An issue with Ground Targets

[+Fubar512]

you've raised a different issue which is very intriguing. I've scripted anti-ship missions and except for my immediate wingman - they won't hit the ships. You have apparently broken the code. A hint perhaps?

 

???

 

Check PMs

[Canadair]

Ships modeled as tanks, or ground formation.

I was thinking about this a while ago, and posted about this;

Talking campaign here..

you can have ships formations modeled as tank formations, or units and have them wandering on the map and in this case the CAS missin generated when two ships formations meet will have attack with ASM or whatever..

Not very practical, but workable,,

let me see if I can find my own post.---

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...t=0&start=0

 

third and fourth from above, dated jan19th

Oh and I see saguanay is no longer a member herE?

 

And a lot of brainstorming in that topic, there was Typhoid too

 

Okei I rebrowsed the topic; it got deranged with animosity and bad feelings and trying to figure out a better way to have air-sea war; the idea I had would require a total redesignation of ships as tanks, and formation as well. Plus they would be of oneclass only, being defined as groundunit in campaign.ini; not to mention the need to carefully design movement routes for the terrain, and the antiship (CAS) would be always over two sea units fighting. On the other hand on a smaller scale , perhaps with subs could work

BTW I am talking campaings here

Edited April 9, 2008 by Canadair

[+Fubar512]

Well, you finally got it somewhat right. My experience has been, that the most effective teachers I've had, have always been those that forced one to think for one's self.

 

You do not have to redesignate ships as tanks. There's no need to change the formations (though KillerBee and I did do that a few years ago, forcing ships into battle lines and destroyer screens through formation tweaks). All that's needed, is to simply place a friendly naval unit nearby (a sub, for example). Even if the enemy ships do not attack it, it will still report that it's coming under attack.

 

Then you designate your strike package as "CAS", but with an anti-ship loadout.

 

NOTE: This may not alway work with ASMs that use anti-radiation homing. In that case, try designating them for SEAD, with the aforementioned anti-ship loadout.

[Canadair]

Well, you finally got it somewhat right. My experience has been, that the most effective teachers I've had, have always been those that forced one to think for one's self.

As much as I agree with you about effective teaching,I have to say that it was an idea I already had back in january, and needing of course polishing.

On the other hand works for missions but tt is difficult to use in campaings thoguh, you will agree, for a good number of reasons.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Canadair

[Canadair]

There's no need to change the formations (though KillerBee and I did do that a few years ago, forcing ships into battle lines and destroyer screens through formation tweaks).

 

Then you designate your strike package as "CAS", but with an anti-ship loadout.

 

NOTE: This may not alway work with ASMs that use anti-radiation homing. In that case, try designating them for SEAD, with the aforementioned anti-ship loadout.

 

Talking campaigns you would need to redesignate formations and size I guess if you want to assign ships to ground units

And sead, as I said works in campaign too, but with limited results. Who is scared of tWO Tu-16?

Edited April 9, 2008 by Canadair

[+Typhoid]

Who is scared of tWO Tu-16?

 

I recall a few "tense moments" with TU-16's..........

 

[Canadair]

I recall a few "tense moments" with TU-16's..........

 

 

Oh well: I guess I see your point.

[+Fubar512]

Talking campaigns you would need to redesignate formations and size I guess if you want to assign ships to ground units

And sead, as I said works in campaign too, but with limited results. Who is scared of tWO Tu-16?

 

Really? Then by your logic, carriers and ships don't work in campaigns, right?

[Canadair]

Really? Then by your logic, carriers and ships don't work in campaigns, right?

Of course they do; I made a Mig VS Mig campaign in madagascar in which you take off from carrier with taskforce, and attack various convoy stations and get anti ship mission over shipping routes. It is hre on CA.

I am talking something different here.

Think about this, a map with defined routes but instead of ground vehicle you get ships using this type of entry in campaign file

 

[GroundUnit026]

GroundObjectType=BTR-152 ships here (althoguh just one class)

UnitName=22nd Infantry Brigade

ForceID=3

Nation=Syria

BaseArea=Mafraq as definded in movement .ini

RandomChance=80

StartObjects=60 this number could be reduced

MaxObjects=60 this number could be reduced

Experience=40

Morale=60

Supply=100

Intelligence=80

UpgradeType=NEVER

StartDate=06/07/1967

StartDateDeviation=0

 

those ground unit would wander on attackroutes and meet the other force groundunit, and trigger anti-ship missions (caS)

In this case the formation used should be the formationtank used in corresponding nation ini. , which probably could be modified for a ship convoy or taskforce that has less unit than tanks.

It is something complex and obivuosly separated install. Quite academic and not very practical, but perhaps feasible

thus saying I know you mean no harm, but could you please use a nicer tone to me?

Thanks.

[Canadair]

And sead, as I said works in campaign too, but with limited results. Who is scared of tWO Tu-16?

 

What I meant is that sead is always two ships only that I know of.

[Basher11]

Basher, you DO know the 84A Harpoon is an Anti-Ship missile only??

 

You're probably thinking of the 84D SLAM Land Attack version.

 

And Canberras were long retired before EITHER was available for use, let alone be loaded onto an aircraft that never carried them.

 

Just a little historical/hysterical note there...

 

Canadair, PLEASE!!! Lets not rehash the Ground Attack issues?? I beg you!!!

 

Wrench

kevin stein

Hi Wrench,

 

That is the fun part of playing a flight simulation. We can always explore things hidden deep inside the core of the simulation. I know the Canberra has retired. I also know that 84A is anti-ship. From the result of the experiment, it is interesting to find out that you can mount a small elephant along one of the pylons of an aircraft provided the aircraftsis the same origin of the elephants.

 

The more I go exploring the game the more I love this simulation. TK is really great, he has done a incredibe invention.

[Basher11]

No, Anti-Ship is not there I have confirmed that already. It was in the process of my figuring out which mission type "permits" an ASM launch. By the method of isolation, Strike, SEAD, Anti-Ship all 3 don't trigger the launch EXCEPT CAS.

 

It is a regret really that Anti-Ship doesn't work at this point. Imagine in a campaign where you airbourne for a CAS mission towards the waters! It's not really a bug deal but not playing to the literal meaning of Close Air Support. Unless we re-define Close Air Spport to be applicable to naval vessels. That still sounds odd.

 

Let me go back and check out something and I'll get back to you.

 

By the way, SEAD only works against battle vessels for convoys AI reckons them only under CAS mission for obvious reason that they don't emit homing signals for ARM.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Basher11