[1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Moderator: MOD_Command
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
[1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Using as test scenario the MDSP Tutorial 4 it appears that a 4 plane strike flight will have all planes releasing their payload when the pattern is "Formation Single Aim" (with "off axis attack" off or on), while with all other variations (multi axis stacked - single axis stacked) only one or two planes will release. Try for yourself.
PS. Looking at the flight patterns, I don't get the difference among the various mulit/single axis stacked variations in terms of how the planes attack the target. The pattern is more or less the same.
PS. Looking at the flight patterns, I don't get the difference among the various mulit/single axis stacked variations in terms of how the planes attack the target. The pattern is more or less the same.
Last edited by Knightpawn on Wed Aug 27, 2025 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Some conclusions on strike behavior
My observations:
I have done very little with formations as they don't seem to be consistent in their performance.
Single planes delivering all of their ordinance on one target seems to work fine. Single planes attacking multiple targets occasionally seem to work well, as long as the ordinance is equally distributed (i.e. two bombs her and two bombs there.) If you have four bombs and three targets, the program doesn't know what to do, and it may drop everything on the first target, and then RTB. Who knows?
Multiple planes attacking single targets seem to work okay, but not always. (If you really want it done properly, with this build, you need to launch single planes with individual missions. Otherwise, the lead plane may drop its ordinance, and the rest fly home with their bombs still on-board. This can be problematic because the unspent bombs are heavy, and that can result in refueling issues. I believe that they said that they were working on it, but it didn't make it into the release, or the new beta.)
Multiple planes attacking multiple targets is a crap shoot. It could work, or not at all. You could have one attack, and three returning to base without dropping anything. Se above reference fuel.
All of this is frustrating because you can't really create any scenarios until the issue is resolved as the new build will likely change everything when it starts working properly.
And, this doesn't even cover the issues associated with air-to-air refueling. That can also be very problematic, unless it involves just a single plane.
I believe that the best bet is to just wait until the devs fix these things and post them in a new beta or a new release.
I have done very little with formations as they don't seem to be consistent in their performance.
Single planes delivering all of their ordinance on one target seems to work fine. Single planes attacking multiple targets occasionally seem to work well, as long as the ordinance is equally distributed (i.e. two bombs her and two bombs there.) If you have four bombs and three targets, the program doesn't know what to do, and it may drop everything on the first target, and then RTB. Who knows?
Multiple planes attacking single targets seem to work okay, but not always. (If you really want it done properly, with this build, you need to launch single planes with individual missions. Otherwise, the lead plane may drop its ordinance, and the rest fly home with their bombs still on-board. This can be problematic because the unspent bombs are heavy, and that can result in refueling issues. I believe that they said that they were working on it, but it didn't make it into the release, or the new beta.)
Multiple planes attacking multiple targets is a crap shoot. It could work, or not at all. You could have one attack, and three returning to base without dropping anything. Se above reference fuel.
All of this is frustrating because you can't really create any scenarios until the issue is resolved as the new build will likely change everything when it starts working properly.
And, this doesn't even cover the issues associated with air-to-air refueling. That can also be very problematic, unless it involves just a single plane.
I believe that the best bet is to just wait until the devs fix these things and post them in a new beta or a new release.
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
I did plenty of strike testing too. And my conclusion was similar. But I got the impression that attacking multiple isolated targets with a single strike mission is not even intended in the first place. I think the ability to add multiple strike targets exist so that you could ensure that a couple of targets are hit in the same area, but nothing more. E.g. two tanks standing together.
If you need dynamic behavior, patrol missions seem the way to go.
And in practice it's hit hardened\high value targets with strikes and then finish up with a couple of patrols.
If you need dynamic behavior, patrol missions seem the way to go.
And in practice it's hit hardened\high value targets with strikes and then finish up with a couple of patrols.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:01 pm
- Location: Milan, Italy
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Thanks for the explanations.
I made some test with those result so far. https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=412667
Tried to use Formation Singly Aim with no success (1 flight, 4 planes, one target).
I'm not sure if I need to redo the flight plan (create or update the flightplan) after changing the attack method in the mission editor window.
Francesco
I made some test with those result so far. https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=412667
Tried to use Formation Singly Aim with no success (1 flight, 4 planes, one target).
I'm not sure if I need to redo the flight plan (create or update the flightplan) after changing the attack method in the mission editor window.
Francesco
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Yes, you do need to recreate flight plan, because different formations result in visually distinct flight plans. You should be able to see the difference.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
I agreed that strike missions do not work well for multiple targets. I have no issue with that. This test was specifically on a single target with a flight of 4. The issue that I try to understand is under what circumstances some a/cs will not drop all their payload and why.sg2002 wrote: Wed Aug 27, 2025 10:43 pm I did plenty of strike testing too. And my conclusion was similar. But I got the impression that attacking multiple isolated targets with a single strike mission is not even intended in the first place. I think the ability to add multiple strike targets exist so that you could ensure that a couple of targets are hit in the same area, but nothing more. E.g. two tanks standing together.
If you need dynamic behavior, patrol missions seem the way to go.
And in practice it's hit hardened\high value targets with strikes and then finish up with a couple of patrols.
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Ok the only time I saw not all weapons launch was when I used a long separation, and the first bomber's weapons killed the unit before bomb release with later aircraft. Knightspawn is this your experience? If so this is WAD.
Somebody asked this, but when you make a change, are you hitting the Update Flight Plan button? You must do this for the plan to use your new setting. The plans do visibly change, including the differences you may not be seeing. Move the mission planner over so you can see it.
M
Somebody asked this, but when you make a change, are you hitting the Update Flight Plan button? You must do this for the plan to use your new setting. The plans do visibly change, including the differences you may not be seeing. Move the mission planner over so you can see it.
M
Last edited by BDukes on Thu Aug 28, 2025 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't call it a comeback...
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
I agreed that strike missions do not work well for multiple targets. I have no issue with that. This test was specifically on a single target with a flight of 4. The issue that I try to understand is under what circumstances some a/cs will not drop all their payload and why.
Here's something to check out:
1.) Create your group of four and assign a mission whereby they are all designated to strike the same target, regardless of formation.
2.) All of the planes in the group launch and form up, but only the LEADER shows as be heading for the next waypoint. The other 3 planes are listed as HOLDING at Waypoint 2 (or Waypoint 3, I've forgotten).
3.) If that is the case, then you don't need to go any further with the test. The other three will follow the LEADER, but because they still show as being "Heading for Waypoint 3, even though they have passed it by, they will never drop their ordinance.
4.) The LEADER will strike, and the rest will fire, but never launch.
See if this is what you are experiencing.
Here's something to check out:
1.) Create your group of four and assign a mission whereby they are all designated to strike the same target, regardless of formation.
2.) All of the planes in the group launch and form up, but only the LEADER shows as be heading for the next waypoint. The other 3 planes are listed as HOLDING at Waypoint 2 (or Waypoint 3, I've forgotten).
3.) If that is the case, then you don't need to go any further with the test. The other three will follow the LEADER, but because they still show as being "Heading for Waypoint 3, even though they have passed it by, they will never drop their ordinance.
4.) The LEADER will strike, and the rest will fire, but never launch.
See if this is what you are experiencing.
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Yes I can confirm the different waypoint thing, and the aircraft twirl to correct at each waypoint. Something is definitely up. File added.DWReese wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2025 12:02 am I agreed that strike missions do not work well for multiple targets. I have no issue with that. This test was specifically on a single target with a flight of 4. The issue that I try to understand is under what circumstances some a/cs will not drop all their payload and why.
Here's something to check out:
1.) Create your group of four and assign a mission whereby they are all designated to strike the same target, regardless of formation.
2.) All of the planes in the group launch and form up, but only the LEADER shows as be heading for the next waypoint. The other 3 planes are listed as HOLDING at Waypoint 2 (or Waypoint 3, I've forgotten).
3.) If that is the case, then you don't need to go any further with the test. The other three will follow the LEADER, but because they still show as being "Heading for Waypoint 3, even though they have passed it by, they will never drop their ordinance.
4.) The LEADER will strike, and the rest will fire, but never launch.
See if this is what you are experiencing.
Mike
- Attachments
-
- UnfollowtheLeader.zip
- (23.47 KiB) Downloaded 2 times
Don't call it a comeback...
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
The target in the test has 100,000 damage points, it cannot be "killed". I have tried short separations at your suggestion and still only single formation ensures release of full payload from all 4 flight members.BDukes wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2025 12:01 am Ok the only time I saw not all weapons launch was when I used a long separation, and the first bomber's weapons killed the unit before bomb release with later aircraft. Knightspawn is this your experience? If so this is WAD.
Somebody asked this, but when you make a change, are you hitting the Update Flight Plan button? You must do this for the plan to use your new setting. The plans do visibly change, including the differences you may not be seeing. Move the mission planner over so you can see it.
M
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Ok thanks for taking a look. I can't replicate this, but it doesn't mean it isn't happening.Knightpawn wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2025 6:58 amThe target in the test has 100,000 damage points, it cannot be "killed". I have tried short separations at your suggestion and still only single formation ensures release of full payload from all 4 flight members.BDukes wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2025 12:01 am Ok the only time I saw not all weapons launch was when I used a long separation, and the first bomber's weapons killed the unit before bomb release with later aircraft. Knightspawn is this your experience? If so this is WAD.
Somebody asked this, but when you make a change, are you hitting the Update Flight Plan button? You must do this for the plan to use your new setting. The plans do visibly change, including the differences you may not be seeing. Move the mission planner over so you can see it.
M
If a dev digs in and can't replicate. I'd suggest taking a short video using the snipping tool.
Thanks!
M
Don't call it a comeback...
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Here is a video (zip too large to post as attachment, so I give a cloud link)
https://1drv.ms/u/c/6dc2f61afdb60203/EV ... A?e=TEzEMI
How do I convert videos to gifs as, for example, Nikel does?
https://1drv.ms/u/c/6dc2f61afdb60203/EV ... A?e=TEzEMI
How do I convert videos to gifs as, for example, Nikel does?
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
I use this software.
https://www.screentogif.com/
The animated gifs may be huge so adjust the size of the recording window to the zone of interest.
https://www.screentogif.com/
The animated gifs may be huge so adjust the size of the recording window to the zone of interest.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Thanks. Much appreciatedNikel wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2025 7:34 pm I use this software.
https://www.screentogif.com/
The animated gifs may be huge so adjust the size of the recording window to the zone of interest.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:01 pm
- Location: Milan, Italy
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Thanks for the detailed video!
I tried a similar scenario with iron bombs, just to check.
One strike mission > One flight > 4 planes > only one target for all
It didn't work, only one plane released the bomb, the other 3 kept them
Save attached file
Francesco
I tried a similar scenario with iron bombs, just to check.
One strike mission > One flight > 4 planes > only one target for all
It didn't work, only one plane released the bomb, the other 3 kept them
Save attached file
Francesco
- Attachments
-
- MDSP Tutorial 5 - Advanced Flightplan Management 1.zip
- (31.01 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:28 pm
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Do not ask me why but with irons "Single aim" only leader drops the ordinance (EDIT it is not a formation issue as the behavior is the same when the flight is in perfect column formation).giantsquid wrote: Fri Aug 29, 2025 4:24 pm Thanks for the detailed video!
I tried a similar scenario with iron bombs, just to check.
One strike mission > One flight > 4 planes > only one target for all
It didn't work, only one plane released the bomb, the other 3 kept them
Save attached file
Francesco
However Single Axis staked works!
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:01 pm
- Location: Milan, Italy
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Thank you, I confirm it works properly.
With the Single Axis Stacked Attack method, all four planes released their iron bombs (see save).
This seems to be the only method that allows more than one aircraft in a flight to release iron bombs on a target.
If I have multiple targets for a flight or a single aircraft with standoff weapons, I still use a strike mission with flight plans. However, I set the planes on weapons hold and assign wepons manually to individual targets, because the current system seems even more confused when asked to engage more than one ground target with a single flight of multiple planes.
With the Single Axis Stacked Attack method, all four planes released their iron bombs (see save).
This seems to be the only method that allows more than one aircraft in a flight to release iron bombs on a target.
If I have multiple targets for a flight or a single aircraft with standoff weapons, I still use a strike mission with flight plans. However, I set the planes on weapons hold and assign wepons manually to individual targets, because the current system seems even more confused when asked to engage more than one ground target with a single flight of multiple planes.
- Attachments
-
- MDSP Tutorial 4 - Attack Methods & Basic Flightplan Management_test_1.zip
- (38.46 KiB) Downloaded 2 times
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Just a reminder:
So if you want to report something related to this discussion, open a new thread with a specific save and description of the issue.4. Always create a new thread on this forum for your issue. Don't add your report to an existing thread even if the OP there looks 100% identical to your own. If you wish to report multiple potential issues then please create one thread for each issue, even if these were observed on the same game session.
Piling multiple issues on a single thread makes it much more difficult for the devs to keep track of what is resolved and what is still pending. This means less time & energy for the devs to resolve your issue.
Re: [1706] Some conclusions on strike behavior
Sure. Thanks!blu3s wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:57 am Just a reminder:
So if you want to report something related to this discussion, open a new thread with a specific save and description of the issue.4. Always create a new thread on this forum for your issue. Don't add your report to an existing thread even if the OP there looks 100% identical to your own. If you wish to report multiple potential issues then please create one thread for each issue, even if these were observed on the same game session.
Piling multiple issues on a single thread makes it much more difficult for the devs to keep track of what is resolved and what is still pending. This means less time & energy for the devs to resolve your issue.
M
Don't call it a comeback...