RTB And Attack Orders

[SteveMcClaire]

This issue came up in a tech support thread and I was asked to break it out into its own thread in the main forum so we can get more feedback.

The issue is that once aircraft go RTB (either due to player orders or fuel / ordnance use) they no longer maneuver to engage targets, even if the player gives them an attack order with F1/Shift+F1. The player must first clear the RTB status with 'U'/Unassign before the aircraft will maneuver to attack targets again.

The question is, should the game clear the RTB status automatically if the player gives an attack order? The downside is that it might cause a lot of unintentional aircraft losses due to running them out of fuel.

[Uzabit]

"The question is, should the game clear the RTB status automatically if the player gives an attack order? The downside is that it might cause a lot of unintentional aircraft losses due to running them out of fuel."

Hmm, that would maybe be useful with some kind of warning pop-up - telling the player he might risk running out of fuel. This way I think you don't lose awareness of fuel states.

[goldfinger35]

IMO the game should NOT clear the RTB status automatically if the player gives an attack order, or if it does, the game should warn you (you better know what you were doing...)

[guanotwozero]

If it were reasonably doable, I suggest that it should NOT clear RTB if fuel is the cause (leaving manual unassign an option), but otherwise clear it so as to conduct the attack.

[dcpollay]

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

If it were reasonably doable, I suggest that it should NOT clear RTB if fuel is the cause (leaving manual unassign an option), but otherwise clear it so as to conduct the attack.

I would agree with this, and go further. If the platform is done doing it's mission, the default should be to return to base, and overriding that should be a conscious process.

If RTB fuel/weapons is overridden, it would be nice to have a warning pop up to identify units in danger. Maybe a selectable list of endangered units the player could check?

[Kushan04]

No, I don't think it should clear out the RTB. If the player really wants to override RTB and attack they can hit U to unassign the RTB, then order an attack. IMO that's a good enough warning that they're about to do something that could lose the aircraft. If they lose an aicraft after consciously doing that its their own fault.

[ParachuteProne]

I don't mind hitting U but I find U sometimes does not unassign.
I had a sub that went RTB . It still had weapons and lots of fuel.
I tried changing home base but could not clear the RTB order.

[DWReese]

If the game has been programmed for the AI side, then it is impossible for that side to hit the "U" button. It seems as though the rules/procedures should work equally on both sides of the scenario. If the AI side is unable to do that, then it would make it unfair.

I believe that another solution, other than relying on the "U" button should be sought.

[guanotwozero]

That's a good point - perhaps what is needed is a conditional ability of assigned aircraft to carry out a separate, temporary task (a 'diversion') that overrides their current assignment. If the conditions cannot be met, it continues with the original mission. If conditions are met, it carries out the new instruction until complete then returns to the original assignment.

A major condition would be fuel status; if an RTB aircraft is ordered to do something beyond its fuel capability, the condition isn't met and it continues RTB. There may be other valid conditions for different assignments.

However, that would also require the AI to handle such diversions so as to keep parity.

[FMBluecher]

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

I don't mind hitting U but I find U sometimes does not unassign.
I had a sub that went RTB . It still had weapons and lots of fuel.
I tried changing home base but could not clear the RTB order.

In this case, check the sub's Withdraw & Redeploy settings. In some cases, if they're low on countermeasures, subs will automatically RTB without telling you why. I had this happen with the US sub in You Brexit, You Fix It.

[Gunner98]

If the game has been programmed for the AI side, then it is impossible for that side to hit the "U" button.

But it is also impossible for the AI side to be assigned other orders unless its through a lua change mission command, which clears the RTB order anyway.

I've got no issue with using 'U' to un-assign a unit, its just habit, but I think the issue your talking about here is that the AI needs better defensive tactics after an RTB order. I think its apples and oranges, or am I missing something?

[DWReese]

Gunner,

That's it as far as I am concerned. I see ESCORTS trailing their strikers back to the base, and they are simply targets, even though they have weapons to fight with, and fuel to burn. It seems as though after the attack, the striker is on his planned course back to the base, and the ESCORTS merely follow him back. If they get attacked, then they don't fight back. They just continue to fly back home with the striker, or they eventually get shot down. Something needs to be tweaked to allow the ESCORT to fight back.

I believe that this situation is essentially the same problem as the fuel situation. Personally, I'd rather shoot down an enemy plane and possibly crash into the ground because I ran out of fuel than to be shot down and crash, with the last thing going through my mind how I managed to save fuel. Either way you are dead, but if you fight back you at least take the enemy with you. <lol>

[c3k]

A popup: "Will not engage. RTB due to fuel-state. Override RTB and attack?"

If it's not fuel state, then they should attack.

[KnightHawk75]

The question is, should the game clear the RTB status automatically if the player gives an attack order? The downside is that it might cause a lot of unintentional aircraft losses due to running them out of fuel.

My view is if I'm manually assigning something via f1\shift-f1 then as the player I should inherently be aware of the units status.

The annoyance I would raise with doing 'U' first (which I don't mind in an of itself, as others mention it's a clear signal you accept the consequences),is it also removes them from their mission assignment not just the RTB. So then I also have to immediately reassign the unit back to the mission it was on, either before assigning the engagement or remember to afterward depending on if I want them using a mission wra for the engagement or not and if I want staying on the mission once it RTB's again. If there was a 'Cancel-RTB order' in the gui I wouldn't have to use the more broad 'U' and it saves the re-assign step both for engagement situations being discussed as well as and others.

If it were reasonably doable, I suggest that it should NOT clear RTB if fuel is the cause (leaving manual unassign an option), but otherwise clear it so as to conduct the attack.

I would agree with this so long as it made sure to only apply to those that were not already told to ignore fuel state and\or bingo. Often have to use those options because the speed or alt used in an f1 attack triggers bingo\rtb when in fact I do have enough fuel if change up the speed\alt or post-enagement-weight(less munitions) or do so after a short engagement is over (or when trying to get the AI to do what I want).

ORIGINAL: DWReese
Gunner,

That's it as far as I am concerned. I see ESCORTS trailing their strikers back to the base, and they are simply targets, even though they have weapons to fight with, and fuel to burn. It seems as though after the attack, the striker is on his planned course back to the base, and the ESCORTS merely follow him back. If they get attacked, then they don't fight back. They just continue to fly back home with the striker, or they eventually get shot down. Something needs to be tweaked to allow the ESCORT to fight back.

I believe that this situation is essentially the same problem as the fuel situation. Personally, I'd rather shoot down an enemy plane and possibly crash into the ground because I ran out of fuel than to be shot down and crash, with the last thing going through my mind how I managed to save fuel. Either way you are dead, but if you fight back you at least take the enemy with you. <lol>

Fair point, especially the later (outside of say already engaged in the landing cycle game wise). As for how the AI should manage it all, idk guanotwozero's temporary diversion concept may have merit, but the conditionals may have to be more complex, but it's a starting point that might cover some clear situations where the fuel situation is clear cut (ie regardless of speed\alt calcs (pre\post munition launch) fuel exists).

Interesting conversation.

[AKar]

Perhaps a setting tickbox: "Clear RTB status on attack orders"?

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
That's it as far as I am concerned. I see ESCORTS trailing their strikers back to the base, and they are simply targets, even though they have weapons to fight with, and fuel to burn. It seems as though after the attack, the striker is on his planned course back to the base, and the ESCORTS merely follow him back. If they get attacked, then they don't fight back. They just continue to fly back home with the striker, or they eventually get shot down. Something needs to be tweaked to allow the ESCORT to fight back.

I reckon this could be changed to automatic behaviour, mostly using existing internal methods. If an AAW-style prosecution area exists around the escorted A/C, the escort should just behave like on an AAW mission if anything enters that area. Weapon State would be an issue - for escorts they should fight with anything they have; if BVR expended they behave like a normal WVR fighter. The escorts should only ever go RTB once the escorted A/C are landing.

That means escorts would need a different Fuel State option, as they'd be 'on station' right up until they're almost home. Bingo notification could still happen, but be ignored. When adding escorts to a mission, their fuel usage must be taken into account somehow - perhaps normal there-and-back range plus a percentage extra for potential combat.

If all that could be achieved, the escort issue would be removed from this RTB override problem. Another advantage is that it would be no different for the AI side.

Edit:
There'd probably still need to be some sort of Joker state, particularly if the escorts operate from a different airfield, though that would typically occur when back over safe territory.

[BrianinMinnie]

I'd like for the rtb aircraft to be able to be assigned F1 or attack, (at any time) then as soon as target is destroyed, return to rtb.

maybe have an option a: "If there's fuel enough to get home" and b: "Disregard fuel constraints".

Also throw in while rtbing, assess known AA threats along shortest route home, calculate based on threats known weapons capability, chart the safe distance/shortest arc around said threat, while maintaining shortest route back to Base for as long as possible until fuel state forces a straight course back to base.

Nothings worse than doing a attack, succeeding, then having the attacking aircraft rtb right over the remaining ships of the group that was struck.

I do realize creating a strike mission can do a similar thing but, sometimes due to not keeping track of all your aircraft, rtbing aircraft can fly into danger zones and be destroyed.

I may be asking for the sun to rise in the west, but I figured I'd ask.

Thanks

B.

[Battelman2]

Yeah I think the answer to this is conditional, not just a yes/no. F1 on an RTB unit at Winchester should postpone the RTB until the unit runs out of applicable stores or hits Bingo fuel state.

For example, say I send an F-16 on a land strike mission and on its way home it encounters a bogey and has one or more AAMs available. Giving an attack order should postpone the RTB until after the F-16 has destroyed the bogey or hits Bingo.

I mean, I really think the answer should just be common sense. If you're a pilot returning to base with a couple missiles remaining, if permitted you would be inclined to engage threats on the way rather than ignore them (unless the threat is already being dealt with by friendlies).

As for providing a warning to the player, I think this should only happen if the unit is already at Bingo where there is elevated risk of losing the unit. If the unit reaches Bingo while engaging, it should RTB Bingo as normal. I would also recommend making this configurable, with the default setting being the one that produces the fewest uninformed forum posts (why is my unit ...?).

[BeirutDude]

The downside is that it might cause a lot of unintentional aircraft losses due to running them out of fuel.

That was my first thought. Personally I've gotten used to it, and I think letting the player decide if the aircraft can/should engage is better. Sometimes there are no good alternatives, get shot down or pancake from lack of fuel!!! [8|] But if automatic it might engage when another aircraft is in a better position to do so, leading to a needless loss.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Battelman2
I mean, I really think the answer should just be common sense. If you're a pilot returning to base with a couple missiles remaining, if permitted you would be inclined to engage threats on the way rather than ignore them (unless the threat is already being dealt with by friendlies).

The problem is keeping parity with what the AI can do - what may be common sense to us might be quite difficult to implement at the AI side.

It could be that a (possibly configurable) default prosecution area around all combat aircraft could apply on missions, so that they'll go offensive if such an opportunity presents itself. Conditions could still apply, so that if fuel is too tight they will avoid the hostiles and scurry on home. Similarly if they're outward on a strike mission they stick to that unless they get into a knife fight; the escorts should be the ones taking the heat. But I could see it all getting complicated if too many things have to be taken into account.