Campaign seems a bit of a mess...
-
@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.