Changing Campaign Payloads - Cheating?

[636_Castle]

Hey guys, I don't normally start new threads in this section, but this one is bugging me.

 

In the first campaign, I believe it's Devil's Cross, the payloads are a little strange. In the first mission, you're loaded up with a TGP, mavericks, and I believe some CBUs. It's great. The rest of the missions though, until the very end, you only have four AGMs.

 

I'm on a quest to finish a campaign without losing ANY pilots in my group, and I'm considering changing the loadouts on the missions.

 

My question is, how realistic is this? Is it considered cheating? RW pilots don't get to pick and choose in an endless supply of ordnance. So why should I get to?

 

So is there a reason you only get four mavericks in the remaining missions? Is it for realism purposes? Would it be considered cheating if I gave myself a new loadout? I can see arguments from both sides: Limited supplies, MAJCOM ruling/planning... | But when was the last time we flew A-10Cs like A-10As? I want to be prideful in my victory. :)

[RodBorza]

Well, it depends... (ok, great answer... very helpful... :D)

 

If you wanted to have 100% realism, then one should always carry one Maverick under each wing, to avoid tire damage on the long run or having the TGP burned by a lauching missile. I even posted it as a Wish List feature for DCS: A-10. On the other hand, however, in real life you would have lots of assets doing "cover work" for you: SEAD & DEAD flights, stand-off jamming, etc.

I don't know to which extent a pilot cannot change the payload he will carry, maybe he could at least protest or suggest (that's the right word) some modifications regarding the mission and the inteligence available on the target.

Anyway, my opinion is that if you feel it is cheating by modifying the payload itself, maybe you could try and add some other flights to help you out, paving the way to make it easier for you and your team.

 

P.S.: I was playing the Raiding River mission last night and, gosh, how I wanted to have some HARMs to take that damn Sa-11 which kept tracking and launching all the time. It is a shame the A-10 cannot carry them and that there were no SEADs flights available...

[636_Castle]

I don't know to which extent a pilot cannot change the payload he will carry, maybe he could at least protest or suggest (that's the right word) some modifications regarding the mission and the inteligence available on the target.

 

That's what I'm wondering.

 

Honestly though, how often are A-10s deployed with 4 AGMs and no Litening/Sniper pods? If JTAC gives you type 3 tasking, and I need good standoff range, how am I expected to perform well? That's a case of NOBODY being able to visually see what I'm shooting. It just doesn't seem realistic. But neither does deciding what I get to take with me.

[Zenra]

FWIW, I do NOT consider selecting my payload cheating. When playing the campaigns in SP you are usually flight lead and as such would be part of the mission planning team. ATOs may be handed down from higher command, but at the squadron level the flight leads at least participate in mission planning, including selection of appropriate ordinance, fuel planning, etcetera needed to carry out the tasking.

[asparagin]

No cheat in my book, in fact the opposite: using available intel to choose the optimal weapons is more realistic. There are other ways to make a mission difficult then restricting your weapons.

[636_Castle]

More good answers, thanks.

 

That's a great point, as flight lead I should have a pretty good influence on armament.

 

I've done a lot of research. I've found it's hard to get accurate A-10 loadout data for missions with AAA/airborn threats. Most recent theaters haven't had these threats, and haven't even carried AIM-9s or ECM pods.

 

The current Libya theater seems a lot like the Crimean theater. Gaddafi forces have air defenses and aircraft. So I've been going off of a video I've seen of A-10s taking off for a mission in Libya, and I've come up with this loadout:

 

ALQ-131, MK-5 Rockets, AGM-65G, AGM-65K, 2*Mk-82, Litening TGP, and 2*AIM-9M.

 

I might change that to 2 AGM-65Ds on each wing occasionally, and lose the rockets.

[winz]

Depends :)

On the first try I try to the default payload, becuase I want to play the mission the way it was designed by the mission designed.

When that fails - mostly because you're tasked to destroy really unreasonable amount of units, i.e. 4 groups of tanks + some bmps - then I select my payload, and the more silly the mission is, the more silly my payload will be (i.e. 6xAGM-65D + 4xCBU 107)

[Irregular programming]

You don't have to kill everything you know :)

 

No cheat in my book, in fact the opposite: using available intel to choose the optimal weapons is more realistic. There are other ways to make a mission difficult then restricting your weapons.

 

But there is no way to balance the mission to be as difficult as you want it to be if the player changes loadout willy nilly. If the mission maker has built a mission around A10s that do not have TGPs you effectivly break the mission if you select your own loadout.

 

I found the original Devil's Cross mission to be better as it made more sense to not have the TGP from the start.

 

I would never change load out on missions where it's apparent that the mission maker has put thought into what you carry as the game is missing a feature that hinders you from changing to whatever you want.

 

But I really don't think you should listen to anyone here, just do as you wish. It's the single player campaign and how you play it doesn't effect anyone else. As long as you are having fun with it.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Irregular programming

[asparagin]

Yeah, yeah I already know your opinion :)

 

as it made more sense to not have the TGP from the start.

 

Why?

 

Also: What's the RL reason of restricting the payload: "Guys, our AGM supply truck has been ambushed, on the next mission you'll have to throw stones".

Joke aside, without the proper payload, no jet would go in combat in RL. It's not like they leave the TGP home just to feel challenged.

And last: I like the A-10C because it carries TGP, LGB, GBU's, I don't what to fly the A-10C like it was A-10A.

[Irregular programming]

Yeah, yeah I already know your opinion :)

 

 

 

Why?

 

Also: What's the RL reason of restricting the payload: "Guys, our AGM supply truck has been ambushed, on the next mission you'll have to throw stones".

Joke aside, without the proper payload, no jet would go in combat in RL. It's not like they leave the TGP home just to feel challenged.

.

 

Because it's easier to assume that there were no targeting pods on the base rather than that there were targeting pods but they all broke suddenly after the first mission.

 

Also, in that mission, where a russian army is just hours away from your base of operation I find it difficult to see them swearing over that they didn't have the foresight to get some A-10As to the base, because god damn the C's just can't fly without their fancy pods and remote controlled bombs. :joystick:

 

And last: I like the A-10C because it carries TGP, LGB, GBU's, I don't what to fly the A-10C like it was A-10A

 

And read my post, play the game as you want to. You can check the immortality and unlimited weapons as far as I care, it does not matter. Just play the game as you think is fun.

[636_Castle]

Well, even the newest A-10As use LITENING pods. ;)

 

In all seriousness though, I wondered if there was a mission design reason for the unrealistic loadout.

 

Irregular programming - you say the mission designer put reasoning behind the loadout, but what would the reasoning be?

 

I've decided to customize the loadouts. I just can't imagine shooting at a target nobody has eyes on.

[asparagin]

And read my post, play the game as you want to. You can check the immortality and unlimited weapons as far as I care, it does not matter. Just play the game as you think is fun.

 

Maybe this system would suit you better? :D

 

100 tank kills: unlock AGM

1000 tank kills: unlock LGB

[winz]

You don't have to kill everything you know

When your mission is to escort a tank squad inside an enemy controled area, then you kinda have.

[hog_driver111th]

Maybe this system would suit you better? :D

 

100 tank kills: unlock AGM

1000 tank kills: unlock LGB

 

Sorry to continue this off topic subject, but wouldn't it be cool if you could "manage" a squadron (even with other client players) and start out with only guns? The more you kill, the more money you make, the more items you can buy... but don't forget maintenance and fuel... plus researching the weapons, TGP, ECM, Pave Penny...

[asparagin]

... plus researching the weapons, TGP, ECM, Pave Penny...

 

:megalol:

[Mugenjin]

Don't forget about earning experience points and gaining levels by blowing stuff up :D

[winz]

also some Quad damage would be nice

[hog_driver111th]

We should probably start continue the wishing for a Squadron style building game in the wishing area...

 

Back on Topic: I personally choose my loadout for the mission at hand. There are plenty of times though that I keep my loadout low (ok, back to the wish topic) incase someday someone finds a way to make it where we have to pay for the weapons... which would totally be awesome! There might be a way if ED can make the score tracker for MP flights.

Edited April 13, 2011 by hog_driver111th

[bluepilot76]

Well I am dissapointed. Having succeeded in Devils Cross 1st mission eventually, having figured out how to work the TGP and get some mavericks in, to find out I have been "cheating". As far as I was concerned, there was a choice to change the loadout. (perhaps I didnt read the mission briefing carefully enough?) but I had the option to change the loadout so I took it. It seemed insane to tackle that battlefield any other way. This is when there was clouds, not the easy place it is now, so staying high and pickling the odd bomb down from 20k was not an option. My first few blundering attempts, flying through the battlefield whils heads down trying to find things on the TGP, all came to a sticky end when about a hundred machine guns opened up from half the russian army in there well camoflaged tanks and things that I had just flown right over the top of. Trying to pickle a couple of bombs in from there was suicide. And my piddly gun wasnt much use either.

So yes, I am dissapointed to find out that I hadnt won the war through initiative (changing out for some decent missiles) but by cheating. Anyway surely if the USAAF can have a squadron of A-10Cs anywhere in the world they can keep them stocked up with a few mavericks and pods. Half of transport commands C-17s were in the airfield next door. Surely some of them would have thought to bring in a few TGPs and Mavs whilst brinking the troops there KFCs and Macky Ds??

[Irregular programming]

It is a choice, these are my views, the game doesn't care how you play it. No one should care how I play the game single player, just as I don't have a reason to ever have any negative views on how you play your game.

 

I answered a question, these are my views. Don't know why it got everyone riled up.

 

Maybe this system would suit you better? :D

 

100 tank kills: unlock AGM

1000 tank kills: unlock LGB

 

Nice straw man. :music_whistling:

 

 

 

Irregular programming - you say the mission designer put reasoning behind the loadout, but what would the reasoning be?

 

Every single mission/map/quest whatever in every single player video game is designed around the player. By adding more powerful weapons/spells/whatever to the player the mission no longer is what it was designed to be.

 

This is a problem in this game because you as a mission maker cannot create a mission that has a difficulty that is good for the weapons that you are currently carrying unless you assume that the player has the most powerful weapons. I would love to have an actual stores functionality in this game, like in Falcon the base you lift from would have it's available weapons listed for you to choose from.

 

But again, my views, if they don't make sense to you don't think about it, just play the game and have fun that's why you bought it in the first place.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Irregular programming

[bluepilot76]

Well thanks to all that design and share missions. I havent tried that myself, but in the case where the mission designers are unable to restrict loadouts, I would have though the answer was something along the lines of; make the Hog pilot use up all his mavs say on heaps of SAMS and ZEUS and radars but still have plenty of targets that he might take on with whatever else he has onboard. If its a 10min transit back to base, Im not going untill I have spent everything I have got or the plane is so damaged as its touch and go whether I will make it back at all. Of course in RL things would be a little different.

[asparagin]

Well I am dissapointed. Having succeeded in Devils Cross 1st mission eventually, having figured out how to work the TGP and get some mavericks in, to find out I have been "cheating".

 

You absolutely no reason to be disappointed. It is not cheating. The mission planner is there for a reason. You have a mission, you pick the weapons that help you accomplish it. Cheating would be, if you will, using weapons that A-10 doesn't carry like some HARM missile.

[Grimes]

I tend to think the ability for players to choose new payloads adds a small layer of re-playability to missions. It just takes the conscious decision by the player to decide to change their payload. I found doing this incredibly fun whilst playing online with friends. Generally on the 3rd+ playthrough of a mission I would start switching up my payload to force my tactics to change. I did this partly because it keeps a mission fresh, but I also had the JDAM blues.

[636_Castle]

If its a 10min transit back to base, Im not going untill I have spent everything I have got or the plane is so damaged as its touch and go whether I will make it back at all.

 

LOL same. I've had to remap softbuttons on the MFCDs before to be able to access the mav TV or TAD/DSMS when one of the screens goes out.

 

Screen goes out...something leaking from the wing, one engine running low. Ehh...I can still use weapons though. :)

[bluepilot76]

Yes! you might have to tell me how to swap the screens around because one of them is often the first thing to go. I will see if I can find it in the manual first. Airspeed indicator is always knackkered too. I flew the whole way back last night and didnt notice untill coming in for landing anyway.