, I don't really like the idea of using Level Bomber on a tactical level. Why ? Historical correctness. AFAIK only light to medium bombers were used as combat support as were fighters. Airforces are under complete different commands thus combined use was hampered. It's not like in those Vietnam movies where a platoon leader just radios in some napalm. In the early WWII Germany used combined assaults of ground & airforces but the airattacks were preplanned. Even at D-Day a the Allied forces used massive bomb attacks at stationary bunkers but still most bombs missed because the pilots feared to hit their own people. Even at Desert Storm with technology in use WWII commanders dreamed of friendly-fire through own aircrafts happened. Now using *heavy* level bomber like B-17 on a tactical scale is completely unrealistic. The only way it could be included *good* would be in an assault mission allowing the attacker to have them drop a load in turn zero - but not at ANY other point in the mission. As someone stated high level bombardment wasnt that accurate - NO commander would have wanted a target for it closer then 5 Km to his position I guess. murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Dean Robb)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Air target priorities Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.173