Fast question: Is studying the mission planner considered "cheating" in missions

[Eviscerador]

Hello!

 

I have been playing the Revanche campaign and so far I was doing fine, until I got the first "real" combat mission.

 

I tried to complete the mission 4 times, and in all of them I just didn't know where or when I had to strike, and I was always shot down by a combination of BMP 2 30 mm hits and light AAA. BTW those BMP2 hit like trucks!

 

So I proceeded to look at the mission planner and I saw where the targets were and how to prioritize targets while staying outside of AAA envelope. I left the gunships take care of the rest, after focusing first the enemy gunships.

 

So now I have to play the next mission and I wonder if looking at the mission planner is "Cheating" or not, since there I have all the starting positions, formations and such of targets. I wonder if it is "realistic" to watch it since I guess it is supposed to be the scouting information from FAC and ground forces.

 

I never fly with tags on! Just in case you wonder.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Wrecking Crew]

Hello!

 

So I proceeded to look...

 

Read the mission briefing and ask yourself if it told you what you needed to know. I have no problem with using any intelligence available.

 

 

The mission designer has options to limit the views in the game. If the view is available, use it if you want to. Enjoy! Labels if On can be toggled with LSHft-F10.

[Eviscerador]

Thanks for the reply, so the mission planner as shown in the game is what the mission designer wanted you to see, interesting. In that case I think I will study the mission planner each time, so I can plan my attack routes.

 

Once I am flying, I have "realistic" map with no units except my own plane. I know that is not realistic, at least in the Su-25, but I'm still getting familiar with the Caucasus Map.

[philstyle]

In a few missions I have played, I've had the feeling that the battle-field has been somewhat "contrived" to provide the player with "action" in some ways. On reviewing the planner, I've found the choice of flight paths and unit placements to be sometimes suspect, as though the mission maker wanted me to "battle my way through" a gauntlet or something.

 

 

I soon realised in a few missions that I could vastly increase my survival rate by choosing my own flight paths to avoid enemy unit concentrations, and I could be more successful in the battlescape by choosing my own weapons load-outs and timing my atatcks (using friendly A.I cover etc) more effectively that specified in the briefing.

 

 

So, I'd say it's not "cheating" at all. Mission makers don't alway make their plannning decisions based on the best chances of success and survival for the pilots invovled, like you would in real life. Sometimes they seem to be baased more on making sure there are fireworks.

[feefifofum]

I will just add that, changing your flight plan, you are likely going to break any scripting involved in the mission if it's any more involved than shooting a predefined target. I'd steer clear of this when possible.

 

As far as the planner goes, as others have noted as a mission designer you are able to show/hide units as desired on the map. If units are visible in the planner view, I would personally consider viewing them as studying known enemy positions, not cheating.

[Eviscerador]

Thank you all for your answers, you have been very helpful. Now that I know about the scripting and units can and will be removed from the mission planner if deemed neccesary, I will then study it as it should be, the latest intelligence provided by ground troops and scout units before you take off.

 

Any more comments are welcomed of course!

[Sedlo]

I'll add my 2 cents.... The latest missions I've created I've also included detailed planning documents, charts and intel for a reason - I want you to fly the planned mission profile, because some of the triggers will not work if you decide to do your own thing. Yes, sometimes I"ve hidden a threat along the route you're going to fly, but that's why I put it there :-). I've occasionally placed threats in the areas that you're not supposed to fly, too :-)

 

IRL, a modern, large strike package is like an orchestra. The thing ain't gonna work well if people are off doing their own thing. There has to be a plan in place, at least to start, so flights are where they're supposed to be, when they're supposed to be there (at least until the shooting starts. Then plans often go out the window).

 

For example, my next mission is a Red Flag Harrier mission that will rely on the player hitting their waypoints fairly accurately and pushing on time. To do otherwise may break the mission triggers, cause the player not to have CAP or SEAD support, or just to be kind of boring.

 

They loadout is MK-83s because that's what the mission planners called for, that's what the base has stocked, and that's what has been loaded onto the jet. Changing them up to GBU-12s or Mavericks will cause the mission to be wonky. A nugget LT on his first cruise may wish to be employing PGMs, but if the boss says drop iron bombs, you drop iron bombs!

 

Now, having said all of that... This is just how I've written my missions, others may be different or work differently.

 

If you're flying a Sedlo mission, don't change your routings or loadouts, or you're not gonna have a good time.