Flame tanks have a range of 1000m on their flame. Tanks have a range of 1900m on their gun. Mortars have a range of 4000+ meters. Do the math.

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.

Anyway, french infantry and flame tanks are counterable, I don't understand what makes freezbleek saying the contrary.

Planes Would mean NATO life would be alot easier. Lol

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.

Considering WP air superiority?

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

Debatable, Except in instances where NATO commanders refused to follow a single air combat doctrine

_________________

CAS on Arty/Units would be fine if guided by a recon / forward air infantry/vehicle unit.... but a "click air strike button, click on map, receive explosions." is not needed in this game. Without ground information guiding in an airplane... you would have a hard time finding targets as a pilot unless you are lucky and find an obvious soviet armor colomn out in the middle of a field - and without any ground recon you go in hoping to god they don't have functional anti air...

In short. No to magic air strikes. Yes to guided airstrikes from special units. Airstrikes should cost points and STILL require a special unit to have eyes-on. Period. Any other way would break the game.[/quote]

What he said. If the mechanics were implemented correctly, including call-in delays, I don't see why this couldn't be made to work. Recon/SF would have the ability to call-in strikes, but with maybe 3-5 minute delays. You don't have to change how the AA works against helos, you can abstract an AA effectiveness against fixed-wing from AA assets available on the flightpath when the strike arrives. Into this would be factored chaff/flares/ECM/experience of planes. Potentially Shrike could be called in in advance with an even greater delay. Playtesting would soon reveal the right points cost for fixed-wing, and there would be a very limited amount available per deck. Possibly you could also call in strikes at NOE, low, medium, and high levels - concomitantly every AA unit would have effectiveness ratings at different altitudes. Let's face it, radar-steered SAMs of this era were not exactly stellar at shooting down targets against radar background clutter.

I don't think this would break the game, just add another layer of rock/paper/scissors. It's an aspect that would have featured hugely IRL and, if done correctly, should add to both the gameplay satisfaction and the simulation factor. To have no fixed-wing whatsoever seems like an admission of defeat - surely a way can be found.

Which is unavoidable between the two air-forces within the W.Germany as they did have different doctrines. Morever if we take integrate approach WP had a massive advantage in the air defenses within the time period, as well as TBM, which would allow a comprehensive and decisive anti air operation.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

I wonder what the chances that WP would have airsuppority. I am thinking low. NATO forces are trained better better aircraft and larger number of better aircraft. Granted the su-27 and mig 29 are awesome but going up against the large number of nato aircraft would make ait an interesting battle. Now I want to play a game that throws WP and NATO airforces together. Who would win? Id love to see some ideas on this.

just ignore ikalugin's posts. I beg you.

_________________