Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

bigcracker
Corporal
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 03:38
Contact:

Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby bigcracker » Wed 15 May 2013 00:22

Recon is big in this game, trying to guess what the enemy is going to do and there current position on the map. Aircraft like the U-2, SR-71 blackbird,Myasishchev M-55, and Tu-22 Blinder could perhaps fly over the battlefield at such a highspeed or altitude it would be harder for AA to hit them and also reveal the area of map for the player for a couple of seconds.

How can this be balanced? EASY! the slower aircraft that count on the use of altitude will reveal a small area but for a longer period of time, and the aircraft that use speed the sr72/blinder will reveal a larger portion of the map but fly so quick over the map that it only will last a few seconds. Also of course that these aircraft will be very expensive, on a long cool down and still have the risk of being shot down.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby orcbuster » Wed 15 May 2013 00:24

these aircraft were not used for real-time tactical recon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inTaviv-m3o
Image
Viker for ingen!

bigcracker
Corporal
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 03:38
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby bigcracker » Wed 15 May 2013 00:31

True, we already have unrealistic things in the game so why does that need to keep awesome aircraft out of the game?

User avatar
grimreffer2
Warrant Officer
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 02:35
Location: Red City, MARS.
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby grimreffer2 » Wed 15 May 2013 00:39

Some people think *Cough*orc(something)*Cough* that a Recce plane needs to take pictures and then fly back to base, then the pictures need to be analyzed, etc. It's not like it was 1865 where they had no radios. People don't relise that the SR-71 did use Radios to speak to Spec-ops and Black-ops forces on the ground during their Raids(or what ever they were doing.) The U2 for example could've been modified to have a radio in it, and tell the commander on the ground where enemy positions are.

But I guess it would call for major rushes with bombers within the first minute of the game.

Hey, at-least their going to be in the Campaign(or so I've heard).
1st Lt. Jason Scott, 75th Ranger Regiment.

Spoiler : :
Omfg it's 43 pixels above their requirement! Omg! Image

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby Guggy » Wed 15 May 2013 00:43

grimreffer2 wrote:Some people think *Cough*orc(something)*Cough* that a Recce plane needs to take pictures and then fly back to base, then the pictures need to be analyzed, etc. It's not like it was 1865 where they had no radios. People don't relise that the SR-71 did use Radios to speak to Spec-ops and Black-ops forces on the ground during their Raids(or what ever they were doing.) The U2 for example could've been modified to have a radio in it, and tell the commander on the ground where enemy positions are.


What did the SR71 describe seeing while at so many thousand feet, moving at mach 3?

They took black and white pictures, which were taken back to their base and developed manually to be viewed by hand by professionals with literal magnifying glasses to identify (or hope to) the particular make and model of vehicles, as well as dispersal patterns and such to collect intelligence. None of this was on-the-fly, and the reports were by nature outdated by the time the aircraft had landed.

Image

Thats what the U2 pilots for instance took. And that image had to be viewed manually with magnification lenses to get particular details from it. If the campaign guys wanted to legit use recon aircraft as an asset before battle, it should be simply in a way that presents some of the enemy vehicles present at a fight so the player can hopefully deduce what kind of enemy formation he's up against in the coming battle.
Last edited by Guggy on Wed 15 May 2013 00:53, edited 3 times in total.

GermanAAGun
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat 12 Nov 2011 04:03
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby GermanAAGun » Wed 15 May 2013 00:45

grimreffer2 wrote:Some people think *Cough*orc(something)*Cough* that a Recce plane needs to take pictures and then fly back to base, then the pictures need to be analyzed, etc. It's not like it was 1865 where they had no radios. People don't relise that the SR-71 did use Radios to speak to Spec-ops and Black-ops forces on the ground during their Raids(or what ever they were doing.) The U2 for example could've been modified to have a radio in it, and tell the commander on the ground where enemy positions are.

But I guess it would call for major rushes with bombers within the first minute of the game.

Hey, at-least their going to be in the Campaign(or so I've heard).

:shock:

edit: we played call of duty blacks op too
(you're full of fecalmatter, but then again when aren't you)

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby Hidden Gunman » Wed 15 May 2013 00:48

Well, if we are considering applying AD2000+ command and control structures to the game, why not just give us direct feed satellite intel as well?

You kids from the modern age have very little, if any, appreciation of just how slow communications, particularly military battlefield communications, were in the 70's and 80's.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that the strategic recon assets might have more important things to do as well, like searching out those reinforcing divisions, or perhaps, seeing what those ICBM silos are up to...wouldn't want the western world turned to a radioactive wasteland while we are off reconning some battalion level battle, would we?
Last edited by Hidden Gunman on Wed 15 May 2013 01:01, edited 1 time in total.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

bigcracker
Corporal
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 03:38
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby bigcracker » Wed 15 May 2013 00:59

Hidden Gunman wrote:Well, if we are considering applying AD2000+ command and control structures to the game, why not just give us direct feed satellite intel as well?

You kids from the modern age have very little, if any, appreciation of just how slow communications, particularly military battlefield communications, were in the 70's and 80's.


If that is the case then the buks and hawks need to be removed from game as well as they are not frontline combat AA units. This game is far from being realistic and the suggestion is just for fun not if it could happen but for "fun".

As if this was realistic game we would need all this for one BUK and about 24 hours of man power to set it up, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_2010.jpg

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby Hidden Gunman » Wed 15 May 2013 01:08

bigcracker wrote:
Hidden Gunman wrote:Well, if we are considering applying AD2000+ command and control structures to the game, why not just give us direct feed satellite intel as well?

You kids from the modern age have very little, if any, appreciation of just how slow communications, particularly military battlefield communications, were in the 70's and 80's.


If that is the case then the buks and hawks need to be removed from game as well as they are not frontline combat AA units. This game is far from being realistic and the suggestion is just for fun not if it could happen but fur "fun".

As if this was realistic game we would need all this for one BUK and about 24 hours of man power to set it up, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_2010.jpg


No argument from me on that...but the point is that the 'fun' recce units referred to here would utterly remove the necessity for any other recon units, and would revert the game to basically a computerised table top game with full visibility of everyone's units.

However, p*ss ante unit realism arguments aside, the use of intel in any battle is a fairly complex undertaking, especially in the time period covered by the game, as I pointed out. The processes and structure simply weren't in place to get real time intel as we do from the existing recce units in the game, let alone from otherwise employed strategic assets.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

User avatar
Knautscher
First Sergeant
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat 20 Apr 2013 23:38
Contact:

Re: Reconnaissance aircraft Suggestion.

Postby Knautscher » Wed 15 May 2013 01:14

bigcracker wrote:
Hidden Gunman wrote:[...]

As if this was realistic game we would need all this for one BUK and about 24 hours of man power to set it up, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_2010.jpg


Wikipedia has text as well:
"A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle. The battery requires 5 minutes to set up before it is ready for engagement and can be ready for transit again in 5 minutes."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missil ... escription

But with reloading etc. it would probably take longer, I agree.

I am against the spy planes. For the reasons that have already been mentioned it's something for Command and Conquer Red Alert, not for ALB. Just my opinion.
>Your favourite unit was not included?<
Image
..............................Keep calm and order!...............................

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests