Jump to content

Do We Need Air Support in SB.


Do we need ground support aircraft in SB  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we need ground support aircraft in SB

    • Yes we need Ground support Aircraft in SB.
      47
    • Not at this time.
      8
    • Dont care either way.
      11
    • No we dont.
      17


Recommended Posts

Its a subject I have raised before.

And I am not trying to antagonise the development team but IMO it needs to be addressed.

A major element in combined arms is lacking in SB

IE.AI controlled Ground attack aircraft. Such as the A10/Su25/jaguar etc.

I Fully realise in order to bring such additions to SB.

The developer Would also need to develop counters such as effective static and mobile Sam systems we have ZSU/ZU systems already in game additions such as the Gepard, linebacker

Marksman to name just a few mobile air defence systems would only add to what is Excellent Armoured Warfare Simulation. I have discussed this with other like minded SB enthusiasts on TeamSpeak.

So I am running a poll to indicate how members feel on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is actually an F-16C in SBPro since ...hummm correct me if I am wrong...since Version 2.6

That F-16C is to best of my understanding only an placeholder for DIS/HLA connectivity using the Pro version of SBPro towards other virtual training Systems.

There has been some semi-successfully tests between SBPro and other virtual training Systems not only for the F-16C but even more intresting for the Helicopters that are in SBPro..

/WarUlf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be an interesting addition in my opinion.

In one sense you could possibly use the UAV we have and laser designate targets while aircraft like an A-10 or F-16 dropped Laser Guided munitions to head for your lasing point. Or guided artillery rounds, etc.

Or, if the helicopters could have more player control, it would be great to be able to decide what units they fired at, for instance saving the rockets for lighter vehicles and using only the ATGM's against Tanks and air defense vehicles.

Frankly, after seeing the Mi-35 videos from the recent Iraq crisis, it would neat to have a Red Mi-35 type helo to compliment the capabilities seen in the Blue AH-64 we have now.

It would be cool to see Mk20 Rockeye attacks like this on ground forces though.

or the CBU-97

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.

Way beyond the current scope of the simulation and the current abstracted method of generating the effect of any CAS that actually penetrate the air defence curtain is fine.

The alternative if you want to do it properly (mission planning, air log, Air defence, SEAD, SAR, etc.) is a module of the sim more complex than the ground ground one and diverts a whole bunch of resources that could be used in the ground area.

If you don't want to do it "properly" then what we have now is fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An A-10 or Su-25 coming in and making a cluster bomb or strafing run on a target area is perfectly do-able, and would be infinitely better than the magically spawning airstrike explosion. We wouldn't have to model SEAD, or air superiority, long ranged SAMs, etc, we just continually enhance what is already abstracted.

As with almost everything, it all comes down to lack of TIME...

Link to post
Share on other sites
An A-10 or Su-25 coming in and making a cluster bomb or strafing run on a target area is perfectly do-able, and would be infinitely better than the magically spawning airstrike explosion. We wouldn't have to model SEAD, or air superiority, long ranged SAMs, etc, we just continually enhance what is already abstracted.

As with almost everything, it all comes down to lack of TIME...

I agree with Volcano.

Maybe have the aircraft spawn XYZ Km from the edge of the map with the direction applied using the axis drop down.

And then de-spawn when it reaches ZXY Km from the the other edge.

I'd also like to be able to choose a wider range of ordnance, such as Gun runs/Rocket Runs, AGM-65/KH-29T S-25L etc etc etc.

(With the chance to shoot it down if you have ADA in range LOS etc.)

The biggest change NEEDED is to up the power of the ZSU-23-4

It should be swatting the unarmoured choppers from the sky with impunity.

At the moment it is barely above impotent.

If it fires at the Griffon 9 out of 10 times the Griffon is just like "And?" and flies off laughing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An A-10 or Su-25 coming in and making a cluster bomb or strafing run on a target area is perfectly do-able, and would be infinitely better than the magically spawning airstrike explosion. We wouldn't have to model SEAD, or air superiority, long ranged SAMs, etc, we just continually enhance what is already abstracted.

As with almost everything, it all comes down to lack of TIME...

Pretty much what I was thinking volcano.

I do not like to compare the two Sims but M1 tank platoon had random attacks by ground Attack planes. In fairness it was not fully or accurately implemented but you ignored them At your peril. I got taken out a few times by SU-25's on attack runs.

It was a much enjoyed aspect of the sim by many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the subject is air support and this is a training simulator at heart: I'd like to see UAVs that reflect the large, stand off, heavily armed UAVs that have been available for some time now. Seems to me that would make for a much more realistic environment. and, as time goes on you'll see fewer and fewer manned CAS and more and more UAV based CAS. Just my US$0.02 worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Volcano.

Maybe have the aircraft spawn XYZ Km from the edge of the map with the direction applied using the axis drop down.

And then de-spawn when it reaches ZXY Km from the the other edge.

I'd also like to be able to choose a wider range of ordnance, such as Gun runs/Rocket Runs, AGM-65/KH-29T S-25L etc etc etc.

(With the chance to shoot it down if you have ADA in range LOS etc.)

The biggest change NEEDED is to up the power of the ZSU-23-4

It should be swatting the unarmoured choppers from the sky with impunity.

At the moment it is barely above impotent.

If it fires at the Griffon 9 out of 10 times the Griffon is just like "And?" and flies off laughing.

Yes but this is what happens when you go for a half/half implementation.

Already (within the first 6 posts) you want to be able to select ordnance on the aircraft, which implies a choice of more than one plus all the modelling that goes with each.

Then we want to revise the ZSU-23-4.

How long before someone wants:

Gepard

DIVADS

SGT York

ZSU 57-2 (for the earlier missions)

A whole bunch of other air defence vehicles / weapons / manpads for each nation

Then of course radars to detect the incoming aircraft

Air sentries on vehicles to be able to fire at aircraft

Determining if the Loader mans the tank gun or mans the roof MG

Can Infantry engage the aircraft with their: MGs, Javelin, RPG-X, etc.

Different graphics to reflect the effect of different ordnance delivered by the aircraft (rocket, gun, missile and bomb at least).

Oh and of course the aircraft must be crewable.

The list goes on and on and on ...

Basically I'm saying "be careful what you wish for" as development of vehicles and other ground modeling is put on the back burner as limited programming staff devote their efforts to the time soak which this "shiny new toy" may well become.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but this is what happens when you go for a half/half implementation.

Already (within the first 6 posts) you want to be able to select ordnance on the aircraft, which implies a choice of more than one plus all the modelling that goes with each.

Then we want to revise the ZSU-23-4.

How long before someone wants:

Gepard

DIVADS

SGT York

ZSU 57-2 (for the earlier missions)

A whole bunch of other air defence vehicles / weapons / manpads for each nation

Then of course radars to detect the incoming aircraft

Air sentries on vehicles to be able to fire at aircraft

Determining if the Loader mans the tank gun or mans the roof MG

Can Infantry engage the aircraft with their: MGs, Javelin, RPG-X, etc.

Different graphics to reflect the effect of different ordnance delivered by the aircraft (rocket, gun, missile and bomb at least).

Oh and of course the aircraft must be crewable.

The list goes on and on and on ...

Basically I'm saying "be careful what you wish for" as development of vehicles and other ground modeling is put on the back burner as limited programming staff devote their efforts to the time soak which this "shiny new toy" may well become.

I Agree with some points you have made Gibsonm.

A full simulation of CAS is a big ask and would take a long time and a lot of cash to implement.

But what I and others would like to see. Three or four types of ground attack planes and Some Western ADA is not a unreasonable request.

We already have some Soviets systems in game and Some of the IFV's currently modelled in SB have the ability and munitions to be vey effective In the AD role.

Many of the features hedge would like to see are doable with what we currently have in SB

Such as the plane load out it can be done in the mission editor etc.

I see no problem using a little artistic licence we do it for other features in SB.

It will be interesting what figures the poll will reveal in six days time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it would be cool I think what we have for now is fine. I'd worry any half-way attempt would come off as lame. Such as the helicopters and AA we have now - it is hardly a workable shell of an air sim and is more for eye candy. A ton of time would have to be poured in to get the aviation AI up to a believable point.

I think it is fine now - the elements are there in order to teach you how to work with them at a basic level, and you get their basic benefits (air strike, basic helo transport and basic UAV). Unless a serious AI upgrade was made to the aviation side, I would have trouble believing it.

But it would be cool if it was there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While it would be cool I think what we have for now is fine. I'd worry any half-way attempt would come off as lame. Such as the helicopters and AA we have now - it is hardly a workable shell of an air sim and is more for eye candy. A ton of time would have to be poured in to get the aviation AI up to a believable point.

I think it is fine now - the elements are there in order to teach you how to work with them at a basic level, and you get their basic benefits (air strike, basic helo transport and basic UAV). Unless a serious AI upgrade was made to the aviation side, I would have trouble believing it.

But it would be cool if it was there.

Agreed Lt George.

There would have to be a AI upgrade we had some improvements in the last update .

But the big stretch for me as a cold war scenario player is that none of the Soviet/Warsaw Pact CAS would have made it trough the NATO Air Defences'

Google how many planes they had.

Edited by Marko
Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest change NEEDED is to up the power of the ZSU-23-4

It should be swatting the unarmoured choppers from the sky with impunity.

Yes, well the fundamental problem there is with the AI's aiming routines, which works well for ground vehicle targets but not so hot with air targets. Hopefully we can do something about that "one day". The other problem is with target acquisition time -- for some reason the ZSU doesn't start to engage air threats until they are right on top of them, or when they have flown OVER and then away from the ZSU. We hope to do something about that too, at least they are known issues that are categorized as bugs. ;)

Besides all that, you would be surprised at how long an actual ZSU-23-4 takes to acquire and engage an air threat in real life. I think we have a document laying around somewhere which says how long this takes (something like 15 second or more, with a relatively low first burst hit % too), so it is not as effective as everyone thinks. We just have to remember that there is a reason why they were employed in pairs. But their strength of course is in saturation fire, and for that to be effective in SB, they have to spot targets quicker and actually shoot before the aircraft is flying away. :)

Just sayin' that the issues are known, and even after they are

"fixed" the ZSU should be very limited, but at least it should be something better than nothing at all (their current behavior). :sad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pointless poll. Of course new features are always welcome. Ask instead: what other stuff should be set back iot free programming time for airsupport.

There's no such thing as a pointless poll it gives the developer some indication as to there Customers thoughts on a subject. I have in the past requested Air support planes be added. In the ever growing wish list thread.

So far the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of adding CAS planes.

As previously stated I am not trying to make any unreasonable demands

The idea of the poll was to gage level of support in the community.

And maybe Esim when time allows may consider making the additions if they see

There is widespread support from its loyal customer base.

Although, I am surprised at the amount of not needed votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no such thing as a pointless poll it gives the developer some indication as to there Customers thoughts on a subject. I have in the past requested Air support planes be added. In the ever growing wish list thread.

So far the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of adding CAS planes.

As previously stated I am not trying to make any unreasonable demands

The idea of the poll was to gage level of support in the community.

And maybe Esim when time allows may consider making the additions if they see

There is widespread support from its loyal customer base.

Although, I am surprised at the amount of not needed votes.

i too would like cas, who wouldn't.

Still leaves the question: what other stuff you'd relinquish in favor of cas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you elaborate?

IMO.

You can not realistically represent a modern battlefield with out CAS look at any of the Conflicts in the last twenty years CAS played a major role.

Yes SB is a armour sim first and foremost.

As previously stated expecting Esim to make a drastic expansion of its core business

And move to CAS operations is unrealistic, but as others besides me have stated a few Limited additions like a A10-Su25-and possibly a few ADA vehicles would add a level

Of realism a lot of enthusiasts like me are yet to experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I wouldn't say that necessarily.

Currently:

21 "Yes"

19 "indifferent / various degrees of No"

out of 40

52.5% = a close run thing at the moment.

Well, nowadays our politicians call 35%...overwhelming support and a strong mandate :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you create a poll just to see people sharing your very same point of view.

Others' are just needless votes...

First time I see that kind of behaviour...

Anyway, I voted "Dont care either way.", simply because, I use SB as a tool.

Seeing the job being done by some AI is pointless in terms of training values.

In the end, it's just fruitless motion without human in the loop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, you create a poll just to see people sharing your very same point of view.

Others' are just needless votes...

First time I see that kind of behaviour, from a man...

Anyway, I voted "Dont care either way.", simply because, I use SB as a tool.

Seeing the job being done by some AI is pointless in terms of training values.

In the end, it's just fruitless motion without human in the loop.

No Not the case .

Just because I subscribe to a opinion I don't expect people to share that opinion.

How can the other votes be needless when I do not control the end result, that's the whole point of a poll, it is within the realms of Possibility over the next few days it mite swing in Favour of not needed option thus working against my view and showing esim that there is Not a demand for CAS. so your argument makes no sense.

.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...