[FIXED] How to prevent wingman from speeding ahead to enemy air?

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
That's correct. To put it simply: how do I get both of my aircraft in a group to fire missiles, maintain the same speed as each other, and both crank and drag?

Just an FYI, one of the things CMO/CMANO gets massively wrong is fighters flying in essentially fingertip formation all the time. Depending on a variety of factors, it's probably wiser to spread them out A LOT more than is commonly done. One of the purposes of spreading the aircraft out is to avoid more than one aircraft being in the bad guy's WEZ at any time. Given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors, mutual support can be maintained at much more extended distances, so it's not necessary for an element of aircraft to be so close as it's portrayed in CMO/CMANO by default. If you spread them out, you'll find you achieve a more realistic result than what you're describing.

+1
I rarely sent out fighters in group to fight an air battle in CMO.
I have seen a lot of this: couple ARH missiles aimed at the flight leader. The flight leader and the rest of the members evade in a tight formation. The first missile hit the flight leader, then the rest missiles chase the rest of the flight group members took them out of sky one by one.

[boogabooga]

I’m going to take a little risk and weigh in on this one…

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
maverick3320 : So basically, when any of the group is cranking/dragging (due to having fired a BVR missile), you want everyone else in the group to follow the same behavior even though they have not fired a weapon. Am I understanding it correctly ?

This hits the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. If the purpose of cranking is to maintain BVR, then that is pointless if part of the flight is charging to WVR anyway.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
What happens when only one of the aircraft is able to fire a missile? Does the entire group crank/drag even though only a single aircraft is firing?

Yes

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
Also: What happens when the lead has AMRAAMs (and thus can shoot immediately) but the wingman has only AIM-9s (and thus must actually close with the enemy more in order to fire) ?
One needs to consider the various cases of this predicament.

Not much to consider, IMHO. Entire flight stays together until BVR engagement is over (on their end at least), then can go WVR together…or bug out together.
If I want WVR ASAP, then I would use straight-in doctrine. If I want to stay BVR, then I use crank doctrine- and an overwhelming amount of the time I want my entire flight to stay BVR for as long as possible. The current setup leads to a situation that I almost never want: a forced WVR engagement with only part of my flight that is separated from the rest- a recipe for a defeat in detail. Consider if I am intercepting a much better dogfighter…

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Just an FYI, one of the things CMO/CMANO gets massively wrong is fighters flying in essentially fingertip formation all the time. Depending on a variety of factors, it's probably wiser to spread them out A LOT more than is commonly done. One of the purposes of spreading the aircraft out is to avoid more than one aircraft being in the bad guy's WEZ at any time. Given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors, mutual support can be maintained at much more extended distances, so it's not necessary for an element of aircraft to be so close as it's portrayed in CMO/CMANO by default. If you spread them out, you'll find you achieve a more realistic result than what you're describing.

Right, but the key phrase here is “given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors.” You are thinking about a superpower airforce on a 2020+ battlefield. Plenty of hobbyist Command is in within the scope of Mk1 eyeball and a radio. Historically, that leader-wingman element has been important. So sure, for super modern times model the aircraft as individuals to keep them spread out. When I am dealing with far less lethal assets, I group them together to concentrate firepower and increase cohesion.

[SeaQueen]

It depends on the tactics you're employing.

The other thing I'd recommend is if you're using ARH missiles, switch your doctrine setting to "Launch, crank and drag." Your missile might have a lower Pk, but the launch platform will be more survivable, in part because it avoids a furball and maintains distance better.

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Still though, that'd be lateral seperation, I cant think of many scenarios where you would want one aircraft out of a number, to charge ahead into a furball alone. At least none that arent highly specific.

[thewood1]

This is one of the reasons abstracting a little more might have been best for an operational level game

[SeaQueen]

Right, but the key phrase here is “given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors.” You are thinking about a superpower airforce on a 2020+ battlefield. Plenty of hobbyist Command is in within the scope of Mk1 eyeball and a radio. Historically, that leader-wingman element has been important. So sure, for super modern times model the aircraft as individuals to keep them spread out. When I am dealing with far less lethal assets, I group them together to concentrate firepower and increase cohesion.

Leader-wingman is still important. It's just that the distances are more spread out. Even in historical scenarios, you're not making the best use of your aircraft by having them piled on top of each other. You still want to spread them out, just not as far.

Flying fingertip is stressful. Your whole world is the plane you're following. Wingmen can't really maintain effective mutual support that way. A more loose, spread out formation (even just a mile or two) allows aircraft to maintain mutual support while at the same time making them less vulnerable because at any given moment fewer aircraft in the formation are likely to be detected and in an enemy's WEZ. That applies whether you're talking about the guns-only battles of MiG Alley or the heaters/guns/Sparrow fights over Hanoi. The trick is figuring out what the right formation is given the threat, the mission and your own capabilities. That's a tactical decision, which is what CMO/CMANO is all about. Leaving the default is both unrealistic and unwise. It's also neglecting a potentially important tool in your toolbox as the person planning the air battle.

[SeaQueen]

This is one of the reasons abstracting a little more might have been best for an operational level game

CMO/CMANO isn't a purely operational level game. It's more tactical. The things that are important in CMO/CMANO aren't important at the purely operational level.

That being said, it's important to realize that tactical, operational and strategic exist on a continuum. Certainly CMO/CMANO is MORE operational than a flight simulator for example. Indeed, it'd be possible to phrase a CMO/CMANO game plan in terms of something very similar to operational level products produced in the AOC, for the JFACC's approval. Specifically, in CMO/CMANO a good game plan probably looks very much like a notional Master Air Attack Plan (MAAP) approval briefing. The MAAP would be a precursor product to what becomes the ATO, SPINS, ACP, and all the rest of the operational level documents which get used by the more tactical level planners in the Mission Planning Cell (MPC).

That being said, it requires more attention to detail than the MAAP. One of the things that confuses people about CMO/CMANO is that the player doesn't correspond to a single person in the chain of command. They represent a whole committee of people. The decisions you're making might be made at the operational level by the JFACC, or it might be made by some member of his staff, or it might be made by an ABM, or a member of the MPC, the MSN CC, or the any of a number of people all the way down to the pilot, depending on what you're doing. That's one of the weird things about the game, that I think confuses people.

This whole post reflects purely American doctrine and probably something of our allies. The other side of the fence probably has a whole different way of thinking about things.

[thewood1]

My point stands. There are certain things you have the computing power to represent. This is a whole exercise in what-about-ism. For every attempt to "fix" an issue, there is always a "what about this" that's brought up.

As I've said in the past, digging deeper into every game situation just brings up another layer of detail that's needed. The game is getting to the point of not being consumable unless years are invested to learn it.

[SeaQueen]

I think the game has fallen short of the original vision of allowing missions to run "hands-off," for long periods of time if that's what you're thinking. I'm actually okay with that, because it occupies a different unique niche. That being said, a skilled player can still use missions as a tool for handling hundreds of aircraft. I use missions extensively in my game play, although sometimes not the way I think they were originally intended. I can run a complex strike package of 70-100 aircraft easy. I think of it as simulating a mission, not the whole war, or even a substantial fraction of it. It's a 12-24 hour vignette, maybe a few days tops, in some cases, but generally speaking narrower scope is better than more broad.

I think to operate on a purely operational level, you're right, a lot of things would need to be heavily abstracted or handled automatically. In a DCA mission, for example, you'd only care about the CAP being filled, not so much about whether or not their shot doctrine is right, or whether it's a head or a stern shot. That'd be assumed away or abstracted. The important question is whether you can supply enough missiles, gas and engines to the squadrons filling that CAP so that they don't have to laydown and the CAP can be filled 24/7. There would be little or no manual weapons firing. The game would be about scheduling, timing and logistics. The smallest ground unit would be something like a brigade or a regiment, not a platoon or a section. Kill chains would be heavily abstracted. Weaponeering would be automatic. You'd frequently be less interested in the individual loadouts of aircraft and whether the loadouts they had were able to do the job.

It'd be a completely different game, really. It'd be more about defeating a nation over the course of months, and less about defeating a task force or striking a target set. You'd be worried about operational and strategic centers of gravity. The problem with these kinds of games is that they tend to be dominated by logistics and geography. Technological questions tend to get washed out. Technology drives tactics, not operational art. Most gizmos won't be the difference between winning and losing the war, but they are often the difference between winning and losing the battle.

I think sometimes people who try to use CMO/CMANO on this kind of high operational level, instead of high tactical, end up making the mistake that the operational level of warfare is just lots and lots of tactical, when in fact it's a whole different set of problems, ones which CMO/CMANO really isn't well suited for modeling or understanding.

I don't think the game is not consumable, but it is a niche. The best players are often people with a lot of real life experience in the subject matter they're interested in. You need to have a pretty robust understanding of radar, for example, in order to plan things like electronic warfare adequately. It's the kind of game best played calculator in hand. When people start with the game, I always advise them to start small, and learn about a small family of platforms they're interested in before broadening out. It's not a game you can just pick up and not study.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: KungPao
+1
I rarely sent out fighters in group to fight an air battle in CMO.
I have seen a lot of this: couple ARH missiles aimed at the flight leader. The flight leader and the rest of the members evade in a tight formation. The first missile hit the flight leader, then the rest missiles chase the rest of the flight group members took them out of sky one by one.

I'll use groups for aircraft, but I'm a big fan of using the formation editor with them. Otherwise it'd be a pain to try to do things like fly a 4 ship wall of Eagles, for example. With the formation editor they will try to stay more or less in position. Over time I've gotten more creative with how I group aircraft (or not) and set up formations and mission start times to achieve my desired effect.

[SeaQueen]

IDK what the exact protocols are for wingmen IRL, but I highly doubt it involves flying 50nm off station to give the bogey a kiss while your flight-lead fires from behind you. My expectation would be that the wingman, having no authorization to engage, would remain at their station next to the cranking unit- as visible in the Fleet Formation window (F4).

It depends. There isn't one answer. In real life, the actual tactics employed are dictated in part by the enemy's weapons and their capabilities. From there on out it just becomes math and physics. Most likely the wingman WOULD NOT remain next to the cranking unit. That just puts two aircraft in the enemy's WEZ potentially, and makes it very difficult to maintain mutual support because it doesn't make the best use of the sensors on two aircraft (including their eyes). They'd most likely be spread out more, in a "Wall of Eagles" formation, for example, but it could be others as well. There isn't one solution.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -mig-kills

The whole point of the "cranking and dragging" is to remain outside the enemy's F-Pole distance. Do you happen to know what the enemy's F-pole distances are given a few scenarios (e.g. high aspect, stern)? That might give you a clue about how to keep aircraft out of danger. Movies portray the distances between aircraft as WAY too close. It looks good on film, but it's not how things work in real life. Don't take movies as inspiration for your tactics. CMO will punish you for that.

Also, part of the problem is that CMO overstates the kinematic capabilities of missiles; they go too fast, for too long. While many missiles top out at Mach 4, they don't stay that fast for very long. Their rockets burn out in just a few seconds and they glide the rest of the way with all the aerodynamic limitations that implies. Some missiles are range limited by self destruction, but not all of them. Others just start to tumble aerodynamically, lose control of themselves, stall, fall out of the sky and crash. It depends on the missile.

[ronmexico111]

I for one think it would be great if the group would crank when firing as a default (if that's your doctrine setting) and then be able to manually send in aircraft from the group to close and attack if that's what you want rather than the other way around as it has been. That was always an annoying thing for me since the CMANO days.

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

I'll use groups for aircraft, but I'm a big fan of using the formation editor with them. Otherwise it'd be a pain to try to do things like fly a 4 ship wall of Eagles, for example. With the formation editor they will try to stay more or less in position. Over time I've gotten more creative with how I group aircraft (or not) and set up formations and mission start times to achieve my desired effect.

It depends on different play style, but thanks for sharing thoughts on that, will try formation editor in the future .

For now I can image there is one drawback for formation editor, you got to edit the formation every time a new group is in air.

I would prefer to setup several small AAW patrol zones, each one is about 10nm x 10nm , with 4-12 A/C assigned to it (that means 2~4 A/C in air by 1/3 rule). These small Patrol Zone share the same large prosecution zone.

[Steve04]

A simple question that is closely related to the issues covered in this post.
It is possible - via ROE doctrine or directly with a key - to disable the "engage offensive" function. I like to operate manually and I often lose planes because, after having launched one or more missiles from an advantageous position, due to the "engage offensive" I am unable to desengage and move away from the enemy without entering its firing area.
In short, just as it is possible to deactivate the "automatic evasion", it is not possible to deactivate the "engage offensive" ...? (key "U" unassign, or drop target or don't ignore plotting course don't do the job...)
Basically, as soon as an AAW is launched, I want to have the command of my plane / flight, both in plot and in altitude and throttle.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: Steve04

A simple question that is closely related to the issues covered in this post.
It is possible - via ROE doctrine or directly with a key - to disable the "engage offensive" function. I like to operate manually and I often lose planes because, after having launched one or more missiles from an advantageous position, due to the "engage offensive" I am unable to desengage and move away from the enemy without entering its firing area.
In short, just as it is possible to deactivate the "automatic evasion", it is not possible to deactivate the "engage offensive" ...? (key "U" unassign, or drop target or don't ignore plotting course don't do the job...)
Basically, as soon as an AAW is launched, I want to have the command of my plane / flight, both in plot and in altitude and throttle.

+1

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Steve04
A simple question that is closely related to the issues covered in this post.
It is possible - via ROE doctrine or directly with a key - to disable the "engage offensive" function. I like to operate manually and I often lose planes because, after having launched one or more missiles from an advantageous position, due to the "engage offensive" I am unable to desengage and move away from the enemy without entering its firing area.
In short, just as it is possible to deactivate the "automatic evasion", it is not possible to deactivate the "engage offensive" ...? (key "U" unassign, or drop target or don't ignore plotting course don't do the job...)
Basically, as soon as an AAW is launched, I want to have the command of my plane / flight, both in plot and in altitude and throttle.

IIRC this has been possible from the very start of CMANO/CMO:
1) Disable "Ignore plotted course when attacking"
2) Plot a manual course with the desired direction, throttle and altitude. The unit will follow the plotted course even if it is targeting/attacking contacts.

[maverick3320]

I guess my question still stands: how can I get both aircraft in a flight of two to crank and drag? Clearly I’m not the only one experiencing this issue.

As for the SOP discussions, I’m not an aviator, but I can’t imagine many scenarios in which two aircraft that have the range advantage with AAMs would want one craft to fire and the other to head straight at the enemy at full afterburner.

[Dimitris]

A fix for this is being worked on.

[Dimitris]

This has _probably_ been fixed in the private beta, the fix will likely be included in forthcoming public releases.