Matrix Games Forums

Please help me understand the mission logic for AAW Patrols.
I have aircraft from two bases assigned to one AAW patrol. The Mission setup is: 2 units per class on-station, 1/3 unchecked, enforce flight size checked.
The aircraft are: F15C with loadout AMRAAM Sniperpod, Heavy (#25257) at one base. the other base has F15C's with loadout AMRAAM w/o Sniperpod, Heavy (#16934).

Now only 1 flight launches from the closest airbase. However, if the loadout at one base is e.g. AMRAAM Medium a second flight launches.
Is this is intended behaviour?

Thanks
N.

nudn1k

That is the way its intended. The mission logic will keep one pair of Heavy AMRAAM loadouts, I suppose it doesn't make a differentiation about the Sniperpod. You're Medium load group is a different 'class' of loadout.

I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base, but the double base setup works with a bit of experimentation.

B

"I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base"

Thats great advice to avoid frustration. In fact, I don't use integrated escorts or tankers because so many things can go wrong that you can't predict. I much rather have the planning flexibility of seperate groups and then integrating them through better overall planning. The same goes for multi-base missions. I tend to avoid them.

At the risk of stating the obvious (but for newbees) I usually do what TheWood1 has suggested and make sure my naming convention helps me keep them straight (especially for big scenarios, but I don't know anyone who creates those [:D] [8D] ).

"Havana Strike - Tanker"
"Havana Strike - SEAD"
"Havana Strike - ASuW"
"Havana Strike - Recon"

CTF 60.1 ASW Patrol - S-2A
CTF 60.1 ASW Patrol - SH-2D
CTF 60.1 ASW Alert Strike - SH-2D

I generally do the same thing but not always. Sometimes I'll create marshaling missions for strike or CAP aircraft that I'm going to manually control but want them pooled into an area for easier selection. I'll also occasionally lump all my tankers into the same missions, even if they come from multiple different bases.

When setting up the opposing AI for a scenario, I always set it up similar to BeirutDude.

Sometimes I'll create marshaling missions for strike or CAP aircraft that I'm going to manually control but want them pooled into an area for easier selection.

I do so as well for my personal play.

The naming convention is a great pro tip. I can't count the number times half way through a scenario and I can't remember why I created a mission.

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms? Say I'd like to setup a CAP with 2x Mig-31s and 2x Mig-23s in the same area. Is it easier to just create two separate missions?

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms?

Short answer is yes. If you set up a CAP and either set 1/3 rule or assign a number, the AI will identify the different types as such and apply your assignments individually to each type. I.e. If you set the # on station as 2 and put Mig-31 & Mig-23 on the mission, 2 of each will remain on station.

I have done this before but you lose flexibility. If it is for an AI side on a scenario, that's fine, no-one will need to change it. If it is for you playing a scenario, I wouldn't do it because I'll forget about something.

B

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms? Say I'd like to setup a CAP with 2x Mig-31s and 2x Mig-23s in the same area. Is it easier to just create two separate missions?

I do this frequently. If you want one type to RTB shotgun after using their BVR weapons and you would like another to stay and go to guns then 2 missions may be preferable. If you want each type to do the same then no issues. Some other WRA settings may take some fenagling but you can make it work. Some may think it a hassle others may not, YMMV.

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Is it possible to setup a single CAP with different platforms?

Short answer is yes. If you set up a CAP and either set 1/3 rule or assign a number, the AI will identify the different types as such and apply your assignments individually to each type. I.e. If you set the # on station as 2 and put Mig-31 & Mig-23 on the mission, 2 of each will remain on station.

I have done this before but you lose flexibility. If it is for an AI side on a scenario, that's fine, no-one will need to change it. If it is for you playing a scenario, I wouldn't do it because I'll forget about something.

B

Excellent, thanks for the answer. Related, perhaps tougher question: is it possible to set up the same CAP (with multiple aircraft types) to "rotate" through the CAP? That is, I only want two total planes in the air, but I don't really care whether they are Mig-31s or Mig-23s in the CAP.

is it possible to set up the same CAP (with multiple aircraft types) to "rotate" through the CAP?

No I don't think so. No doubt there is a method using Lua but I'm not sure how to do it. You could set up multiple CAP missions and alternate their status (active/inactive) but that would get messy I think

I have done something like that by activating and deactivating missions. But I use the event editor for it on the AI side. I use it when the AI has limited quantities of types of fighters, but has a variety of them. I have also used multiple simultaneous missions with only one fighter from each type in each mission to give me multiple types of fighters in the same zone.

I only do this when forced to on the AI side because of scenario limits and OOBs in the specific scenario. Otherwise, I almost never mix units in CAP, sweep, or escort missions.

I'm pretty sure you could use the 1/3 rule to have a patrol mission with multiple classes without having every class try to launch at once. I do this all the time on ASW patrols and it seems to work, but those are also always single-unit flights (not sure if that would make a difference). The catch is that you won't be able to specify the actual number of aircraft you want on station; you'll just be stuck with whatever the game decides constitutes a third of the assigned units.

No doubt there is a method using Lua but I'm not sure how to do it

Presuming you have cap mission with say 4 members, 2 Mig-31,2 Mig-23 and you want 2 air-frames in the air active on-mission regardless of grouping or type.

You set the mission to 1 aircraft + single flightsize and optionally uncheck enforce flight-size by base\loadout\etc. You set up an event with a trigger that fires say once a minute (or whatever time you find reasonable but 1 or 5 seconds is overkill for such), the action is the script call that does the following in a nutshell:
1. Grabs the specified mission unitlist, and fetches each member unit wrapper into to a temporary table of units.
2. Iterate though each member unit in temp table, check if they're in the air and also if they are not rtb state (or landing state if you want to be even more thorough), OR if they are in the taxi to runway or takeoff state (accounts for already launched aircraft), you you add them to your count.
3. If when done counting you have a count >= X (2 in this case) you don't do anything. If else you re-interate the unit table again finding the first one who's ready time is 0, and who's loadoutid is > 4 (ie likely has an actual assigned loadout), and then call the Launch method on the unit. Baring any backlog\runway access delays said unit will be airborne in about two minutes or less.

I find the already discussed 'multiple missions' generally easier approach unless it just don't meet one's need. The aforementioned though is just one (fairly straightforward) approach if one wants to 'Lua' it. It works pretty well for typical AAW patrols in my experience where one just wants to maintain X # of air-frames active on the patrol at all times.

I'm in the same boat. The software will handle it, but not always in the way you expect or desire. One of my classic examples has been the bombers are based one place, the escorts are based another place, but they all launch at the same time. Provided they're relatively close that's not a big deal but when a bomber base can be thousands of miles away from the fighter base, and the fighters only join up at the last part of the mission it can be a big problem. In that case, it's obviously better to just plan the escorts as an AAW patrol instead of explicitly "escorts."

I think sometimes people wed themselves too much to the language in Command. As I've become more sophisticated in the game, I've come to think of the different missions as tools I can use to elicit desired behaviors. For example, an AAW Patrol mission can be a DCA station, a fighter sweep, or an escort mission according to US doctrine. It just depends on how you want to draw the lines and what options you select.

I also frequently use AAW patrols as generic "catch all" missions for things like hold points and bullpens.

It's all just language.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"I find it more predictable to have a different CAP setup for each base"

Thats great advice to avoid frustration. In fact, I don't use integrated escorts or tankers because so many things can go wrong that you can't predict. I much rather have the planning flexibility of seperate groups and then integrating them through better overall planning. The same goes for multi-base missions. I tend to avoid them.

I think that might be a key issue in players understanding missions in CMO. Missions are just empty templates to organize units. But all the features and functions associated with missions define what it actually does. Its the reason I seperate escorts, tankers, and strike into separate missions. For those to all work together, the mission build and expectation has to be relatively generic.

If you start building massive strike packages with dozens of strikers, escorts, and tankers from multiple bases with a multitude of loadouts, you be disappointed and frustrated if sending it after a complex environment of CAP, layered defences and multi-unit targets. CMO and its mission structure just can't handle all the variables that might come up. Its why you always need to consider multiple. smaller, and task focused missions that get assembled into larger packages where you have a lot of flexibility to move around the mission pieces to match shifting situations.

If you send a 24 unit strikers with 12 escorts and 6 tankers from multiple bases against a complex well defended target, you are painting yourself into a corner. If that first line of SAMS doesn't get completely knocked out, the entire strike will be unable to adjust. Then the player has to step in and take over detailed control to salvage anything. And if its the AI side, there is no hope except luck.

I'm 100% tracking.

I worry sometimes that people want the computer to do their thinking for them. I see that in a lot of talk about an advanced mission planner. That's why I'm suspicious of the whole idea. I hate to sound like a Luddite sometimes, but I suspect a lot of these people don't really understand the game. The substance of the game is often in figuring out how to route things. How do you work time and distance problems? How do you shack that time on target? How do you get that big complicated strike package to where you want it? Do you have enough gas to go the way you want to go and get all the effects on target you want and need?

In truth, if the scenario presents the player with an interesting enough problem, you can try to salvage a bad plan, but my observation is that it's hard to do. At least in the case of air war, you're so constrained by fuel that it's a big deal to try to rethink the whole plan on the fly. In the case of war at sea, ships move pretty slow, so it's hard to radically reposition them on a tactical time scale during an air engagement. I think too much has been said about the importance of player intervention, at least with respect to the real time interaction and trying to salvage a bad plan.

I've found that if you're smart you can build a plan good enough for the AI to execute with no problems. The AI can kick your ass if the scenario designer can formulate a red course of action. If it's no good, then you're right, there's probably no salvaging it. So don't build terrible plans.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think that might be a key issue in players understanding missions in CMO. Missions are just empty templates to organize units. But all the features and functions associated with missions define what it actually does. Its the reason I seperate escorts, tankers, and strike into separate missions. For those to all work together, the mission build and expectation has to be relatively generic.

If you start building massive strike packages with dozens of strikers, escorts, and tankers from multiple bases with a multitude of loadouts, you be disappointed and frustrated if sending it after a complex environment of CAP, layered defences and multi-unit targets. CMO and its mission structure just can't handle all the variables that might come up. Its why you always need to consider multiple. smaller, and task focused missions that get assembled into larger packages where you have a lot of flexibility to move around the mission pieces to match shifting situations.

If you send a 24 unit strikers with 12 escorts and 6 tankers from multiple bases against a complex well defended target, you are painting yourself into a corner. If that first line of SAMS doesn't get completely knocked out, the entire strike will be unable to adjust. Then the player has to step in and take over detailed control to salvage anything. And if its the AI side, there is no hope except luck.

Well , as we mentioned, the issue to me is players trying to build the perfect mission with a single CMO mission. Another issue is that some players don't want to do any of the up front planning. Related to that, I have been skeptical from the first mention of the AMP that it would meet the expectations of the people pushing for it.

Having played some large scenarios with 40-60 (perhaps even 80?) aircraft strike packages that I've sent out, I would find an advanced strike planner useful if the only thing it did was have the ability to compute time on target for platforms and weapons scattered across a map. I think it was one of the Med Fury scenarios where I had to launch 20+ aircraft from a US CVBG moving away from a target along with 30-40 other aircraft scattered at bases across the Med, in addition to trying to time the aircraft missile strikes to go along with Tomahawk strikes and Harpoons fired from a SAG. The target was a mix of land and naval targets with 3x Grumble SAMs and a Slava-class cruiser so trying to time air- and sea-launched Harpoons, HARMs, and Tom Cruise missiles to all arrive at the exact time was extremely difficult. I started doing it by hand and finally gave up and created an excel spreadsheet. One of the toughest parts, oddly, is trying to figure out how long it takes a given carrier or airbase to launch a large amount of aircraft, as aircraft don't always seem to launch in the same order that I order them to.