Eagle-Eye

There has been a topic about call signs, where I suggested this, but never really got feedback:
I know it can be a bit confusing and overwhelming initially, and you can dumb it down as much as you want / need, but once you've used it a bit, someone will be calling in and Command will know straight away: "this callsign = that aircraft type / role = SWOT = action". Similarly, if Command calls "we need Camelot on station ASAP", pilots will immediately know to take the heavy attack helicopter, instead of "request CAS" being replied to with "Roger... Ehr ... Wait ... You want me to take the Littlebird, the Apache, or the Hornet?"
 
This is used IRL as well, by the way. E.g. helo's tasked with (C)SAR, will very often use RESCUE as their call sign, just to make it clear to everyone in the area what their purpose is. Similarly, F-16s often use FALCON or VIPER, while F-18s will use HORNET, F-22 RAPTOR and so on, simply because it's the easiest way to let others know what aircraft type you are, and thus what capabilities you possibly have.

You could argue that an operation like I&A wouldn't happen without air cover, and expect enemy air units to come fight for air superiority. If that were simulated, you could have jets on both sides doing counter air and CAS.
 
That being said, IMO, ArmA is a good infantry simulator, with a decent helicopter simulation but falls short terribly when it comes to jets. Theatres are by far not large enough (would need to be at least 4x Altis), and flight visibility should be increased (at least 25KM, preferably more).
 
For that reason, I don't think ArmA is the right sim to set up such an environment. I also doubt any ArmA-server would be able to host both a ground war AND a continuous air battle.

You could argue that an operation like I&A wouldn't happen without air cover, and expect enemy air units to come fight for air superiority. If that were simulated, you could have jets on both sides doing counter air and CAS.
 
That being said, IMO, ArmA is a good infantry simulator, with a decent helicopter simulation but falls short terribly when it comes to jets. Theatres are by far not large enough (would need to be at least 4x Altis), and flight visibility should be increased (at least 25KM, preferably more).
 
For that reason, I don't think ArmA is the right sim to set up such an environment. I also doubt any ArmA-server would be able to host both a ground war AND a continuous air battle.

Go first person, problem solved?

This might stir up (yet) another separate topic, but I'm wondering if the problem with "bad quality leaders" lies in the current concept of AWE.
 
What I mean by that is that it's not random public lone-wolfing, but not fully milsim either. I feel like that may be catering to too wide an audience, creating mentality issues.
I know a server on Falcon BMS (study-flight sim) that does the same, and they face the same problem (sort of). Some people (the "purists") on there want to take it all the way, others (the "rookies") just want to do their thing in a slightly more organised way, and maybe pick up a few things from the purists. But because they both have different interests in the sim, the purists don't like going there because the rookies kill their immersion, the rookies don't like going there because the purists are going way too far and too strict.
 
That being said, "bad quality leaders" may in fact be a result from the different expectations everyone has on AWE. Maybe (it's just an idea), if you were to go more strict (i.e. leaning towards or going full milsim), you might end up with a better organised bunch that doesn't actually need micromanaging, making SL's job a lot easier.
 
Should note I wrote this reply in a hurry, so it may not be as clear as I intended.

This might stir up (yet) another separate topic, but I'm wondering if the problem with "bad quality leaders" lies in the current concept of AWE.
 
What I mean by that is that it's not random public lone-wolfing, but not fully milsim either. I feel like that may be catering to too wide an audience, creating mentality issues.
I know a server on Falcon BMS (study-flight sim) that does the same, and they face the same problem (sort of). Some people (the "purists") on there want to take it all the way, others (the "rookies") just want to do their thing in a slightly more organised way, and maybe pick up a few things from the purists. But because they both have different interests in the sim, the purists don't like going there because the rookies kill their immersion, the rookies don't like going there because the purists are going way too far and too strict.
 
That being said, "bad quality leaders" may in fact be a result from the different expectations everyone has on AWE. Maybe (it's just an idea), if you were to go more strict (i.e. leaning towards or going full milsim), you might end up with a better organised bunch that doesn't actually need micromanaging, making SL's job a lot easier.
 
Should note I wrote this reply in a hurry, so it may not be as clear as I intended.

This might stir up (yet) another separate topic, but I'm wondering if the problem with "bad quality leaders" lies in the current concept of AWE.
 
What I mean by that is that it's not random public lone-wolfing, but not fully milsim either. I feel like that may be catering to too wide an audience, creating mentality issues.
I know a server on Falcon BMS (study-flight sim) that does the same, and they face the same problem (sort of). Some people (the "purists") on there want to take it all the way, others (the "rookies") just want to do their thing in a slightly more organised way, and maybe pick up a few things from the purists. But because they both have different interests in the sim, the purists don't like going there because the rookies kill their immersion, the rookies don't like going there because the purists are going way too far and too strict.
 
That being said, "bad quality leaders" may in fact be a result from the different expectations everyone has on AWE. Maybe (it's just an idea), if you were to go more strict (i.e. leaning towards or going full milsim), you might end up with a better organised bunch that doesn't actually need micromanaging, making SL's job a lot easier.
 
Should note I wrote this reply in a hurry, so it may not be as clear as I intended.

This might stir up (yet) another separate topic, but I'm wondering if the problem with "bad quality leaders" lies in the current concept of AWE.
 
What I mean by that is that it's not random public lone-wolfing, but not fully milsim either. I feel like that may be catering to too wide an audience, creating mentality issues.
I know a server on Falcon BMS (study-flight sim) that does the same, and they face the same problem (sort of). Some people (the "purists") on there want to take it all the way, others (the "rookies") just want to do their thing in a slightly more organised way, and maybe pick up a few things from the purists. But because they both have different interests in the sim, the purists don't like going there because the rookies kill their immersion, the rookies don't like going there because the purists are going way too far and too strict.
 
That being said, "bad quality leaders" may in fact be a result from the different expectations everyone has on AWE. Maybe (it's just an idea), if you were to go more strict (i.e. leaning towards or going full milsim), you might end up with a better organised bunch that doesn't actually need micromanaging, making SL's job a lot easier.
 
Should note I wrote this reply in a hurry, so it may not be as clear as I intended.

Whenever possible, you would be on another frequency band than the one you're jamming.
 
E.g. cellphones operate on "three bands (900/1,800/1,900 MHz or 850/1,800/1,900 MHz) or four bands (850/900/1,800/1,900 MHz)" (Source: Wikipedia). Since this information is known, you can specifically target those. DUKE could be configured to jam 700 - 1000 MHz / 1700 - 2000 MHz to neutralise all cell phone signals in the area, while vehicle crew would operate on any frequency outside those ranges.
 
One example I know where it wasn't possible to use a different band was during the CSAR of Scott O'Grady in the Balkans, back in 1995. EA-6B Prowlers and EF-111A Ravens were tasked to jam all frequencies they thought the Bosnian Serbs could use, so they wouldn't be able to report sightings, radio in reinforcements, use their anti-air defences, .... While effective in blocking the enemy movement, comms were also near-impossible for the 200+ NATO aircraft that were airborne within a very wide radius (+100NM). (Source: NATO AWACS Operator during that mission)

Whenever possible, you would be on another frequency band than the one you're jamming.
 
E.g. cellphones operate on "three bands (900/1,800/1,900 MHz or 850/1,800/1,900 MHz) or four bands (850/900/1,800/1,900 MHz)" (Source: Wikipedia). Since this information is known, you can specifically target those. DUKE could be configured to jam 700 - 1000 MHz / 1700 - 2000 MHz to neutralise all cell phone signals in the area, while vehicle crew would operate on any frequency outside those ranges.
 
One example I know where it wasn't possible to use a different band was during the CSAR of Scott O'Grady in the Balkans, back in 1995. EA-6B Prowlers and EF-111A Ravens were tasked to jam all frequencies they thought the Bosnian Serbs could use, so they wouldn't be able to report sightings, radio in reinforcements, use their anti-air defences, .... While effective in blocking the enemy movement, comms were also near-impossible for the 200+ NATO aircraft that were airborne within a very wide radius (+100NM). (Source: NATO AWACS Operator during that mission)

As a seasoned pilot in several flight sims, I have to question / wonder why it is wrong to use an AA jet for CAS opportunities? Especially in I&A, where at times only an AA jet is available and there are no immediate AA threats (e.g. after radio tower has been taken down), do you want that asset to just sit there unused, or the pilot to just fly around aimlessly until something pops up? (latter being most likely, since almost every pilot seems to want to fly a jet)
 
Obviously, in the Buzzard (currently the only AA jet), you're not as protected or well-equipped for CAS as you would be in the Wipeout or Neophron, but you still have a gun that is perfectly capable of suppressing / taking out ground targets... You clearly don't want to take on a Kamysh or Tigris with a Buzzard, but unless you still have stand-off weapons available, you shouldn't come close to such a high-risk AO with any jet anyway.

Hey maybe implement the system of ANY player is ABLE to STABILZE the downed player so that the medic has more time to get there. just a thought

Hey guys,
 
I know it's something that has popped up in the past (did a search on several keywords, but couldn't find any hits, though?) so I'm just revisiting the topic of making I&A set up to have players fight against players. Could be a future update of current I&A3 on EU #1 or #2, a new development on a separate server alongside the regular I&A, something for AWE or entirely dismissed. The powers that be have final say.
 
So, first things first, why?
1) Main reason (every time probably) is very simply because AI can be really dumb sometimes, and you need a human brain to close that gap. E.g. if you're far enough or when AI are garrisoned in a building, AI will never react, despite being massacred. Also in CQB, AI have some serious shortcomings...
2) The entire idea behind I&A is that the island is controlled by an enemy force, but those forces are always restricted to just the AO circle, give or take a few 100m. With human players, they could be coming from and/or set up anywhere, including somewhere outside that circle. Keeps everyone on their toes.
 
 
The way I figure it could work (open for debate):
- It's not meant to become a pure PvP. The main focus remains on the BLUE side, but a limited amount of players will be able to join the RED side. E.g. with the current 60-player limit, we could have 45 - 50 BLUE players VS normal AI and 10 -15 RED players. RED's purpose would be to hold off the BLUE attack as long as possible, not to reconquer the island.
 
- The AO's can continue as they are now, basically, without any big changes.
 
- RED would get their own main operating base, obviously far away from the BLUE MOB and with equal base protection.
 
- As RED is meant to control the island, they should have a few locations to spawn across the map. These locations could be fixed (i.e. FOBs are always active, but initially used by RED, later taken over by BLUE), built into the AO or set up manually by RED players.
 
- Random (civilian) vehicles are spawned inside towns and cities, to provide alternative ways of transport. Regular civilians could be spawned as well, if server can manage, for IFF purposes.
 
- With a total of 10 - 15 human players, RED would consist of 2 pilots and regular infantry units. The rest of the AO is filled with AI.
 
- Because of limited amount of players on RED side, there would be no distinctive separation between roles and their associated gear/capabilities, except for pilots. Everyone else would theoretically be able to revive players / repair vehicles (if they brought the appropriate backpacks) while carrying any other kind of CSAT equipment. Weight limits would obviously still apply, and for reasons of fair play, viper outfits and thermal scopes remain prohibited.
 
- RED would have no access to mortars, because there already is the artillery that spawns every so often, but they would be able to deploy unarmed UAVs and MANPADs. At this point in time, I'm still thinking about whether all RED players should be allowed to function as UAV operator, or if that's something that should also be restricted to the pilot slots...
 
- RED receives rewards when BLUE fails a side mission.
 
 
Positives:
- Above all, the human brain that is capable of things the AI just can't begin to imagine.
- A bigger challenge, more thrill and a larger sense of achievement when going up against human players.
- Variety. With a single starting point, humans can create vastly more different outcomes than AI ever could. This also holds true for equipment. One time, humans could be commandeering a civilian vehicle to get to the AO, next time they could be bringing an armed Orca, another day they could lay down IEDs on suspected ingress routes, ...
- Constant reinforcements, adding the illusion that the enemy is really trying to maintain / take control over that AO.
 
Positive or negative, depending on point of view:
- IFF, especially with CSAT equipment rewards. At present, there's a chance that a side mission gives BLUE side a Gorgon, Kajman, ... Similarly, if not overhauled, RED side could receive a Marshall, Blackfoot, .... That makes friendly fire and destruction of a reward that has just been received a real risk, especially on public servers with no / little communication.
 
Negatives:
- Theoretically, both sides could attack the enemy's MOB, or position himself in such a way that they can shoot anyone the moment they leave the base protection zone. We can only hope that is not abused. When noticed it is, Admins and Spartans can take appropriate actions, though. (rule suggestion: do not come within 1 km from enemy MOB)
- If no / few BLUE players are online, RED players may have a boring time. They could just reconnect to BLUE, though.
- RED is basically meant to be a losing force. Though I'm fairly certain most will not mind at all, I'm sure some would rather not connect at all, than to connect as RED because all BLUE slots are taken.
 
 
Your turn now.

Hello AWE players,
 
In the background we have been busy milling away, trying to brainstorm ideas to shape the future of AWE into something that's refined and easy to play. Someone suggested an idea. We've all had internal votes on the idea and we believe its going to revolutionise the way we play AWE.
 
The change is that we would like to change AWE into a FULL MIL SIM server. This change may take time to edit the mission files ect but we should get it done by the end of today. As an added bonus we are only allowing donators to join for the first weeks off testing.
 
Hope you guys can support us in our endeavours. 
 
AW Staff Team.

Shame to see this happen, even if it's just for a test period... 
 
EU2 Apex was never as popular as EU1 Altis (though it sometimes came close in the 2.x days), and it had a very rough restart with I&A 3, but in the past few months, it was still able to draw at least 15, and often 25+, players. Personally, I actually liked that it had less players, because there was often a lot more discipline (I've heard someone say it sometimes had more than EU3 ...), or at the very least less trouble to handle as Spartan / admin than on EU1.
 
 Judging by the statistics of the past 30 days, a Sunday evening would've had 35 - 40 players on Tanoa, but last night on EU4, there were 6 at best... I don't know what the staff's goal is, nor am I implying they're doing this intentionally, but I think switching Tanoa to another server is probably the best way to kill it entirely. 

Shame to see this happen, even if it's just for a test period... 
 
EU2 Apex was never as popular as EU1 Altis (though it sometimes came close in the 2.x days), and it had a very rough restart with I&A 3, but in the past few months, it was still able to draw at least 15, and often 25+, players. Personally, I actually liked that it had less players, because there was often a lot more discipline (I've heard someone say it sometimes had more than EU3 ...), or at the very least less trouble to handle as Spartan / admin than on EU1.
 
 Judging by the statistics of the past 30 days, a Sunday evening would've had 35 - 40 players on Tanoa, but last night on EU4, there were 6 at best... I don't know what the staff's goal is, nor am I implying they're doing this intentionally, but I think switching Tanoa to another server is probably the best way to kill it entirely. 

Hey guys,
 
I know it's something that has popped up in the past (did a search on several keywords, but couldn't find any hits, though?) so I'm just revisiting the topic of making I&A set up to have players fight against players. Could be a future update of current I&A3 on EU #1 or #2, a new development on a separate server alongside the regular I&A, something for AWE or entirely dismissed. The powers that be have final say.
 
So, first things first, why?
1) Main reason (every time probably) is very simply because AI can be really dumb sometimes, and you need a human brain to close that gap. E.g. if you're far enough or when AI are garrisoned in a building, AI will never react, despite being massacred. Also in CQB, AI have some serious shortcomings...
2) The entire idea behind I&A is that the island is controlled by an enemy force, but those forces are always restricted to just the AO circle, give or take a few 100m. With human players, they could be coming from and/or set up anywhere, including somewhere outside that circle. Keeps everyone on their toes.
 
 
The way I figure it could work (open for debate):
- It's not meant to become a pure PvP. The main focus remains on the BLUE side, but a limited amount of players will be able to join the RED side. E.g. with the current 60-player limit, we could have 45 - 50 BLUE players VS normal AI and 10 -15 RED players. RED's purpose would be to hold off the BLUE attack as long as possible, not to reconquer the island.
 
- The AO's can continue as they are now, basically, without any big changes.
 
- RED would get their own main operating base, obviously far away from the BLUE MOB and with equal base protection.
 
- As RED is meant to control the island, they should have a few locations to spawn across the map. These locations could be fixed (i.e. FOBs are always active, but initially used by RED, later taken over by BLUE), built into the AO or set up manually by RED players.
 
- Random (civilian) vehicles are spawned inside towns and cities, to provide alternative ways of transport. Regular civilians could be spawned as well, if server can manage, for IFF purposes.
 
- With a total of 10 - 15 human players, RED would consist of 2 pilots and regular infantry units. The rest of the AO is filled with AI.
 
- Because of limited amount of players on RED side, there would be no distinctive separation between roles and their associated gear/capabilities, except for pilots. Everyone else would theoretically be able to revive players / repair vehicles (if they brought the appropriate backpacks) while carrying any other kind of CSAT equipment. Weight limits would obviously still apply, and for reasons of fair play, viper outfits and thermal scopes remain prohibited.
 
- RED would have no access to mortars, because there already is the artillery that spawns every so often, but they would be able to deploy unarmed UAVs and MANPADs. At this point in time, I'm still thinking about whether all RED players should be allowed to function as UAV operator, or if that's something that should also be restricted to the pilot slots...
 
- RED receives rewards when BLUE fails a side mission.
 
 
Positives:
- Above all, the human brain that is capable of things the AI just can't begin to imagine.
- A bigger challenge, more thrill and a larger sense of achievement when going up against human players.
- Variety. With a single starting point, humans can create vastly more different outcomes than AI ever could. This also holds true for equipment. One time, humans could be commandeering a civilian vehicle to get to the AO, next time they could be bringing an armed Orca, another day they could lay down IEDs on suspected ingress routes, ...
- Constant reinforcements, adding the illusion that the enemy is really trying to maintain / take control over that AO.
 
Positive or negative, depending on point of view:
- IFF, especially with CSAT equipment rewards. At present, there's a chance that a side mission gives BLUE side a Gorgon, Kajman, ... Similarly, if not overhauled, RED side could receive a Marshall, Blackfoot, .... That makes friendly fire and destruction of a reward that has just been received a real risk, especially on public servers with no / little communication.
 
Negatives:
- Theoretically, both sides could attack the enemy's MOB, or position himself in such a way that they can shoot anyone the moment they leave the base protection zone. We can only hope that is not abused. When noticed it is, Admins and Spartans can take appropriate actions, though. (rule suggestion: do not come within 1 km from enemy MOB)
- If no / few BLUE players are online, RED players may have a boring time. They could just reconnect to BLUE, though.
- RED is basically meant to be a losing force. Though I'm fairly certain most will not mind at all, I'm sure some would rather not connect at all, than to connect as RED because all BLUE slots are taken.
 
 
Your turn now.

Hey everyone,
 
I've seen a few topics appear about DCS, but none about Falcon BMS. Anyone flying that?
 
To give you an idea of what it can be like, and how intense it can be, a video of our squadron flight yesterday.  (this video will probably also explain why I like flying on our servers that much )
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
Eagle-Eye

Hey everyone,
 
I've seen a few topics appear about DCS, but none about Falcon BMS. Anyone flying that?
 
To give you an idea of what it can be like, and how intense it can be, a video of our squadron flight yesterday.  (this video will probably also explain why I like flying on our servers that much )
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
Eagle-Eye

Don't think they will, since EU1/2 are public servers. Public servers tend to go for "lowest common denominator", to include/attract as much people as possible, even if that's less than realistic. If you're looking for more realism (semi-milsim, or tacticool as it's sometimes referred to), try the AW Enhanced server.
 
That being said, I'd be interested in a test run and see what the community feedback is, to be honest...
 
+ Would perhaps give recon, snipers and UAV some more purpose than just killing stuff.
- Could make it really hard to find the last few guys in an AO. Having a heli or jet fly over usually reveals those units now.

Personally, I'd keep LZ designation mostly in the hands of the pilot and let soldiers "pick their fit".
- Pilots are expected to know both their own and aircraft's capabilities and limits best. I know this can be a lot to ask for on a public server sometimes, but in general, it works out alright.
- There's more to an LZ than just what looks nice and cosy. Terrain and objects, route in and out, threats at and around, distance, available landing area etc. They're just a few factors that impact whether an LZ is suitable or not. It takes some mental preparation to consider those things, which is not always optimal, or even possible, when you haven't chosen the LZ yourself.
- Pilots should have a better air picture (overall air traffic, enemy air defences, ...) than the foot soldiers, through direct communication amongst each other (which is why pilots are strongly advised to join Teamspeak, or at the very least create a closed pilot unit in-game for use of group chat / VON).
- It's not for nothing they call it the "Pilot In Command", so in the end, he's the one deciding if, when and where to drop people off. Again, it has to do with own and aircraft limits, but also possible unexpected events. E.g. LZ turns out to be hot and pilot diverts = DO NOT give him a bad attitude for saving your virtual life! (which happens all too often unfortunately)
 
Of course, passengers are allowed to make requests, but that shouldn't be the standard operating procedure, and people should understand their request may not be granted. In case you're wondering why:
I fear what will happen if you give passengers that amount of input, is that there will be dozens of LZ's marked at AO, side, PRIO and even the middle of nowhere, because almost everyone has their own ideal position or is completely oblivious to their surroundings. Eventually, it will become impossible for the pilot to just find the requested LZ on the map!
 
To give you such an example, that happened to me just yesterday actually (though it's definitely not a solitary case).. I was inbound to an LZ and about 900m from landing, a passenger requested to be taken to a specific LZ he marked on SIDE. I told him to standby, as I was at that time fully committed to my own LZ... Later, I checked the map and noticed his LZ was just very slightly more to the north (±85m. Yes, I checked ). My gripes in that situation:
1) I clearly informed my passengers which LZ I was going to.
2) Even if someone did miss that info, direction of flight should've made it very obvious which LZ I was heading to, especially at that point in time. (though to give him the benefit of the doubt, my speed was still high, as I only really start reducing speed at ±500m)
3) The LZ I was heading towards was marked on SIDE, as was his, so I seriously doubt he didn't see it.
4) He stayed seated until I told him to get out.
5) Because of delay on ground, a jet was able to position himself and strike us all with missiles.
6) Obviously, I was the bad pilot for dropping everyone off in a hot LZ and I should be kicked. 

Sounds like you never flew through the tall grass...
 
 
 
 

Sounds like you never flew through the tall grass...
 
 
 
 

Sounds like you never flew through the tall grass...
 
 
 
 

Sounds like you never flew through the tall grass...