They won't be. According to what we've seen so far, we won't see anything heavier than medium bombers.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They won't be. According to what we've seen so far, we won't see anything heavier than medium bombers.
Basically it involved about 600 bombers dropping their 7 tonne bomb loads indiscriminately on both sides before a battle. Which is why Eugen has said they do not intend to include 4 engine bomber raids.
It was also they had to fly pretty high and were fairly inaccurate at the early stages of the war when threats were numerous.
As long as we have no idea about pace of game and combat is pointless to speak about in depth of seconds...
I really hope there's a delay for aircraft. I'm not sure how long would be appropriate (that's what beta testing is for) and I don't even really care about how realistic it is or isn't. I just think wargame's insta-air support made it way too easy for players to compensate for poor recon and/or poor planning by using a ton of aircraft to shut down attacks at a moment's notice. A delay is the most elegant way of solving that problem. Since you can call in air support in advance to support an attack it means that initially the attackers will have the edge in the air, and if the gameplay is anything like wargame's that's no bad thing at all. It also gives the developers another interesting way of balancing different aircraft. Was a plane capable of taking off from particularly short and/ or badly built or maintained runways? That might mean that it could take off closer to the front, which could be represented with a shorter delay.
Most of the aircraft supporting the Allies were operating from France from grass fields. It's more a question of how effective they will be. The reality was that air support like that in Red Dragon did not exist for the Allies in Normandy. We will need to wait to see exactly how it is implemented
They were deadly enough.
Problem was this happened on the other side of the front too, plus this was itself an operational-level attack. You wouldn't send in wargame numbers of aircraft, you'd send hundreds.
Last edited:
British survey after Normany found 992 AFVs destroyed by guns and 5 destroyed by aircraft. About 100 destroyed by mines and infantry AT, but the book is in storage so i might be out on some figures.
And the problem is none of these tanks were destroyed by called in aircraft, it was the entire effort across the entire length and depth of the front, mostly when then enemy units were caught in the open.
If it's 5, that Tiger 1 was one of that 5.
Besides, there are things other than AFVs to kill, and they didn't even need to kill those to be effective in breaking up attacks and the like. The big bombings during Cobra and Goodwood did real violence to the German defensive lines' coherence and ability to stop the attacks- the US troops in Cobra specifically met not a real defensive line but a bunch of outposts that could be (and were) flanked or bypassed.
I think there's been too much of an emphasis on how aircraft weren't capable of killing AFVs. There were tons and tons of other things on a WWII battlefield, and CAS and the heavies did plenty well vs. those. I believe Bayerlein specifically said that Panzer Lehr was effectively incapable of operating as an actual coordinated unit after the Cobra carpet bombings.
In wargame terms, they're like a low-AP [CLUS] and HE MLRS strike on a defensive position. Your superheavies might not be dead, but everyone's stunned, your ATGM troops/vehicles and AA and recon are either dead or mostly dead, and if the enemy crashes enough armor through your position you're going to lose it.
In one example from take off to engaging the enemy was 3 minutes for RAF typhoons. Gives an idea how close the forward airfields were