Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Fair, but those units have no damage functionality at all

quote:

Fixed: Grouped A/C fire still won't fire as a group

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Confirmed. Sorry guys. Stay tuned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

As for 'Single-Unit Airfields', these lack proper modelling of sub-component damage and should not be used for airfelds that may come under attack The purpose of these units is to increase game speed by skipping the intra-base infrastructure and logics in ASW scens or one-sided strike scens, etc.

So if we were to change anything it would be to make Single-Unit airfields not attackable at all.

My Command Review at SimHQ: http://www.simhq.com/daily-news/command-modern-airnaval-operations-1-01-review.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Man, I really hope that all scenario designers read this. I vote to make them not attackable at all in order to discourage their (ab)use as frontline airfields.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DismalPseudoscience

I feel like the engine punished that appropriately before, since Tomahawks bounced off of runways ineffectually. But they were still pretty useful against the squishy access points, which were often the more critical targets.

My biggest complaint about this, though is that it really limits player flexibility. Sometimes you just don't have a lot of weapons with anti-runway tags available, but the ones you do have would smash access points very easily. Some penetrating weapons like JASSM are very good against runways as well. I'd rather spend $10 million on missiles than lose a $60 million aircraft because I have to fly low and drop Durandals or somesuch. Sometimes a runway just has to die regardless of the cost.

I think also that a lot of scenarios were designed on the assumption that a much broader range of weapons could attack runways and access points than currently can. Well, that's my 2 cents on the issue.

Thank you guys for all you hard work on the game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s

The Mk82 is not an anti-runway weapon. It just isn't.

So should we make it anti-runway capable in the sim? Seems to be different oppinions on that. I think they shouldn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The Israelis used special bombs for the runways, not vanilla Mk82s

The Mk82 is not an anti-runway weapon. It just isn't.

So should we make it anti-runway capable in the sim? Seems to be different oppinions on that. I think they shouldn't.

quote:

Planners had several options regarding airfield attacks. One was to use the American CBU-89, an anti-personal and anti-armor cluster mine, to deny or impede access to the runways. This approach had two drawbacks. First, tests in the mid-1980s showed that CBU-89 experienced a high failure rate when dropped above several hundred feet against on
crete surfaces. Another problem was that on a flat surface, such as a runway, it was relatively easy to clear with high-pressure water hoses. A second option was to use general-purpose bombs to crater runways, making them unusable. Well-constructed runways would have required penetrating bomb bodies ( Due to ricochet, broaching,and bomb body breakup upon impact, general purpose bombs are unsuitable for thick or reinforced concrete structure). Some planners suggested penetrating bomb attacks followed by CBU-89 drops. Instead, planners turned to JP-233, which combined both of these features into one munition.

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China