Factory Targets
-
i don’t generally go after bridges, so it’s hard to say if they would have an effect.
unfortunately, the way korea is laid out means that it’s hard to drop bridges without sabotaging your future self: pretty much anything you can drop will slow you down on the way to pyongyang. i suppose though there is the koksan-pyong’yang route. i don’t think there are any bridges there, so if you funnel all of your forces through that gap, hit the bridges day 1/day2, jam all your forces down that road and then slam the entire combined forces AF down on that corridor’s defenders you could probably speed things up noticeably.
if you actually look at the way the campaign AI moves, it does actually move it’s troops to reinforce areas of weakness. by default it takes a fairly wide spread (at least, after the DMZ is relatively clear) meaning if you drop the bridges (LOTS OF BRIDGES) you could probably prevent it from consolidating it’s forces.
the ground game is actually fairly complex if you look at mission commander. my only complaint is that the AI seems to twiddle it’s thumbs a little, probably a deliberate choice on the part of it’s programmer not to run facefirst into the entire DPRK tank corps.
once it gets on the move, it makes reasonable choices as to where to go and what to capture.
what makes it hard to tell if supply does things, and/or if dropping bridges achieves anything is that korea has so many damn factories and so many damn bridges. it’s also complicated by the fact that many of the DPRK battalions are probably amphibious, which means that they probably don’t need bridges to cross rivers anyway. you could get more conclusive results if there was a theater with far less, but comparatively important bridges (israel)?
besides, korea is a bad example of bridge effects because for about 50~% of the war it’s just the forces on the DMZ shooting each other. whether you hit the bridges or not, the enormously front-loaded DPRK forces are already right next to their targets anyway.
perhaps the only thing i actually wish was different about the campaign was that the red (DPRK) armor was more aggressive. i don’t think i’ve ever seen them actually attack seoul in any great number, especially in this scenario where they absolutely must attack, because every hour they lose several battalions of heavy equipment to the perpetual rain of cluster bombs from what, 15~ squadrons of attackers?
-
What is CP?
I believe you m8 I just want to learn how it is done.
The knowledge on many aspects of falcon is just not there.Sent from TapaTalk
-
-
after a little testing, bridges do work so schniderman isn’t wrong that it can be done. i’m just not sure about korea (so many bridges)
exhibit A:
a BM-21 artillery battalion enroute to this little peninsula. the sole way in are the changyon and taetan bridges. all is well when suddenly!those damn dirty falcons appear and wreck our bridge!
well it’s no big deal, there’s still the taetan bridge.
and then
after a minute or two of thinking about the fact that they’re not going to be able to cross that river, they decide to go to the city and support that instead.
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
-
@Cik:
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
It is all about timing. In post #57 and 59 I explain that I put infrastructure sliders to zero so that no bridges get destroyed without my consent. I’m only cutting off reinforcements from the North and I’m waiting until there is a bona fide push to the objective by my ground troops. Again, I’m only hitting what I consider “key” bridges. It may only be one bridge, or a series of bridges depending on the situation.
-
exactly what battalions you can actually stop, and which bridges to hit are up in the air. russians love amphibious vehicles, so a great deal of the enemy line troops might be able to ford the rivers anyway, but it will probably stop at least most of their artillery, many mobile SAMs and AAA.
-
I don’t think it is the 3d object or objective but the value set for this objective. Also the values for units, and maybe the objectives to be deffented. So if bridge is valued 100 and unit 200 might pass from a bridge destroyed that has cost value 150.
In my tests where no such values where set units where passing even through sea.
But who will tell us how we set those values?
Sent from TapaTalk -
exactly what battalions you can actually stop, and which bridges to hit are up in the air. russians love amphibious vehicles, so a great deal of the enemy line troops might be able to ford the rivers anyway, but it will probably stop at least most of their artillery, many mobile SAMs and AAA.
I agree, but I spend most of my time on the NW front, and have little interaction with the Ruskies. The Chinese usually send tanks, and they float like a lead balloon.
-
well, most of the DPRK vehicles are russian-derived. BMPs are amphibious you know, easily cross rivers.
most of the T-series tanks are too.
-
Cik
well, most of the DPRK vehicles are russian-derived. BMPs are amphibious you know, easily cross rivers.most of the T-series tanks are too.
LOL, ignorance is bliss, did not know that! :mrgreen:
-
@Cik:
after a little testing, bridges do work so schniderman isn’t wrong that it can be done. i’m just not sure about korea (so many bridges)
exhibit A:
a BM-21 artillery battalion enroute to this little peninsula. the sole way in are the changyon and taetan bridges. all is well when suddenly!those damn dirty falcons appear and wreck our bridge!
well it’s no big deal, there’s still the taetan bridge.
and then
after a minute or two of thinking about the fact that they’re not going to be able to cross that river, they decide to go to the city and support that instead.
so, i guess if there were the right bridges to hit, and you hit them, you could actually firewall a significant part of the enemy OOB behind a river, or at least force them to cross the country to get across it.
well there are 3 bridges. why din’t they took the south one? Or you destroyed that also?
-
there are only two bridges to get to that peninsula, the north bridge, changyon and the south bridge, taetan. the first TE there was a 4ship strike on the north one only, after a minute or two they changed their route to cross the taetan bridge. the second TE there was 5 strikes to kill the north and south bridges (the second strike kept missing the bridge… for some reason) in that one it tried to do the second route (east, then south, then west, across the bridge) but after the taetan bridge was destroyed it stopped and went to the nearest city to reserve instead.
i can upload the TE files if you like.
-
As a campaign developer, I want to mention a few things about the supply system in Falcon. While supply from industrial targets is important to the fighting armies, Falcon’s campaign’s are also built with supply and fuel stops at every city/town/bridge. This allows the units to move along their invisible paths and grab land with being resupplied with fuel and ammunition. In the campaign, even if you destroy every industrial target, your supply will never go to zero. In order to get that effect you will have to destroy every town/city/bridge as well. But doing that will not help your side’s army. Because the ‘cookies’ as one famous developer called them are being consumed even when no combat occurs. If you destroy all of the fuel and supply, both armies stop moving.
So knowing that, you cannot win a campaign by strategic bombing alone; the same lesson learned by real world Air Forces in WW2, Vietnam and Desert Storm. In order to win, you have to destroy enemy forces in the air and ground. In a land grab campaign, this allows your forces to move forward and capture territory. In my attrition campaign, this all reduces the force ratio down to the point the winning video plays. Falcon’s dynamic campaign engine is a lot closer to real life than many of us realize.
-
can you elaborate on how exactly that works out chuckles? i have noticed that many battalions, even if they manage to move forward and capture things quickly run out of fatigue/supplies. are supplies “funnelled” towards important units by the campaign AI or is everyone in the field “stand-alone”, only relying on whatever they can scavenge from captured objectives (or friendly ones)?
SAMs especially it seems like once they run out they’re out of missiles forever. is that because it costs a ton to resupply them, it isn’t possible to? there’s no supplies left, other?
-
Falcon’s dynamic campaign engine is a lot closer to real life than many of us realize.
Regardless how fantastic is the dyn. camp. as a tool for random tactical environment I disagree.
- In a modern coventional comflict the factories and similar targets has no effect on the outcome. You have to use in combat what you have in 0 hour. Today producing anything except gun ammo requires so much time which make pointless to bomb any factory. During a 2-3 or even 2-3 month conflict nobody can manufacture new tanks, radar, airplanes, helos ect. which have any serious effect on the ongoing conflict. WW2 style war has gone long, long time ago. Even during the '70s in US the monthly figther production in US was about 3-4 dozens when the F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and Harrier was in production. Today the production rate is about a dozen per month (F-18E/F + F-35A/B/C) but in France the prod. rate of Rafale in latest years was less the 1/month… Ok, US can relocate fighters which you can call supply but who the hell sends more J-5/J-6/H-5, Q-5 to DPRK in 2000s campaigns…??? This is why also better '80s era for Korea because PRC and DPRK used many similar type AC.
- In Falcon the resupply of squadrons is literally infinite where the GUs cannot get any while in RL in massive, large scale wars even the reservist are used with crap old eq. In '80s USSR used T-72B/B1, T-80, T-64BV, etc were first line tanks but in reserve even T-55/62 were used. In WPACT in middle of '80s even T-34/85 (!) assigned as reserve in case of total mobilization.
This is the main problem with Falcon. While sq. get huge resupply to maintain the “flow” of campaign to set up some kind of challenge GUs cannot get detectable or any resupply and reinforcements can be made only manually. Sq. cannot be destroyed but incas a battalion lost all of its vehicles it is gone forever. Only a very, very minimal reinf. is set any campaign…
-
Mobile units, Tanks, APC, Infantry all get their supply and fuel from objectives as they travel on wireframe. As you say, the get everything the need by scavenging from their captured objectives. But, ground units can simply fatigue out from too much combat. Just like real ground units, you need to rest in between fights. Another way ground units can run out of supplies is if they arrive at an objective that has been destroyed. They now need to sit there and wait for the objective to be repaired. The amount of time they wait will be affected by the supply status. A really big way units can fatigued if the supply points are to far between. In Malc’s Kuwait theatre, the cities and towns are are separated by miles of empty desert. Malc fixed this problem by adding fuel and supply points using depots. In Korea that is done in a similar manner by using bridges and a certain amount of depots
Air units get their supply from the airbases, army bases, highways strips. The supply infrastructure will more of an effect units at fixed bases. That being said, the destruction of supply has its greatest effect on the arrival of replacement aircraft, fixed base SAM units. That is why SAM run out of missiles or why large caliber AAA never seems to be replaced once it is destroyed.
All of the above mention supply rules are hard coded in Falcon Dynamic Campaign. It doesn’t matter if your are flying BMS, FF, LP Allied Force or Vanilla Falcon 4. This is the artificial Intelligence of a dynamic campaign. If you fly EECH, some of of these principles are there in their dynamic campaign too, albeit in a much simpler/smaller focused form.
-
I believe the endless resupply was cause behind the conflicting parties are USSR-China and USA.
But I thought for the zero time (campaign start) you can set the numbers of weapons available and ammo. Missiles and bombs. Like this SA-6 will have xx launchers and xx missiles available. When those end they will have to wait to resupply. Which is this resupply factor, so to alter it in a more realistic value? code wise or data wise.
Now there is resupply for the weapon and for the ammo, so the weapons factor should be high to ultra high for some, like no more SA-6 launchers, and for the ammo lower as you can buy or produce ammo.This is once more the reason I said we need details, an ERD on those fields and values and how they interconnect and affect each other.
Does anyone remember where in the code all those are defined and calculated? maybe from there we could get some results as I don’t see anyone shedding some actual light on the subject.
-
Mobile units, Tanks, APC, Infantry all get their supply and fuel from objectives as they travel on wireframe.
I know I talked about this with A.S. He said suppy for GUs can provide only morale and possibility to advance (fatigue). But have you ever seen a GU resupplied that a tank or mach battalion resupplied wit half of max. vehicles? Because I have never seen…
As you say, the get everything the need by scavenging from their captured objectives. But, ground units can simply fatigue out from too much combat. Just like real ground units, you need to rest in between fights. Another way ground units can run out of supplies is if they arrive at an objective that has been destroyed. They now need to sit there and wait for the objective to be repaired. The amount of time they wait will be affected by the supply status. A really big way units can fatigued if the supply points are to far between. In Malc’s Kuwait theatre, the cities and towns are are separated by miles of empty desert. Malc fixed this problem by adding fuel and supply points using depots. In Korea that is done in a similar manner by using bridges and a certain amount of depots
I know this, check above.
Air units get their supply from the airbases, army bases, highways strips. The supply infrastructure will more of an effect units at fixed bases. That being said, the destruction of supply has its greatest effect on the arrival of replacement aircraft, fixed base SAM units. That is why SAM run out of missiles or why large caliber AAA never seems to be replaced once it is destroyed.
One thing that I never was able to figure out. Where is stored how many missiles are avail for a certain battalion? You can set weapon qty. for each vehicle but I have no idea how they are resupplied. Even is not clear to me how determine the loaded qty. when a units is transformed from 2D world to 3D world.
All of the above mention supply rules are hard coded in Falcon Dynamic Campaign. It doesn’t matter if your are flying BMS, FF, LP Allied Force or Vanilla Falcon 4. This is the artificial Intelligence of a dynamic campaign. If you fly EECH, some of of these principles are there in their dynamic campaign too, albeit in a much simpler/smaller focused form.
I know.
But the problem is still the same. Air forces kills very quick GUs what literally do not have any resupply and reinf while AC sq. reagin their power very quickly. This makes very quickly not balanced the campaigns. GUs need not only morale and fatigue supply, they need similar resupply as sq.
-
in particular SAMs need way more missiles. they shoot more often now (which is great!) however they run out of missiles at like 5x the rate (not so great)
kind of silly that you can here kitty kitty an SA-2 out of missiles in like, i don’t know, a few minutes tops.
likewise, seoul is a no-fly zone due to patriots. for about 5 minutes after the DPRK airblitz begins.
-
@Cik:
in particular SAMs need way more missiles. they shoot more often now (which is great!) however they run out of missiles at like 5x the rate (not so great)
kind of silly that you can here kitty kitty an SA-2 out of missiles in like, i don’t know, a few minutes tops.
likewise, seoul is a no-fly zone due to patriots. for about 5 minutes after the DPRK airblitz begins.
Because in RL Patriot has so many missiles and not even sim. eng. capability is modeled.
In RL an S-75 battery had 6 missiles on rails and 3 missile salvo was mandatory… While in BMS4 AI uses signel missiles because of gamebalance. On site 3x reload was stored typically.