|
LewisOwen -> Flawed Winchester logic? (7/29/2019 8:02:12 PM)
|
Hi there,
I stumbled upon a certain peculiarity, while doing some testing in the editor.
I want to start off by quoting an old warfaresims.com news article from back when the fuel and weapon state features were being introduced into CMANO.
quote:
Winchester: Mission-specific weapons have been expended. Disengage immediately – The traditional pain vanilla Winchester weapon state.
Winchester: Mission-specific weapons have been expended. Allow targets of opportunity with air-to-air guns – Same as above, but engage nearby bogies with guns after we’re out of missiles. Applies to air-to-air missile loadouts only. For guns-only air-to-air loadouts and all air-to-ground loadouts the behaviour is the same as above.
So I do understand how the Winchester weapon state criteria work, but by giving you the following example I want to argue that these criteria are, indeed, flawed.
At least the part that says: Applies to air-to-air missile loadouts only. For guns-only air-to-air loadouts and all air-to-ground loadouts the behaviour is same as above.
So I was doing some testing in the editor.
Using the CWDB
There are 3 sides in the "scenario" I always use as a framework for testing and experimentation.
BLUFOR, REDFOR and INDEPENDENT.
REDFOR's and INDEPENDENT's side doctrine is irrelevant.
I set BLUFOR's side doctrine for "Weapon State RTB:" to "No, aircraft do not RTB when weapon state is reached"
I set BLUFOR's side doctrine for "Weapon State, Pre-Planned:" to "Winchester: Mission-specific weapons have been expended. Allow targets of opportunity with air-to-air guns"
Now, I placed a BLUFOR airbase with a 1962 USAF F-100D Super Sabre in south Florida.
I loaded the Super Sabre with an air-to-ground loadout. 4 AGM-12B Bullpup A missiles and 2 drop tanks. (+ the 4 integrated M39 20mm cannons)
Then, I manually executed an airstrike against some targets on the coast of Cuba with the F-100D, expended all 4 Bullpups, and plotted a course towards home base.
Then, I "staged" an attack on the Super Sabre by a Cuban MiG-17F.
But now, no matter what I did, I couldn't get the Super Sabre to engage the MiG with its 20mm cannons in self defense
I made sure that nothing in the side doctrine, or anything, else could possibly prevent the Super Sabre from engaging that MiG and tried both automatic and manual attack, but nothing worked. The Super Sabre just flew in perfectly straight line, on course, while the MiG-17 was getting on its tail. The status bar just said: "On Plotted Course (Winchester) (Airborne)" and then, when I deleted the F-100s course in a desperate attempt to get the Super Sabre pilot to defend himself against the MiG on its 6, it just said "Unassigned (Winchester) (Airborne)"
Is the Winchester logic really THIS restrictive? I can't imagine a reason why a fighter-bomber like the F-100D wouldn't just start turning on that MiG in this situation and try to defend itself.
And all of this just because the F-100 was using an air-to-ground loadout? A fighter-bomber like F-100D Super Sabre should be able to defend itself against enemy fighters both before and after it expended its air-to-ground munitions.I just can't imagine it being any other way IRL.
I don't expect aircraft in game to disobey the doctrine and engage enemy aircraft, but when I manually instruct an aircraft (a fighter-bomber let's add) to engage an enemy aircraft on its 6 in self defense, because I'm trying to save the aircraft from being shot down like some goddamn towed practice target, let's just say that I expect it to just do it.
Can I get some opinions on this issue? Have you ever experienced a similar situation? Can we agree that some sort of self defense engagement should always be possible, regardless of the doctrine applied?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
