Suggestion - single unit airport

[zaytsev]

Please, make them vulnerable again , with runway denial weapons

Ok, this is not a rant.

I remember that it was some tough polemics about vulnerability of single unit
airfields because they weren't suppose to be attacked or something.. but!

I'm currently playing big scenario - CWC1 Eve of destruction , which is full with Russian single-unit airports ,
and you have lot's of Tornado's with anti-runway loadouts which just can't be used on that type of airport.

I was successful tho in flattening one and damaging few with gp bombs , lots of them.
But, now all of my anti-runway MW-1 equipped Tornado's are just sitting there eager for action, that just wouldn't happen.

What is the point making them immune to anti-runway weapons when I can obliterate them with GP munitions (mk82's,-84's) ?

Please hear me

Thanks

[Dysta]

Single-unit based airfields are catalogued as 'Air Base', so anti-runway weapons did not recognized it.

In my opinion, airfield is a temporary unit for scenario making and quick demonstration. I recommend you to properly make a whole airport/base, and then group them together.

[ComDev]

Can you drop bombs on them? Hm they shouldn't be attackable at all...

[mikmykWS]

Single unit airbases... The gift that keeps giving....

[ComDev]

Tested it real quick and seems they are bombable again in 1.11... That was not intended...

Disabled [8D]

[zaytsev]

Noooo....

I have yet to improve skill to keep my big mouth shut!!! [:'(]

...session terminated

[ComDev]

The Single-Unit airfield has no damage model so it isn't able to handle damage well. No proper hangars, revetments, etc, either. Really ill suited for the job...

[zaytsev]

Ok I get that point..., just try to imagine my point of view,

Nevertheless poor unit damage modeling or whatever is problem, I find hard to coexist with beliefs that in
something so complex as strategic warfield simulation which tends to behave so close to reality as it can get,
that there is something which is indestructible, or untouchable if you want.
There is no commander in a whole world who is allowed to think that way.

OTOH, partially it is ok, if it is by mission design for something that is off-limits, the rules of the game apply.

But if it just there to minimize impact on system resources, and we can't do nothing about it, well, this is totally unreal.

So therefore I propose a compromise, give us two versions of single-unit airfield, destructible and indestructible, and name'em as such, simple as that

That way we will be able to overcome some resources limits and still be able to blow things up if they come our way.
I understand that this is also partially unreal because of simplified damage modelling, hell, this is a compromise. Give'em more DP's ratio.
And please make them vulnerable for anti-runway and cruise weapons.

My suggest for mission designers is that if they want something indestructible, then build just some serious defences around it, so if someone want to
risk, let'em go ahead.
Remember 1991, Desert Storm, first strikes were conducted on what strategic targets?, well, what do you know, airports, sam sites...
It is the reality of modern combat battlefield, own the skies, and deny your enemy the same.
If you can do it ok, if not, find the way.
Just few things to consider.

Thanks

[Rory Noonan]

Hmm as a scen designer I actually quite like having single unit airfields. They make the scen run much faster (I actually have altered other people's scens for use on my work ultra book, and there was a huge improvement), and sometimes you just don't want an airfield to be touched for balance/gameplay reasons.

[mikmykWS]

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

[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

[cns180784]

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

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

[B52H]

ORIGINAL: cns180784

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

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

Yes, ground units do fire at each other. You need to set "A/G Strafing (gun)" on and weapons free on the nonplayable side for land units. Although the ground combat feature isn't that detailed as air and naval operations are, it can still serve its purpose until the devs release an update featuring a more in-depth ground combat model.

[cns180784]

ORIGINAL: B52H

ORIGINAL: cns180784

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

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

Yes, ground units do fire at each other. You need to set "A/G Strafing (gun)" on and weapons free on the nonplayable side for land units. Although the ground combat feature isn't that detailed as air and naval operations are, it can still serve its purpose until the devs release an update featuring a more in-depth ground combat model.

That would be awesome if they improve the ground combat, but still as long as they fight each other then theres' a need for CAS/BAI in scenarios which is important as it is a key part of air ops in conflicts and why there are first sorties like OCA and SEAD to get air superiority to make CAS/BAI possible. I have yet to come across a scenario where i've had to task a/c for CAS, can you give me some examples?

[mikmykWS]

More detailed ground combat model on the list for one day. Still a number of things ahead of it.

Thanks!

Mike

[cns180784]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

More detailed ground combat model on the list for one day. Still a number of things ahead of it.

Thanks!

Mike

You're all doing a great job with the new additions/fixes and tweaks, and yea we can wait for the improved ground combat model.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: B52H
I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases.

I think that's by far the best solution [8D]

[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

[Dysta]

About ground units, will you implement the garrison feature in the future? Making your footmobiles able to hide and attack from buildings' inside will make low-tech offenses much harder to fight back.

[mikmykWS]

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