Jump to content

Airfield damage/repair brainstorm


TonyE
 Share

Recommended Posts

Excellent summary, Tony. Further comments below:

 

Damaging runways and reducing their length is already implemented in a reasonable fashion.

 

It never did seem out of whack, and from a closer look at the code, this seems confirmed, so I agree.

 

If there aren't enough crits to reduce runway length the damage is still stored

 

I like this!

 

Currently a runway cannot go below STOL size (the two smaller are large and small helopads

 

I had thought for sure I had seen 'Vertical only' runways in the recent past, or are you referring to undamaged runways?

 

The code examination did not reveal whether non-antirunway weapons can reduce the size of a runway. First glance suggests they cannot. This would be a great theory for someone to test in the game.

 

Agreed. I might take a stab at this (and the above) over the weekend if someone does not beat me to it.

 

Early consensus is to let planes land at damaged runways, anyone against the idea raise your voice.

 

I am of the mindset is that they should be permitted to land even if they cannot then take off again from the same damaged runway, but within reason. Very large aircraft landing at a runway damaged to STOL level would seem nonsensical, but I could buy, for example, the same aircraft being able to land at a Large or perhaps even Small runway.

 

Planes will not be able to take off from an installation with runway size less than that required for the plane.

 

Agreed.

 

do we want to reduce the quantity of takeoffs per 30 seconds for partially reduced runways (ex. two runways at installation, 1 cut so in reality only 1 VLarge plane could take off per 30 seconds instead of the normal 2)? I vote no since it makes my life tougher.

 

I like where the suggestion is heading, but I am willing to accept no change in the current arrangement. In reality, I guess it would really just mean more crowded hardstands and taxiways, with resulting stress on the ATC, sortie rate and damage resistance.

 

Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.

 

I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert).

 

Brad listed some believable numbers for repair times. Work with that given the above. How can that be tied in with the below (i.e. the idea that more extensive damage multiplies repair time)?

[*] Repair speed influenced by installation size was mentioned.

[*] In tandem with repair speed how does multiple runways at the installation affect speed? My thought is that we'd have installation DP tiers (i.e. 1000 DP installation can repair 1 cut per 4 hours, so 4 runways with 1 cut each would take 16 hours to fix).

 

Small airfields with a single runway generally run about 2,500 DP in the Installations annex. A Large airfield with four runways are typically 7500 DP and more.

 

I think I would develop base values for what it takes to repair a basic 'cut' (e.g. 2 hours) and then add modifiers.

 

There would be positive modifiers for the size of the Installation, i.e. a Large airfield can repair multiple 'cuts' somewhat faster than could a Small airfield (because it would have larger, better equipped repair teams).

 

There would be negative modifiers for damage already inflicted to the Installation, i.e. add more repair time as the Installation loses DP value.

 

(My philosophy for keeping the repair times relatively low for minor damage (1x cut) is related to the uncontrolled sortie rate in HCE. There is currently nothing to prevent the player from turning his strike aircraft completely around within 1 hour and returning to hammer (once again) that already damaged enemy airfield. Lengthening the repair times unduly would aggravate the issue. So, if you score minor anti-runway success you only have a small window of opportunity to revisit the target before it once again becomes a threat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Currently a runway cannot go below STOL size (the two smaller are large and small helopads

 

I had thought for sure I had seen 'Vertical only' runways in the recent past, or are you referring to undamaged runways?

 

True enough, the 8 runway lengths have different names in different battlesets/databases. The code reads any runway at an installation cannot be reduced below size 3 (0=no runway, 1=small helo, 2=large helo). Whether size 3 is STOL or VTOL or ??? maybe change between battlesets and databases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joining the conversation late.

 

1. CV32 brings up a very good point with the fast turn around time of strike aircraft. This is the best case scenario assuming no damage or operational failures. 1 hour to refuel and reload. Perhaps a different reloading time for strike aircraft based on the loadout types? A2A loadouts would seem the most critical/fastest to perform, while loading out big bomb loads would take considerably longer.

 

2. Runway repairs should probably be based on a time interval in scale with strike relaoding.

 

What if, A2A loadouts keep their current 1 hour turn around time, while strike loadouts take longer (4 hours for example)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Akula :). I won't be changing aircraft ready times as part of runway damage/repairs. That's a big huge wish for some day down the road, the biggest challenge being teaching the AI how to deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion, also coming late to it! On the damaging/destroying planes upon takeoff/landing on a damaged runway: What about just restricting takeoffs and instead of destroying the aircraft simply place it as unready at the base again? This way the effect is not overly harsh and the unready probability can be correlated to the damage level of the runway(s).

 

On the repair of damaged runways, what about introducing an engineering unit that can conduct this as special ability? Would be like the bridge building capabilities of engineers in other games. Based on their damaged level they would have a certain chance to fix a piece of runway or cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion, also coming late to it! On the damaging/destroying planes upon takeoff/landing on a damaged runway: What about just restricting takeoffs and instead of destroying the aircraft simply place it as unready at the base again? This way the effect is not overly harsh and the unready probability can be correlated to the damage level of the runway(s).

 

This sounds like introducing risk of an aborted takeoff, which is not a bad idea, though I am not sure if the aircraft should then be subjected to the penalty of a full 60 minute ready time. Presumably in RL the aborted launch would mean the aircraft is either undamaged (and perhaps simply bumped to the bottom of the list for launch priority) or damaged (in which case we have no useful means of simulating its repair, other than the ready time - would this be sufficient?)

 

On the repair of damaged runways, what about introducing an engineering unit that can conduct this as special ability? Would be like the bridge building capabilities of engineers in other games. Based on their damaged level they would have a certain chance to fix a piece of runway or cut.

 

This is probably well beyond the scope of what we are looking at accomplishing right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about just restricting takeoffs and instead of destroying the aircraft simply place it as unready at the base again? This way the effect is not overly harsh and the unready probability can be correlated to the damage level of the runway(s).

Killing them is easier :ph34r: but I'd certainly listen to well formed arguments to make them taxi and go back into the Readying pool.

 

On the repair of damaged runways, what about introducing an engineering unit that can conduct this as special ability?

My answer is the same as Brad's and I'll add this raises a micro-management issue for me. I get the RTS feel when I think about an engineer unit. Abstracting it into the installation seems more Harpoonish to me. Still I'd definitely like to be shipping in SeaBees someday so the door is definitely not closed forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good collective work here !!!

 

About the issue:

QUOTE

Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.

 

I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert)

 

I remember some boardgames, as Flat Top or Pacific War with rules about percentual risk penalties because landing on damaged airports or the similar night take-off, but I not sure where are my rulebooks of both games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, we have no way of simulating the delayed effect of the munitions or, for that matter, complicating factors like: that no aircraft can take off/land; the time needed to clear them; or that no runway repairs can be undertaken until they are cleared.

 

Are you perhaps looking at the problem in too much detail, here? I mean, as far as the player is concerned, it doesn't matter if the runway is unusable because it has mines on it or because it has holes in it, all he cares about is that the runway is going to be unusable for a while. So couldn't you get around the problem by just treating these weapons as another form of anti-runway munition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you perhaps looking at the problem in too much detail, here? I mean, as far as the player is concerned, it doesn't matter if the runway is unusable because it has mines on it or because it has holes in it, all he cares about is that the runway is going to be unusable for a while. So couldn't you get around the problem by just treating these weapons as another form of anti-runway munition?

 

You could treat them way, but I can't see it being terribly useful. For one, these kinds of weapons aren't really intended to cause direct damage to the runway, ie. 'cuts'. Rather, they are intended to prevent or delay the use of the runway, or hamper repair efforts, for a period of time. So their DP values would be really artificial. Secondly, the effect would be (as I mentioned earlier) immediate rather than delayed or triggered by efforts to repair. Since the damage they inflict would be immediate, repair of that damage would also be immediate. So what would be the point of using them? Why not just use real anti-runway weapons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent summary, Tony. Further comments below:

 

The code examination did not reveal whether non-antirunway weapons can reduce the size of a runway. First glance suggests they cannot. This would be a great theory for someone to test in the game.

 

Agreed. I might take a stab at this (and the above) over the weekend if someone does not beat me to it.

You guys got me here (again), how do you 'see' runway damage in current GE??

 

Early consensus is to let planes land at damaged runways, anyone against the idea raise your voice.

 

I am of the mindset is that they should be permitted to land even if they cannot then take off again from the same damaged runway, but within reason. Very large aircraft landing at a runway damaged to STOL level would seem nonsensical, but I could buy, for example, the same aircraft being able to land at a Large or perhaps even Small runway.

I think the degree of compromise acceptable depends on how hard it is to code the AI a fair go at redirecting turned around 'planes. If this is hard then I'd agree with an outright allowance to land anything that could have landed before the damage. If the 'plane in question needs a vlarge 'strip but the 'strip is down to STOL then at least there is a fair delay before it can takeoff, that is still way better than at present.

 

 

do we want to reduce the quantity of takeoffs per 30 seconds for partially reduced runways (ex. two runways at installation, 1 cut so in reality only 1 VLarge plane could take off per 30 seconds instead of the normal 2)? I vote no since it makes my life tougher.

 

I like where the suggestion is heading, but I am willing to accept no change in the current arrangement. In reality, I guess it would really just mean more crowded hardstands and taxiways, with resulting stress on the ATC, sortie rate and damage resistance.

I agree, sounds good but too hard.

 

Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.

 

I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert).

I agree with Brad but the decision whether to divert or give it a go would be fine for the player but could this be done fairly for AI, from previous comments I assume not.

How about something like: if damaged runway is 'shorter' than 'plane's requirement by # (where # is from the HCE runway size numbers) then probability of loss is 2% times # ? EG a vlarge 'plane landing on a damaged to large runway is 2% probable of crash, on a damaged to small runway is 4% (if I've got the runway sizes correct).

My thought is there is a mix of experience in the pilots so some will breeze it in while others are at their limit so some will crash but not many.

 

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing them is easier :ph34r: but I'd certainly listen to well formed arguments to make them taxi and go back into the Readying pool.

 

What about the AI's usage of airfields? If the planes are destroyed, a scenario might be won by simply waiting for the AI to fail launching a number of planes (if that's a victory condition, of course). When planes are simply placed in the readying pool again, the sortie rate will go down without any hampering of victory conditions. So probably it's a backward compatibility issue argument ;)

 

My answer is the same as Brad's and I'll add this raises a micro-management issue for me. I get the RTS feel when I think about an engineer unit. Abstracting it into the installation seems more Harpoonish to me. Still I'd definitely like to be shipping in SeaBees someday so the door is definitely not closed forever.

 

Agreed, the engineer units repair capability was probably motivated by my ArmA II gaming as of late :) On the other side, the repair function could still be embedded in the installation, as you write above, and be dependent on the installations damage level. A 100% damaged/destroyed installation cannot fix any broken runways anymore, while a 0% damaged/full functioning installation still has a fair chance to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I agree with Brad but the decision whether to divert or give it a go would be fine for the player but could this be done fairly for AI, from previous comments I assume not.

How about something like: if damaged runway is 'shorter' than 'plane's requirement by # (where # is from the HCE runway size numbers) then probability of loss is 2% times # ? EG a vlarge 'plane landing on a damaged to large runway is 2% probable of crash, on a damaged to small runway is 4% (if I've got the runway sizes correct).

My thought is there is a mix of experience in the pilots so some will breeze it in while others are at their limit so some will crash but not many.

...

 

On the diversion of AI aircraft, what happens when a carrier type vehicle is lost? Isn't there already some 'diversion' code in place, or will the planes/helos just crash when out of fuel?

 

The percentages idea is great, though I believe raising the percentages per level would make sense. E.g. a plane that needs 1km for landing might have a good chance to land in 800 meters, but next to none in 400 meters. So for a vlarge plane landing on large, 2 %, same plane landing on medium 10%, on small 50%, on VTOL 100% (or whatever the runway sizes are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent summary, Tony. Further comments below:

 

The code examination did not reveal whether non-antirunway weapons can reduce the size of a runway. First glance suggests they cannot. This would be a great theory for someone to test in the game.

 

Agreed. I might take a stab at this (and the above) over the weekend if someone does not beat me to it.

You guys got me here (again), how do you 'see' runway damage in current GE??

 

Early consensus is to let planes land at damaged runways, anyone against the idea raise your voice.

 

I am of the mindset is that they should be permitted to land even if they cannot then take off again from the same damaged runway, but within reason. Very large aircraft landing at a runway damaged to STOL level would seem nonsensical, but I could buy, for example, the same aircraft being able to land at a Large or perhaps even Small runway.

I think the degree of compromise acceptable depends on how hard it is to code the AI a fair go at redirecting turned around 'planes. If this is hard then I'd agree with an outright allowance to land anything that could have landed before the damage. If the 'plane in question needs a vlarge 'strip but the 'strip is down to STOL then at least there is a fair delay before it can takeoff, that is still way better than at present.

 

 

do we want to reduce the quantity of takeoffs per 30 seconds for partially reduced runways (ex. two runways at installation, 1 cut so in reality only 1 VLarge plane could take off per 30 seconds instead of the normal 2)? I vote no since it makes my life tougher.

 

I like where the suggestion is heading, but I am willing to accept no change in the current arrangement. In reality, I guess it would really just mean more crowded hardstands and taxiways, with resulting stress on the ATC, sortie rate and damage resistance.

I agree, sounds good but too hard.

 

Probability of losing aircraft doing takeoff/landing at damaged runways? I like the idea, we need rules developed.

 

I am okay with this approach as long as the risk isn't too high. Presumably ground controllers and pilots would choose to divert elsewhere rather than land at unacceptably high risk (unless of course there were no fields to which to divert).

I agree with Brad but the decision whether to divert or give it a go would be fine for the player but could this be done fairly for AI, from previous comments I assume not.

How about something like: if damaged runway is 'shorter' than 'plane's requirement by # (where # is from the HCE runway size numbers) then probability of loss is 2% times # ? EG a vlarge 'plane landing on a damaged to large runway is 2% probable of crash, on a damaged to small runway is 4% (if I've got the runway sizes correct).

My thought is there is a mix of experience in the pilots so some will breeze it in while others are at their limit so some will crash but not many.

 

 

Don

 

The runway requirements for the aircraft are for combat loaded aircraft IIRC. One that is loaded with only enough fuel to get from base A to base B might not require as long a runway. Would a ferry or 'escape' loadout allow for a safer take-off from a damage shortened runway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've once raised the problem of anti-runway ops in HCE http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m...y=

Currently use of dedicated anti-runway weapons doesn't have much appeal to the player, because planes can still take off from a base with reduced runway. So why bother? More, anti-runway weapons are scarce in HCDB. Changing this problem along the lines you mentioned below, will give the player much more tactical possibilites, which equals more fun! :D

About the code itself - would it be possible to give certain weapons (heaviest guided bombs) something like dual capabilities - I mean when You launch those 2000 lb JDAMs against an airbase You would get an option to use them in antirunway "mode" or in general purpose "mode"?

Generally reducing the runway itself should be much made easier and faster then destroying the entire airbase. If not, why bother with going after the runway?

 

Brady mentioned 1999's NATO air ops against Yugoslavia - look at the picture of Obvra airbase (one B2 and 6 JDAMs B)http://tinyurl.com/6cwzy5q

Many interesting pictures http://www.bf2brasil.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35717 - the article looks even more interesting, but it's in portuguese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...