4.37 Campaigns using AGM 65L
-
Wondering why almost every campaign strike (or OCA mission) has AGM 65L’s as the primary/default weapon. It’s a great weapon but not a fire and forget weapon. It seems the default would be the 65D or 65G. Why only the L’s?
If I have to lase a target, in many cases, would probably prefer a LGB with the added option of a larger/penetrating warhead?
-
@Soundman Then just change it to whatever you want . Simple.
-
@Soundman The Laser Mav has the larger 300 lb penetrating warhead like a “G”. I’m guessing this is why the ATO loves them so… Personally, I wouldn’t use them without buddy lase capability. There is noting wrong about going through some of these other squads and check what they are using.
-
@Soundman Always control and change the flight loadouts in the campaign. This is exactly the place where you will need “babysitting”. HQ also likes to load GBU-31 AP for AI packages instead of something more useful, which degrades the effectiveness of interdiction strikes.
-
@Foxtrot701 said in 4.37 Campaigns using AGM 65L:
@Soundman Always control and change the flight loadouts in the campaign. This is exactly the place where you will need “babysitting”. HQ also likes to load GBU-31 AP for AI packages instead of something more useful, which degrades the effectiveness of interdiction strikes.
In my personal opinion the probability numbers if Maverick L are loaded by HQ should be tweaked a bit. At least, that they are not used against runways in OCA strikes.
The little problem with this is, that they are loaded on every F-16 in the entire theater for such purposes.I haven’t seen HQ loadouts with GBU-31 for Air Interdiction or Close Air Support yet. They use more small laser or GPS GBUs, which should be fine. I prefer JSOWs and prey that the enemy doesn’t start to move. Else, WMCD CBUs are better (and then I prey I can avoid the SHORADs and MANPADs).
-
@Atze-0 Why waste time of devs fixing something you should be changing on your own anyway. Unless they code it so the perfect loadout happens everytime someone will always complain its wrong. Not to mention its not possible to make it correct every mission anyway. Just change it as part of your mission planning.
-
@Icarus
Kinda disagree, if campaign engine is wasting ammo with wrong choices for A2G sorties across whole campaign it is kinda problem because:- sorties will be less effective
- some types of ammo might be low in supply when really needed for no good reason.
While yes, I doubt it can be solved, it can be mitigated with tweaks. IDK how this code works, but I think it should be possible to make it pick stores in relation to target type first then mission type second, which should make it more reasonable.
[EDIT]
Actually it should take into consideration target type first, mission type second and lastly weather. As overcast/rain will make all the laser-guided munition useless. -
@Xeno What it does is pick a standard loadout for mission type. It does not take factors like sam theats terrain or anything else into consideration like we do. Therefore I manage as many AG flights as possible that have not already taken off. Not to mention all the other flights I frag in a campaign. No amount of upgrading this will come close to what you can do anyway.
-
@Icarus
As @Xeno said, it influences all F-16 flights, not only your squadron.
But this is not such a huge problem as you may think.
It was already better in Korea in older versions and is actually better in other theaters with their own database.
I think it does not need reprogramming something but tweak some values in the DB. Maybe it is even possible just using Mission Commander. -
@Atze-0 Thats what I said. I adjust AG loadouts of ALL flights not in air already not just my squadron. No programming can do better than that. Its unrealistic to code loadout to be strategically correct. Even if they make it 50% better Im still going to have to check them all.
-
This bug has been around since 4.37ish (or 4.36?), when AGM-65L was introduced AFAIR.
Code takes also into account stand-off capability, damage type and the special flags when choosing the loadout, and the AGM-65L is one of the weapons that fulfill most of the criteria. The ATM should be able to handle multiple loadouts but it has been choosing mainly the AGM-65L.
I put on my list to fix at the end of U3 but time was simply not there to fix that. -
@tiag Priorities, priorities.
-
@Soundman - first, in RL an LMAV is a more effective weapon within the battle space…shocks me how long it took to get an LMAV into BMS, really. Secondly, MAV G in BMS is greatly over-modeled compared to RL, and I’m not even sure that the majority of the earlier types are even in inventory anymore. Plus no weapon is truly “fire and forget” for numerous of reasons…especially in the A/G arena.
Which is an even more basic issue - in a lot of cases, type aircraft, systems, weapons, and/or tactics within given scenarios don’t always line up with historical timelines or reality…and I’m not sure just how to address/solve that other than knowing more about history and RL and sticking to that rather than “the book”. Which actually works out really well, but requires some self-imposed rules, restrictions, and discipline.
-
@Stevie said in 4.37 Campaigns using AGM 65L:
@Soundman - first, in RL an LMAV is a more effective weapon within the battle space…shocks me how long it took to get an LMAV into BMS, really. Secondly, MAV G in BMS is greatly over-modeled compared to RL, and I’m not even sure that the majority of the earlier types are even in inventory anymore. Plus no weapon is truly “fire and forget” for numerous of reasons…especially in the A/G arena.
Which is an even more basic issue - in a lot of cases, type aircraft, systems, weapons, and/or tactics within given scenarios don’t always line up with historical timelines or reality…and I’m not sure just how to address/solve that other than knowing more about history and RL and sticking to that rather than “the book”. Which actually works out really well, but requires some self-imposed rules, restrictions, and discipline.
@Stevie , you left the selector of the rifle of disagreements on burst, there were 2 in less than 10 milliseconds. Here we all know that you have launched mavericks, you have worked at NASA, at Roll Royce, at the RWR factory, at DARPA, in the ejection seat department and hundreds of other professions in the aeronautical sector, but please remember that This is free, the guys who are at the top of the command ladder of this community do not have a penny through their hands and it is their family and life time that they are investing in us, so “BRO”, go easy With the criticism, they are giving everything.
-
@VIPER-0 - Self-discipline is free too. It’s possible to work around most of what I’ve pointed out below just by setting one’s own parameters.
Which is something I have also always pointed out - I don’t care so much how BMS “works” as I do about how BMS “behaves”…and generally speaking when I apply RL expectations BMS does behave like I expect. Which is pretty well done, really.
But you have to study more than just BMS to work such out.
-
Interesting topic, thanks for the info.