Campaign Inconsistencies

Yurgon · February 9, 2016

I've progressed to mission 3 so far and believe I found several inconsistencies.

Please comment if I understood something wrong.

Preamble: The mission briefings are amazing! The way the story is told is superb, I feel as if I'm right in the action. The early missions are basically well designed and give a purpose to flying in the Nevada terrain that my previous training missions lacked, which I am extremely grateful for.

That said, here's what I found to be inconsistent so far. Sorry for wall of text, couldn't say it much shorter (and definitely won't create separate threads for each item :P).

RF01, Red Flag Arrival

Lineup Card lists "BOULDER CITY VORTCT - 116.7 VHF AM / CHAN 114X" and "NELLIS TACAN - 135.5 VHF AM / CHAN 12X". Why include VHF AM freqs when A-10C manual states that the VHF AM radio is not capable of homing ("DF. Direction finding mode allows VHF/FM to detect ADF signals and provide steering information to the ADI and HSI. VHF/AM does not have this capability.")?
Approach waypoint (at "Apex") leads to a steep approach, >5°. What type of approach is expected? Straight in, overhead break, other?
DCS Mission Planner shows many (all?) units and their flight plans, including Reds. Are we not supposed to used it? Why not? Same for missions 2 and 3, maybe the rest as well. Will not mention it for other missions.

RF02, Local Area Checkout

Mission briefing contains the sentence "(a northern prestrike sweep route may also be used. See: Texas Lake, below)", but neither "Texas" nor "lake" are mentioned again in the mission 2 docs.
What's min alt over "The Farms"? The mission briefing says "There is one area known as The Farms that we are not allowed to overfly at less than 6.5k’ MSL" (BTW, that's roughly 1,500 ft AGL), it later says "As such, do not overfly The Farms lower than 12,000’ MSL", and the Lineup Card says "NO FLY - FARMS" without further explanation.
Why are there two map PDFs in the docs folder for this mission? They seem almost identical.
How are we supposed to get the take-off timing right later on when the jet starts hot on the ramp in this familiarization flight?
My Wingman only started to taxi after I'd already taken off. Separate thread.
With DCS ATC being rather rudimentary, what are the instructions regarding separation between flights? Do the waypoint altitudes imply proper altitude separation? How about landing?

RF03, OPLAN 1402B Begins

The Farms min alt continued in mission briefing: "Intel has also confirmed that The Farms are indeed providing shelter to Russian Special Forces and should therefore be overflown no lower than 6,500’ MSL."
According to mission briefing, "[the Red Air] CAP locations are located north of BE, leaving the airspace south of it open.", following a detailed list that shows the CAP locations to be all around the BE rather than north of it.
Mission briefing explains that "SPX" are Sweep Points. "Hawg 2, a two-ship flight of A-10Cs (Hawg 21 player), will marshal in over Student Gap (SP5 & SP6)". Are these the same as waypoints?
What time is Hawg 2 flight supposed to take off? Mission briefing: "[...] following a 1549 takeoff. Hawg 2 will leave the chocks at 1547." Lineup Card says Take-Off is "1547", not 1549. Regardless, I ended up behind many F-16s and Tornados on the taxiway and missed the take-off time be several minutes.
After take-off, a 4-ship flight of A-10s passed right overhead near Apex. Briefing and Lineup Card never mentioned other A-10s.
Briefing: "Transit: 12k’, 200>280KIAS or AS REQUIRED TO PUSH ON TIME". At 12k' with that loadout, 280KIAS is unachievable and lost time from a late take-off almost impossible to catch up.
Briefing: "After pushing, Hawg 2 will transit west to 4 nm south of Mt. Irish.". There were so many landmarks in mission 2, I can't remember the location of Mt. Irish (and in-game there's no way to ask anyone). Please mark it on the map.
"Approaching the FEBA, Hawg 2 will prepare fence in and descend to 6,000’ MSL to SP8 (FEBA).". That's roughly 1,000 ft AGL. Are GBU-12 and GBU-38 even remotely useful for such low altitude attacks?
"Hawg 8 will prioritize targeting [...]". Hawg 2.
"The following strikers will be in the airspace:
SEAD: Tornado (Colt 31 & 32) and F-16CJ (Colt 41 and 42)"
The Tornados are Uzi, not Colt.
Lineup Card: Ownship UHF 251, but in fact it's 250. Wingman doesn't talk or respond on 251.
Lineup Card: Boom freq 160.00 AM.
a) Not in range of any of the A-10C's radios.
b) That's only one tanker, the other is on 161.00 AM, but freq isn't mentioned on the lineup card at all.
c) TACAN not listed for either of them.
JTAC is on 144 VHF AM, AWACS on 150 VHF AM. Can't monitor AWACS while talking to JTAC - in the middle of a frigging furball. Request JTAC be moved to VHF FM (or some other type of radio separation).
Again, Wingman only started to taxi when I was almost ready for take-off at the runway.
Despite my being late to the party (missed the take-off time, see above), I was surrounded by MiGs as the action started and was shot down (but failed to check the debriefing regarding the source). Wingman called "Ejecting" less than a minute later. According to the briefing, I should "just" make sure to be behind the main strike force, which I was. What gives?

Question: Since I doubt there'll be nothing to report on the following missions, should I continue this list as I progress, or is the campaign currently undergoing some polishing by its authors?

According to the announcement, I expected to be held to an exceptional standard as a virtual A-10C pilot. In return, I expect the briefings to be spot-on. IMHO that means when the briefing says take-off time is X, then the lineup card can't say it's Y. Unless real life pilots are expected to learn how to deal with such inconsistencies at Red Flag, that is.

And once again, I enjoy flying the campaign missions and I thoroughly enjoy the super-detailed briefings, maps and lineup cards. I wish every mission and every campaign came with a comparable set of documentation (some already do, many do not). It's just that the more or less small errors and mistakes make me read every briefing twice, check and re-check what was briefed, and finally conclude that I simply can't tell - am I supposed to not overfly the Farms at all? Or is 6,500 ft MSL okay? Or must it be no less than 12,000 ft MSL? If the authors don't care, why should I? And that really hurts the immersion. :noexpression:

Dakirim · February 9, 2016

I'm also at mission 3 and having the same issues. It's really frustrating when everything should be perfectly planned out due to the scenario and then it is not at all...

Andrei · February 9, 2016

Very good and relevant feedback.

tintifaxl · February 9, 2016

All valid points you have made here.

JTAC is on 144 VHF AM, AWACS on 150 VHF AM. Can't monitor AWACS while talking to JTAC - in the middle of a frigging furball. Request JTAC be moved to VHF FM (or some other type of radio separation).

That could be, because the radio calls are played sequentially and AWACS would clog up the radio queue even more, so communication with JTAC would be even more delayed as it is already.

nawarren · February 9, 2016

Hi all,

I agree with your points. It's such a shame that there are ambiguous at best, parts of the briefing. At the end of the day it's only 10 missions and should really be working out of the box! Not sure if it's been rushed out or just not tested properly, but such small things as mentioned can mess up the mission, and ruin it. Whilst there is a lot of potential, I do think it could have been a bit more polished before release.

I would like to see on the briefing which runway to land on, just says 21, but there's left and right. 21L or 21R would be better.

Also would like to be given a stand to park at, maybe a diagram of taxi, park route. As would be cool to all taxi and park next to each other.

Would be nice if ai aircraft could land a bit closer together. After mission 1 I landed and followed an ai A10 who decided to park at the furthest point away in the most unlikely parking spot

Steve Davies · February 9, 2016

If the authors don't care, why should I?

Some of your points are valid - yes, there are inconsistencies between briefings, line-up cards and maps; and there are typos where AMSL should, of course, be AGL. Wags is going to nail these this coming week. We take your feedback seriously, so thank you for posting it.

Some of your gripes are not valid. The lineup card is there to note important aspects of your sortie. It is not there to tell you that there might be an A-10 flight over APEX - it's the initial fix, so you should expect traffic in the vicinity (as should you in Sally Corridor). And the mission briefing is not there to tell you the difference between a SP and a WP - we have to make certain assumptions about the skill level of the player, and that's a pretty basic one. As for tactics, it is ultimately your call how execute the mission, so if you don't like your loadout or the suggested procedure for penetrating the FEBA, do your own thing!

Finally, some of your gripes relate to bugs that are now known and are being worked through.

My advice to you would be to wait until the next update from Wags before continuing the campaign.

Yurgon · February 9, 2016

That could be, because the radio calls are played sequentially and AWACS would clog up the radio queue even more, so communication with JTAC would be even more delayed as it is already.

Interesting point, I see.

Some of your points are valid - yes, there are inconsistencies between briefings, line-up cards and maps; and there are typos where AMSL should, of course, be AGL. Wags is going to nail these this coming week. We take your feedback seriously, so thank you for posting it.

Many thanks for your feedback, most appreciated! :thumbup:

I was very much looking forward to continuing the campaign ASAP, but if an updated version is in the making, you're right that it's probably best to wait for it to arrive.

Some of your gripes are not valid. The lineup card is there to note important aspects of your sortie. It is not there to tell you that there might be an A-10 flight over APEX - it's the initial fix, so you should expect traffic in the vicinity (as should you in Sally Corridor).

I see, thanks for the clarification.

And the mission briefing is not there to tell you the difference between a SP and a WP - we have to make certain assumptions about the skill level of the player, and that's a pretty basic one.

I have to disagree. The term "sweep" appears once in the entire DCS A-10C manual (in a context different from "sweep point") and not at all in the entire PDF of "A-10s over Kosovo".

Wikipedia was no help either, and all over this forum, Google found no hits at all for "sweep point" and one hit for "sweep points" (this thread). (The forum's own search doesn't offer an AND search and finds hundreds of hits where both "sweep" and "point" appear, but not necessarily together).

Since military lingo is not always self explanatory, how are we supposed to know some of the terms when they are never explained?

On the other hand, terms such as "Motherhood", which I guess are incredibly basic for a fighter pilot, are explained very well (though it was new for me, too, so I'm not complaining that it was explained ;)). That's what I mean by "inconsistency".

All I can say is the term "sweep point" is new to me, and I think it's a valid question what it is and how it differs from a waypoint, if at all.

As for tactics, it is ultimately your call how execute the mission, so if you don't like your loadout or the suggested procedure for penetrating the FEBA, do your own thing!

Okay, good to know. But if I decided to drop GBUs from 10,000 feet AGL, wouldn't that mean I'm totally not where my coalition expected me to be, putting me at a much higher risk of friendly fire and possibly screwing up other flight's airspace?

AFAIK, pilots have a very limited say in the choice of loadout. So when the order comes to fly low, and the jet is loaded with GBUs according to the ATO, would a pilot in real life have any option to change the flight plan or the loadout?

MagnumHB · February 9, 2016

Good post, you covered nearly everything that bothered me in the first 3 missions, and much more. The timing inconsistencies are even worse in mission 3 than you mentioned, with the briefing PDF saying the push/end vul times are 1607/1637 (times which are basically impossible and I assume remnants of an earlier draft) vs. the lineup card saying 1615/1651. In any case, I took off on 03R to avoid the backup at 03L, and I was still late after taxiing the required distance.

As for tactics, it is ultimately your call how execute the mission, so if you don't like your loadout or the suggested procedure for penetrating the FEBA, do your own thing!

I think the issue here is that the player has a few expectations while playing a campaign marketed as a highly realistic Red Flag experience. The first, as mentioned in the OP, is that the player will be held to a higher standard. This means that when the briefing says to push at a given time, the player assumes that doing otherwise will result in either some sort of outright mission failure, or getting pummeled by SAMs or fighters for not being properly in sync with the rest of the strike package.

The second is that the player most likely expects a uniform level of detail throughout the mission planning. When the mission is excruciatingly detailed with ingress routes and timing (albeit currently in an inconsistent manner), it's a bit disappointing to arrive at the target area (whether that be Apex for landing in mission 1 or the actual targets in mission 3) and have things suddenly become a free-for-all. If the mission designer expects the player to do any significant improvisation from the mission as briefed, there must be some hint to the player that this is correct and not a bug or poor mission design. The most obvious ways I can think of to do this are subtle hints in the briefing, or some sort of in-game comms audio. I understand the desire to maintain some sense of chaos/fog of war, but this must be balanced with the expectations of the player to feel that they are accomplishing the mission within acceptable parameters.

As it is now, I think the targets in mission 3 don't make a lot of sense since either low-level tactics (and corresponding loadout) are required to maintain terrain masking from SAMs (and be briefed accordingly), or the effectiveness of the SEAD flights should be taken into account to allow for higher altitude tactics. In any case, I felt the pacing of the mission went right out the window when I went from a participant in a tightly coordinated strike package to loitering in the target area for an extended period of time mopping up targets with a non-ideal loadout and a lack of specified detail for the egress.

I will certainly be looking forward to future updates before continuing the campaign.

Steve Davies · February 9, 2016

Okay, good to know. But if I decided to drop GBUs from 10,000 feet AGL, wouldn't that mean I'm totally not where my coalition expected me to be, putting me at a much higher risk of friendly fire and possibly screwing up other flight's airspace?

AFAIK, pilots have a very limited say in the choice of loadout. So when the order comes to fly low, and the jet is loaded with GBUs according to the ATO, would a pilot in real life have any option to change the flight plan or the loadout?

The standard 'fighter pilot answer' to both questions: it depends.

It is certainly true that, historically, leadership have meddled with the ATO and dictated weapons loadouts, but in many cases the wing and squadron missions planners have been able to push back. For the purpose of our Red Flag missions, I think it's reasonable to do your own weaponeering of the target - it's actually part of the process that attendees are being evaluated on - and this is especially true when you are a four-ship flight lead.

Yes, there are assigned altitude blocks at RF, but they're not really an integral element of the RF missions Matt and I created. We could go back and look at how we use them in any future RF campaign, but when I fly the missions, I use them primarily as a deconfliction tool in the administrative parts of the sortie (the exception being not flying through the Blue Air CAP stations when I head west to the FEBA and east away from it).

I appreciate that we all want the most immersive and realistic experience that we can get. That is the driving force that pulled Matt and I together to make these campaigns, but this will be an iterative process and it will take time to make these as good as we dreamed that they might be. So far, the feedback has blown us away, but your patience and support while we make these better and better would be appreciated, too.

Yurgon · February 9, 2016

The standard 'fighter pilot answer' to both questions: it depends.

:D

For the purpose of our Red Flag missions, I think it's reasonable to do your own weaponeering of the target - it's actually part of the process that attendees are being evaluated on - and this is especially true when you are a four-ship flight lead.

Good point, thanks! :thumbup:

Shez · February 9, 2016

The standard 'fighter pilot answer' to both questions: it depends.

IFor the purpose of our Red Flag missions, I think it's reasonable to do your own weaponeering of the target - it's actually part of the process that attendees are being evaluated on - and this is especially true when you are a four-ship flight lead.

I'm not a fighter pilot. I would expect for this virtual Red Flag loadouts, times, etc would be correct because the 'pilot'/me doesn't have that level of inside information. But, I guess it makes sense that I should tailor my load out to the needs of the mission. I just expected it to be good and went with it.

I look forward to the update so I can get back to enjoying the Nevada terrain.

Lucky · February 9, 2016

I look forward to the update so I can get back to enjoying the Nevada terrain.

You can still enjoy the map. Take your plane up and fly around the area more. Get more familiar with the different locations mentioned in the campaign briefs. You'll have a better idea where everybody is and it will make you a better pilot when you start the campaign again.

Wags · February 9, 2016

Thanks. There were a few valid points and those have been fixed for the next update.

nawarren · February 9, 2016

Thanks wags,

I hope I didn't,t come across as to critical. I am really enjoying the campaign so far and am loving getting to know the landmarks. Dispite my moaning earlier you and Steve have done a great job, just needs the minor issues fixed and will be great. I really like the storyline that adds depth and immersion to the setting. Keep up the good work.

Cheers

Neil

Yurgon · February 9, 2016

Thanks. There were a few valid points and those have been fixed for the next update.

Great to hear that!

I hate to ask, but... ETA? :D

Shez · February 9, 2016

You can still enjoy the map. Take your plane up and fly around the area more. Get more familiar with the different locations mentioned in the campaign briefs. You'll have a better idea where everybody is and it will make you a better pilot when you start the campaign again.

Of course :pilotfly:

DarkCrow · February 10, 2016

Awesome to hear Wags and Steve. I had already set the campaign aside to wait for some polishing after flying Mission 3 as well. I'm truly excited for what more is to come. The times and the Farms Alt is what had me confused going into the mission too. To be noted I was also late to take off time which worked out because I didn't have to orbit long to wait for SEAD flights to head in.

Redglyph · February 26, 2016

Should we expect a new version in today's 2.0.1 update 1?

NineLine · February 26, 2016

Should we expect a new version in today's 2.0.1 update 1?

According to the newsletter I would say yes.

Redglyph · February 26, 2016

According to the newsletter I would say yes.

Oh... newsletter? *scuttles back to the emails and forums* :doh:

Nice :)

NoJoe · March 1, 2016

I noticed that even after the update it's still not clear what altitude should be safe for overflight of the Farms. In the briefing for Mission 3 (both in-game and in the PDF) it reads:

"Intel has also confirmed that The Farms are indeed providing shelter to Russian Special Forces and should therefore be overflown no lower than 12’ AGL."

I sure can't argue with that! I'd be hitting trees if I were any lower! ;)

MegOhm_SD · March 2, 2016

Maybe that is supposed to be 12K' AGL

NoJoe · March 2, 2016

Probably, yeah. That sounds about right for keeping us out of MANPAD range.

NineLine · March 2, 2016

Did you look at the lineup card? I assume Steer Point not listed you defer to the last listed, for example, SP 5 is the first listed for the mission and it says 12K ALT MSL, I assume any SPs before that are 12K, I may be wrong though.

Also in the main doc it says Transit 12k, also says SP7, south of the Farms, you descend to 8,000 MSL.

NoJoe · March 2, 2016

The lineup card for Mission 3 has the transit at 12k MSL, then you drop down to 6.4K' MSL for Steerpoint 7 (just south of the farms), and further down to 5.9K' MSL for the primary and secondary targets. Steerpoint 7 keeps you south of the farms, so you're not overflying them anyway.

Still, 12' AGL is probably a typo. :) I'd guess it's supposed to be 12K' AGL. That's what Mission 2's briefing specifies.

Though Mission 4 has us directly overhead the farms as our IP at 8K' MSL, and specifies to overfly no lower than 6.5K' MSL (about 1,500' AGL). Maybe the Russian Special Forces have moved their MANPADS out of the area by then, so the only threat is small-arms fire? That sounds like the most logical explanation to me.

Edited March 2, 2016 by NoJoe

Sign In

Campaign Inconsistencies

Recommended Posts

Yurgon

Dakirim

Andrei

tintifaxl

nawarren

Steve Davies

Yurgon

MagnumHB

Steve Davies

Yurgon

Shez

Lucky

Wags

nawarren

Yurgon

Shez

DarkCrow

Redglyph

NineLine

Redglyph

NoJoe

MegOhm_SD

NoJoe

NineLine

NoJoe

Recently Browsing 0 members