Bahger

Are you sure?? I have received the red datalink TAD triangle from AFAC units before, I'm sure of it...

Thanks, Nate, I will email it to you. It's a really promising mission, with a certain Swiss-watch complexity, but it's testing out fine apart from teething problems with the AFAC flight. I will finish the briefing and then get it off to you. Ripcord, I believe that the unit's COMMS menu is for UHF (i.e. in-flight) frequencies. I was told that to get a FAC flight to broadcast on its briefed frequency, you have to set it under WP/Advanced. If I'm mistaken, devs, please correct. I'm not a noob in either mission design or FAC/AFAC usage but I always have to finesse it before it works as intended.

Thanks, EB-1. Will look at your .miz now, emulate and report back. Edit: Interim report: Without yet having the opportunity to test the results, I emulated your AFAC tasking with the following differences: - Eliminated the general FAC command from WP 0 (and therefore from all WPs) as I do not want it to conflict with WP-specific FAC orders. - I set the FAC tasking to start at the first of a pair of racetrack orbit WPs, at 20,000ft (to avoid SA-9s). - I set the flight's radio frequency (45 FM) as the first entry at each WP. "Orbit" is the sencond order at the first orbit/FAC WP, then the four FAC taskings. In the other orbit WP, the radio frequency and orbit listings have been demoted to the bottom of the order and are unmovable. I know it's probably not necessary to place a radio frequency order at every WP but doing so appeared to cure a problem with FAC comms in another mission. I also suspect that the order of tasking is significant but do not always understand the logic. I hope this works. Comments?

Now that's an elegant solution, Druid. I will try it, although I have a gut feeling that there may be an obstacle*. The multiple FAC solution occurred to me but it seems like overkill when you'd expect the logic to be available to accomplish this with one FAC unit (...a dangerous assumption, I know.) Not sure why he won't respond on the radio. I know the sim is fussy about where those "Waypoint/Advanced/Perform Command/Set Frequency" orders go in the waypoint order of priority and it's not always possible to alter those priorities after other orders have been entered. I had a non-communicating AFAC in my last mission and managed to fix that, so hopefully I will this time, too. *Edit: Yeah, the obstacle is that there is no "or" operator in waypoint commands, so I'd still have to task each target separately. Conditioning it by flag might help the sim avoid a logic meltdown, but it's still five target taskings with only two targets due to appear. I have so little faith that it'll work that, for the time being, I've set a generalized FAC command (with orbit) and it'll be up to the player to prioritise targets. If there is a good MO to get the AFAC to work with randomised targets using "FAC Attack Target", I'm all ears. BTW, soes "Visible" mean that the FAC always has LOS to the target?

I have an AFAC tasked via "FAC Engage Target" on five targets in sequence at the same waypoint. Only two of these targets will show up in the mission, depending on a random dice-roll. At the moment, I can't even raise the FAC on the radio, so I'm thinking of re-making the unit and its route, orders and WP orders. Before I do, does anyone have a suggestion, apart from the above, sledgehammer approach, ro get the AFAC to work with the target randomisation? I want only to create one AFAC, not five separate units synchronised with the randomisation conditions.

Nate, as always, thanks. If ever I'm in Dublin -- which won't be too far in the future, I hope, as the old man went to Trinity and I love Ireland -- I'll buy you a Guinness or seven.

I can't determine from mission playthroughs (in MP, so no AAR) if the GBU-38 is getting it done or if I should equip the GBU-31. Can anyone advise?

Thanks, Speed. Your scripting guide will be like holy writ to me.

Most static objects do not contain the "Start time" field, therefore you cannot get them to spawn via delaying the start time and using "Group activate". I'm trying to get a Red Command Center to spawn via trigger; is there any way around this limitation using .lua coding? Many thanks.

Great workaround, Druid, thanks. As so often, I have shifted the concept of the mission a little to accomodate ME/AI shortcomings.

With all due respect to GGT -- it's true that CCRP becomes less effective with altitude -- I have often dropped CBU-97s using CCRP effectively from 15k to 18 k when there are SA-9s co-located with the targets and I have no Mavericks left. For me the trick is to slow down. You stand a better chance hitting your targets when approaching straight and level, nice and easy, at, say, 230kts indicated, rather than screaming in, which widens the margin of error.

Thanks, Speed. I think Mk-84s are the only available loadout for the B-1 apart from JSOWs. I'm sure you're right and that it's just another unfortunate glitch. I suppose it makes sense that the further away you get from the core A-10 modelling and gameplay, the less attention is paid to detail and the more numerous the errors, not that I'm excusing it. As a battlefield simulator, especially in MP, what with arty now broken and -- as far as I can determine -- non-hosts unable to hear AI radio comms -- the sim leaves an enormous amount to be desired. Yes, I think you'll find from the .miz I posted that, after some experimentation with waypoints -- if they are too close to target, the B-1 will turn away and re-approach -- I have got carpet bombing to work...after a fashion. However, not only are the Mk-84s woefully inaccurate but the mayhem they cause -- at least, when dropped on a treeline, or somewhere near it -- is very underwhelming. I got one smoke column from one busted tank when I was expecting a small apocalypse after the Bone dropped its full load in one pass. Sigh.

Speed, would you mind taking a quick look at this test .miz? It baffles me utterly that an entire load of Mk-84s, dropped from a B-1 on two tank paltoons in a treeline, succeeds in hitting only one vehicle. If my waypoint placement, target placement or bombing point is wrong, perhaps you could let me know? It would save me a lot of vexing trial-and-error. Thank you! On the Beach.miz

That's very kind of you if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see how you'd script it. Would the script show the ships firing or would it just create explosions at the impact points?

Thanks guys. I have only managed so far to get a bomber to bomb a point rather than lay down bombs along a line or in an area. Not sure if this is possible. And, oddly, I saw no weapon targeting orders under waypoint/Advanced for battleships. Might this have been because the ship was stationary and had no active WPs apart from the one it sits at? Sorry about the very basic questions but this is the first time I've toyed with either bombers/bombing and ships.

I want to get a flight of bombers to lay down a line of bombs from altitude in order to kill a stationary column of 8 tanks in a treeline in one pass. I cannot determine which combination of (i) platform (B-1s, B-52s, or F-15Es), (ii) tasks ("Pinpoint" or "Bomber"), (iii) orders ("Bombing", "Attack Map Object") and (iv) loadout might accomplish this. Is it even possible? Failing this, is there any way to get a ship (such as an aircraft carrier or frigate) to bombard the tanks from a long distance? Advice much appreciated.

Speed, I know it's of little comfort but in every single mission I've made in the ME I have run headlong into a big, ugly bug: helicopters that won't fly faster than 45kts, AI wingmen that won't take off or who burn fuel circling the airfield if they do, AI aircraft that get stuck taxiing when there is more than one player in the server and now lobitomised artillery. In each case I have found, after bring furious with the devs for this constant silliness, that I can reconceptualise the .miz and work around the problems without compromising the essential gameplay. The drag is all the hours spent doing ED's job troubleshooting and debugging the ME only to find one more idiotic glitch for every one they fix in the updates. How on earth could they have broken the artillery?

Speed, I'm sure the arty still fires, and it might even fire on the correct target -- let's hope -- but I'm certain that arty programmed in 1.0.0.8 will only fire on LOS targets that it sees and will ignore player-set "Fire at Point" orders.

Forward Line of Own Troops Battalion Battery Platoon The last three are all conventional unit designations by size/chain of command. "Company" would be placed between "Platoon" and "Battalion". "Battery" refers only to artillery and designates a certain number of guns (cannot recall how many).

Are you sure he has LOS to the target from his stationary position?

It's tempting to do exactly what you say, Druid but I'm a bit of an idealist and want my missions to be organic, i.e. I'd rather have a convoy travel from its starting point to its destination than spawn it where the player can find it and using scripted explosions to destroy stuff rather than AI units doing what they are supposed to be coded to do seems to be an admission of defeat. It's tempting though, especially as the ME just won't "play fair" with mission designers; so much of what it is supposed to do it doesn't and every time they dix something, something else breaks. And yet...the potential is alluring.

Well, switching the Tornadoes from "Use Vertical Evasive Maneuvers" to "Evasion" after they waste the SA-11s prevents them from endless turning and burning, enabling them to orbit without RTB-ing. They still don't attack the SA-9s and AAA per their SEAD orders, so your idea had occurred to me, too, i.e. I will assign each of them a Search and Engage Zone with the north and south air defense target groups. At that point I don't mind if they go for the non-radar targets with guns. I tell you, Druid, there is not one, single mission I've made that has not involved the discovery of a big, ugly bug in the sim which then involves removing a key non-functioning element, like AI aircraft that wouldn't taxi pre-1.0.0.8 when there was more than one player in the server, or, in this .miz, the artillery, which I have now confirmed, and reported, with your help, to be brain-dead post-1.0.0.8. Why is it that every time they fix something, they break something else?

Thank you so much for going to the trouble, WildFire. I'm eager to test your ingenious solution. I assume I mirror your commands structure for the other Tornado group. It will be interesting -- if tedious -- to determine whether toggling that avasion order makes the Tornadoes go stupid and get hit by SA-9s that would otherwise never catch them... PS: Could you attach the mission, as amended, or your test mission, to your post?

Yeah, it's eccentric, the JTAC logic is "blind" to certain types of objects. Experiment with different bunkers. I got JTAC to recognise and designate one in my "Midnight Run" mission, so you could d/l that and take a look in the ME.

The problem here, Wildfire -- and thanks for your interest and helpful suggestions, BTW -- is that if you use the initial SEAD command (triggered in this case to fire only when the SA-11s are down), you cannot move it down the list of priorities. I may have to revert to an en route SEAD command, but that didn't work last time. Sigh. I'm not sure how to make the tanker work but I put it in the amended .miz, supplied here. With all arty and associated functionality removed. Sigh. Battle of Khashuri Pass 11_SP Test.miz