Hosting/Technical etc
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:16 am
- Location: Canary Islands
-
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:07 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 am
- Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 am
- Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
I have observed over the campaign that recon decay on shipping has been quite unrealistic. In one example we obtained 100% recon on a transport and have observed its movements for many missions with minor recon decay. The current global recon decay rate is set at only 5% per mission! There have been no adjustmets for individual unit types.
While this may seem fine for stationary or slow moving ground units such as AAA, I think when it comes to shipping it should decay much faster.
I know this has been a long standing campaign setting but we seem to be getting far too much information on shipping than is realistic. Once something (ie ship) is spotted then a type, speed and heading should be it for one mission duration only. In 2 hours a fast ship can be up 120 kms from its last known position and recon decay should be so much so that next mission there is no recon level left.
To me this suggests that when it comes to shipping it should be at almost 100% decay per mission. Maybe a few percent less so that ships can leave a question mark shadow if 100% recon was obtained.
I suggest that recon decay for shipping in this campaign be set to 95% to see how this looks in campaign. This would allow for an attack to be made in the next mission if a very high level of recon is made but after that the location of enemy vessel/s to be almost unknown unless continued recon is obtained.
If a review of recon decay is agreed maybe we should have a look at decay rates of all unit types?
This would go towards making the campaign more realistic.
While this may seem fine for stationary or slow moving ground units such as AAA, I think when it comes to shipping it should decay much faster.
I know this has been a long standing campaign setting but we seem to be getting far too much information on shipping than is realistic. Once something (ie ship) is spotted then a type, speed and heading should be it for one mission duration only. In 2 hours a fast ship can be up 120 kms from its last known position and recon decay should be so much so that next mission there is no recon level left.
To me this suggests that when it comes to shipping it should be at almost 100% decay per mission. Maybe a few percent less so that ships can leave a question mark shadow if 100% recon was obtained.
I suggest that recon decay for shipping in this campaign be set to 95% to see how this looks in campaign. This would allow for an attack to be made in the next mission if a very high level of recon is made but after that the location of enemy vessel/s to be almost unknown unless continued recon is obtained.
If a review of recon decay is agreed maybe we should have a look at decay rates of all unit types?
This would go towards making the campaign more realistic.
II/JG77Hawk 5
SEOW fanboy of dubious repute
SEOW fanboy of dubious repute
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:16 am
- Location: Canary Islands
I agree. But I also think that ships within surface radar range should get more information than a single question mark. And ships within visual range (15-20 kms) should get increase recon data. Maybe an initial 45% recon, where the heading, speed and size of vessel can be known. With heading I mean the one the detected ship was moving to when detected, not the stationary heading at the end of the mission as it can be changed intentionally. Or maybe the ships shouldnt have the CHANGE BEARING option in the menu aswel as the final heading.
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:16 am
- Location: Canary Islands
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 am
- Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
No sorry Luny.
We were going to fly, mission built, loaded and ready to go but I suddenly became quite ill and couldn't continue at the computer and retired for the night. I've been battling a chest infection for many weeks now and it got the better of me.
This means if either side wants to add or adjust anything they can. Mission can just be rebuilt next weekend if needed.
We were going to fly, mission built, loaded and ready to go but I suddenly became quite ill and couldn't continue at the computer and retired for the night. I've been battling a chest infection for many weeks now and it got the better of me.
This means if either side wants to add or adjust anything they can. Mission can just be rebuilt next weekend if needed.
II/JG77Hawk 5
SEOW fanboy of dubious repute
SEOW fanboy of dubious repute
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:16 am
- Location: Canary Islands
-
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:07 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
-
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:07 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 am
- Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:47 am
- Location: Montgomery, AL (USA)
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:16 am
- Location: Canary Islands
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 am
- Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
-
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:07 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia