I think this would be nice…
-
I notice many of the enemy bases only have runways, a tower and ammo dumps and stuff like that, I don’t see a lot of parked aircraft,. It would be nice if they could populate the bases with more aircraft, preferably active or at least static aircraft objects, afterall,. These are air Force bases.
-
This is an old topic with a clear answer. Search feature will provide a fruitful result.
-
I notice many of the enemy bases only have runways, a tower and ammo dumps and stuff like that, I don’t see a lot of parked aircraft,. It would be nice if they could populate the bases with more aircraft, preferably active or at least static aircraft objects, afterall,. These are air Force bases.
Because of ATO and campaign balance and limitations of the engine is limited the qty. of parking aircraft on airbases. Putting 3D models without any effect on available AC qty. in sq. is pointless.
-
… and in some cases and on some airbases, we are lacking (suitable) parking points/areas.
-
it’s easy to overcome in TE
and you do not need 50 aircraft to make an airbase interesting5-6 is more than enough
the problem is working out the timing and use the correct settings in the ac spawn time (20 min instead of 2 for instance)
That’s what I use in my own Te’s and it does work pretty fine
-
@Red:
it’s easy to overcome in TE
and you do not need 50 aircraft to make an airbase interesting5-6 is more than enough
You mean … 5-6 static a/c or 5-6 available Pk point? (my guess is 5-6 static a/c … but I prefer to ask).
-
from a tactical perspective and gameplay, it doesn’t change anything Deejay
What the user wants is see some activity at the place he wants to drop bombs, he wants target of opportunity, BMS lacks quite a lot in there imho
so static or dynamic doesn’t change a thing, both have pros and consstatic is easier to manage timing wise but might not create result on the debrief satisfaction or might not influence the mission
dynamic is harder to manage but might have a better tactical impact on the outcome of the TEexample:
1. You need to prevent a flight to take off: with dynamic AC, you make that TE time sensitive which is a fully different ball game. Be late and they are in the air throwing missiles at you probably and your mission is failed
with static AC, your TE isn’t time sensitive and they won’t fire back once scrambled2. you need to destroy a HAS at an airbase or whatever static objective at an airbase with a flight of four human.
There is hardly four juicy different target at the airbase to keep the 4 pilots motivated with interesting objective (AI all go for the same DMPI). Having parked aircraft (static) adds another layer of rewarding target to share at the common mission objectiveAs I said, tactically, both are interesting IMHO
-
Yep I fully agree on that! It would be great of course!
The “only” issue is with static a/c … code support will be required to change them according to “owners” (MiG-29 and Il-76 on Koksan are fine in Rolling fire … not that much in Tiger Spirith … see what I mean?) and dedicated 3D models also (can’t use a/c model like they are because when they are used as static object, DOF are not active and stand on the belly without gears nor canopy … etc …)
Another issue is spawning point available. On some airbases, there is no room for loosing any possible places.
In case of “dynamic” a/c (from ATO shedule) making them spawning ealrier could put a real mess on the airbase because whatever we do, some combinaisions do not fit well … and could lead into critical bottelneck, or not having enought spwaning point, or wing clearance issues … etc … a long as we have only one or two flight, it is okay. But when whe have more … it could be rapdidly a real (tricky) problem.
All in all, and being aware of those taxi branches issues … I would rather be more in favor of few static a/c if we can have code support to handle them correctly.
-
… I could make some test on the Dev branch. But a/c will aprears on their belly without the gears and of course no loadouts … unless 3D modelers can modify existing 3D models to create and prodive dedicated LODs … or … if coder can do something to diplay them in a given switch/dof configuration (gears down, canopy open, no dragh chute visible for example). If you open any a/c LOD from BMS editor, you will see how they will apears as static object.
-
… I could make some test on the Dev branch. But a/c will aprears on their belly without the gears and of course no loadouts … unless 3D modelers can modify existing 3D models to create and prodive dedicated LODs … or … if coder can do something to diplay them in a given switch/dof configuration (gears down, canopy open, no dragh chute visible for example). If you open any a/c LOD from BMS editor, you will see how they will apears as static object.
To me this request is a totally different issue. I’m always on the gameplay effect side.
If ever anybody start this somehow should be bonded with sq. AC qty. Maybe it would be easier to link somehow the HAS/hangar and sq. available qty. and maybe the max. In case a HAS is destroyed maybe it should lower the max AC qty. permanently or at least should cause -1 AC to worth destroy them. Currently the only valid target for players the runway and destroying rest of the buildings is close to pointless.
-
it will never happen Im sure, but as long as we are spitballing…
Would be neat if destroying ammunition stores at airbases meant those aircraft, if able to take off, could be unable to be fully loaded.
Then again, that would open a further can of worms, how to make the campaign code handle low ammunition/stores status sanely.
-
Hi Molni!
If ever anybody start this somehow should be bonded with sq. AC qty…
Yes, but not absolutely necessary. On all airbases we can found unavailable grounded a/c (waiting for spares parts, damaged, waiting for maintenance …) Those (if only candy eyes) could be considered as such.
-
it will never happen Im sure, but as long as we are spitballing…
Would be neat if destroying ammunition stores at airbases meant those aircraft, if able to take off, could be unable to be fully loaded.
Then again, that would open a further can of worms, how to make the campaign code handle low ammunition/stores status sanely.
Same case above. The buildings and sq. store also can be bonded as HAS and AC sq. qty.
Hi Molni!
Yes, but not absolutely necessary. On all airbases we can found unavailable grounded a/c (waiting for spares parts, damaged, waiting for maintenance …) Those (if only candy eyes) could be considered as such.RGR
-
I notice many of the enemy bases only have runways, a tower and ammo dumps and stuff like that, I don’t see a lot of parked aircraft,. It would be nice if they could populate the bases with more aircraft, preferably active or at least static aircraft objects, afterall,. These are air Force bases.
Good Day, Group and T,
Tacannav sounds like he’s looking for the TOO like RedDog described. T, does it have to be a/c? If not, what would happen if you assigned a SAM,AAA,truck convoy, whatever to that base via Mission Commander? For that matter, what about an a/c squadron?