Bahger

Goldfinger: Sorry about that: 251.1 UHF. Rainmaker/Goldfinger: There is plenty of time to find/kill the convoys based on a ramp-start time of about 8 minutes. It used to take me longer but I had to learn to keep up with my squadron-mates in the 1st VFW. Sorry if it's a bit tight for you but with a little practice there is no reason why you should not be taxiing by about the 8 minute mark. Shootist: I think the tanks look like they are going faster than they are when you're zoomed-in in the TGP and they are moving in high-aspect (i.e. across your field of view). Also, I may be wrong but I don't think you can drop 105s in CCIP. I believe they are WCMDs that can only be deployed in CCRP. FWIW, I have found the AI wingie very effective against the moving columns. You can use his SPI if necessary to find them, and roll in on what he leaves after his first pass. The trick is finding and killing both columns in the time available.

Thanks for taking it for a spin, jeffy, good to see you again. Shootist, thanks for the AAR, I really appreciate it. Those tanks never go over 30 mph, anything much faster than that, in formation, would be science fiction. I tend to drop in CCIP so that I can eyeball how much to lead the pipper. Or you can plink the tank at the front with a Maverick and then follow it in with bombs as once the Mav hits, the remainder of the column will stop for a short time without dispersing too far. If you wre at 12,00ft, how did you deal with the defenses? Did you leave them to the Tornadoes?

This is a new mission, my first in about six months but easily my best, I reckon, FWIW. It's deceptively simple, a 2-ship sweep for armored vehicle convoys, but an unexpected occurrence forces the player to reconsider his tactical approach to the mission goals and presents several ways to approach the mission. SEAD (2x Tornadoes) has been integrated very successfully within a high-threat environment. There is a Predator AFAC. The mission has custom voice radio messages from a NATO mission commander on the ground. As simple as the basic mission appears, it requires some tactical decision-making and a fairly advanced level of proficiency in the jet. I've tested the .miz exhaustively in SP. It plays very well but as certain factors are influenced by the player's timing and proximity to elements on the battlefield, it will be interesting to see how it plays out for you. MP should work well, too and will reward good teamwork/comms between flight lead and his wingman. All comments welcome. Dawn Patrol Singleplayer version Dawn Patrol Multiplayer version

Thanks, Speed. I got very distracted by RL this summer and even mothballed my PC for a short while. I hadn't run A-10 since 1.0.0.8 so needed to shake a few cobwebs in both the sim and the ME. I fixed the .miz. Lots of trial-and-error and a certain amount of jury-rigging in the ME but it works. I changed the hierarchy of the Advanced WP commands at the IP, inserting a SEAD enroute command below the "Search in Zone" command and gave the latter a "Stop" order after the Buk launcher unit is killed (Flag 1) otherwise they go for the SA-11 radar and command units instead of looking for more active threats. Now Tornado Flight Lead hits the Buk while #2 rolls in on one of the SA-19s almost directly below him with another ALARM. The GR4s then join up again and go after the remaining SA-19. #2 still gets too low and provokes a launch but the "Evade Fire" order (thanks, as ever, NDP) enables him to shake it off while #1 takes out the Tunguska. This is fun to watch (amended .miz attached) but will be even more fun to fly, as the player is only made aware of the SA-19s lying in his flight path when airborne at about Angels 10, about 25nm out. He is told the SA-19s are located at his next two briefed WPs and has to make a quick decision whether to evade (laterally, vertical isn't an option this close-in) or divert from pursuing his priority targets to engage the SAMs with Mavericks, always a little tricky, especially with a full weapon/fuel load. If he evades, the SA-19s will be an inhibiting factor in the prosecution of those priority targets. I always place WPs at nav altitudes so if he goes offensive on the SA-19s the player has to use TAD MARK in a hurry to fix them on the ground. It adds to the pressure and presents a tricky tactical choice with limited time to make the decision. Now that the SEAD is working properly, the player will eventually feel vindicated if he chooses to evade the SA-19s but the Tornadoes will hit the LR SAMs first, leaving the player exposed to the threat for long enough to have to make the call. I'm really looking forward to publishing this .miz. Thanks for your help, as always. Too see the new-improved SEAD behavior, check out the attachment. Dawn Patrol 10.miz

Yeah, I've noticed some very odd wingman behavior since 1.1.10, including refusal to go line abreast and definitely the turning in circles headless chicken routine you mention when ordered to engage. It has happened in a mission of my own, not all the time but quite frequently.

I have a promising mission but it has somewhat glitchy SEAD AI. You do not have to fly the mission but can watch the entire SEAD operation from the F10 screen, speeded up, in less than 4 minutes, so I'm hoping someone will take a look and maybe peek under the hood of my SEAD plotting to let me know what might be wrong. Here's the deal: I have a Tornado SEAD flight tasked to destroy a BUK group that is more distant than 2 TUNGUSKAs along its flightpath, so I have used a Search in Zone command, with no SEAD tasking, to get it to ignore the SA-19s and go straight for the SA-11. So far, so good, it kills the BUK from 30k ft with ALARMs. I now want the Tornadoes to orbit over the battlefield and hit the Tunguskas, so I have made it Orbit, added a SEAD order and commanded it to use radar as by now the player's flight should be waking up the SA-19s. At this point the Tornadoes go stupid, busting through the Tunguskas' engagement ceiling at 20k, going defensive and jettisoning their remaining ALARMS before getting shot out of the sky by the Tunguskas. Sometimes one Tornado will get a shot off, killing one SA-19, but it is bugging me that a dedicated SEAD 2-ship is making such heavy weather of a pair of SA-19s, after it killed the BUK so efficiently. It is possible that some aspect of my programming of the Tornadoes' advanced commands and options along the route is off-kilter. If I can't fix this I'll have to RTB the Tornadoes after they hit the Buk. This is going to be one of my better SP sorties if I can just get the AI SEAD to behave credibly, so could someone take a look? As I say, you do not have to fly it, just watch the AI do its thing and take a look at the commands. Thanks! Dawn Patrol 06.miz

Well, good to know that it's realistic. A pain without toe brakes though.

This hasn't been a problem before but since doing a clean install of 1.0.0.9 and patching up, I had to reset my HOTAS axes and I was wondering if there is a setting (deadzone, saturation, curve) that might make full-back throttle a little less aggressive when only low output for taxi is required. I'm constantly standing on the wheelbrakes, it's like driving a runaway tricycle. Thanks!

Thanks very much, gents. EtherealN I think you nailed it. I needed to make the three units one group. I've published many SP and MP missions but took a break between 1.0.0.8 and now so I have to shake a few cobwebs off. It appears that 1.1.1.0 has much improved logic for air defenses, with groupings that (almost) represent IADS. EDIT: Placed two BUK groups now and it's a good knife fight. I've only watched it from map view but it looks like the Tornados nail both launcher vehicles but go defensive, just as I want them to. I love this ME when it does what I want it to. Miz attached, very early stages. I'm going to investigate new elements like "Alert State" in the revised ME documentation and also figure out how to get an orbiting Strike Eagle flight to hit a FARP grouping with GBU-12s using "Pinpoint Strike" and subject to a condition triggered when the BUKs are destroyed. Bandit Country 01.miz

I've placed the missile firing unit, command center and radar on the crest of a hill. A Tornado SEAD flight armed with ALARMs is tasked to take the BUK out, which it does, too effortlessly. The Tornadoes approach at 30,000ft, they pick up the missile system and destroy it without having to evade a shot from well within its engagement envelope; what do you think I'm doing wrong? I need to get that SAM to enage the ingressing flight or there's no point having it there.

You're right, wrong thread, sorry. Will repost. I need those Tornadoes to get challenged.

Can't get a BUK (SA-11) to attack incoming SEAD flight... I've placed the missile firing unit, command center and radar on the crest of a hill. A Tornado SEAD flight armed with ALARMs is tasked to take the BUK out, which it does, too effortlessly. The Tornadoes approach at 30,000ft, they pick up the missile system and destroy it without having to evade a shot from well within its engagement envelope; what do you think I'm doing wrong?

Embarrassing. But I've been away from the sim for 6 months. Can someone help me out? Many thanks.

As always, thanks, NDP.

I need to delete some templates I've made (i.e. unit configurations). Can anyone tell me where to find these files or if it's possible to delete them in the ME? Many thanks.

What hardcover? It looks like Amazon is only offering it for Kindle. Do you have a link for the hardcover?

Not only unavailable to customers in the U.S. but it appears to be Kindle-only. Books for me are still analog.

Is there any chance at all that they will make AI voice comms audible to anyone but the host in MP? I cannot fathom how JTAC in MP can ever be considered properly implemented as long as client players (i.e. those not hosting the mission) tuned to the correct frequency cannot hear and copy JTAC comms in MP. And what's the point of using extensive AI (like SEAD or CAP flights) in MP mission design when only one player (the host) can hear the voice comms? I'd rather be told that this large and obvious problem cannot be fixed than be greeted by a wall of silence whenever I bring it up.

If arty were working, it would be possible to get it to "Fire at Point", as Speed says. But AI armor, i.e. tanks, vehicles or indees AI aircraft without the "Fire at Point" menu option, cannot be tasked to fire at map objects that have not been placed by the user. This creates an inability to use bridges tactically in mission-making because the sim is just not configured to incorporate them in targeting AI or to give AI or human units credit for attacking them successfully. The only thing you can do to work around this is to cheat it so that the armor is tasked on a user-placed unit (visible or invisible) that is on the bridge (or on or near any other map object that you want targeted or destroyed). This is a very jury-rigged workaround, though, and not really satisfactory. In my opinion, the inability to use static objects, especially bridges, tactically in missions -- i.e. be able to get the AI, other than artillery, to target them so that the sim acknowledges the target -- is a major weakness in the ME's capability to create a battlefield.

Interesting suggestion, Ripcord. I have dealt with this by placing all 5 FARPs, because I can't generate only two using randomisation, but I can generate orders tasking the player on two of them, chosen by randomisation. To cover the existence of the remaining FARPs, I'm briefing the player that all five sites exist but only two are going to be in use/defended. And I can at least place the defenders by randomisation, synchronised with the orders. Not perfect, and a bit of a fudge, but ok.

Well, I fixed it. The AFAC now works, after a fashion. It tasks the correct targets, which is impressive because there are lots of similar targets in the AO but sometimes it says "tasking unavailable". Maybe I'll try it with the "Visible" option checked in the WP/Advanced/En Route/FAC attack target menu... And the Russian warning zones are working, too. When I have finished the briefing and hidden all the zones/Red targets, etc., I will upload the .miz in what will essentially be a final Beta. It would be interesting to know what you think of that "Visible" option.

I'm using randomisation to generate any possible combination of two out of six targets every time the mission starts. Vehicles can be made to appear, or not appear, this way because you have to set the start time to 23 hours ahead of mission start; as you know, this enables them to spawn via trigger. However, I want the target not to be a vehicle but a large static object (a FARP Commend Center). I cannot do it because static objects have no start time field. In other words, the conceptual logic is that there are two CCs that need to be killed but they appear in different locations (out of six) according to the roll of the dice.

OK, well I just tested the mission one last time with the AFAC on 45 FM; this was before I read Druid's and Bivol's final confirmation that the AFAC can only transmit targets on AM. For the first time I heard his position reports but when I tried checking in for tasking there was nothing to identify him in the JTAC radio menu...odd, no? The next thing I need to do, obviously, is put the AFAC on an AM freq once and for all and leave it there; hopefully this will make the thing work, as I'm pretty sure my implementation of the FAC actions in the appropriate WP/Advanced menu is correct (and corresponds with Bivol's test .miz). It's possible that my "Orbit" actions interfere with the JTAC logic. I'm posting the .miz here in case anyone sees a red flag indicating obvious user error. Bivol, your suggested SOP for using the JTAC freq (once I get it working) for package common with the push as part of the fence-in is great and I will implement this when I fly the mission with my squadron (the 1st VFW). It's really good of you to take an interest, Bivol, and, as always, I appreciate your expertise, Druid, which is far superior to mine. I'm especially grateful in this case, as the .miz has real promise, I feel, because I've got a Hornet SEAD, Chinook helo drops and a fairly complex matrix of synchronised randomisation via .lua scripting working pretty smoothly; all I really need to do now is get the AFAC to work. (Well, that's not quite true, my last Condition, which throws up a warning from the Russians if any Blue coalition member strays into Russian airspace as defined by 3 trigger zones, does not fire...might you take a quick look at the logic?) Here is the .miz. The briefing is still incomplete but you'll get the idea. Thanks again. This thread may be very useful for intermediate-to-advanced mission makers, as it will hopefully clear up misconceptions about JTAC implementation and highlight glitches that need to be worked around. (Bivol, if you'd still prefer me to email it to you, let me know and I will do so). Incursion_15.miz

This is very useful info, Bivol, and will save me a lot of needless trial and error, many thanks. I never realised that it was iffy to use FM frequencies for non-ground FAC units, i.e. AFACs. I've been setting an AM freq as a common package freq, monitored by all units, and an FM freq for AFAC so that all flights can monitor that simultaneously. Just to confirm: Should I set both package common and AFAC on the same band? I will if I have to. As for the order of actions -- thanks for the correction -- I'm going to do what you did in the test mission and leave all the AFAC actions at 0 (highest priority), hoping that there will be no conflict with the "Orbit" and "Set Frequency" actions at the same WP. (As I mentioned before, the frequency action at each WP is probably not needed but I want to get the basic comms working first then I'll scale back via a process of elimination).

Whoops, sorry, got it. Thanks for the offer, Bivol.