DCS JTAC and Tac Commander postions see too much!

[Flyboy]

As some of you know, I have recently been working with ChatGTP AI to help me build scripts for mission building. It has been very exciting and I’m already thinking of so many possibilities for future mission. So far the good news is that I seem to have a workable ArtySpotter script that works for both side (I limit it to only one player at a time for each side) and an EWR/GCI script that gives either on demand or automatic threat/friendly information base only on ground or AWACS radar. @Patriot and I tested both last night and they seem to be working well.

So here’s the bad news. Due to DCS game mechanics and limitations, the JTAC and Tac Commander positions will see at least everything any friendly unit can see base not just on radar but optical, infrared, etc.  I suspect it sees more than that because even though we flew low down in valleys away from any units at all, JTAC from the opposite side could still see. Helicopters did a little better, but as soon as it came into sight of any enemy ground troops it became visible. This is disappointing because I’d really like to keep some semblance of “fog of war” that keeps people guessing and makes it more realistic for helicopters and low flying airplanes using terrain masking to be able to surprise their opponents.

So I am faced with a few choices and would value your input:

1.       Leave it the way it is - having one JTAC and one Tac Commander position available for both sides (while also utilizing the EWR/GCI script for individual players)

2.       Eliminate the JTAC position and only allow Tac Commander which (as before) is password protected to the commander of that side. The commander can choose to share this password but the position is meant for the commander to be able to get battlefield view. It is also necessary for combined arms.

3.       I can eliminate both JTAC and Tac Commander but then no more combined arms

4.       I can create special JTAC script that can see much more of the battlefield (more than the 50 nm miles around them available to individual players through the EWR/GCI script), but the only way to do this is to create a special JTAC (disabled?) airplane they can jump into, and they would only be able to see messages giving type, bearing, distance and altitudes. They wouldn’t see the contacts on the map but would have to calculate the relative position to themselves and extrapolate to map. This would allow for tactical movements of flights to the general area where the flights could then pick them up on their script messages, but it really wouldn’t allow for these (JTAC) positions to give any time sensitive bogey dopes.

[Flyboy]

Correction:

The EWR/GCI script WILL allow you to see threats further than 50 nm, but you are limited to 5 total messages. You can adjust the total number of messages you want to see (1-5 option), reduce the distances you want to see out (10, 20 or 50 miles out) and whether to get automatic messages or request manually through F10 menu (friendly report is only through menu). The messages always order the threats (or friendlies) based on distance to player starting with nearest at the top.

The idea for ground based JTAC controller (which would have to be in a grounded aircraft) would be to have ability to get many more messages but it would be in raw message format (with the data only coming through radar units). I could put more than one of these around the map so it would help limit and filter the messages, but it would still be a bit cumbersome and more difficult to use since you would have to extrapolate the data from your position to a place on the map (you can see the messages while in the map which helps). It doesn't really give the ability of these JTAC controllers to give timely bogey dopes, but the player can do that themself via the EWR/GCI script. What it would be useful for is to get general idea where the enemy are and direct units from further away into that area to intercept.

[Klaiber]

1 hour ago, Flyboy said:

As some of you know, I have recently been working with ChatGTP AI to help me build scripts for mission building. It has been very exciting and I’m already thinking of so many possibilities for future mission. So far the good news is that I seem to have a workable ArtySpotter script that works for both side (I limit it to only one player at a time for each side) and an EWR/GCI script that gives either on demand or automatic threat/friendly information base only on ground or AWACS radar. @Patriot and I tested both last night and they seem to be working very well.

So here’s the bad news. Due to DCS game mechanics and limitations, the JTAC and Tac Commander positions will see at least everything any friendly unit can see base not just on radar but optical, infrared, etc.  I suspect it sees more than that because even though we flew low down in valleys away from any units at all, JTAC from the opposite side could still see. Helicopters did a little better, but as soon as it came into sight of any enemy ground troops it became visible. This is disappointing because I’d really like to keep some semblance of “fog of war” that keeps people guessing and makes it more realistic for helicopters and low flying airplanes using terrain masking to be able to surprise their opponents.

So I am faced with a few choices and would value your input:

1.       Leave it the way it is - having one JTAC and one Tac Commander position available for both sides (while also utilizing the EWR/GCI script for individual players)

2.       Eliminate the JTAC position and only allow Tac Commander which (as before) is password protected to the commander of that side. The commander can choose to share this password but the position is meant for the commander to be able to get battlefield view. It is also necessary for combined arms.

3.       I can eliminate both JTAC and Tac Commander but then no more combined arms

4.       I can create special JTAC script that can see much more of the battlefield (more than the 50 nm miles around them available to individual players through the EWR/GCI script), but the only way to do this is to create a special JTAC (disabled?) airplane they can jump into, and they would only be able to see messages giving type, bearing, distance and altitudes. They wouldn’t see the contacts on the map but would have to calculate the relative position to themselves and extrapolate to map. This would allow for tactical movements of flights to the general area where the flights could then pick them up on their script messages, but it really wouldn’t allow for these (JTAC) positions to give any time sensitive bogey dopes.

This is a really tough situation.  I don't think there is an easy answer here.

My understanding is that DCS Fog of War works like a datalink.  So when one unit spots something, all of them spot it.  And because all AI units have perfect sight that can see through clouds, fogs, and sometimes objects, the only thing you can really do "in game" is either remove Fog of War or manually set the engagement range for units within the ME to simulate an inability to spot stuff.

I think Option 2 is the best.  One commander per side.  They can take control of stuff if they want.  They can get a gods eye, but only if they're in the slot.

 

 

[Vonrd]

You had proposed using LotATC for GCI. Maybe that would solve the issue? The problem is who has and is competent in LotATC. I have the full version but am not currently competent. @Snaggle is competent but is he available? Any others?

[Flyboy]

7 minutes ago, Vonrd said:

You had proposed using LotATC for GCI. Maybe that would solve the issue? The problem is who has and is competent in LotATC. I have the full version but am not currently competent. @Snaggle is competent but is he available? Any others?

I have it and have played with it but wouldn’t say I’m competent. It’s definitely more realistic and the other advantage to it is it doesn’t take up a limited pilot slot as it accesses the mission externally. Maybe we can play with it some more for future missions? 

[Vonrd]

Just now, Flyboy said:

Maybe we can play with it some more for future missions? 

Sure. I'm hoping that @Snaggle might help out.

[Kermit7heFrog]

Halo Flyboy.

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion. I have question:

According to what sources our JTAC / TCommander see too much? IMO setting "map only" shows exactly that what's expected. Why do I think so?
1. JTAC /TC see only contacts reported visual (it means 3-6nm range) by other units, and radar contacts. Who said that it's too much? Unless we hire 20 radar operators and 10 FAC's  I say it's good aproximation for a porpoise of a game.

2. it's 1975 - actual radar network isn't simmulated in DCS. We shall have anti artillery radar - that can see mortar rounds in the air, maybe some GDB radars. But we don't. I say we rather see less than we shall.

3. Whatever anyone want to see choppers aren't invisible for radar - for them there shall be no difference. Especially not over flat as a table Egypt terrain.

4. Having AWACS actually solves any doubts. You can't hide from him. Actually guys working on board E3 tell, that they have no problem detecting BMW riding on "Berliner Ring" if they set proper speed gate. And it's from Polish Airspace. What are we even talking about?

my question is - what actually shall be invisible for JTAC? and why?
and second... Who's going to sacrifice and waste his 2 -4 hours of life by LotATC? Any volunteers? 
Third: what are we aiming at? Mil(f)sim?(sorry I'm still a big kid) or balanced arcade?

[Flyboy]

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

JTAC /TC see only contacts reported visual (it means 3-6nm range) by other units, and radar contacts.

Yes this is what I've found in my research, but in practicality we are suspect of this. Like I said, we tested this and were far away from any ground units and deep in a canyon yet JTAC was still able to see the airplane. No AWACS on the map and only some EWR, SAM search radar and other units that were far away. It seems they can "see" through mountains! Anyway, I plan to do more testing on this and will let everyone know.

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

it's 1975 - actual radar network isn't simmulated in DCS.

It's not perhaps simulated in DCS, but that is what my EWR/GCI script does. It uses only units known to be radar units and/or units named EWR or AWACS and gives a more realistic picture based on max ranges, terrain, etc. We have tested this and it seems to work like it's supposed to.

 

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

Whatever anyone want to see choppers aren't invisible for radar - for them there shall be no difference. Especially not over flat as a table Egypt terrain.

With my EWR/GCI script - depending on the placements of my radar units, choppers can indeed hide better by hugging the ground, using trees or terrain to block line of sight, etc.

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

Having AWACS actually solves any doubts. You can't hide from him. Actually guys working on board E3 tell, that they have no problem detecting BMW riding on "Berliner Ring" if they set proper speed gate. And it's from Polish Airspace. What are we even talking about?

I've taken the AWACS off of my Yom Kippur 2 map. I am trying to balance between too much information, realism and creating more "fog of war."

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

Who's going to sacrifice and waste his 2 -4 hours of life by LotATC?

Believe it or not there are some people out there who enjoy this rather than fly. I've been able to do this before when I'm away from home in a hotel and can't fly with everyone. It also frees up a limited slot in the mission map as LotATC externally connects to the game.

2 hours ago, Kermit7heFrog said:

what are we aiming at? Mil(f)sim?(sorry I'm still a big kid) or balanced arcade?

I like to be as real as possible but keeping it fun (which is why I fly DCS and not War Thunder!). A true mil sim, however, would involve proper checklists, ATC and flight communications using radio only (no Discord), proper intel and flight briefings (which can be hours) and proper discipline amongst flights and across the theater. Having done this professionally I (and most others) really don't have the time or inclination to go that far. We want the realism but keep it fun and maximize our limited play time.

Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response! I'm still new to putting these things together and want to take everyone's input to help make balanced, fair and fun events.

[Vonrd]

In response to the basics of Kermit's post (and particularly Mil(f)  Sim.

In my opinion it's the age old dilemma / balance of enjoyable gameplay vs complete realistic historical accuracy. How many people would choose the Iraqi side in an event duplicating the First Gulf War, particularly as an airman? You would have absolutely NO chance to even complete a sortie let alone accomplish any mission. Your only choice is to bug out to Iran. I doubt that we will ever see a DCS event based on the Gulf War unless it's PVE with everyone on the Blue side. (Maybe it's been done... I'd like to see the after game comments if it has been).

For Flyboy's event it makes more Gameplay sense to give the helicopters and several Redfor aircraft the limited opportunity to be able to hide in the weeds for, at least, some part of their mission. With historical all seeing radar and data links they become just fish in a barrel. The same could be said regarding Blue air forces but Blue has the advantage over Red especially in onboard radar. I think it makes a more enjoyable event if the pilots are given some opportunities to play cat and mouse.

[Kermit7heFrog]

I would. I never wish to fly F/A-18 anyway (or any other Gen IV+ multirole)

As for Flyboy post - it's all undisputable. DCS right now isn't modelling anything in terms of radiolocation.