Factory Targets
-
sweet!! A few few more post and you will get that member status promotion!!!
Cancer in the poopen ?
OH!! He got a promotion :rolleyes:
… I thought they let this guy live a little longer on here than normally… Hahah!
-
hey guys what’s going on in this thread
-
-
oh, one of those
i’ll seriously consider DCS a contender when it gets literally any content past the maybe 20 good missions made in it’s entire lifetime that even resemble a random generated BMS mission
it’s pretty but besides that it’s lackluster at best. half the systems in it barely work. the flight models are “OK” but everything surrounding them is barely there.
-
At the risk of continuing this more than it deserves… BMS is not exactly feature complete either
-
Wow, seems I missed all the fun. No worries, that guy was waaaaaay down at the bottom of my list of concerns. Judging by the PM I got from Mr. Banger, I’m guessing he had some problem with my reply to Frederf.
At the risk of continuing this more than it deserves… BMS is not exactly feature complete either
Most of us understand what you are saying, Blue. Even among the one’s that do not, most of them come to terms with this and enjoy the sim for what it is. That being, a concept ahead of its time for 1998, considering the original bugs and the cost of hardware to even run it at that time.
Now we have BMS 4.33U1 and someone comes along, and after getting the answer to his question from a theater developer (albeit, not the answer he wanted) and other help (whether he wanted it or not), wants to compare it to another sim and judge it sarcastically, and quite frankly, disregarding forum rules. I personally thought he was a goner at post #47. Maybe the European moderators thought he was asking Redshift20 he wanted a cigarette from him.
At any rate, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Could have been a good thread. I am on my fourth CP since U1, and I gotta say…It is closer to F4AF in regard to CP, than previous versions of BMS. Being able to control ground troops makes it so much quicker to achieve objectives and cuts down on the stagnant periods where you can’t find any good targets that are left and just waiting for your troops to start moving.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has knocked out bridges in strategic positions, and if they have noticed the same results as I have. I feel like Arty doesn’t believe me on that point. @ Arty -
I am enjoying the hell out of BMS. It brings out the kid in me that wanted to grow up to be a fighter pilot. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of us have the attributes, and I’m not one of them.
Cheers.
-
i don’t generally go after bridges, so it’s hard to say if they would have an effect.
unfortunately, the way korea is laid out means that it’s hard to drop bridges without sabotaging your future self: pretty much anything you can drop will slow you down on the way to pyongyang. i suppose though there is the koksan-pyong’yang route. i don’t think there are any bridges there, so if you funnel all of your forces through that gap, hit the bridges day 1/day2, jam all your forces down that road and then slam the entire combined forces AF down on that corridor’s defenders you could probably speed things up noticeably.
if you actually look at the way the campaign AI moves, it does actually move it’s troops to reinforce areas of weakness. by default it takes a fairly wide spread (at least, after the DMZ is relatively clear) meaning if you drop the bridges (LOTS OF BRIDGES) you could probably prevent it from consolidating it’s forces.
the ground game is actually fairly complex if you look at mission commander. my only complaint is that the AI seems to twiddle it’s thumbs a little, probably a deliberate choice on the part of it’s programmer not to run facefirst into the entire DPRK tank corps.
once it gets on the move, it makes reasonable choices as to where to go and what to capture.
what makes it hard to tell if supply does things, and/or if dropping bridges achieves anything is that korea has so many damn factories and so many damn bridges. it’s also complicated by the fact that many of the DPRK battalions are probably amphibious, which means that they probably don’t need bridges to cross rivers anyway. you could get more conclusive results if there was a theater with far less, but comparatively important bridges (israel)?
besides, korea is a bad example of bridge effects because for about 50~% of the war it’s just the forces on the DMZ shooting each other. whether you hit the bridges or not, the enormously front-loaded DPRK forces are already right next to their targets anyway.
perhaps the only thing i actually wish was different about the campaign was that the red (DPRK) armor was more aggressive. i don’t think i’ve ever seen them actually attack seoul in any great number, especially in this scenario where they absolutely must attack, because every hour they lose several battalions of heavy equipment to the perpetual rain of cluster bombs from what, 15~ squadrons of attackers?
-
What is CP?
I believe you m8 I just want to learn how it is done.
The knowledge on many aspects of falcon is just not there.Sent from TapaTalk
-
-
after a little testing, bridges do work so schniderman isn’t wrong that it can be done. i’m just not sure about korea (so many bridges)
exhibit A:
a BM-21 artillery battalion enroute to this little peninsula. the sole way in are the changyon and taetan bridges. all is well when suddenly!those damn dirty falcons appear and wreck our bridge!
well it’s no big deal, there’s still the taetan bridge.
and then
after a minute or two of thinking about the fact that they’re not going to be able to cross that river, they decide to go to the city and support that instead.
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
-
@Cik:
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
It is all about timing. In post #57 and 59 I explain that I put infrastructure sliders to zero so that no bridges get destroyed without my consent. I’m only cutting off reinforcements from the North and I’m waiting until there is a bona fide push to the objective by my ground troops. Again, I’m only hitting what I consider “key” bridges. It may only be one bridge, or a series of bridges depending on the situation.
-
exactly what battalions you can actually stop, and which bridges to hit are up in the air. russians love amphibious vehicles, so a great deal of the enemy line troops might be able to ford the rivers anyway, but it will probably stop at least most of their artillery, many mobile SAMs and AAA.
-
I don’t think it is the 3d object or objective but the value set for this objective. Also the values for units, and maybe the objectives to be deffented. So if bridge is valued 100 and unit 200 might pass from a bridge destroyed that has cost value 150.
In my tests where no such values where set units where passing even through sea.
But who will tell us how we set those values?
Sent from TapaTalk -
exactly what battalions you can actually stop, and which bridges to hit are up in the air. russians love amphibious vehicles, so a great deal of the enemy line troops might be able to ford the rivers anyway, but it will probably stop at least most of their artillery, many mobile SAMs and AAA.
I agree, but I spend most of my time on the NW front, and have little interaction with the Ruskies. The Chinese usually send tanks, and they float like a lead balloon.
-
well, most of the DPRK vehicles are russian-derived. BMPs are amphibious you know, easily cross rivers.
most of the T-series tanks are too.
-
Cik
well, most of the DPRK vehicles are russian-derived. BMPs are amphibious you know, easily cross rivers.most of the T-series tanks are too.
LOL, ignorance is bliss, did not know that! :mrgreen:
-
@Cik:
after a little testing, bridges do work so schniderman isn’t wrong that it can be done. i’m just not sure about korea (so many bridges)
exhibit A:
a BM-21 artillery battalion enroute to this little peninsula. the sole way in are the changyon and taetan bridges. all is well when suddenly!those damn dirty falcons appear and wreck our bridge!
well it’s no big deal, there’s still the taetan bridge.
and then
after a minute or two of thinking about the fact that they’re not going to be able to cross that river, they decide to go to the city and support that instead.
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
well there are 3 bridges. why din’t they took the south one? Or you destroyed that also?
-
there are only two bridges to get to that peninsula, the north bridge, changyon and the south bridge, taetan. the first TE there was a 4ship strike on the north one only, after a minute or two they changed their route to cross the taetan bridge. the second TE there was 5 strikes to kill the north and south bridges (the second strike kept missing the bridge… for some reason) in that one it tried to do the second route (east, then south, then west, across the bridge) but after the taetan bridge was destroyed it stopped and went to the nearest city to reserve instead.
i can upload the TE files if you like.
-
As a campaign developer, I want to mention a few things about the supply system in Falcon. While supply from industrial targets is important to the fighting armies, Falcon’s campaign’s are also built with supply and fuel stops at every city/town/bridge. This allows the units to move along their invisible paths and grab land with being resupplied with fuel and ammunition. In the campaign, even if you destroy every industrial target, your supply will never go to zero. In order to get that effect you will have to destroy every town/city/bridge as well. But doing that will not help your side’s army. Because the ‘cookies’ as one famous developer called them are being consumed even when no combat occurs. If you destroy all of the fuel and supply, both armies stop moving.
So knowing that, you cannot win a campaign by strategic bombing alone; the same lesson learned by real world Air Forces in WW2, Vietnam and Desert Storm. In order to win, you have to destroy enemy forces in the air and ground. In a land grab campaign, this allows your forces to move forward and capture territory. In my attrition campaign, this all reduces the force ratio down to the point the winning video plays. Falcon’s dynamic campaign engine is a lot closer to real life than many of us realize.
-
can you elaborate on how exactly that works out chuckles? i have noticed that many battalions, even if they manage to move forward and capture things quickly run out of fatigue/supplies. are supplies “funnelled” towards important units by the campaign AI or is everyone in the field “stand-alone”, only relying on whatever they can scavenge from captured objectives (or friendly ones)?
SAMs especially it seems like once they run out they’re out of missiles forever. is that because it costs a ton to resupply them, it isn’t possible to? there’s no supplies left, other?