Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: caron

I think the big issue is...we can't target "Single unit Airfield" too...that's a major drawback. Still...despite the fact that I agrre that using a tomahawk to dig a hole in the ground is not a clever solution, on the other hand...using some of em to shut down an air force, even for just some hours, could be a better and cheaper option instead of sending in a whole manned strike force.

These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah the game won't auto update your scenarios on its own although we do ship updated versions with game updates.

Mike

Just for clarification of your statement, when the next official update is released, not the release candidate, all scenarios will be automatically updated to latest DB?

Thanks for the quick reply Mike.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike

I see the point and I agree. More often than not I rebuild the scenario every time I see a Single Unit Airfield...but this kinda spoiler it. Is there a way to make a weapon "selective" in the damages it causes? I mean...Is there a way to make a tomahawk hit the unit and only inflicts damage points to, say, hangars, bunkers, ammo shelters and not runways? Cause...you know...you could have a Burke in the area and not a JDAM equipped aircraft in range. Or you may need the aircraft to sead the path of the tomahawk strike.
Just wondering here...cause I donìt like the "go with tomahawk for everything" way...but still need em for that kind of work.

btw...Keep Up with the great job you all are doing...love this game.

As for 'Single-Unit Airfields', these lack proper modelling of sub-component damage and should not be used for airfelds that may come under attack [8D] The purpose of these units is to increase game speed by skipping the intra-base infrastructure and logics in ASW scens or one-sided strike scens, etc.

So if we were to change anything it would be to make Single-Unit airfields not attackable at all.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yeah we changed the anti-runway capabilities to reflect the way these weapons are used in real life. Using a $1 million weapon to punch a single hole in a runway is a bit weird.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?

If I can cut in at this point.

I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages...

Just my 2 cents.

If I can cut in at this point. I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages... Just my 2 cents.

1+

ORIGINAL: deepdive

1+

2+

Player should do the decisions, whether it is a weird one or not. Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.

I'm of the opinion that if a tomahawk would not be used IRL to target runways, either because they are best saved for more appropriate target, or because of lacklustre performance vs. a runway, then we shouldn't be able to either. Note that after a massive volley of cruise missiles opened desert storm, aircraft were still used to strike runways.

I'd also prefer single-unit airfields to be un-attackable, I see them as placeholders for when a planner needs some aircraft for whatever reason and neutering the airbase is not within scope of the mission, saving on unit count. Whenever I see one I think, right, best not waste any precious tomahawks on that target then.

To prevent them from being arbitrarily used as targets by designers and causing awkward "should-I-shouldn't-I" moments for the player, I think their purpose as "withholds" should be strengthened.

**edit**

ORIGINAL: tmammela
Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.

Fair point, but in my head the game should "calculate" my advisors having conniptions and my military career put in jeopardy for poor use of tactical assets and financial capital! I assumes thats what crashes-to-desktops are, not bugs, its just me being fired by the game.

While true, even theater commanders can have weapon usage restrictions placed on them. And cost is a factor sometimes. Not arguing against, just pointing it out.

The problem with single-unit airfields as non-attackable placeholders only is, that you instantly know if your own airfield might be the target of a surprise attack. I can imagine that some of you might think now: "Well, use multi-unit builds then...". I say this. I'm working on a massive scenario involving North Korea and basically all its neighbours+US. AU count was at 6000 with all the DPRK airfields being multi-unit airfields. I managed to get the AU count down to 3000 by only replacing those airfields with single-unit bases. In this case, it was a necessary sacrifice since all of those airfields are intended to be targeted.

At least, that's the way I'm looking at this.

Fair, but those units have no damage functionality at all [8D]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Fair, but those units have no damage functionality at all [8D]

it seems it is not the case...I just bombed a Single Unit Airfield, switched to editor,switched to enemy side...and saw pretty convincing damages in the "damage Control" panel on hangars and stuff...maybe they are not FULLY implemented but damages "per facility" are indeed modeled in that kind of collective units

maybe I misinterpreted your statement? could be...english is not my first language

Yeah you're right there is some modeling but it is pretty much a probability-based model rather than warhead impact blast & frag stuff [8D]

Fixed: Grouped A/C fire still won't fire as a group

I got the problem that the group now fires all their payload at a single target, thereby wasting their ordnance.
I get that problem no matter what WRA I use...

Confirmed. Sorry guys. Stay tuned.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Confirmed. Sorry guys. Stay tuned.

Hmmm...that might explain what I saw recently. I was testing my ASW stuff (1.08RC5 I think) and
all the helos that targeted a VERY unfortunate sub dropped all of their torpedoes at once (5+)...

Needless to say, it didn't survive.[:'(]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

As for 'Single-Unit Airfields', these lack proper modelling of sub-component damage and should not be used for airfelds that may come under attack [8D] The purpose of these units is to increase game speed by skipping the intra-base infrastructure and logics in ASW scens or one-sided strike scens, etc.

So if we were to change anything it would be to make Single-Unit airfields not attackable at all.

Man, I really hope that all scenario designers read this. I vote to make them not attackable at all in order to discourage their (ab)use as frontline airfields.

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Man, I really hope that all scenario designers read this. I vote to make them not attackable at all in order to discourage their (ab)use as frontline airfields.

This makes sense, although there may be a bunch of scenarios where things work differently (or not at all) if the single-unit airfields can no longer be attacked. That's not a huge issue. Designers will just have to go back and update these scenarios after the change is made and/or as players report "bugs."

Interestingly, I don't think there is a need to add "generic" airfields that still can be attacked. There are so many detailed airfields already in the database that if one needed airfields that aren't already there, one could just add some of the existing ones and then move and rename them.

As a designer I always use this rule, if one airbase is gonna be attacked  in the scenario I never use a generic one; If the base can't be (for any reason) a target in the scenario I put a generic, but this just a personnal rule of course.

Yeah okay the weapon qty issues should be fixed in the upcoming B678.15.

Thanks all! [8D]