The description of Combat Unit Destruction in the Battlefield Support Air Doctrine does not align with its effect.
The verbal description of Combat Unit Destruction is "Training our CAS pilots to repeatedly attack the same target until it is confirmed to be destroyed ensures targets aren't left alone after a near miss."
The accompanying symbol depicts an airplane striking a land unit (a tank).
The numerical effect of Combat Unit Destruction bestows +20% agility to planes (only CAS? not clear in the written explanations of the effects. There are the words "Close Air Support" associated with the description of the effect. But the phrase "Close Air Support" could be either is a subject ("support") by itself OR it could be an compound adjective describing the type of planes. As it stands, "Close Air Support" is a subject, and not an adjective). The tool tip that describes the effect of this doctrine states, "How agile a plane is. Agility affects how easy it is to hit another plane and how easily it can avoid being hit."
So, here's where the disconnect occurs: The title, description, and symbol all describe how this air doctrine allows airplanes (presumably only CAS) to damage ground units.
But the actual effect is solely an air-to-air benefit. Agility.
Suggestion: appropriately edit either the description or the effect so that there is concordance.
The verbal description of Combat Unit Destruction is "Training our CAS pilots to repeatedly attack the same target until it is confirmed to be destroyed ensures targets aren't left alone after a near miss."
The accompanying symbol depicts an airplane striking a land unit (a tank).
The numerical effect of Combat Unit Destruction bestows +20% agility to planes (only CAS? not clear in the written explanations of the effects. There are the words "Close Air Support" associated with the description of the effect. But the phrase "Close Air Support" could be either is a subject ("support") by itself OR it could be an compound adjective describing the type of planes. As it stands, "Close Air Support" is a subject, and not an adjective). The tool tip that describes the effect of this doctrine states, "How agile a plane is. Agility affects how easy it is to hit another plane and how easily it can avoid being hit."
So, here's where the disconnect occurs: The title, description, and symbol all describe how this air doctrine allows airplanes (presumably only CAS) to damage ground units.
But the actual effect is solely an air-to-air benefit. Agility.
Suggestion: appropriately edit either the description or the effect so that there is concordance.
Last edited:
- 2
Upvote
0