Jump to content
naezro

How would you like Fixed-Wing Aircraft implemented?(Read Post before Voting)

Fixed-wing Aircraft implementation.  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. How would YOU like fixed wing aircraft implemented?(read post)

    • Player Control 1(PR style)
      9
    • Player Control 2 (OFF map)
      2
    • Player Control 3(Unfrial)
      4
    • AI Control
      3
    • No Fixed-wing aircraft at all.
      1


Recommended Posts

With the Announcement of 8Km maps fixed-wing aircraft may be a viable. Of course fixed-wing aircraft will be way down the road in development, but there is definitely interest in that subject

Proposed Implementations:

  • Player controlled 1: Fixed wing aircraft follow the same mechanics as PR and games like Battlefield, aircraft spawn on main bases, and the jets fly around in the sandbox
  • Player controlled 2: Where the aircraft flies in from off the map, from an airbase, or just spawns. The terrain is low-poly so the aircraft can fly with some breathing room.
  • Player controlled 3: (Credit goes to Unfrail):

I believe 'TaXi has mentioned they have the capability of adding reduced resolution map tiles to the borders of the core play-area to increase fly-space. This seems like a reasonable approach for adding fixedwing assets to the game, and if you wanted to include airfields, to me it would make the most sense.

Personally, the way I would like to see Fixed Wing assets handled is this:

  • Its a limited access Commander asset.
  • He can purchase it at the expense of other assets (Artillery, more Mechanized assets, etc).
  • When the fixed wing asset is selected, there is a 5 minute standby time where a player-pilot is arranged.
  • Once the player-pilot is selected, he spawns into the jet, that is already in-flight from "off map"
  • The jet enters the AO and has 10 minutes of fuel and one weapons payload.
  • If the enemy team has invested in ground radar, they will know when the Air Asset is in-bound and will have the option to respond with an air asset (possibly at a 2 minute penalty?) if they can afford it.
  • Once the jet is out of fuel/ordinance, he flies to a portion of the skybox and the player-pilot returns to ground action
  • If the plane is lost in action the team is penalized by cost or some other measure.
As mentioned before, fixed wing assets are a ways off. I would love to see them, but I would hate to see them in the form we see in Battlefield with such limited skybox, speed, and relegated to strafing ground targets.
  • AI controlled: Basicly the same thing as Unfrail's suggestion but the commander designates the air strike and direction and the aircraft is controlled by AI.

My only change would be the Commander gains points by capturing objectives and destroying caches.

**Of course, It doesn't have to be this way AI controlled is open to debate.**

This poll is based on these three threads, feel free to continue the discussion there:

Z-trooper and IronTaxi's statements:
http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/7772-jets-in-the-future/?hl=%2Bfixed+%2Bwing+%2Baircraft#entry124783

Unfrail's post is in here:
http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/4043-fixed-wing-aircraft-as-an-off-map-support-asset/?hl=%2Bfixed+%2Bwing+%2Baircraft

8km maps Discussion:
http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/15249-8km-x-8km-maps/?hl=%2Bfixed+%2Bwing+%2Baircraft#entry193561

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we get a ww2 mod there has just got to be fighters and bombers just like in BF1942....please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you nerf the speed to stupid levels, 8x8 is pushing it for fixed wing imo. Go fly jets in ARMA where the speeds are already lowered and in an 8x8 airspace you'd be spend much of your time spiraling. Helos could just fit, in ARMA, a 4K flight is barely worth it in a helo and unless you own the entire 8x8 map, most flights would be in the 3-6k range.

 

If they can tile the map out and make it substantial, it'd be a fair compromise for both helos and fixed wing.

 

I really want helos, I wouldn't mind no aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even attack choppers are too much for Squad, I'd like to stay with transport and light armed multipurpose helos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even attack choppers are too much for Squad, I'd like to stay with transport and light armed multipurpose helos.

Are you crazy ?

I bought SQUAD because i trust the develloper to make an incredible semi-realistic FPS with huge maps, vehicles, cooperation, communication, combined arms and a lot of factions, like Project Reality a way before.

I know we are very far from PR because there is a lot of work, (and i don't blame the dev for that, they are on a colossal project) but sh*t, everything was fine in PR, so why we have to speculate on what would be in SQUAD or not ? (Except for technical issue due to the alpha stage or the engine of the game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you crazy ?

I bought SQUAD because i trust the develloper to make an incredible semi-realistic FPS with huge maps, vehicles, cooperation, communication, combined arms and a lot of factions, like Project Reality a way before.

I know we are very far from PR because there is a lot of work, (and i don't blame the dev for that, they are on a colossal project) but sh*t, everything was fine in PR, so why we have to speculate on what would be in SQUAD or not ? (Except for technical issue due to the alpha stage or the engine of the game).

 

hate to break it to you but PR jets were kinda bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would like the idea of having both player controlled aircraft for use on larger maps and player designated "call in" air strikes, either by a commander or JTAC kit on smaller maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These maps are definitely too small for fixed-wing aircraft. 

Hell, I'm on the fence regarding attack helicopters, too.  Something like a Kiowa would be a decent fit for the maps we have, being smaller, nimbler, and having armament that wouldn't be capable of striking just about anywhere on the map.  However, since I was recently made aware of the Kiowa's current move to retirement, and the fact that the most fitting helicopters for the US and Russia would be the AH-64E and Ka-52/Mi-28, respectively, we aren't going to be seeing armed helos (not counting door guns on utility helicopters) of the size and weight class of the Kiowa.  Looking at the armament of those previously-mentioned attack helicopters, it is clear to me that they will be a challenge to incorporate properly into Squad. 

The idea of fixed-wing aircraft playing a role is, therefore, completely unfeasible as far as I'm concerned, unless they do something like War Thunder where aircraft flying above ground battles have air space covering land area several times larger than the ground maps themselves.  However, this game would do well to avoid that approach, as War Thunder is a game focusing on aircraft just as much as it focuses on ground combat, whereas Squad is not.  It would be far smarter to simply acknowledge that fixed-wing aircraft are not a good fit.  I could see them working in the context of player-activated calls for fire, but absolutely nothing beyond that. 

The only way to make aircraft fit in maps of these sizes is to reduce their flying speed to a hilarious degree.  I don't know about you, but I do not want to see a game where someone driving a ZSU-57 can shoot down, say, an F-15E with anything resembling ease simply because the Eagle can be outrun by a WWI fighter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread gives me a raging hoggit boner. In fact, it just so happens I am currently building two flight sim pits, and this would be a great use for them  B) 

1333432397937_8324997.png

For the record, myself and every single one of my Northwest Gamers Platoon Members would pledge additional monies, equal to or greater than the original contribution, for this to be done right. Not even a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how it is in PR. Good air support should not be a given. You have people on your team who have put the time into learning and practicing how to taxi, fly, accurately attack, land, rearm, repeat and you  benefit from it. If you make it an easy process which simply is on a cooldown with no rearming process you now made air support a constant and more effective threat.

 

Imagine if it were the same deal as mortars. If you make it a braindead-easy task it will be more effective than it should be. It should not be a 'call-in' like the area attack was in PR either. The more automated the process is, the less interesting (and "fun" as an opinion) the game becomes.

 

As far as the map sizes go, having a low quality terrain past the standard boundaries that is only accessible to fixed wing would be the best solution. Give them some breathing room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I messed up a little on the orginal post, but I changed it. There's actually 4 options. Three different Player controlled and one AI controlled preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant, awesome, The Aviationist article. And after reading this I really just would do anything to get to be able to fly some awesome F-35, or A-10 sorties. Or any sortie of any sort, in fact. I just like flying, love doing some CAS, making a bombing/strafing run whilst evading AA, and enemy CAP, making it back to base safe and sound, re-arming, and then rinse and repeating, perhaps swap out my weapons for some AA armament, and flying some CAP as well.

I know that the precision isn't all the way there yet, and that the technology itself isn't all the way there yet, but if it is at all possible, I think we should try our damnedest to get at least SOME of the air assets in the battle. I mean, it is such a dynamic and persistent aspect of the modern battlefield that we might as well just make another insurgency game (Vomit) if we don't have some planes, in the game.

Just my two cents, and like I said I know a lot of old timers like myself who would pony up a lot more money to be able to have it part of the game. Heck, even just being able to call an CAS airstrike from a real life friend would be the difference between a 7.9/10 Video Game, that people remember and talk about for a few years, or a 9.5+/10 game that leaves a legacy.

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adopting compromise solutions."

-Rommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible for me to say exactly what the larger perspective goal for development team. As is, we only have infantry, therefore the infantry element is a very core component of the game as it currently exists.

Is this bound to change? I dont know for certain, nor is it my privilege to say authoritatively.

 

If the game intends to continue to revolve around ground combat, between infantry and vehicular combat, then Fixed-Wing aircraft will play a very minor role in the 1-3 hour matches this game is simulating. I speak from observation, not experience, let me be clear.

 

When I was fighting wildfires, we only rarely got helicopter or aerial-dropped retardant when shit was really bad. Beyond that it was normally light trucks and occasionally heavy trucks. Now I realize thats not the same as combat, however its subject to similar constraints; Time, money, support and combat priority, and availability. Most the work was done on foot. It was never where it was convenient, and there were rarely airports near by, and that's in the US of 1st-world A. Now put yourself in A-stan, or Iraq. Think of how retarded it is conceptually, to squeeze 2 fully-sized airstrips in the same space. I mean, there are surely some examples of locations where that may happen, in cities for example there can be multiple air-strips. But to have 2 conventional forces launching and servicing 3rd and 4th gen air-frames from 4-8 km apart? Nah.

Does that mean there arent air-support elements? Absolutely not.

I think if you want to taxi in Squad, well let me just re-state the name of the game. Squad. taxi and re-arm, and land and refuel and taxi. in Squad. Sounds like the longest protracted and licensed lone-wolf operation to me to be frank. 10 minutes of ground time for 5 minutes of air time, all the accompanying mechanics, models, and thats assuming you don't actually expect there to be real-players sitting at the base twiddling their thumbs waiting to refuel your jet.

DCS World is made for that. Thats a fine game, and its A-OK to be interested in that experience. but in Squad. to me, and this is purely subjective, I think landing space has no place in the game. It complicates map construction, and it will be seen by very few unless the gamemode and map revolves around that airfield alone. A siege of an AFB or Airfield could be very cool, and sustaining launch and recovery operations while trying to stave off a looming invasion could be an awesome, team-centric, and coordinated event.

 

For the 99/100 that infantry gets an airstrike in their routine, randomly located, and sh-t-hole conditions, I think an aircraft that starts and ends its presence in the air makes the most sense. Whether or not its flown by real people or not depends on the perceived return-on-investment, and interest of the developers. I would love to take the reins of a CAS airframe, communicate with the Team-Mates I already know from fighting in the match with, assist on priority targets, and then return the airframe for no-ticket loss and get back to the action on the ground. I have more details stated above as quoted in OP's post. If not that, then let it be AI. Show the jet zip over, we all see the boom, and on with the show.

If you slow down aircraft un-naturally, you facilitate unnatural interaction (see BF3 jets endlessly strafing infantry). Thats a waste of time imo, becomes harder to balance (now we need manpads everywhere, with fast missiles, but not too fast, and then AA can shoot accurate, but not too accurate, bla bla bla).

 

Just make it right, or don't touch it. And from what I gather, whether it matches my ideals or not, thats what the Developers intend to do, and I fully support them.

 

/rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even attack choppers are too much for Squad, I'd like to stay with transport and light armed multipurpose helos.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most the work was done on foot.

And it always will be. You can't rule over opposition with aircraft, they're supplements to the core of the fighting force. The core of the fighting force of course being the most basic part of the team, your infantry.

 

As for your your interest in having CAS be a very simple process I can only compare it to brace yourself Call of Duty.

 

HOLY SHIT GUYS! He said CoD!

Now this is one case where it entirely fits and I'll tell you why. Regardless of whether you've played the latest iterations of the game which I'm sure are like copies of the previous game we all understand the concept of killstreak call-ins. They are extremely effective as everything is handed right to you and you benefit from being extremely dangerous to the enemy team with say being the gunner in some AI controlled helicopter.

Now, why is that relevant? We'll elaborate on that.

 

You're taking two essential slices of the CAS pie away. What are those? Preparation and communication.

 

The preparation portion has to do with the taxiing, takeoff, and independent flight. This takes time (a sort of real cool-down if you like) and patience.

 

The more important portion is communication. You've got an entire battlefield out there and a very limited quantity of effective offensive weapons at your disposal. There are no visual markers save for player placed smoke to tell you exactly where you're needed. You're going far too fast to get more than glimpses of your points of interest. Where are you most effective? Are there people on your team that need help right now? Are you safe? Is there anti-air or hostile jets nearby? There are far far far too many things to keep track of on your own. That's where your communication comes into play.

You have half a dozen people trying to get your assistance at the same time and it's up to you to talk to them about what you need to hit, what you need to hit it with, and EXACTLY where it is. The only things that will help you do those things are words and coloured smoke.

 

The most important part to take from that is The team that communicates more effectively gains the upper hand (of course player skill plays a role in there too)

 

 

Now. We're back to the idea of in and out CAS participation as an infantryman. You know where the fighting has been (and is) and depending on how abrupt the transition is from frontline fighting to assuming a CAS role you may just go hit targets with zero communication. That's not cool. Same with AI being called in. You call it in, it bombs a spot and leaves. Zero communication, minimal interaction, higher precision, this is less enjoyable for everyone.

 

When I first learned about Squad I did not have the impression that it was going to be solely infantry and I am pleased to see it's not staying as an infantry game. Some people are in for a real shock for adapting to combined arms and I'm looking forward to making the transition when we start with our light vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like to have planes, they just create too much rage.

• Kamikaze pilots

• Have to have anti air vehicles, G2A stingers taking teamwork/fights away from the ground.

• Ace pilots whizzing around the sky with 732132/1 K:D ratio

• Most infantry can't exactly hide somewhere if these gun/bomb from above, wow imagine bombs on capture points - ouch!

• They're fun, but ruin the game for others.

 

All I'd care for this game is mostly transport...

 

Motorbikes, Jeeps/Cars with no weapons, Humvee with 50cal, Technical with 50cal and Transport helo's with fast ropes. Guys with RPG's can take them out (now that'd be epic watching RPGs hitting them from miles away).

 

Gunships and fixed wing planes are just going to add too much carnage and annoy the crap out of infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say I agree with ZiGreen here and that transport and lightly armed multipurpose helo should be the limit. This would free up modelling assets as debs would no longer have to create heavy AA vehicles like Tunguska to counter jets and heavy attack helo. Light gun AA and IFVs should be sufficient to counter those assets, along with manpads

I still want a hind though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughtful posts. The reason for this poll was to get the general opinion of this Squad community.  To be clear, this poll was not created to pigeon-hole this subject into only 5 possible solutions.  I believe that there are many ways that the Squad gaming experience could have more depth and variety.

 

The real benefit of having fixed-wing aircraft is that it opens up the sky to a more lively and dynamic experience. It creates the feeling of being part of a grander battle beyond the borders of the playable map.  I believe that this implementation will add a great deal of strategy and depth that can accurately portray real world circumstances.

 

And it always will be. You can't rule over opposition with aircraft, they're supplements to the core of the fighting force. The core of the fighting force of course being the most basic part of the team, your infantry.

 

Now, why is that relevant? We'll elaborate on that.

 

You're taking two essential slices of the CAS pie away. What are those? Preparation and communication....

 

The preparation portion has to do with the taxiing, takeoff, and independent flight. This takes time (a sort of real cool-down if you like) and patience.

The most important part to take from that is The team that communicates more effectively gains the upper hand (of course player skill plays a role in there too)...

 

I agree that communication is essential to CAS, but not preparation.  I believe that most players want to be more focused on the action because of the limited time of each round.  I was thinking in terms of an overall grander strategy during each round.

 

Air combat strategy could be:

 

The team/player with the imagination and logic to choose between specific alternatives to gain an advantage. The strategy behind the usage of CAS incorporates the management of finite resources, uncertainty about an adversary's capability and intentions; the irreversible commitment of resources; necessity of coordinating action over time and distance; uncertainty about control of the initiative; and the nature of adversaries' mutual perceptions of each other.

 
How could this strategy be implemented?
 
That I am not sure of.  This implementation needs to be mindful of the developers timeline and budget constraints.  I personally would like to help in this implementation, although I have no experience in programming. I could aid in fundraising, advertising, or research.  That is why I'm going look into how other games incorporated this strategy.  I will start at "realistic" Modern Combat RTS's for possible solutions, as this implementation could be a hybrid of both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
How could this strategy be implemented?
 
That I am not sure of.  This implementation needs to be mindful of the developers timeline and budget constraints.  I personally would like to help in this implementation, although I have no experience in programming. I could aid in fundraising, advertising, or research.  That is why I'm going look into how other games incorporated this strategy.  I will start at "realistic" Modern Combat RTS's for possible solutions, as this implementation could be a hybrid of both. 

 

 

GTOS did it well imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-snip-

 

You make some interesting points.

 

I don't think that a player who is momentarily taken from the ground forces would have an entirely more significant perception of where the battle is taking place than a pilot who is communicating with Squad Leaders on Command. As a grunt, unless you are relegated to only observational roles, any persons perception of the battlefield is going to be consistently limited.

In one possible implementation, the person to fly is chosen by the CO, with the expense of a CAS-Op coming at the choice of a CO over alternative options (Arty strike, UAV etc). Because the player didn't bum-rush the CAS vehicle, and because he was chosen by the CO, the expectation that he would be communicating with and under the guidance of the CO would make teamwork more likely. The advantage of a CAS-Op (over the Artillery) would be an ideally more precise, and more felxible placement of heavy munitions. The disadvantage is its vulnerability to ground fire and MANPADs.

 

The plane would not be AI controlled, it would be flown for a short period and then would depart. Because the map wasnt smashed together to include an airstrip, more accurate vehicle physics can be maintained, and an 8x8km AO seems small enough for a plane to linger in, while maintaining real-world speeds. Since the plane is moving at closer-to-realistic velocities, the complexity of balancing fictionally nerfed munitions is not an issue. Missiles can go Mach2. Planes will be hard to shoot with AA and impossible to shoot with small-arms. MANPADS will be a serious issue for CAS aircraft, but landing a 500lb JDAM is going to wreck anything underneath and near.

 

The reason for COD's implementation being OP is that its such a poor and distant deviation from reality. I hope you see that I am arguing for a more accurate representation of CAS. Meaning that shit on the ground will be flying by really fast. PR/BF's flight model is much more akin to COD than what I'm suggesting, in that it completely trivialized the groundspeed of the aircraft, making their interactions entirely unrealistic. This was necessary, to compensate for insufficient space in the AO for ground-to-air-to-ground flight-ops. I am trying to cut that significant and game-braking compromise out (and all the modelling and logic used by 1% of the server pop etc that goes with it) to preserve a more accurate ground-force to CAS interaction.

 

Because the plane would be in the AO only on token occasions, there is less balance issues. You dont need to include 2 airstrips for equal and opposite air power. you don't need to include 1and a ton of stingers that will inevitably bring down the CAS plane, leaving you with a geographic compromise and nothing to show. You also dont have to compromise your helicopter velocity to maintain parity with the fixed wing speeds, neutering the efficacy of something much more significant to the ground attack warfare that Squad, and even PR, attempted to simulate.

Its not that I dont see why lingering at 5000m on Command comms and waiting for the lase, etc is a thrilling experience. Its that it creates a large set of compromises that cascade throughout the whole game design.

If the devs would consider making an extremely large, low-res terrain game mode, optimized for vehicular and fixed wing warfare, I would be thrilled. I would play the hell out of it. At present we're talking 8x8km, which while big in "on-foot" perspective, once we add rotary and mechanized elements, its not that big anymore. The cost of implementing a ground-up flight simulation to me seems exhorbitant, and for 1 person's experience at a time, when the equivalent, communicated, coordinated, and human-controlled CAS-placed munitions element can be added in a much less arduous, and less compromising method, maintaining the relatively accurate velocity of all moving objects in the game, which is one of their best defenses in real life.

Once the plane's munitions are dispensed, the battle continues. If the plane ended up in the hands of a dip, and he did his own thing with it, be glad he didn't have it the whole round. Assuming Commanders are elected, this would be something for them to be sincerely concerned about. Available stats on a need-to-know basis could possibly help them in their decision.

And after all that, I can see why this might just be too much for the game, even with my comparatively simplified implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×