Forward Air Controller

[Philip J Jobson]

Is there any bonus available for the forward air controllers such as that given to Artillery Forward Observers? If so, what units have this, and is it covered in the User Guide, as I can't see it anywhere.

Many thanks

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>Is there any bonus available for the forward air controllers

>such as that given to Artillery Forward Observers?

No. The accuracy of an air strike in TacOps is determined by its accumulated stress or discouragement level. The more stuff that shoots at the air strike on its way in, the less likely it will be to drop its ordnance accurately or at all.

[Comanche]

It may be me, but it seems that the Airstrikes don't drop through smoke. In a 2 player pitting T-80 ATGM & BMP-3's (Blue) vs T-80 & BMP2's (red) (after reading an AAR (old one) that Blue could not use OPFOR equip), red was caught in the open an hit with 2 220mm MRL Bty's and was followed by airstrikes. The airstrikes came in (was not shot at) and just didn't drop. While this has nothing to do with FACs I didn't want to start a new thread.

[minmax]

You know come to think of it FAC would be a real nice addition to the infamous 'wish list'. When using a FAC be able to designate that an airstrike be for anti-troop, anti-armor, or BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol). I hate when I send a strike against a column of armor only for the jock to drop on a lowly section of grunts. Maybe using a FAC would allow more flexibility when employing CAS or Interdiction strikes. I know and I apologize Major that means more coding but please add that to the list if it is not on there.

[Coyote]

Originally posted by minmax:

. . . I hate when I send a strike against a column of armor only for the jock to drop on a lowly section of grunts. Maybe using a FAC would allow more flexibility . . .

That's not a bad idea. Although I'm not interested in adding a lot of detail to the airstrike routine, it does seem logical that a pilot would hit the higest value target at the location rather than just the closest unit to the target coordinates. Even if it only followed a simple priority like:

"tracks > wheeled vehicles > grunts"

Maybe the existing target priority dialog used by direct fire weapons could be adapted to airstikes?

That would be less code for the good Major and one less new interface item for us.

[dhuffjr]

You are forgetting that airstrikes represent a broad range of aircract types. Have you ever missed your exit when driving because you did not catch a sign? Imagine looking for the sign from 500-1000ft AGL, or higher, doing 300+ knots while folks are shooting at you.

[Philip J Jobson]

With my original query, I meant to add that I thought the best way to represent a FAC, without having to undertake major writing of code, would be to adapt the Artillery Forward Observer system, perhaps only increasing the likelyhood of a strike hitting a target in the strike area, as opposed to missing completely. Still, I do think that the current system works, as is, but that this could be something to think about.

[minmax]

Originally posted by dhuffjr:

[QB] You are forgetting that airstrikes represent a broad range of aircract types.

The types don't really matter since they are all dropping the shotgun method cluster munitions.

Have you ever missed your exit when driving because you did not catch a sign? Imagine looking for the sign from 500-1000ft AGL, or higher, doing 300+ knots while folks are shooting at you.

That just supports the point that a pilot is going to focus on a target that is larger, in motion (which attracts the eye), shooting at you I am not going to pickle off on a few rifles shooting at me but that heavy pumping rounds, and even with combat fog pilots are trained in CAS / Interdiction. Besides that is why a FAC (G) or even a FAC (A) would increase the odds of hitting a higher priority target in addition to providing an inbound strike with threat intel.

As far as coding beats me, I know the Major will decide what on the wish list is gonna happen and what is chaff.