PMC Tactical forums

Hi.
I have a question.

How does the ATO plan OCA strikes on enemy airbases?

For example - you have 250 ABs in your theater.
But you have for example only 10 ABs housing your combat wings on both sides.

Does the ATO task your planes to attack "dangerous" ABs in preference? (based on investigation)
If so, what will ATO do, when they are already destroyed?
Does it will task the planes to attack inactive ABs, just for reason of "prevention"?
Or does it will to calculate, that factory attack is more helpful? (both preference sliders have similar camp. settings for example)

Its quite essential for me.
Thanks.
Luk

AFAIR, ATO only schedules OCA missions against airbases hosting ac sq. i don't think ATO schedule OCA against empty airbases in advance.

Ok. Thanks for answer ccc.
It is good.

Is it possible to exclude some ABs from squadron relocation?
The only thing I can think of is to set it destroyed (by pushing the "destroy" button)



Luk

ccc wrote:AFAIR, ATO only schedules OCA missions against airbases hosting ac sq. i don't think ATO schedule OCA against empty airbases in advance.

I don't think this is the case because I have seen OCA strikes tasked against airbases with NO squadrons. AF only, of course, since that is all I fly.

ccc wrote:AFAIR, ATO only schedules OCA missions against airbases hosting ac sq. i don't think ATO schedule OCA against empty airbases in advance.

ATO creates quite often strike packages against empty airbases airstips AND army bases. In this case I edit the mission target and wayponts of package to a nearby and more valuable target.

Has ever tried anybody play campaign online from opposite side? Problem no one of red jet can be modeled from IRL used AC that is suitable for a real enjoyable flight but a human 'supreme commander' can play with ATO and missions to make really difficult to win a campaign.

Thanks for posting.
It looks the ATO should be corrected/guided by manual PAKs enhancement.
Inside particular PACKs - the campaign creator can influence it by "value" or even "destroy" button I think.

Has ever tried anybody play campaign online from opposite side?

Yes, me. I love it. Various VFWs open the online campaign for human OPFOR sometimes. Some of them have continual OPFOR unit/subwing etc.
But only server administrators are authorized to enhance ATO/PACKs usually.

Luk

Yes, me. I love it. Various VFWs open the online campaign for human OPFOR sometimes.

I thought only managing the ATO and modifying missions. It is not fun fly with any old red jet, because their capabilities are very overmodeled.

It is not fun fly with any old red jet,...

I dont think so.

..., because their capabilities are very overmodeled.

user interface inside the pit - yes
But you dont have to use it at all.

Basic AC characteristic as - acceleration, deceleration, engine response, maintain/lose energy etc.... - not
Radar capabilites - range, limits, maintain/loss of the lock, look down capabilities - not
Weapons - not

You are forced to use different tactic in Mig21/23 etc.

ok, its F16 simulation. But still - another jets are good modeled even compared to another multijet combat sims. It is becouse of great F4 base.

But I am sorry for my reply.
If you want to continue, open some new topic for it please.
We can name it "Falcon subwersion flamewar" or "different ACs lamewar"....and so on. It will be very long topic. I have also some posts in my mind .

Luk

Basic AC characteristic as - acceleration, deceleration, engine response, maintain/lose energy etc.... - not

Fuel consumption of MiG-21 seems to me pretty undermodeled. Ifr you use afterburner - especially on bis - the consumption is huge. Stall characteristics of MiG-21 can't be modelen if you fly with F-16 system modeling.

Radar capabilites - range, limits, maintain/loss of the lock, look down capabilities - not

Azimuth, bar, elevation and display capabilites are seriously overmodeled for older jets and less strongly for MiG-29. Information on MFDs and HUDs are much better than on RL systems. You have submodes that never was available for MiG-21/23.

Weapons - not

This is one of the most serious problems. For ex. AA-2A has better properties than AIM-9B. AA-2A is a copy of AIM-9B, it was rebulit from a wreckage. (A Chinese AC brought back to Chine one after a Taiwanese AC hit a jet. The missile did not detonated.) Its sensor - as I can remember - better than AIM-9P. AA-2A max G is 25, AIM-9B is 15 (!)...

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html

Check the evolution tree and compare the data in Falcon. Have you ever check any modeling data in Falcon?

You are forced to use different tactic in Mig21/23 etc.

This part is true, but for ex. MiG-23ML still has dispensers. IRL only MLD version had it. (For gamebalance can be good this.)

ok, its F16 simulation. But still - another jets are good modeled even compared to another multijet combat sims. It is becouse of great F4 base.

Lomac is a multijet sim too. F-15C has guite real symbology as MiG-29 and they don't have systems that are modeled for every jet in Falcon. (HSD, D-LINK, GPS navigation ect.)

I don't want to flaming, but that you said is not so accurate.

Also does anyone know "HOW" the air tasking order "brain" knows that airbase is populated with squadron(s) or not, is it a built in cheat or does it model some satellite capability. So if one side has no satellites, they have to wait for updated intel to arrive before tasking OCA strikes (or do them randomly)... hmm dunno.

I guess any part of the world the commanders would know where their enemies host their aircraft. But even so, it somehow feels fishy that the campaign engine just knows precisely which squadrons and how many pilots are available in each base.

Yes guys, please keep this on topic, how ATO tasks OCA strikes