|
danrhayes -> RE: Strike Mission Primer Discussion (1/11/2007 6:12:32 AM)
|
Okay I must admit I'm finding this all a little confusing. I'm going to address some concerns I have using one of my own scenarios, just because I know what went into building it and the writers intent. Persian Glory simulates a full scale air assault by the Imperial Iran on Iraq. To strike at a single Iraqi base I may have had as many 6 separate strikes groups all set up to achieve as close to possible STOT. This is particularly import especially for the opening strikes because the fighters have cleared route through the defending air patrols but the defenders alert will be in the air soon and since they will be launching from the strikers target they don't have a particularly taxing intercept course. Now as my multiple groups arrive at the target area they have all been given specific target sets. Some will be targeting long range SAMs, other short range while others are after the airfield facilities themselves. Now given the variation in weapons ranges eg Standard ARMs Mavericks, LGBs, CBUs and iron bombs, some of the groups will come within weapons range of other targets they may be a threat to them while they ingress to thier designated target. Most likely that threat has already been allocated in the build process to a different group. Are my Maverick armed F-4s that are designated to take out the close in SHORADs going to start popping off at an SA-3 that has survived the initial attack run of the ARM group leaving the iron bomb armed F-5s behind them to weather a barage of unsupressed SA-8s and 9s? Are we still going to be able to build the sort of large set piece air strike scenarios that would feature so heavily in Central Europe conflict scenarios or as the opening gambit of any major regional conflict? Incidently how does a platform like the B-2 handle this situation. A B-2 may be tasked to hit Moscow,Beijing or Tehran an will flying within the range of a number of systems that could be a threat. Are the particulars of the platform (ie reduced RCS of a B-2) taken into account when determining the threat posed by an enemy unit?
The idea of the AI gaining a bit of initiative sounds great and has the potential to allow the creation of some scenarios without quite the same sort planning stress required at the moment. Ultimately it could mean more scenarios from a wider range folks rather the current , rather concentrated scenario sources. Hmm almost looks a plan to redistribute certain power dynamics. Must be paranoia. Anywhoo, I do think that here will be times when the ability to designate a single target regardless of the threat from other units will be missed. I'd hate to see the A-4s designated to hit the British CVs at the Falklands dumping thier bombs on the close guard escort and then having nothing left to sink the main threat.
Daniel
|
|
|
|
