Campaigning in number two, three, or four
-
Hello. Newbie here. I’ve searched and tried to find an answer to this. Does anyone play as a wingman in campaign with AI? I’m wondering if that functions correctly or should be avoided to reduce stress and disappointment. I just tried it and the mission didn’t go well, meaning the lead basically burned circles in the sky and allowed me to run dry over the target area. Any assistance would be appreciated. I have read the manuals for the most part, even about different formations. Just not really sure if I did something wrong or what to do to fix what I did wrong. This area is pretty unclear when it comes to AI flying lead.
Thanks!
-
AI flying lead pretty much sucks! As well as flying wingman… I sometimes choose the exact target on AG EXP mode and order my wingman to attack it… but instead, all he does is fly around aimlessly, wasting valuable ammunition which should have been used.
Moreover, if he does fire, he’ll throw all his bombs at once on the same little/big target.
Be warned! Fly with human drivers only. -
Cheetah, let’s not vent at random here.
As lead AI won’t pay attention to formation-goings-on, just order you around. Just like some AI flight inside your bubble.
-
I see. So there isn’t really any use in it other than multiple human players?
-
Best way to learn is take lead of a simple DCA or sweep and go out there and blunder through.
If you kill something and get to land its a bonus.
Don’t take it to serious yet, you have a long road so enjoy the ride.
Shad
-
Oh indeed. I’ve finished the easy campaign on medium difficulty. I was just curious if it would be worth flying as 2 single player. I love this sim. Not sure if I’m ready for playing with the pros yet.
-
Oh indeed. I’ve finished the easy campaign on medium difficulty. I was just curious if it would be worth flying as 2 single player. I love this sim. Not sure if I’m ready for playing with the pros yet.
Oh indeed ? OK then, nobody flies wingman to an AI unless your TagKnight.
-
Moreover, if he does fire, he’ll throw all his bombs at once on the same little/big target.
Since you can’t assign weapons per AI aircraft per target in the mission planner, this is the best solution. Otherwise your AI wingman will loiter for a long time, dropping one bomb a time on the target, fly a circle, drop the next bomb on the same target etc. until all iron is released. Better have them all off in one pass.
-
Oh indeed ? OK then, nobody flies wingman to an AI unless your TagKnight.
Oh okay. Will be avoided. Thanks!
-
If it’s an SEAD mission you can tell your wingman to rejoin right after he says magnum, and he’ll keep the other one for later, but that’s about it I think.
-
It has been mentioned that the AI is stupid (Dee Jay) and can not fully utilize combat air tactics like humans. It is a forgone conclusion that the AI needs a big overhaul. Even if the AI was completely overhauled, it would still be a dumb lead.
What I want to see done with the AI is better responses and tactics to be employed. Also, AWAC commands/call outs and functions improved. Such as when AWACs calls out a contact. It is not a boggy or any direct assumption to the ID of any aircraft. It is simply a contact. AWACs should call out “contact”. That would be very realistic. AWACs would also update your contact and status of the contact every few seconds (every 10 to 20 seconds would be about right). For example;
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact your 240, 60 out, angles 18”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 240, 50 out, angles 20”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 235, 40 out, angles 22”
…ect.It would update your flight until the contact ID is hostile. AWACs would then declare…
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now hostile at 235, 30 out, angles 24”
You would not have to use key comms to keep asking AWACs where the contact is or if the contact is hostile. This would be much closer to r/l. Problem is that it would take a major AI re-write to achieve this. Plus you have multiple call outs that AWACs should be doing for multiple inbound aircraft. AWACs would then have to keep you advised of all the air threats inside the bubble (inside 30nm.). That could mean up to 20+ contacts, but keep you focused on the most immediate hostile. For example;
“Century 1, Falcon 1, multiple contacts at 020, 095, 270, 320, nearest hostile at 095, 15 out, angles 21”
This approach would solve the IFF condition and keep the pilot appraised of the situation. But, this would require a major AI re-write. I am not even sure it can be done. And, this is nothing compared to re-writing the AI wingman behavior.
-
Oh indeed. I’ve finished the easy campaign on medium difficulty. I was just curious if it would be worth flying as 2 single player. I love this sim. Not sure if I’m ready for playing with the pros yet.
I’ve been playing a campaign for weeks and not finished it. How is it possible? What are the conditions to finish one?
-
I’ve been playing a campaign for weeks and not finished it. How is it possible? What are the conditions to finish one?
What is the Theater and Campaign you are flying?
-
What is the Theater and Campaign you are flying?
The Israeli Theatre campaign the southern campaign
-
I’ve been doing Korea.
-
Such as when AWACs calls out a contact. It is not a boggy or any direct assumption to the ID of any aircraft. It is simply a contact. AWACs should call out “contact”. That would be very realistic. AWACs would also update your contact and status of the contact every few seconds (every 10 to 20 seconds would be about right). For example;
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact your 240, 60 out, angles 18”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 240, 50 out, angles 20”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 235, 40 out, angles 22”
…ect.Actually, BOGEY is a contact whose identity is unknown.
SPADES, RIDER, SQUAWKING, and GOPHER are calls for partially identified contacts.
BANDIT is a contact confirmed to be an enemy, but clearance or direction to fire on them is not implied. HOSTILE is an enemy contact on whom clearance to fire is granted.
-
Actually, BOGEY is a contact whose identity is unknown.
SPADES, RIDER, SQUAWKING, and GOPHER are calls for partially identified contacts.
BANDIT is a contact confirmed to be an enemy, but clearance or direction to fire on them is not implied. HOSTILE is an enemy contact on whom clearance to fire is granted.
So, you want to have all of those variables in an AWAC’s call out? :rolleyes:
Think FBMS and coding just what I suggested. That would be major. Now, code something like what your saying would be monumental (stress on the “mental”)! It would be even more realistic but a much larger undertaking than what I suggested. “Contacts” and “Hostile” would be enough. I know we all want realism but it does come down to what can and can not be done. Even my suggestion may not be possible.
-
Rider and gopher are not happening any time soon, and as the others rely on IFF they arent either.
I’m just saying that instead of contacts and hostile, it should be Bogey and Hostile.
-
Rider and gopher are not happening any time soon, and as the others rely on IFF they arent either.
I’m just saying that instead of contacts and hostile, it should be Bogey and Hostile.
It’s interesting because I have heard the term “contact” when AWAC’s (E-3) barks out a contact. Contact becomes “bogey” when it is unknown and heading towards you. “Spades” for partial ID and “Bandit” for hostile contact either not in range or not authorized to shoot. “Hostile” when you are weapons “green”. Maybe just me, but that is what I have heard in the past. In fact, the call outs are “contact” mostly. Especially when dealing with other traffic in the area. Contacts or Bogey, either way of course.
-
CONTACT refers to an individual sensor contact within a GROUP. A BOGEY is just an unknown CONTACT. SPADES is no correct IFF codes, BANDIT is an enemy contact who does not meet HOSTILE criteria IAW theater ROEs.
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact your 240, 60 out, angles 18”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 240, 50 out, angles 20”
“Century 1, Falcon 1, contact now 235, 40 out, angles 22”
…ect.you’d better give the pilot the option to call JUDY as well if the AWACS starts getting that verbose…
