[FIXED v1.10] Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed?

[jarraya]

I've been away from Command for a couple of months as I realised I was spending more time getting frustrated with little bugs than enjoying the game, so I thought I'd give it a rest come back after the update.

To the devs, great job on 1.6 update. As usual, your commitment to the game and community is admirable.

I was playing again and found that the "RTB no matter what" situation hadn't been changed. Specifically, when my aircraft is Bingo RTB I can not give it any other orders. Unassigning only works for few seconds.

I've had a trawl through the forum and tried to pick up the thread on this discussion, but it seems that despite being reported as a potential issue there still isn't agreement from the devs that this should be fixed. Just looking for a bit of clarity on this please.

I find this a mission limiting "bug" that should be addressed but if I'm told to shut up, I will.

Cheers

[Sardaukar]

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.

[jarraya]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.

Not unless you have a tanker waiting for them on the return.

What prompted me in this discussion was the following situation:

I sent a strike package out to strike a target. I knew that the package would use 2/3 of their fuel getting to target. So, I place a tanker in a position to top them up on the return, within 1/3 of their fuel remaining. Top them up and they can fly home.

Under the current set up I can not send my planes beyond 1/2 their range without refueling first, despite manually being able to save the planes by correct placement of my tanker.

Why not refuel before the strike, you ask? Because I need them to get there quickly to take advantage of an opportunity rather than have them waste time refueling (example).

[jarraya]

I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: jarraya
I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).

"Fixed" would imply a bug. A bug would imply the dev team promised A while the program does B. The behavior you desire was never promised by the devs; in fact, we have repeatedly explained why the game currently works in that regard the way it does. You can of course keep asking for your suggestion to be added/implemented, but let's be clear: It is something you want, it's not a bug to fix.

Thanks.

[jarraya]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: jarraya
I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).

"Fixed" would imply a bug. A bug would imply the dev team promised A while the program does B. The behavior you desire was never promised by the devs; in fact, we have repeatedly explained why the game currently works in that regard the way it does. You can of course keep asking for your suggestion to be added/implemented, but let's be clear: It is something you want, it's not a bug to fix.

Thanks.

Sunburn - I fully agree with your comment. Hence I put the word "fixed" in quotes. Whilst I believe this feature detracts from the game, it works exactly as the devs want it to. Of course my request remains, and you have been clear before that there was no plan to change it. I just wanted to check and see if maybe this position had changed since and I couldn't find the answer, so I asked.

No more to say here, and thanks for the reply.

[Dimitris]

Nice passive-aggressive there.

[mikmykWS]

Not sold though. I'd rather deal with one passive aggressive Jorge rather than a ton of unhappy customers with planes that have crashed due to being out of fuel. There are a few other related issues but this is what primarily guided our decision on this. Anybody think we're wrong to think that way?

Mike

[jarraya]

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.

[Coiler12]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.

Bingo means they have no choice.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.

Not unless you have a tanker waiting for them on the return.

What prompted me in this discussion was the following situation:

I sent a strike package out to strike a target. I knew that the package would use 2/3 of their fuel getting to target. So, I place a tanker in a position to top them up on the return, within 1/3 of their fuel remaining. Top them up and they can fly home.

Under the current set up I can not send my planes beyond 1/2 their range without refueling first, despite manually being able to save the planes by correct placement of my tanker.

Why not refuel before the strike, you ask? Because I need them to get there quickly to take advantage of an opportunity rather than have them waste time refueling (example).

There are two reasons this is unsound tactics.

First is making the assumption that the combat mission won't consume more fuel than what it takes to make a round trip from the base to the combat point and 1/3d of the way home. There could be contingencies in the combat zone which consume fuel at a faster rate than what it takes to reach that zone. Don't know if it was modeled in Command, but it was an issue with Harpoon.

Second is making the assumption that the tankers will be on station for the return flight.

Though it might truncate surprise, a more sound tactical and logistical plan would be to top off the fuel tanks before reaching bingo fuel prior to combat, and having tankers stationed for the return flight as a contingency as opposed to a necessity.

[jarraya]

ORIGINAL: Coiler12

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.

Bingo means they have no choice.

This would be true if the calculation for Bingo took into account that there is/isn't a tanker in the air.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.

Ok your vote is in[:)] We'll see how it pans out.

[Primarchx]

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.

[Mini_Von]

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.

+1

[Casinn]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.

I've rebased aircraft to a closer base (knowing I'd have no reloads there) to extend range of a mission several times. I wouldn't mind a way to set a flying tanker as a temporary "base" for that purpose. The downside is what happens if that tanker goes dry or bingo's itself.

[Midcon113]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.

I'm down with this too.

[batek688]

Ok..i'll chime in but ask this more of a logic question to any folks on here w/ actual mission planning experience. My interpretation is that the WAG is logically correct and here's why:

You have two choices: (a) strike first and refuel on way back, or (b)refuel on the way out so that you have fuel to RTB after. I'm referring to mission design not pilot choice.

If you use (a) as the simulation does you are minimizing the risk of a crash-out-of-gas situation because any number of situations could alter fuel consumption rate in the target area. The only thing you have control over is the ability to go "max conserve" as you RTB combined with the ability of an outbound tanker joining up with you in an emergency situation (2nd air refueling ala SAC missions or even the use of KA-6s off the US CVBG). Therefore, (A) minimizes aircraft/aircrew loss risk since loss of tanker does not lose strike aircraft, only the loss of the strike opportunity (strike aborts).

If you us (b) then you make it such that loss of tanker (failed rendezvous, maintenance abort, etc) resulting in the loss (potentially) of the tanker AND the strike aircraft. In addition, the tanker may have to go into harm's way if the fuel consumption of the strike aircraft in the target area were to go up (evasion, throttle settings, etc). The target may have been hit, but you lost the airframe as well which is a big negative unless you have airframes to burn (the Chinese maybe?). I'm not sure any high ranking officer views aircraft as single-target weapon systems -- not cost effective.

Thinking purely as a resource manager, (b) doesn't provide any greater capability over (a) while it does ratchet up airframe/aircrew risk (for both the strike & tanker crews/frames).

[nocacounsel]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.

I, too, would prefer to have ultimate say as to what happens with an aircraft (which Command seems to fully encourage in every other sphere I can think of, and to its credit and with my great appreciation). As I think someone on here has joked, some people prefer to play Command as though they are controlling their money; and the amazing flexibility of the game provides for either micromanagement or a set & forget philosophy.

Because I can't ultimately override the Bingo determination, I've lost aircraft to missiles in the past (because I set auto-evasion to off to control course & speed however I know it best to be except when in Bingo); had problems planning missions I know would succeed like Jarraya; and even once had aircraft turn around when under 5nm to their weapon launch.
Of all the control I have in Command, Bingo is the kiss of death to an aircraft though I tend to think my ability to manage & plan should be what ultimately decides whether a plane makes it back to base (like it is with every other asset in Command).

The bingo protection is a pretty critical one, however, and I definitely don't wish to lose how the feature operates now at its first level (or speak against Mike's prescience) where the aircraft automatically goes back to base once bingo fuel is reached. I just sorta thought we might be able to have our cake & eat it as well by, say, pressing CTRL+U to override the Bingo feature for that particular aircraft and until the aircraft lands again (in which case the override would reset back to normal).

I also like Primarchx and Rognor's suggestsions. ( tm.asp?m=3720375&mpage=1&key=� , post 3).

Thanks for considering all of this, devs.

[mikmykWS]

The ultimate solution is probably going on to lie with the strike editor we'd like to approach at some point. Stay tuned on this.

In general it is hard to code for every possible fringe case there is so you tend to go for the cases that are generally the norm then handle the fringe by erring on the side of caution.

If anybody has a specific issue please do post in tech support and if possible please add your file showing the issue. This keeps us focused on the problem instead of trying to figure out from a bunch of forum posts that range from spot on to out in left field.

Finally. If possible please do lighten your tones. There is a lot of seemingly angry stuff and I don't think at this point its deserved. Our record shows that we respond to stuff without an internet beating or other deconstructive stuff. If you have a problem with that pm me directly.

Thanks

Mike