RTB And Attack Orders
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
It is quite clear how the RTB function works and I am happy with it.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
ORIGINAL: Lionheart
It is quite clear how the RTB function works and I am happy with it.
Agree.
I'm ok with warnings if you can turn them off. It ok for players to make mistake and fail if they make bad decision.
Don't call it a comeback...
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
It is quite clear how the RTB function works and I am happy with it.
So, how do you make it fair for the AI side when their strike is returning to base, and you are able to get directly behind them and shoot at them with your guns, when you know that they aren't going to turn around and shoot you with their MISSILES? It should be fair for both sides
If they still have missiles, and they aren't defending themselves and you only have guns, then to me that doesn't make any sense.
I don't care how low on fuel you are (in fact, maybe you are just an Escort and you AREN'T low on fuel at all), but if an enemy is shooting at you as you fly home then the best strategy seems to be to shoot back as opposed to waiting until he runs out of ammo.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
I have never used escorts in an AI mission. I always use separate patrol missions and sometimes a little Lua to get them to do what needs to get done. Never really had an issue with it. Its completely doable and not one of the hardest things to do in CMO. Have been a little surprised with so many people having issues.
I rarely use them in my missions when I control them. Again, I use seperate missions with events, ROE, and zones. If I can't pay attention in a large scenario, I'll use an event with a lua function to change ROEs and such to make them more aggressive on the return leg.
I rarely use them in my missions when I control them. Again, I use seperate missions with events, ROE, and zones. If I can't pay attention in a large scenario, I'll use an event with a lua function to change ROEs and such to make them more aggressive on the return leg.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
For those who have never used ESCORTS with their strike missions, I can tell you that they work GREAT. Whether it's fighters that you are sending to protect the strikers, or OECM aircraft, or HARM-armed aircraft as ESCORTS, they work perfectly. They stay right with the strikers. The fighters will break away to attack any enemy fighters, as they should, and then they form up and stay with the striker all the way home. I am SO IMPRESSED with the ESCORTS.
The ONLY THING that the ESCORTS do wrong (not that you could really say WRONG) is that after the strike, the ESCORTS continue along with their striker all the way home. That's great, as long as no one is shooting at you. It seems that as soon as the striker starts on its homeward path, the ESCORT seems to just be along for the ride. It doesn't happen that often, so it probably isn't that big of a deal. But, when it does happen, and they are suddenly being followed by inferior aircraft (even when fuel is not an issue) and the ESCORTS just proceed along their same path without fighting back, it becomes very frustrating.
Nonetheless, I would HIGH RECOMMEND using ESCORTS with your strikes. This works so well.
One last thing. the strikers, fighters, and OECM aircraft all know to stay in a tight formation on the way to the target. The OECM aircraft blocks the enemy radar and it works perfectly. It's very impressive. GREAT JOB, guys!
Doug
The ONLY THING that the ESCORTS do wrong (not that you could really say WRONG) is that after the strike, the ESCORTS continue along with their striker all the way home. That's great, as long as no one is shooting at you. It seems that as soon as the striker starts on its homeward path, the ESCORT seems to just be along for the ride. It doesn't happen that often, so it probably isn't that big of a deal. But, when it does happen, and they are suddenly being followed by inferior aircraft (even when fuel is not an issue) and the ESCORTS just proceed along their same path without fighting back, it becomes very frustrating.
Nonetheless, I would HIGH RECOMMEND using ESCORTS with your strikes. This works so well.
One last thing. the strikers, fighters, and OECM aircraft all know to stay in a tight formation on the way to the target. The OECM aircraft blocks the enemy radar and it works perfectly. It's very impressive. GREAT JOB, guys!
Doug
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
Integrated escort works relatively well in simpler environments or under human supervision. But when you get into complex environments of heavy jamming, modern integrated defense networks, peer or greater-level large potential CAP, I start to use more escort missions that, while indirectly connected to the strike missions, work independently for maximum flexibility on ingress, engagement, and egress.
The short of it that in more complex scenarios, one-size-fits-all mission planning is not the optimum solution. Its why some people want the AMP. Theoretically, the AMP will let you plan each individual component within the plan for its own mission, but all linked to the ultimate plan. Current mission planning that includes strike, tanker, and escort is a very generic and rigid approach to mission planning.
The thing that is great about CMO is that its a game that gives you back what you put into it. If you skimp on planning, you'll find all kinds of issues that some perceive as game issues. But the game gives you the tools you need beyond anyone's expectations 7-8 years ago. If you want to jump into action immediately, you'll get what you planned for.
Its also why I think that the AMP is some amorphous ideal that has expectations around it that it is some magic button you hit to plan complex missions. I think the people calling most passionately for some kind of AMP are going to be sorely disappointed no matter how much effort the devs put into it. In large scenarios, there is still going to have to be a s**t-ton of work put into OOB planning and adjusting missions paths, ROEs, ordinance plans, recon plans, intelligence reviews, tanker management, etc. That will not get done magically. Will it be easier to get a baseline to work with...probably. But if you aren't putting in the planning work today for these big complex scenarios that some people like, the AMP won't change that.
The short of it that in more complex scenarios, one-size-fits-all mission planning is not the optimum solution. Its why some people want the AMP. Theoretically, the AMP will let you plan each individual component within the plan for its own mission, but all linked to the ultimate plan. Current mission planning that includes strike, tanker, and escort is a very generic and rigid approach to mission planning.
The thing that is great about CMO is that its a game that gives you back what you put into it. If you skimp on planning, you'll find all kinds of issues that some perceive as game issues. But the game gives you the tools you need beyond anyone's expectations 7-8 years ago. If you want to jump into action immediately, you'll get what you planned for.
Its also why I think that the AMP is some amorphous ideal that has expectations around it that it is some magic button you hit to plan complex missions. I think the people calling most passionately for some kind of AMP are going to be sorely disappointed no matter how much effort the devs put into it. In large scenarios, there is still going to have to be a s**t-ton of work put into OOB planning and adjusting missions paths, ROEs, ordinance plans, recon plans, intelligence reviews, tanker management, etc. That will not get done magically. Will it be easier to get a baseline to work with...probably. But if you aren't putting in the planning work today for these big complex scenarios that some people like, the AMP won't change that.
-
guanotwozero
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:53 am
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
Ah, but there are also those of us who feel that spreadsheets don't allow enough detail, who want to painstakingly plan 47 different but interlocking sub-missions carefully choreographed to maximise assets while still allowing for a range of eventualities. Those of us who might spend more time planning our missions than actually carrying them out in real time.ORIGINAL: thewood1
Its also why I think that the AMP is some amorphous ideal that has expectations around it that it is some magic button you hit to plan complex missions. I think the people calling most passionately for some kind of AMP are going to be sorely disappointed no matter how much effort the devs put into it. In large scenarios, there is still going to have to be a s**t-ton of work put into OOB planning and adjusting missions paths, ROEs, ordinance plans, recon plans, intelligence reviews, tanker management, etc. That will not get done magically. Will it be easier to get a baseline to work with...probably. But if you aren't putting in the planning work today for these big complex scenarios that some people like, the AMP won't change that.
You're right - it wouldn't be a simple one-click solution for those who want it all on a plate, but it could be a powerful bespoke toolset to satisfy the bean-counters and wannabe arch-strategist backroom boys.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
I'm not saying it won't help in large complex missions. And I use spreadsheets on some of those scenarios also. My point is that there are people I see on the AMP bandwagon who I don't think really understand what it is and think its some setting that automatically sets up all your missions for you.
My other point is that no matter how simple the AMP feature makes mission planning, it will not be simple to use nor provide turnkey mission planning. We will end up with the same discussions we have today about it not doing this or that and then it will become a fruitless suck on dev resources.
My other point is that no matter how simple the AMP feature makes mission planning, it will not be simple to use nor provide turnkey mission planning. We will end up with the same discussions we have today about it not doing this or that and then it will become a fruitless suck on dev resources.
-
guanotwozero
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:53 am
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
Yep, it's inevitable that there will be a zillion posts asking for some feature to be added. Which may be one of the reasons it's off the discussion board atm, while they figure out what the paying customers want it to do without any distractions from us retail people. A fait accompli would be much more manageable.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
If you would like to see "AMP" (or its predecessor) in action, take a look at LIVE: Operation Broken Shield 300 scenario. It is the only scenario that I know of that makes use of this "method."
Start it from the Syrian side, but then switch over to the Israeli side. Don't do anything. Just watch. You will see the entire Israeli PLANNED attack, complete with re-fueling, etc. It is ALL planned. The attack times are calculated so that all of the attacks occur at the same time. It EXTREMELY coordinated, and it works great.
It is a VERY UNIQUE scenario, indeed.
A glimpse of things to come, perhaps?
Doug
Start it from the Syrian side, but then switch over to the Israeli side. Don't do anything. Just watch. You will see the entire Israeli PLANNED attack, complete with re-fueling, etc. It is ALL planned. The attack times are calculated so that all of the attacks occur at the same time. It EXTREMELY coordinated, and it works great.
It is a VERY UNIQUE scenario, indeed.
A glimpse of things to come, perhaps?
Doug
-
guanotwozero
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:53 am
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
Thanks, that's got my attention! I've just realised I don't have that Live episode, so I'd better change that...
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
But AMP won't do all of that for you. The scenario designer and player are still going to have a lot of coordination to do.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
A warning message: RTB (Cause = Bingo fuel), are you sure?
I got the same problem with the AI NOT acknowledging what I wanted them to do... (I knew they were low on fuel). It's easier to understand why a plane crashes after giving such order (no fuel) than searching through menues/options to change the doctrine to whatever and spend too much time figuring out what to choose. Such behaviour-limitations should be optional.
I got the same problem with the AI NOT acknowledging what I wanted them to do... (I knew they were low on fuel). It's easier to understand why a plane crashes after giving such order (no fuel) than searching through menues/options to change the doctrine to whatever and spend too much time figuring out what to choose. Such behaviour-limitations should be optional.
RE: RTB And Attack Orders
I would rather see an doctrine option to allow units with other orders, such as RTB, or refuel, to prioritize air to air engagements with enemies within some range. For example if you have some F/A units on a strike mission and they still have AMRAAMs left after the strike, and some enemy aircraft approach, they will not engage since they are on RTB, they end up sitting ducks. If they checked within some reasonable distance, perhaps the longest use in self defense WRA for any AA weapon they have, for enemy targets, and engaged automatically it would help not just the player side, but the AI side also.