Combined Arms Onslaught Awaits You!

[Imp]

As no takers I will have a go if you still want PM or email me.
You are aware what you propose would be extremely rare?
Both sides having major air ground support possibly but both commiting in the same engagement & few square Kms is highly unlikely.
The level of air & arty you propose might possibly occur in an assault but a meeting probably not

[PhilosopherEight]

I disagree for these reasons:

1) Air power today accounts for the majority of all battlefield casualties, and is the dominant force in any advance. This is seen in both Gulf Wars, and would be seen much more if there were any large war between major nations such as Germany, Russia, China, and USA. (thankfully we dont get to see this!)

2) We cannot use a realistically representational amount of air power in this game unless the air sorties are set high enough to permit the aircraft to actually penetrate enemy SAM defenses. This is a characteristic of the game, if not of real battle.

3) In the game, it is both easy and cheap to set up a completely impregnible SAM defense. A single well-placed Patriot SAM Platoon can take down 2-4 top-quality MiG-31s each turn without the MiGs even getting to fire a shot. Against MiG-29s the carnage is even worse.

4)This means that it is impossible to conduct normal Air Ops against an enemy with a decent SAM setup unless you have at least 6-8 Air Sorties with over a dozen aircraft.

5) Most of these dozen aircraft will get shot down by the SAMs, so that eventually a steady state is reached with SAM defense dropped to about 25%, and aircraft shot down to leave only 2-5 total aircraft left to actually operate on tanks and troops.

6) The result is a game which has a more realistic restriction on motion behind the lines. Tanks cannot just move around or they might get blown away. Infantry can not move around without being from attacked from the air.

7) To play the game without the potential for these losses behind the lines is intrisincally unrealistic, and reflects pre-1939 warfare more than modern warfare.

8) Many gamers are very unuccustomed to playing with any significant air power, and many are poor at air tactics, so I often hear these objections simply to cover the Commander's lack of tactical ability to conduct a full battle using all available weapons systems.

9) If you play a bit this way, you will like it after you get accustomed to it!

10) Meeting engagements are the simplest way to set up a fair fight. They are not intended to be realistic necessarily AS a "Meeting Engagement" but merely as an even battle between two forces.


I see your points, truly. But I hope you can see mine, and you will try my way out. I will send you a game.

<><>

[Imp]

Would not say I agree entirely with what you say, do agree if I use air use it in force but even modern times as you stated Gulf War planes are great at destroying static targets & convoys as in supply chains. They did not however prove that effective vs units on the battlefield & it was not exactly a high tech air defence.
Planes main role still seems deep strikes vs infastructure to cripple supply & command which is beyond the scope of the game. Any ground support would also try & be done as moving to position rather than in battle as better kill rate.
Send an A-10 or 2 vs a column of tanks & rapidly setting up AA or to pick off tanks in a battle with freindlys about & I think one will be going home job done a lot quicker than the other.

[EJ]

@Imp,
I totally agree with you Imp. I was playing a game against the AI and attempted a close air support strike. Unfortunately the air strike targeted ME instead of the targeted hex. I was probably too close to the AI forces so the pilot picked the "better" target. Friendly fire happens in real life and the game also. MAYBE one of these days you and I can get a pbem going.....

[Imp]

EJ have just started 3 games but when they wind down & I patch will contact you, be a few weeks mind.

John

[EJ]

Imp,

Okay fair enough. I look forward to us "battling" in a couple of weeks.....