[FIXED] Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Post Reply
rmeckman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:57 pm
Location: Idaho

[FIXED] Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by rmeckman »

I’ve been mostly playing WitP AE recently but decided to take a break and revisit CMO with the new strike planner. My prior experience with CMO strike missions was that aircraft strikes often required a lot of micromanagement near the target. I was interested to see how the new strike planner may have changed this. To test out the planner (CMO v1.05 1307.3), I picked the Dawn Strike 1950 scenario mainly to see how CMO represents some of the same ships and aircraft that appear in WitP AE. This means the strikes are with short-range rockets and bombs.

My early experience with the new strike planner is that it works pretty well up to when the lead aircraft in a formation reaches the Initial Point (IP). Between the IP and the first Turning Point (Egress) after the target, however, CMO still introduces a number of unexpected flightplan deviations that frequently require player intervention. To illustrate this, I’ve attached a save from the Dawn Strike scenario in which flight Bat21 with four Fireflies is about to reach its IP (waypoint 7) for a trail-attack strike on Haeju airfield with rockets. In the Flightplan Editor, all four aircraft are set to Military speed and 500 ft AGL at both the IP and the Target. At the first Turning Point (Egress)---waypoint 9---, they are all set to cruise and 4000 ft ASL.

Assuming the lead aircraft isn’t shot down by AAA (which causes another set of problems that I won’t address here), the Bat21 strike consistently shows three kinds of flightplan deviations that are common to many strikes I’ve set up in the new Flightplan Editor:
  • As pointed out here, only the lead aircraft obeys the set flightplan altitude at the IP. When the other three aircraft reach the IP, they default back to a different altitude based on the loadout. This is not so significant with the Bat21 rockets (500 vs 300 ft AGL) but in another strike with AD-4B Skyraiders, the loadout default altitude is 650 ft AGL even though the loadout includes a mixture of M47 napalm (800 ft AGL minimum) and M57 250 lb bombs (650 ft AGL minimum); the lead AD-4B follows the flightplan altitude of 1000 ft AGL and is able to drop all its bombs, but the other aircraft in the formation approach the target at 650 ft AGL and are unable to drop the napalm.
  • Once the lead Firefly reaches egress waypoint 9, all four aircraft are immediately set to the cruise speed and 4000 ft ASL altitude assigned to that waypoint in the Flightplan Editor. Two of the following aircraft are still on their approach to the target, and the last aircraft has not even reached the IP, yet they all have backed off to cruise speed and started climbing to 4000 ft ASL. This continues until the three following aircraft reach their next waypoint (either the IP or Target).
  • Rather than continuing on their way along the flightplan and leaving the AAA threat behind them, the first aircraft reaching egress waypoint 9 decide to go into a holding pattern and wait for the others to catch up. This puts them at increased risk from the nearby AAA. Often, this first egress point is placed to avoid known threats or to take advantage of terrain masking, so having the aircraft go into a holding pattern at this waypoint is not generally a good idea.
Many of the strikes I have set up using the new Flightplan Editor are bedeviled by some combination of these three issues, requiring me to manually intervene to avoid unnecessary risks or failures to launch weapons. Perhaps these issues are not so relevant in more modern scenarios with stand-off weapons, or maybe there are settings that I haven’t found that fix all of them. Overall, I think addressing them would go a long way towards reducing player micromanagement of strikes.
Attachments
DawnStrike2240.7z
(904.5 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
Wargamer77
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:12 pm

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by Wargamer77 »

There seems to be a bug of which many settings (altitude, WRA etc) only affects the leading aircraft. In many instances, I find the leading aircraft fires weapons but the rest of flight doesn’t, and in fact keeps flying to the target even though they have stand off weapons.

Hope they fix this soon…
User avatar
Deserere
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:15 pm

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by Deserere »

Hi rmeckman, thanks for the detailed explanation of the issue.
We are working on a fix on point 1 and 2 (see attached picture).
As per point number 3 the Egress point distance is created at a default distance from the target and can be fully re positioned by the user to answer to any need. Dynamically positioning of the Egress point with regards of the target type and assumed capability of every possible SAM enemy unit at an arbitraty distance from the target is not implemented at the current state.
Attachments
altitude ok ok.png
altitude ok ok.png (242.09 KiB) Viewed 1192 times
Si Spiritus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
rmeckman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:57 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by rmeckman »

Deserere, thanks for your reply. I'm very impressed by the CMO team's efforts given the complexity of what the game is simulating. The third point in my original post is not related to creating an algorithm that automatically places egress (or ingress) waypoints based on known SAM or AAA threats. Leaving it up to the player to place waypoints based on threats, terrain masking, or other considerations is a fine way to go.

Point 3 is actually related to the aircraft formation's decision to go into a holding pattern at the first egress point after the target. A check is apparently done at certain waypoints (mainly turning points, perhaps others) to determine whether a formation has become too ragged or spread-out by some criteria. If this check decides the formation needs to be tightened up, some of the aircraft make 90 degree turns off the flight path and enter holding patterns waiting for others to catch up. Players have no control over where these holding aircraft end up. Having aircraft enter such holding patterns is generally not a problem at waypoints far from danger but can be disastrous at critical waypoints near the target, with the first egress point after the target being a common example.

My third point was really about having a way for the player to prevent formations from entering these holding patterns at certain turning points where it clearly will lead to problems, such as holding aircraft flying towards known surface threats or flying away from terrain that is masking them from opposing radars. Perhaps there is already a way to prevent this that I am not aware of.
rmeckman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:57 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by rmeckman »

I just realized that the image attached by Deserere shows the problem outlined in point 3 of the OP. The first aircraft in the formation reached the first egress point (# 9) at the lower right corner and then did a 90 degree turn to the right to wait for the others. It is now well off the planned path. Relatively harmless in this case unless the aircraft continues a right turn back towards the target.
Attachments
holding.png
holding.png (144.38 KiB) Viewed 1121 times
Saxham358
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 6:22 pm

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by Saxham358 »

I don't know whether this is relevant to the issue mentioned here, but I've noticed some odd behaviour if the "Use pre-generated flightplans only..." box on the Mission Settings tab of the Mission Editor is left unchecked. (Unchecked is the default setting).

The main problem I noticed was that, with the box unchecked, flights ignored instructions to vary their throttle setting to ensure arriving at waypoints on time, on one of the MDSP scenarios I ran, strikes were coming in anything up to 15 minutes early. Checking the "Use pre-generated flightplans only..." box resulted in much better timekeeping (within a few seconds).
MDSP Image.png
MDSP Image.png (93.43 KiB) Viewed 1020 times
rmeckman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:57 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by rmeckman »

Saxham358 wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 5:09 pm I don't know whether this is relevant to the issue mentioned here, but I've noticed some odd behaviour if the "Use pre-generated flightplans only..." box on the Mission Settings tab of the Mission Editor is left unchecked. (Unchecked is the default setting).
It may be relevant if checking that box results in the strike aircraft keeping in formation better, so that they are less likely to go into regrouping mode at certain waypoints and deviate from the flight plan. I assumed that check box is mainly related to the Operations Planner, since the description of that setting in the revised manual mentions the AI generating a flightplan when a mission is triggered. When not using the Operations Planner, strike aircraft use the waypoints set up in the Flightplan Editor whether the box is checked or not, but it sounds like that box may be affecting other aspects of the strike.
User avatar
Deserere
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:15 pm

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by Deserere »

rmeckman wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:50 pm I just realized that the image attached by Deserere shows the problem outlined in point 3 of the OP. The first aircraft in the formation reached the first egress point (# 9) at the lower right corner and then did a 90 degree turn to the right to wait for the others. It is now well off the planned path. Relatively harmless in this case unless the aircraft continues a right turn back towards the target.
Jokes aside, that's value in your request, that will be discussed in the dev team, it may be a useful setting to implements.

also thanks for your words of appreciation
Attachments
I want to break free.png
I want to break free.png (1.08 MiB) Viewed 941 times
Si Spiritus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
User avatar
Deserere
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:15 pm

Re: Early Experience with the New Strike Planner

Post by Deserere »

A fix for points 1 & 2 will be release with the next update, do let me know if any issue persists.
Thanks
Si Spiritus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”