10 Bridges MP Mission

[Spider76]

Hi,

10 Bridges - 12 player co-op MP mission. (Version 2b)

Gameplay 2-4 hours, depending how many players on co-op.

at start of the mission there´s the roland sams but once sam´s

are destroyed mission becomes fun and easy but very long cos of the 100+

moving units in this mission. i hope like it and have patience to try play it thru..:smilewink:

10 BridgesV2b.miz

Edited October 3, 2009 by Spider76

[STP Dragon]

Looks interesting.

Will check it. :)

[Goose81]

I will install this mission on my Server, today at 15:00 hour...

[STP Dragon]

Spider:

I took a look at your mission in the editor. (don't played it jet)

 

1st: I think it is very difficult to get the Roland. Maybe the player first have to clear the bridges in front... and the terrain is very flat. This can be challenging.

Pros will love it, rookies will be frustrated... like in my missions :music_whistling:

 

2nd: There are no moving units? :lookaround:

Your mission becomes alive with moving units.

In reality the enemys will send reinforcements or something...

How about a convoy starting from the bunker moving to the FARP.

If the player don't kill the convoy the FARP will be lost.

... something like that...

 

3rd: There are some units who are placed at >70° fall. Please check. :hehe:

 

4th: The FARP could be a little more "alive". Place the service units directly on the FARP. Add some tends for the personal, a radiotower, some armoed units for the defense, some infantry etc....

Also at the bridges. Checkpoints on the streets, adjust the units....

Some more buildings at the bunker, radiotower, command-center etc.

 

 

But alltogether I know you invested a lot of time. There are a lot of units. The player will have fun for a loooong time. :thumbup:

Edited September 29, 2009 by =STP= Dragon

[Boberro]

I played this mission, I must say I liked it! IMHO nice made mission. There are no long range radar SAMS like on another maps where u fly on your route and you are killed.

[Spider76]

thanks for reviewing it.

well when facing a sam or any missile system, pilot should start to think: how im gona take that out, as in chess game..think ahead, plan it and last win it..or so

[STP Dragon]

There are no long range radar SAMS like on another maps where u fly on your route and you are killed.

This should be no problem IF YOU READ THE BRIEFING.... :music_whistling:

[-Painter-]

Started the mission yesterday - did it not completely until now.

 

First impression: Very good!

 

One big big request!

PLEASE switch the missile warnings off! You can do that in the mission editor with the mission option "radio assist"! The warnings are unrealistic and I do not like them at all.

[Feuerfalke]

One big big request!

PLEASE switch the missile warnings off! You can do that in the mission editor with the mission option "radio assist"! The warnings are unrealistic and I do not like them at all.

 

 

+1 - please!

[Feuerfalke]

I played this mission, I must say I liked it! IMHO nice made mission. There are no long range radar SAMS like on another maps where u fly on your route and you are killed.

 

Not all missions are like flying over Afghanistan or Iraq, where you can fly unharmed at 3km altitude. Remember, the Ka-50 was built for the European Battlefield and is supposed to stick it's nose into the ground if there is any long-ranged SAMs or CAP remaining (hence no RWR).

 

As Dragon stated: If these threats are noted in the briefing YOU have to act accordingly.

[Boberro]

This should be no problem IF YOU READ THE BRIEFING.... :music_whistling:

 

Last time I played on server don't remember what mission but someone put HAWK on mountain, so flying low coused crash. Another mission, where HAWK was so close that you could fly about 3-5 km from base then you are killed by long range SAM.

 

Another wisely creator put Oliver Perrys 20 km from base, that immadietly after take off yo are being killed, if you will fly higher than 10 m.

 

Not all missions are like flying over Afghanistan or Iraq, where you can fly unharmed at 3km altitude. Remember, the Ka-50 was built for the European Battlefield and is supposed to stick it's nose into the ground if there is any long-ranged SAMs or CAP remaining (hence no RWR).

 

As Dragon stated: If these threats are noted in the briefing YOU have to act accordingly.

 

I can agree but if there are SAMS, there are sent Su-24s with SEAD mission. I don't think in real battle any command would let choppers\planes fly close to SAMS before kill them first (at least start together with SEAD team).

[Feuerfalke]

That depends, Boberro.

 

Again, this would work over Iraq or similar opponents with pretty low-tech equipment for most of it's arsenal, while you have the comfort of standoff-weapons and an overwhelming force either by technical advance or by pure numbers.

In a WW3-scenario I doubt it would have been as easy to simply send a few Russian SEAD-planes to take out all NATO-Sams in the area or vice versa. Even though WW3 took never place (thank God), up until the Balkan Operations the doctrine for aircraft operating against enemy vehicles was to stay extremely low to use the terrain for cover.

Why do you think the Ka-50 was not equipped with a Radar? Because at the altitudes where radar-guided weapons become a danger, the chopper is dead meat anyway.

 

As I posted before, I'm really looking forward to some missions that are based on the WW3-scenario instead of those against a far inferior opponent. Flying that high while there are still enemy planes, EWR, AWACS, relocating AntiAir and Long-Range SAMs active should prove far more demanding and intense than just replaying the Iraqi "Highway of Death" with orbital bombardment on inept groundforces over and over again.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[-Painter-]

Why do you think the Ka-50 was not equipped with a Radar? Because at the altitudes where radar-guided weapons become a danger, the chopper is dead meat anyway.

...antithesis:

Because it was not intended to use the K-50 in regions where enemy Radar-SAMs are expected. ;)

 

As I posted before, I'm really looking forward to some missions that are based on the WW3-scenario instead of those against a far inferior opponent. Flying that high while there are still enemy planes, EWR, AWACS, relocating AntiAir and Long-Range SAMs active should prove far more demanding and intense

...I am not. I like it very much to fly missions that have a like-real-feeling. WW3 is - luckily - not what real-world conflicts are.

Kinds of "Black-Hawk-Down"-, or Chechnya-War, or Afghanistan-Missions are much more likely to happen in the world as WW3-scenerios are.

Edited September 30, 2009 by -Painter-

[Feuerfalke]

I doubt that no NATO-SAMs or NATO-Aircraft were to be expected when the Ka-50 was designed for the Fulda-Gap-Scenario.

 

And as antithesis to your antithises: The Ka-50s in service now have an RWR, though the EWRs and Radar-guided SAMs were not to be expected when the Ka-50 flew over Georgia and South Ossetia. ;)

 

 

If you prefer the "like-real-feeling" then I conclude you also prefer to attack desolate, outdated Russian equipment rather than US- and NATO-troops? And you also prefer to fight soldiers in cities or hideouts between the hills than rolling tanks in combat?

 

Can be pretty boring on the long term, IMHO. At least then you're surely not waiting for a more intelligent, mobile and interactive AI ;)

[-Painter-]

If you prefer the "like-real-feeling" then I conclude you also prefer to attack desolate, outdated Russian equipment rather than US- and NATO-troops? And you also prefer to fight soldiers in cities or hideouts between the hills than rolling tanks in combat?

 

Can be pretty boring on the long term, IMHO.

...in short: Yes, you are right!

BUT as the "Black-Hawk-Down"-scenario AND the Chechnya-War AND the Afghanistan-War in the real-world showed us for proof: it do not have to be boring at all!

 

It might be challenging to fight three aircraft-carrier at the coastline, additional HAWKs and Rolands at the coast with a 4-ship K-50 flight. But that is gaming, not simulating real-world-missions. I prefer to simulate than gaming.

 

I am also a virtual pilot and air traffic controller on the VATSIM-network. There air traffic is simulated really "as real as it gets"! That are not only words - that says what the network is all about. When you listen to the voice-comm on the frequencies on VATSIM you can not find any difference to the real-world. In that network there is nothing to fight against other than the real-world procedures and knowledge you have to learn and manage in the same professional way real-world pilots or ATCOs do. But I can tell you: it is everything else than boring - on the long-term! ;)

The same here: When you really try to simulate real-world attack-helicopter-operations exactly with all components (checklists, communication, flight-planning, formation, maneuvers ...) together with 4 or 8 other pilots, it is a challenge and everything else than boring! For instance for me it is much more fun and a much greater experience to taxi with 4 other real-simulating pilots together to the runway and fly together in formation to the ingress-point, perform combat-procedures and return to base as formation (with nobody shot down and rejoined over and over again), land on the runway, taxi to the stand and shut down (if possible with one who simulates the Tower-ATCO), than trying to fight against unrealistic targets.

 

But the interests are all different and individual. That is only my interest.

 

At least then you're surely not waiting for a more intelligent, mobile and interactive AI ;)

...that's wrong and has nothing to do with my intention.

 

Edit: Sorry for getting off-topic ;)

Edited September 30, 2009 by -Painter-

[STP Dragon]

Back to topic: Spider, will you realize some of your feedback?

[Feuerfalke]

Hm, I don't know if things like VATSIM is a reallistic perspective for a mission-based game. No doubt it would be realistic and great fun in scenarios you described, but gamewise difficult to implement. Even for the FS-series this is done via networks like VATSIM.

 

Sure thing squads can make up for some part, but you are still limited to missions and scenarios, not to mention the lack of radio-communications with the ground-units or AWACS, that you simulate when playing as an ATC.

 

Besides that, except missions in the southern and nothern part of the simulated area are all hypothetic and based on "What if". So IMHO insisting on realistic settings is a double-edged sword in many regards.

 

But as I stated: IMHO.

 

Besides that: Note ;)'s ;)

[Spider76]

hi thanks for feedback!

 

i will try to make the following changes to this mission:

1: radio assist off

2: There are no moving units?

3: There are some units who are placed at >70° fall.

4: The FARP could be a little more "alive".

5: Some more buildings at the bunker, radiotower, command-center etc.

 

these changes will take some time so be patient ..

[STP Dragon]

Cool. Waiting. :)

[Spider76]

finally finished..editing..enjoy.

version 2b.

[Ightenhill]

Looking forward to finding this on a server.. Thanks Spider