• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Guiding Airstrikes

Tiger2

Grizzled Veteran
Jun 13, 2008
501
144
On larger maps of 4-9 square kilometres, Ro offers a role where an infantry soldier goes through a sequence over a radio involving the following steps:

I. specify grid coordinates to a bomber plane by typing them in;

II. describe target as either tank, infantry group or a building;

III. suggest ingress path for the plane to help better see the target and avoid airspace covered by enemy AA, if you found out their positions. (Impliedly, i am asking for at least AA tripods on which Mgs can be turned high enough to aim at planes.)

IV. Specify weapon for attack as either Mg or bomb (depends on FF risk).

If the target coordinates are wrong, the A.I. controlled aircraft will be unable to help you. If there are friendly units at the incorrectly specified location matching your description, it will attack them. Target description is therefore a limited safety measure.

The A.I. pilot will be unable to see targets hiding in dense forests. It will detect moving targets on open plains faster, plus it will detect shooting targets faster. The spotter guiding the plane can also get help from team mates by having someone illuminate the sky above the target with a flare in a dusk setting, or launching a coloured smoke grenade into the target zone (both of which i am asking to add).

Why should this be added? It is much more advanced and interesting than the current artillery support. It could even serve as a complete replacement of artillery on large maps.

edit: how can I add a poll vote?
 
Last edited:
implementation is Tripwire's affair. but look how much closer guided air support is to their model than point and click arty:)

And it would not be overpowered: no one complains about arty. The Messerschmidt and Henschel are a must for this game, carrying light bombs and 20mm cannons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think this would be monsterously overpowered. not to mention taking up a massive amount of resources and be pretty complicated to impliment. I would have to vote not. also, do you really want re orchestra'2 AI controlling a aircraft? Remember when they could still use the tanks?

I never played against bot controlled tanks. What was wrong :)
 
Upvote 0
We will need to model pilot fatigue as well, so pilots with frequent combat missions will have less precision and responsiveness in executing commands.

What can programmers on this forum say about coding A.I. path finding, target identification and bombing accuracy. Is it achievable with the UDK?
 
Upvote 0
This sounds like an insanely over complicated process that isn't in any way, shape or form required for the game. At the pace RO is played at, by the time you finish typing all that crap in whatever you were trying to have destroyed would almost certainly be long gone.

It takes about 5 seconds to mark grid coordinates, specify ingress ( i.e. south south west), click on target type (ie tank), click on weapon type. got it?
 
Upvote 0
Personally it sounds like an unnecessary addition to something not used much, plus it would take up what little resources TWI still has focused on RO2 (they are now more focused on KF2) when they could actually be fixing or making stuff that is more relevant to most players of the game.

How do you know they are more focused on KF2? I always thought there were separate teams within TWI for diff games (considering they've seemingly got a decent amount of work already done on KF2 while still updating RO2).
 
Upvote 0
How do you know they are more focused on KF2? I always thought there were separate teams within TWI for diff games (considering they've seemingly got a decent amount of work already done on KF2 while still updating RO2).

I'm just guessing. As RO2 winds down and gets older it just makes sense that they will have less people working on it.

... And with KF2 going to be the next newer game, they may have more people working on it.

In any case, in my opinion, it doesn't seem like the work needed would justify the time to develop this feature when other things could be done.
 
Upvote 0
On larger maps of 4-9 square kilometres, Ro offers a role where an infantry soldier goes through a sequence over a radio involving the following steps... a bomber plane by

And it would not be overpowered: no one complains about arty. The Messerschmidt and Henschel are a must for this game, carrying light bombs and 20mm cannons.

There's a number of reasons we didn't do it:

1. No-one really likes complex call/control procedures in game. If we'd wanted that, we'd have made arty call procedures rather more like the real world (and we did have a design for that).

2. Space... any sort of "bomber" of the period needs a good amount of space to turn, line up their target etc. Most maps are only a few 100 meters across, so just wouldn't fit. And maps multiple kilometers across run like *** :)

3. Power - the HS-129 uses a 30mm auto-cannon, which is a complete beast of a weapon. And "light bombs" start at 50Kg. The Ju-87 routinely carried 500Kg or 1000Kg bombs. Consider that the charge in a 105mm arty shell is only a few Kg, then even the smallest bomb will have 10x the power - a 500Kg bomb will run 100x the power of an arty shell. Devastating on the scale of RO!

And yes, we did have designs for fighter-bombers, ground attack, AAA. Just decided that it wouldn't be good on the scale of this game :)
 
Upvote 0