Regrouping Sections

[Zoi]

How do you rebuild flights so that all the AI are under your control? For example you have flown a few missions and you have two planes in one section three in another and three more in another section. You need to combine all the sections into the same group and have two flights of four under your control.

[PA-Dore]

If you really want to do this, I think the only way is to edit the ObjMissionData table and set the Quantity of 2 sections to 4 and the 3rd one to 0. But note that the squadron names of aircraft losses in statistics will be now wrong.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

Or, do what they did in the war. Withdraw the understrength flights, which automatically dissolves the flight affiliations, then re-commission them as new full-strength flights.

[Zoi]

This was actually a question I was asked and didn't have an answer for. I guess the top up function works as well? The main concern is gaining in flight control of AI units. Do you have to fly the planes you want to dissolve to an air withdraw point?

[Classic_EAF19]

Would it be possible to allow the commander to merge flights locally? During wartime restructuring through losses the aircraft did not have to leave the airfield, I expect structural changes most frequently occurred within the squadron. I think a common occurence would be for a squadron to make internal structural changes by perhaps changing from a four flight to two flights as losses occured. I think it would be a nice feature to allow commanders to disolve and merge flights without flying anywhere.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

I guess the top up function works as well?

That's what it is for.

Do you have to fly the planes you want to dissolve to an air withdraw point?

Yes, or to a withdraw base.

I think it would be a nice feature to allow commanders to disolve and merge flights without flying anywhere.

Yes it would be. But it should not happen without some kind of time penalty.

Cheers,
4S

[Zoi]

Well if we are going to start talking about the way we would like it to be I just as well give my opinion.

Often I have an airstart with basically unlimited planes. For example if I want to do a bombing Berlin campaign I would have an airstart for the Americans and an airstart for the Germans. My thought is that running out of planes should not be an issue in this scenario and delayed flights are irrelevant where the supply is unlimited. If either side gets close to running out of planes I just give them as many as they want. Now as planes are lost regrouping them is just a matter of keeping things tidy. The advantage of this approach is that if you want to have a hundred bombers every mission putting that many on the template becomes somewhat tedious and it is easier just to put them in supply. I assume that most people would have a problem with this approach fearing that commanders would have an unrealistic indifference to losing planes but that is easily avoided by making the number of loses the objective.

As this relates to the MP I don't really have a problem with the way it is set up now. If there is a problem it is how the game assigns command and control to humans.

If the MP is to be changed my preference would be to give the planner an option to put all flights in the same group by pressing a button or something. In reality this is just a labor saving solution because I always provide air withdraw points close to bases for a variety of reasons. Mostly because if I made a bad decision in the campaign design it is easy to give commanders corrected plane numbers they agree on. The only problem with this solution is that some times planes will be lost at withdraw points that would otherwise be safely landed.

An overall commander for all AI would be nice but the game doesn't allow that. If that could be addressed by the development team it would open up all sorts of possibilities like running around in jeeps and ordering planes to attack targets you ID. I understand DCS has developed this concept fairly extensively but don't know what the public reception has been.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

The only problem with this solution is that some times planes will be lost at withdraw points that would otherwise be safely landed.

Use a withdraw base instead of a withdraw point. Should avoid the occasional crashes of aircraft as they circle. Or, alternatively, use a Dead Zone at the withdraw point so all AI aircraft disappear there.

An overall commander for all AI would be nice but the game doesn't allow that. If that could be addressed by the development team it would open up all sorts of possibilities like running around in jeeps and ordering planes to attack targets you ID.

Not sure I understand what you are referring to. But I suspect the "development team" you mention is TD or HSFX, so you are talking to the wrong audience here.

If the MP is to be changed my preference would be to give the planner an option to put all flights in the same group by pressing a button or something

Not sure, but I suspect you can only have 16 flights under control of a single pilot in-game. Anyway, it wouldn't be too hard to automate that using Navicat just by changing names on flights.

Cheers,
4S

[Classic_EAF19]

I'm curious as to why if merging flights were possible there should be a time penalty? If a squadron leader or station commander condensed the aircraft into one flight its only a paperwork excercise the aircraft remain the same.

I think there were many examples when the pilots available outnumbered the aircraft and pilots 'flights' rotated on and off duty so that all of the pilots took their chances in flying against the enemy.

[Zoi]

Use a withdraw base instead of a withdraw point.

Ok that is a good idea but I didn't know there was such a thing, how would I find it?

Not sure I understand what you are referring to. But I suspect the "development team" you mention is TD or HSFX

Well yes but the question was put to me and I was addressing the issue not as it relates to SEOW but in a more general sense. What would solve the "problem" is improved human control over AI, preferably air and ground.

it wouldn't be too hard to automate that using Navicat

Yes it would as every time I do something like that I screw up my database

I suspect you can only have 16 flights under control of a single pilot in-game

I assumed 12 in SEOW?

Now that I feel completely stupid I will simple move on as if I knew all this stuff before, it's always best to pretend you know what you are doing

Anyway thanks for you time Shades

[Zoi]

Classic what Shades is saying is that a "proper" campaign is about logistics and complex strategy. Every piece of the SEOW puzzle is designed to work together so that failure to manage you forces properly gives an advantage to your enemy. I try to find ways to work around this complexity to make planning easier and focus on having fun. Planning is not fun for me but for other folks it is, so to each their own. SEOW is designed as a strategy game but can be adopted to what I like to do and you do not need to adhere to the strategy game concept to closely. I use it more as a dynamic campaign system than a strategy game but try not to make requests from the developers that would weaken it's overall framework. In order to keep the system balanced there are numerous aspects that are "unrealistic" for example the substitution of small numbers of units to represent larger numbers. The complexity in this case is derived from the fact that IL-2 does not function the way a strategy game would function but plays out as if the units represent 1 to 1 numbers. SEOW has to take this into account somehow that does not strictly conform to what you would see in real life. In the case of needing to withdraw units what is being simulated is the effect of heavy loses on moral etc.

Another example of compromises to realism would be SEOW's fog of war system, recon in the real world is both more effective and less effective. For example intel on ground units exceeds what would ever be available to a field commander while recon on shipping is often much poorer than it would have been historically. Radar is another example, radar was much more effective in some ways than what SEOW allows for. A good example would be air to sea Radar which is completely missing from the game but was used early in the war. Certainly no ship would go undetected by shore installations and ships could use radar to find other ships very early in the war. So the fog of war we have is somewhat unrealistic but it works with the other pieces of the system so that the overall information the commanders and pilots have is a astigmatic facsimile of reality.

[Classic_EAF19]

Well I for one enjoy the planning I try to avoid mistakes and look ahead and if I make a mistake I expect to be punished for it, equally if the opposition makes a mistake the opportunity should be seized to punish that mistake to the fullest effect.. However that tenacious and aggresive way of planning has caused upset to people in the past, there are some very different ideologies playing SEOW simultaneously and often in conflict across the chess board that is SEOW.

I am a fan of logistics and careful planning with the devil in the detail and in my opinion the more time put into the MP studying the situation the greater the chance for success.

Anyways enough philosophy from me and thank you for taking the time to explain.