Suggestion - single unit airport

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah they need to better use terrain and get benefits from digging in etc. Lots to think about.

Is this something you guys would be willing to think out loud about? An operational-level wargame for ground forces is something I've been keen on for a very long time. I'd like to evolve past The Operational Art of War one day, and if anyone can be a catalyst for that, it'll be you guys.

[Jakob Wedman]

It's not that hard to make your own "single unit airport" by adding facilities at random and group into an airport.

[B52H]

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
There performance drawback isn't as obvious as it once was. New builds have lots of stuff in it to improve performance.
We have imports for most major airbases and airport now and its only a click or two more to add them.
Use the single unit bases for units that won't be hit.

Mike

Yep, true, already noticed increased performance, good work. Seriously, by the day, you guys, rock.

Might as well do what you suggest, "play" a little bit more and convert/tweak mission (as B52H also suggest) to better suit our/my need.
That also includes a little bit wet-work by scen edit , ah well, nothing comes easy. So darn true

Seriously, need for vulnerable single unit airbase actually came in a need to convert some scenarios to whole different story but
without too much hassle. (add new airbase, transfer squadrons, delete old one, tweak some settings...)
--which by the way could be a little simplified in the future

And to play scenario designed for one way, in a whole different style, what if "scenario". Which CMANO mostly it is, possibilities are
almost endless, even if designers choice is "It is meant to be played" , but that CMANO isn't . Right?
There is goal in mission, how to reach it is matter of, "style"?
I guess we'll agree all along.
Thanks

ORIGINAL: B52H
In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Hehe, neverending story. But seriosly, dude, you gave nato side 4 patriots, and RedRuskies have ~40xSa-10's. Mmmm a little bit unrealistic.
Played it through carefully like a long distance chess match, 3 days, lots of casualties both sides.

That is the problem with good mission design all along, "decoration".
You must know your tools before using them, and only one way to find out how to use them, is by using them.
Nevertheless, even yet incomplete, but, good scenario, tough one, reminds on "holy grail:)" - "Red Storm Rising".
Cheers

Thanks for the feedback. On future scenarios, I will incorporate many more SAMs on the NATO side. I am still a bit of a newbie to scenario design so would you mind describing how I could make my scenario become more "complete?"

B52H

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah they need to better use terrain and get benefits from digging in etc. Lots to think about.

Is this something you guys would be willing to think out loud about? An operational-level wargame for ground forces is something I've been keen on for a very long time. I'd like to evolve past The Operational Art of War one day, and if anyone can be a catalyst for that, it'll be you guys.

Yeah we'll probably do a beta announcement ahead of it but it could be a ways off.

Mike

[zaytsev]

ORIGINAL: Jakob Wedman

It's not that hard to make your own "single unit airport" by adding facilities at random and group into an airport.

It is not hard at all, but is also flawed attempt.
Seriously reducing airbase capabilities, bare minimum of units. eg. 1 runway, 1 taxiway, 1 runway acc.point;. definitely ends up in premature destroying it
and kicking it out of business. But it is good approach for just an airstrip. They aren't complex so much.
Otoh, I have to agree that single-units airbase are also flawed, really, as pointed by devs, bad damage modeling, and the need for them was here from start
because of performance issues, 1000+ units, but really they simulate medium complex airbase in a single unit.

But. nvm, all that again, all story short performance really increases with recent builds, so the need for that darn single-airbases is gonna be really
just for where really needed.

In a meantime, I've did similar what you've suggested, I've made my own templates of airbases different sizes, time to close that case for good

Cheers

ORIGINAL: B52H
Thanks for the feedback. On future scenarios, I will incorporate many more SAMs on the NATO side. I am still a bit of a newbie to scenario design so would you mind describing how I could make my scenario become more "complete?"

B52H

You're welcome, I just wasn't sure was that intended, to cripple Nato side with few sam's.
Oh, And I suck at scen design too, still getting grip on lua, so cant be much of help in this I'm afraid.
Ah, "complete", well maybe poor choice of words for a non-english native, what I meant is, for a good scenario design you have to understand game/simulator mechanics
and unit behavior, and of course, limitations, so you don't end up in lots of decoration, eg. 10 squadrons of Tornado's with anti-runway weapons and no valid
targets for them, and no option of reusing them in different way cause magazines are empty. But that is just trivial. Try and error.

Real stuff comes with mission planning, event and area triggers that are a must for a good scenario story, you know, how to say surprise, sudden twist, witty things like that, but not like "out of nowhere", unrealistic.
Things that, if caught you in the "open", unprepared, makes you to smash your computer and leave it off for entire day .
Just be yourself.

Cheers