Question about economy. Sort of.

[Yellonet]

Is there any possibility/feature to set values to weapons and targets or somehow choose with wich weapon a target should be destroyed? I know you can make the AI use a certain weapon against a certain enemy but is there any way of making the player accountable for his "economic" decisions regarding target/weapon value?

 

I guess I'm not making myself clear so here's an example:

An Apache pilot uses a - really expensive - Hellfire to destroy a simple machine gun position. His commander would probably not be very pleased with that decision as it would be more cost effective to use the gun for that type of target.

As I've understood it, the Hellfire is a high-value weapon and should only be used against high-value targets, such as tanks.

 

This translates to the Ka-50 with the use of the Vikhr, although not as costly as the hellfire, it's probably recommended to not just throw it at any target. But perhaps a Vikhr could be used economically against a truck, I doubt that taking out a truck with a Hellfire would be economical.

 

Thoughts?

[GGTharos]

That isn't necessarily true; the gun position may need to be destroyed quickly, accurately and without putting the helicopter in danger.

[Yellonet]

That isn't necessarily true; the gun position may need to be destroyed quickly, accurately and without putting the helicopter in danger.

Yes, of course there can be different circumstances like that but my question assumes that the decision about which weapon to use was wrong.

 

Firing off all the missiles into the air just because... at least that should give some consequences?

Edited July 1, 2008 by Yellonet

[159th_Viper]

It would be a sad day indeed if economic considerations dictate Troop action and decisions, especially in the heat of battle.

 

War ain't Fair: Stands to reason it will never be Cheap.

 

Quartermaster be damned - I'm gonna be givin' them ALL the Shark can carry..........And Then Some!

 

:D

[Boberro]

Yeah full load of Ka-50 and rock 'n roll on enemy as* :D

 

But I guess in smaller conflicts to destroy trucks or very low targets the HQ rather advices to don't use high costs weapons?

[Avimimus]

It isn't as much of an issue with the Ka-50. The Vikhr is one of the cheaper missiles out there (~20% of the price of a Hellfire?). Compared to what the cost of fuel will soon be...

 

But what about collateral damage? Since the early days of Flanker 2 I recall that civilian/scenery buildings would be listed as destroyed in the debriefing. It would be nice to have an option whereby mission builders could set "mission failed" or "subtract points" for the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It would certainly add a different pressure to tactical decisions.

 

Of course, if the building was set as a target in the first place it would be considered as a military target.

 

What do you think?

[S77th-konkussion]

Yes, of course there can be different circumstances like that but my question assumes that the decision about which weapon to use was wrong.

 

Firing off all the missiles into the air just because... at least that should give some consequences?

 

:huh:

[Yellonet]

It isn't as much of an issue with the Ka-50. The Vikhr is one of the cheaper missiles out there (~20% of the price of a Hellfire?). Compared to what the cost of fuel will soon be...

 

But what about collateral damage? Since the early days of Flanker 2 I recall that civilian/scenery buildings would be listed as destroyed in the debriefing. It would be nice to have an option whereby mission builders could set "mission failed" or "subtract points" for the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It would certainly add a different pressure to tactical decisions.

 

Of course, if the building was set as a target in the first place it would be considered as a military target.

 

What do you think?

Very good idea :thumbup:

[quo vadis]

Is there any possibility/feature to set values to weapons and targets

 

There allready ìs a value:

Say you would use all your Vikhr to destroy a column of trucks :joystick: and THEN encounter a nice group of tanks/Anti Aircraft/whatever :helpsmilie:. You're engaging with canon :doh:?

Rules of combat seem simple to me: Don't use anything heavier then you need to, you might regret it later... :cry:

[nscode]

They say that in all Chechen affairs only three (or something like that) targets justified the expense of a Vikhr.

[EvilBivol-1]

Mi-24s used their AT missiles quite a bit in Afghanistan, as they were often the most effective way to destroy the adobe houses. The missiles were used with blast-fragmentation warheads instead of HEAT.

Edited July 2, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[talisman]

If my memory serves me correctly - Helfire missiles have a limited shelf / flight life and according to Ed Macys book, quartermasters would get quite pissed if you returned with a full load. "Winchester" loads requiring the least paperwork.

[Eddie]

If my memory serves me correctly - Helfire missiles have a limited shelf / flight life

 

 

All explosive ordnance does, even gun rounds. It gives us an excuse to blow stuff up on the ranges quite often (as if an excuse is needed).

 

Many aircraft weapons can only do a limited number of flights as well before having to be disposed of/or refurbished.

[Boulund]

Enlighten me please, what is the cost of the common weapons of the Ka-50?

Someone mentioned only a couple of targets justified the expense of a Vikhr, so exactly how much is that?

[GGTharos]

Even a Stryker costs close to 1.5 million. I'm fairly confident you won't pay that much even if you empty your Ka-50's entire ordnance on that one Stryker. A hellfire costs about 68000 dollars - a Vikhr is a much cheaper missile.

 

Almost anything you drop that vikhr on is worth the price.

Tank? Definitely

APC? Definitely

IFV? Definitely

Guy with stinger? How much does your Ka-50 cost again? Definitely

Any AAA/SAM? Definitely

 

If you have the weapons and they keep you safe, use'em :)

[Boberro]

I've read it is about $50 000 for 6 or 8 missiles.

[Eddie]

Wow, that is cheap. In fact, worryingly so for an aircraft based ATGM. Still I suppose the Russians have always been the masters of producing large quantities of cheap kit, just an illustration of the doctrinal differences between NATO & former WAPA states I suppose.

 

Personally I'll take an expensive weapon that'll do the job and then some over a cheap one that might need more than one shot every time. But then I guess I'm somewhat biased.

[GGTharos]

It isn't a matter of biast - think about the weapon a little. :)

 

There's no guidance section per se, so all you're paying for is a rocket with a rear-facing laser grid sensor, a servo (just one :D ) and a warhead. It differs from your 5" Zuni rocket by virtue of that servo and laser sensor (And size, I guess) but in general its makeup is relatively cheap, which means safing is cheap, storing it is cheap, etc etc. Compare with a more complex missile like hellfire which incorporates lofting trajectories, LOAL capability, proportional navigation, full axis tali control and other goodies, and you start seeing where the cost goes :)

 

The difference is that the hellfire is a more capable missile.

[Eddie]

Very true, I suppose it is very simplistic relative to most western systems.

 

As for seeing where the cost goes, you should see some of the things I handle every day dude, the cost would make your eyes water. A (seemingly) simple ESCM component costs quite a bit more than a full vikhr load, frightening really. Especially when you consider they trust aircrew with it:pilotfly:, madness.

[Frederf]

Teamspeak 3 is out?!

 

The thread has gone a little off-topic. The "economy of force" idea for AI weapon selection has much less to do with dollars than simple necessity. There are plenty of values in games such as ArmA2 or Battlefield 1942 that determine "value" "panic" etc. so that the AI can make a reasonable decision of what level of force to use against any one target.

 

Since there are only 3 maximum units under your command, I think the higher-level strategic "force economy stance" should be set by the player which would make combat management much easier and more enjoyable overall. For pure-AI forces these stances could have code triggers based on priority of target set in ME beforehand, how many weapons are left, etc.

 

The standoff stance is probably one of the most important. Standoff should result in 6-7km shots at all times and no shots if ordinance of that range is not available. It might be hard to get the AI to reliably pick a firing position position that is both at the right range and has LoS to the target so some LoS check functions would have to be used to select good candidate spots that aren't all the way around the target.

[liotczik]

And to think I used to stalk MANPADS solo with cannon, just to save Vikhr's on a better, more expensive targets. This thread has ruined my day :D

 

Another thing worth considering, is supply quantity and replenishment rate. I wonder, if it happens in RL, when pilot has to conserve certain types of ordnance/ammunition or fly with less sophisticated types of it, because of supply shortages?

[CAT_101st]

That is kind of what I have based the DCS-Mercenaries group on for our official mission. We have a main store to buy supply's at weapons,fuel guns and air frames. Each mission has a a goal that has to be completed to receive the payment for the mission. I based this group of a old Sim, one of the first one's I ever played "Strike Commander". I loved that game, still have the original box on my shelf. It is the game that got me hoked on flight Sim's. So what better way to run a war Sim than to have real loses and not be able to have the things you need to fight the next battle. I have come up with missions to steal weapons from weapon storage bases. If you lose trucks from the convoy you lose weapons that would have gone into you innovatory. I am costly trying to come up with new ideas for mission's like supporting drug Lords drug runners and vice versa.

My lattes idea for mission's is two team of two (opposing forces) each trying to complete a goal and only one team will get the payday the other will loose what ever they put into the mission including their KA-50 if shot down. I may make a campaign out of it.

Edited January 20, 2010 by CAT_101st