Campaign seems a bit of a mess...
-
@Seifer Perhaps it would be an idea for the player to be allowed to choose among a selection of doctrines, which would then set PAKs and priorities (those could then be fine-tuned as one wishes).
For instance:
Doctrine “Combined Arms”: What most experienced falconites would set
Doctrine “Bum-rush”: Current default PAK and sliders
Doctrine “Caution”: Given the forces available, focus on minimal losses within A-A and ground forces at the cost of slower progress/a more prolonged warEtc.
-
I can say with certainty that barcap overfragging has been an issue since 4.32 at least but likely also in legacy versions in the past. Probably same thing goes for underfragging CAS type of flights. The way around it is to clean up manually and delete the barcaps you don’t need. Another option is to be hands on with everything, but this can be too much. Personally I prefer to reserve one-two squadrons for my own planning and then plan large operations in a certain sector while leaving ai to do it’s thing.
Would be cool to see this looked at at some point, but it’s workable. A flight planning tool which would allow overseeing the schedule and capacity of squadrons in comparison would be very cool too. -
@depapier said in Campaign seems a bit of a mess...:
When you leave the starting priorities as default for campaign it always does this. The way to deal with it properly is to uncheck the ‘set by hq’ in the planning window and uncheck every kind of mission you don’t need. For example you can cancel the industry, logistics and infrastructure targets from get go. Then you should regulate the PAk priority on next page and make sure that only those close to front line are engaged. Set every other you don’t want to engage as 0. Finally the mission types themselves can be chosen. I would recommend to basically restrict ai planning to areas immediately next to frontline and plan the rest yourself or adjust the pak priority gradually. However you should probably leave alone the actual home territory to make sure all the defensive and comms flights are fragged automatically. Finally, try fragging your own packages. You can take the squadron in your own hands by unchecking the managed by hq checkmark for it.
When it comes to deleting flights, it’s best to delete whole packages through planner. I don’t think you will break the campaign but it you can control stuff better this way.Yeah, that should work, but I just stated a new Tiger Spirit Campaign on Veteran, set it mostly to all Anti-Air, set only the 4-5 PAKs just north of me (Haeju) to max, all others to min, and my 1st mission was a CAP on the Southwest tip of South Korea…
-
As others said, you got to for now at least give the pak sliders some love.
Before my campaign even starts and it gives you the options too I’d adjust it. Haven’t had suicide dead or oca strikes anymore
-
@Icer sounds familiar! But it was still anti air lol
I’m mostly annoyed that setting the preferences to force everyone into CAS never worked. As well i have never seen a FAC flight fragged by Ai.
-
There are a lot of hidden bugs in campaign. Without tooling, they will be hidden.
Quick example: I was flying ITO with Sassah. We realized AWACS flights were not being generated. After a lot of analysis, we found the reason was because no flight generated was capable of always being over friendly territory (Israel is squeezed between several countries).
Then, when we fixed it, we realized the flights did not have escort. And again, more analysis, showed the DB was wrong, the escort aircraft had wrong weapon capabilities.
I also analyzed lack of missions for squadrons in KTO. And the reason was some kind of budget that was wrongly assigned.
I also know that the ground unit movement seems to cease after a couple of days.
All these kind of things need to be logged and we need a tools to analyze. Complexity added silently is a great way to break your product.
-
@depapier To generate CAS you need the following:
TARGET type: any type of ground unit is required
MISSION type: Close Air Support is resquired
PAK: PAK with high values containing ground units. -
@Icer said in Campaign seems a bit of a mess...:
Yeah, that should work, but I just stated a new Tiger Spirit Campaign on Veteran, set it mostly to all Anti-Air, set only the 4-5 PAKs just north of me (Haeju) to max, all others to min, and my 1st mission was a CAP on the Southwest tip of South Korea…
In Tiger Spirit there should absolutely be no reason to patrol the far South of Korea. Not on day 1 at least. The engine or the database must be even worse off than we think. Unless it was a HAVCAP or something for an AWACS or tanker ?
-
@tiag yes but ai still doesn’t like generating CAS type of missions. I usually get a few interdictions here and there, but never consistently. Never seen a FAC either unless I plan it.
-
@depapier
ATO is a model that works with “weights” defined from several parts of the DB, campaign file and user input.
When a mission is requested each time the campaign receives an update tick (there are several corners in the code in the campaign where missions are requested), the ATO takes into account several “weights” before a mission is generated.
These “weights” come from your selection in MISSION type, from your TARGET type, from the PAK, but also from the role scores defined for each squadron in the DB, if acft are available, etc. Sometimes, squadrons with high CAS/Int score are being used for other kind of missions with a smaller role score, because the ATO does not simply have enough squadrons to perform that kind of mission. That may be one reason. Another reason maybe that CAS requires spotted ground units (GU) in a PAK with high value. If no GU is spotted or your PAK value is too low, then INT missions will be generated instead.I have been updating the following table since SP3 times…the last time I updated was for the 4.34U3, but it should still work. No big changes in that part of the code so far. (my user was tbuc at that time, now I am back to my original tiag):
Will update for 4.37 soon. -
@tiag very cool, thank you!
-
All of that can be change through MC now:
- Mission weights
- Priorities
- AI reaction based on mission
- …
To avoid suicide missions, there is a quicker approach to play with falcon.aii but that’s a bit of a pandora box…
-
@MaxWaldorf I know and I love @Falcas for that.
-
@MaxWaldorf said in Campaign seems a bit of a mess...:
All of that can be change through MC now:
- Mission weights
- Priorities
- AI reaction based on mission
- …
To avoid suicide missions, there is a quicker approach to play with falcon.aii but that’s a bit of a pandora box…
Been working around it for so many years it is second nature for me to work around it, but would love to see a tutorial on using MC to make it better also…
-
This post is deleted! -
-
Good Day, All. Just my .02 but IMOH the campaign engine works pretty darn good for 20year old code!
My personal approach is like depapier. I generally put the carrier someone and/or select a land base as “mine” then put my 3 squadrons-of interest(VFA, maybe VAQ) in human control. That may or may not work for others, as my main interest is to avoid “no ac available” when fragging missions. Also, as Max wrote, MC is definitely our friend.
Moving forward, and knowing some BMS Members don’t like to tweak things, jayb’s idea of “priority sets” could be of value. The UI lets you change the pilot score with things like adding labels, etc. Perhaps the same can be done for Camps? -
@tiag looking forward to see (and use) your 4.37 update
-
Great topic, the campaign engine in Falcon is truly one of its greatest treasures. I’d also like to add that the loadouts the ATO generates for certain types of missions seems off. For example my AI (stock KTO 4.36) loves to load up with AGM-65G to target airfields/runways/depots, when it would make way more sense to take something like GBU-31v3/AP. Or HARMs for DEAD after the radars are gone.