Mission altitudes

[Arlo]

Agree... if there is an alt cap in place... it should be for all aircraft... fighters and bombers... and it should be set by a 200mph downdraft from the cap alt on up.  If the alt cap is set at 30K... then the bombers are going to need to be 4 - 5K under that for their escorts to be effective.

I hear ya. But buffs flying at max alt with a supernatural downdraft also takes away an otherwise useful tactic from the interceptors, which is the ability to attack from above the formation. Altitudes of operation should be left up to the respective command tactical decision.

I would like the crosswinds at different layers to make it impractical to do precision bombing above (insert whatever altitude the community decides is historically accurate). This would exemplify arena enviromental controls dictating more realistic tactics and strategy. Alas, it seems like it's been tested and only the wind at the buff alt affects the bomb.

Which takes us back to the unfortunate necessity of setting alt limits in event rules and the invariable 'they cheated by flying a thousand feet too high' complaints in debriefs. Oy.

[ImADot]

With the ability available to create and load custom cloud files, with some preparation cloud layers can be used to keep bombers under a certain altitude by making it very difficult to see the ground from above a certain cloud layer. Paired with strongish winds from certain directions, this would effectively limit the altitude that bombers would want to fly if they still want to have a chance of hitting their target. This would also do away with the need for a max downdraft and give defenders/escorts options for positioning.

[Arlo]

With the ability available to create and load custom cloud files, with some preparation cloud layers can be used to keep bombers under a certain altitude by making it very difficult to see the ground from above a certain cloud layer. Paired with strongish winds from certain directions, this would effectively limit the altitude that bombers would want to fly if they still want to have a chance of hitting their target. This would also do away with the need for a max downdraft and give defenders/escorts options for positioning.

Now, that's what I'm talkin' bout.

[Squire]

I have seen too many designs that had a single downdraft as a limiter that see the bombers fly right underneath it to force interceptors to engage co-alt. Its better to have both a downdraft and/or a buff max alt to let the interceptors attack from above. There is no big issue with compliance that I have seen in FSO almost all players will abide by a buff max alt. Its worked well in our setups. Its not perfect but nothing is.

[Arlo]

I have seen too many designs that had a single downdraft as a limiter that see the bombers fly right underneath it to force interceptors to engage co-alt. Its better to have both a downdraft and/or a buff max alt to let the interceptors attack from above. There is no big issue with compliance that I have seen in FSO almost all players will abide by a buff max alt. Its worked well in our setups. Its not perfect but nothing is.

But why should we have to set rules telling players they aren't allowed to fly above a specific altitude, complete with filming the cheaters, reporting the cheaters, complaining about the cheaters on the forum (even when the 'cheaters' are actually compliant) when we can actually set the enviroment in the arena to practically dissuade buffs from flying right below an artificial downdraft in order to force interceptors to attack co-alt? Set enough cloud layers and nothing but blind carpet bombing will happen from high altitude. Leave supernatural downdrafts out of it completely. All aircraft may fly to their top-end ceilings if they want. It won't be a feasible tactic to accomplish either bombing or intercepting buffs if the cloud layers obscure enough.

[AKP]

One drawback to a written bomber cap is that allows the opposing fighters to know where the bombers WONT be.  And in cases like the current set up, it lets them know pretty much where they WILL be (as high as allowed).

Here is an example of what Arlo would be suggesting... I think:

2K - 10K: 0mph
10K - 12K: 5mph SE
12K - 16K: 10mph S
16K - 18K: 15mph SE
18K - 20K: 20mph S
20K - 22K: 25mph SE
22K - 24K: 30mph SE
24K - 26K: 50mph S (heavy cloud layer @ 26K)
26K - 28K: 75mph SE (additional heavy cloud layer @ 28K)
28K - 30K: 100mph S (additional heavy cloud layer @ 30K)
30K + 125mph SE

This would do two things. 

1) make it harder to stay on course during the bomb run the higher you are.
2) make it harder to see the target the higher you go above 26K. 

If a bomber squadron wants to go as high as they can before target... they are going to pay for it in accuracy.  The drawback to not having a downdraft would be that after the drop, bombers could climb even higher to avoid opposing fighters with no penalty other than possibly flying into the wind depending on which way "home" is.

[Arlo]

One drawback to a written bomber cap is that allows the opposing fighters to know where the bombers WONT be.  And in cases like the current set up, it lets them know pretty much where they WILL be (as high as allowed).

Here is an example of what Arlo would be suggesting... I think:

2K - 10K: 0mph
10K - 12K: 5mph SE
12K - 16K: 10mph S
16K - 18K: 15mph SE
18K - 20K: 20mph S
20K - 22K: 25mph SE
22K - 24K: 30mph SE
24K - 26K: 50mph S (heavy cloud layer @ 26K)
26K - 28K: 75mph SE (additional heavy cloud layer @ 28K)
28K - 30K: 100mph S (additional heavy cloud layer @ 30K)
30K + 125mph SE

This would do two things. 

1) make it harder to stay on course during the bomb run the higher you are.
2) make it harder to see the target the higher you go above 26K. 

If a bomber squadron wants to go as high as they can before target... they are going to pay for it in accuracy.  The drawback to not having a downdraft would be that after the drop, bombers could climb even higher to avoid opposing fighters with no penalty other than possibly flying into the wind depending on which way "home" is.

Yes. 

[AKKuya]

One of the best ways to keep mission altitudes for bombers not getting so high is for the design map utilizing opposing bases less then 3 sectors away. 

This is an underlining issue that over the last couple of years in design that over time has created a standard approach to mission objectives.  Each objective is spread out with enough distance from another that has facilitated one objective - one strike mission - one defensive mission.  This way of design has created on average 5 to 7 sectors of distance to cross.  Each strike mission has ample time to climb to high altitudes.  Each defensive mission just circles and climbs on waiting for the approach.

Move the opposing bases close together and you change the way of bombing altitudes.  Some will climb to low altitudes or NOE.  Others will climb behind front lines to cross over and hit the target at high altitudes.  Throw in fighters to defend, attack, and recon will create very real situations of fog of war.

But, it's up to each Frame CIC to create the orders for all of this to be implemented.

Adding wind layers for each FSO and manual calibration for bombers, this would improve FSO in the long run if every FSO CM agreed to do this.  Running wind or manual calibration every once awhile only frustrates players who fly in MA's with pristine enviroment. 

It's a balance thing.  How many players have the desire to set up offline or custome arenas with FSO conditions to practice with winds and manual calibration?  How many fighter jockeys actually have a desire to fly bombers when thier squad is assigned them?  How many players want to learn the tricks of this?

Would FSO attendance increase or decrease with full time winds and manual calibration?

This is an issue that has two choices.  Either full time with winds and manual calibration or always use MA conditions.  There is no true middle ground.  The middle ground choice just adds frustration to the average player that shows up for the squad and fly the event.

If the CM's want to go to full time winds and manual calibration for each and every FSO, then I'll have no problem with that because I know how to set-up both offline and custom arena to practice before each Frame. 

Just my four cents.

 

[Nefarious]

One of the best ways to keep mission altitudes for bombers not getting so high is for the design map utilizing opposing bases less then 3 sectors away. 

This is an underlining issue that over the last couple of years in design that over time has created a standard approach to mission objectives. Each objective is spread out with enough distance from another that has facilitated one objective - one strike mission - one defensive mission.  This way of design has created on average 5 to 7 sectors of distance to cross.  Each strike mission has ample time to climb to high altitudes.  Each defensive mission just circles and climbs on waiting for the approach.

Move the opposing bases close together and you change the way of bombing altitudes.  Some will climb to low altitudes or NOE.  Others will climb behind front lines to cross over and hit the target at high altitudes.  Throw in fighters to defend, attack, and recon will create very real situations of fog of war.

But, it's up to each Frame CIC to create the orders for all of this to be implemented.

Interesting comments. I completely disagree except for what I bolded. If you move the objectives within three sectors of fields you will have fights within minutes of the event start. FSO is one life event, nothing aggravates me more in FSO than a quick night under 20 minutes or less. Determining times to target is one of the biggest factors in designing FSOs.

Long distances between targets actually enforce altitudes better as it forces the attacker to worry about making it to the target within the 60 minute rule. I have used this method in the design of FSOs and it works.

As far was wind goes, we have tried it. It was said by many that it was unrealistically modeled. I stopped using it in my designs.

[AKKuya]

Interesting comments. I completely disagree except for what I bolded. If you move the objectives within three sectors of fields you will have fights within minutes of the event start. FSO is one life event, nothing aggravates me more in FSO than a quick night under 20 minutes or less. Determining times to target is one of the biggest factors in designing FSOs.

Long distances between targets actually enforce altitudes better as it forces the attacker to worry about making it to the target within the 60 minute rule. I have used this method in the design of FSOs and it works.

As far was wind goes, we have tried it. It was said by many that it was unrealistically modeled. I stopped using it in my designs.

For a few frames, yes. Then squads would learn to stop the quarterback sneak.

Then, you have one target mission then tower out and very few times is there a set-up that would allow second strikes.    argument that's been rehashed too many times.

If that's the case then this thread and the other one in FSO is really a moot point.

Nothing's perfect in this game other than we pretend that we know what we're doing and tell those who don't play the game that we're the experts who should travel back in time and be the aides to the generals and the admirals.

 

[Big Rat]

The cloud layers are a good idea, I kinda like that one .  Is it really needed, not really, simple enforcement of the 25k bomber rule would suffice.  Substantial penalties for bombers caught over 25k should reduce this tendency, simply film and send in.  I know last frame,  I was on my guys about watching their alt, and we stayed right at that edge most of the time.  BOG early frames, proved this German planeset can do damage to heavies before being torn up by escort fighters.  So forcing the Allied escorts down to the German planes by giving them the same alt cap, is simply trying to make it easier for the Axis players.  It's tough for the axis in this setup, it's supposed to be.  Been there done that, the challenge is part of the fun.

 
BigRat     

[Stellaris]

Cloud layers are a perfectly functional and reasonable limitation on the altitude, just as they are on operations.

The realism I'd love to see injected are proper formations, but not many players have the skill to do more than (or even) elementary station-keeping, and fewer squads have the drills and doctrine in place to get it organized.

[Bino]

But why should we have to set rules telling players they aren't allowed to fly above a specific altitude, complete with filming the cheaters, reporting the cheaters, complaining about the cheaters on the forum (even when the 'cheaters' are actually compliant) when we can actually set the enviroment in the arena to practically dissuade buffs from flying right below an artificial downdraft in order to force interceptors to attack co-alt? Set enough cloud layers and nothing but blind carpet bombing will happen from high altitude. Leave supernatural downdrafts out of it completely. All aircraft may fly to their top-end ceilings if they want. It won't be a feasible tactic to accomplish either bombing or intercepting buffs if the cloud layers obscure enough.

I have been told that clouds are not set via an environment variable.  Clouds are controlled by specially hand-crafted environment files, and mere FSO Admin CMs (like me) are not allowed to meddle with such powerful juju.

BTW, I don't think many players would like realistic wind.  if you want to see what real life winds aloft look like, browse on over to here:  http://www.aviationweather.gov/products/nws/winds/

For example, later today over Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, this is predicted:

altitude in feet, true bearing, speed in knots
00-03k, 290, 15
03-06k, 310, 37
06-09k, 320, 52
09-12k, 320, 51
12-18k, 310, 52
18-24k, 310, 55
24-30k, 310, 54
30-34k, 310, 52
34-39k, 310, 46

[Arlo]

I have been told that clouds are not set via an environment variable.  Clouds are controlled by specially hand-crafted environment files, and mere FSO Admin CMs (like me) are not allowed to meddle with such powerful juju.

Are you saying that this variable on the map design, itself, cannot be changed and re-submitted?

[Bino]

Are you saying that this variable on the map design, itself, cannot be changed and re-submitted?

Clouds are not a plain vanilla "arena variable", like Fuel Burn Rate, for example.  Clouds are controlled by some sort of "cloud files" which are created via some sort of "cloud editor".