A sequel to the War of Yom Kippur 1973
-
I think the ITO really needs a remake of the war of 73, where all the neighboring countries pour over into Israel. It should be difficult and it should look like impossible to win.
I am not referring to the old 1973 conflict, but a modern one that would look like the same, if this makes sense. Another Yom Kippur War of 2012, so to speak.
Our group has played the ITO and while we enjoyed it, we did infact wreck the shit out of the Syrians in under four ingame hours.
With 20+ humans flying, it would be certainly a challenge to go against Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia and what not. Simulating the countries not visible on map could be done with just simple airfields sending loads of planes over.
A sister to the Korea Iron Fortress, so to speak.
-
With AI is simply literally impossible to create a campaign where has even slightest chance to win. SAMs are die too easly, old AC have over modeled capability, SAM relocation is not modeled, even with strongly changed DB and modeling values. If you allow fly old AC by players the will be strongly over modeled even the radar and AAMs have modeling values according to era.
Even only the baisc campaign engine is not able to model so close a war to RL as you wish becase simply the morale/supply/resupply and the player rating have effect on campaign. The reinforcements arrive is pre set time with minimal random delay, sq. can appear on airbases which are destroyed, objective repair times are many times strange, etc, etc… In Falcon world the dynamic campagin is simiply to a very advanced RTS & board game where you perfromance have local and global effect on outcome of the war.
A RL was is sooooooooooooooooo complex that I doudb that ever any simulator is able to model as deep as so many people wish - and maybe this is a good thing - the best campaign engine is so far likely what F4.0. It is not 100% as RL it has many abstraction but can provide the most important thing, a very random tactical situation for every mission.
-
I meant just merely adding Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into the war, making sure that Israel gets attacked from all directions. They would still use the same equipment, besides Egyptians getting F16s.
There is room for one more button in the campaign selection screen, too!
-
I’ll address that in two parts, I’ll start from the one you didn’t mean, but might be understood like that.
so as for “not your question”:
Falcon family (and Falcon BMS as a member of it) has always been focused around the F-16.
in addition, all the avionics are based on late revision viper (say circa 2008) There is next to non implementation to the old stuff, inertial navigation (no GPS), non computerized Giro sights etc.
there for ther is no plan for ITO which is not in “present day”/“alternate timeline present day”.
BFS which is ITO derived, and set somewhere in a fictional 70’s universe.and for “your question”:
ITO is meant to simulate “present day” or “alternate timeline present day”.
current campaigns are only a stepping stone and further improvements are planned, but that is a lot of work still ahead of us in that field.
without giving up much, I can say that we do plan a campaign set in an “alternate timeline” where the syrian civil war never started and there are triggers that will be dynamic and will cause different plot lines to develop. (like in the original campaigns).But that will take time.
-
With AI is simply literally impossible to create a campaign where has even slightest chance to win. SAMs are die too easly, old AC have over modeled capability, SAM relocation is not modeled, even with strongly changed DB and modeling values. If you allow fly old AC by players the will be strongly over modeled even the radar and AAMs have modeling values according to era…
Have you tried Korea Strong Iron Fortress? You can definitely lose that campaign. In the first wave of red air all the blue bases were destroyed except for Kadena.
-
As long as airbase destroyed state is buggy I cannot judge which campaign is hard or not. I just checked the OOB. It is not too hard loose in a campaign where DPRK have better AF than USSR ever had and blue side has the most idiot sq. OBB ever… The farthest airbase from FLOT has only a single F-5E but the closest to FLOT has 2xF-16C and A-10.
Creating a hard campaign means not just dump a lots of OP AC against an idiotic OOB. In my theater in IF DPRK with '80s stuff can disable your airbases with inferior AC even the most valuable AC are not close to FLOT and airbase is defended quite well. In IF without creating manually lots of BARCAP you do not have chance…
Show me a campaign where are balanced states between side and red side can win. As long as SAM survivability and relocation is not modeled and ground troops do not have functional air defense this is only a far dream. Only airspam can beat the blue side because troops cannot defend themselves neither in 2D or 3D world.
-
As long as airbase destroyed state is buggy I cannot judge which campaign is hard or not. I just checked the OOB. It is not too hard loose in a campaign where DPRK have better AF than USSR ever had and blue side has the most idiot sq. OBB ever… The farthest airbase from FLOT has only a single F-5E but the closest to FLOT has 2xF-16C and A-10.
Creating a hard campaign means not just dump a lots of OP AC against an idiotic OOB. In my theater in IF DPRK with '80s stuff can disable your airbases with inferior AC even the most valuable AC are not close to FLOT and airbase is defended quite well. In IF without creating manually lots of BARCAP you do not have chance…
Show me a campaign where are balanced states between side and red side can win. As long as SAM survivability and relocation is not modeled and ground troops do not have functional air defense this is only a far dream. Only airspam can beat the blue side because troops cannot defend themselves neither in 2D or 3D world.
While you have a point, I would refrain from using terms like “idiotic” when describing campaigns people have worked very hard on. There are priorities Molny and limited resources so it’s not like people aren’t aware of the opportunities for improvement. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some FO campaigns that could be won by either side. And if you are talking about realism, the DPRK doesn’t stand a chance in a air war, so you can’t have it both ways.
But I don’t want to derail this thread anymore, so please let’s move on.
-
This post is deleted! -
I’ll address that in two parts, I’ll start from the one you didn’t mean, but might be understood like that.
so as for “not your question”:
Falcon family (and Falcon BMS as a member of it) has always been focused around the F-16.
in addition, all the avionics are based on late revision viper (say circa 2008) There is next to non implementation to the old stuff, inertial navigation (no GPS), non computerized Giro sights etc.
there for ther is no plan for ITO which is not in “present day”/“alternate timeline present day”.
BFS which is ITO derived, and set somewhere in a fictional 70’s universe.and for “your question”:
ITO is meant to simulate “present day” or “alternate timeline present day”.
current campaigns are only a stepping stone and further improvements are planned, but that is a lot of work still ahead of us in that field.
without giving up much, I can say that we do plan a campaign set in an “alternate timeline” where the syrian civil war never started and there are triggers that will be dynamic and will cause different plot lines to develop. (like in the original campaigns).But that will take time.
I don’t understand why I need to re-iterate myself all the time. I meant a campaign similar to the war in Yom Kippur 1973, not a recreation of it.
A modern setting, just like all the other campaigns, just one with a lot of enemies and a surrounded Israel.
-
While you have a point, I would refrain from using terms like “idiotic” when describing campaigns people have worked very hard on. There are priorities Molny and limited resources so it’s not like people aren’t aware of the opportunities for improvement. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some FO campaigns that could be won by either side. And if you are talking about realism, the DPRK doesn’t stand a chance in a air war, so you can’t have it both ways.
But I don’t want to derail this thread anymore, so please let’s move on.
It requires about 2 minutes to create a better sq. OOB…
