CAS permissions

[BigRed 133]

Circlejerk: CAS prosecution authority and ability to seek, identify and neutralise.

Unjerk: Had a discussion recently with a few people including SNAF, Decibel and PK, about the issues of CAS rolling into AO with a UAV and essentially being their own first strike wave. As realistic as that may be to a real world campaign, this needs to be all about how much fun the infantry are having (and supporting the numbers on the servers) 

The suggestion was that the rules be altered that CAS cannot request to strike, and then waiting for ground forces to approve. Rather, they can only engage when ground forces initiate the request.

Thought?

[Fitz 1239]

That was discussed amongst staff a week or so ago, I'm just taking my time implementing it 

[BigRed 133]

No rush. I figured it was a valuable discussion point. There are a few out there that have much more assertive opinions on it.

[webbie 186]

You know I always enforce this when I'm on. Never made sense that a case can request to be requested and technically is already covered under the rules. I brought this up with Fitz becuase I got sick of seeing cas requesting to engage a target and someone at base saying yeah go ahead. Just dumb.

[OrionSync 49]

6 hours ago, webbie said:

You know I always enforce this when I'm on. Never made sense that a case can request to be requested and technically is already covered under the rules. I brought this up with Fitz becuase I got sick of seeing cas requesting to engage a target and someone at base saying yeah go ahead. Just dumb.

 

 

[webbie 186]

53 minutes ago, OrionSync said:

 

 

Accurate.......

[AceWinchester 213]

definitely will improve gameplay 

[Swordster 3]

Permit me to be devil’s advocate, in this discussion.

First the issue of the described first strike wave tactic by UAV and CAS working together, are you suggesting that the rules change that the UAV operator can’t give firemission request to support assets (CAS, Artillery, etc) anymore?

If you are concerned from an infantry perspective, I can provide counters that it can be problematic depending on the AO especially

·         With smaller players sizes in the games.

·         Inconveniences players with some places that AA Dominates, meaning a competent pilot would have to drop us in places we may have to walk farther or otherwise be shutdown to be flown to again, though I have no problem running 1-3kms to new AOs rather then get in a chopper, but explain that to other players that don’t have the patients.

·         Assets we can’t see, target accurately, destroy or fellow players not bothering to engage (Hilly Terrain, Forest, Moving Vehicles): Finding and being able to deal with vehicle that are hampering our efforts can also be problematic dealing with a Tank that rapidly takes out soldiers with its turret machine guns being underequipped same for AA we at times don’t have enough explosives to destroy it and being out of reach of moving boats.

If CAS and UAV sees targets that will hamper our fun and request to engage as long as the other rules are followed and see where the ordnances are being dropped I will reply with permission granted, to such asset.  

Next giving okay from main base (AKA the comic), I’ll be honest Haven’t heard that before, sure I’ve had pilots give permission granted so I've keeped an eye on them, so okay I’ll check that in future but the exaggerated comic has a negative view on CAS that lumps a worst case scenario to say justifies the rule, I’d argue that even if the rule to remove the ‘CAS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO ENGAGE ENEMY VEHICLE’ and ‘YEAH GO FOR IT’ the same result would still occur of the incompetent CAS and the troll player as i'll explain below sorry no artist.

1. First Picture: {CAS is flying upsidedown, wheel gear up/down(based on perspective), as it collides with a helo}. CAS IS SHOT DOWN, SIDE: CAS IS ON STATION

2. Second Picture: {Same guy but at the AO and has a laser pointer on an ally vehicle, additionally the feed shows the prior conversation} CAS IS SHOT DOWN, KERRY: CAS IS ON STATION, SIDE: LAZING ENEMY VEHICLE CAS ENGAGE, CAS IS SHOT DOWN.

3. Third Picture: {It stays the same except showing a destroyed friendly vehicle and multiple bodies of friendlies surrounding it}

4. Fourth Picture: {Changes side channel from CAS to TROLL} example: SIDE [TROLL]: WAS THAT FRIENDLY? OooPS, SIDE [TROLL]: JUST RESPAWN, NEXT TARGET?, CAS IS SHOT DOWN.

 

Another thing I thought about while writing this is if there where ways around this potential rule such as approaching it on Semantics. Such as if I can’t say

CAS: Requesting to engage enemy Boat on the map

SIDE [AO Soldier]: Sure take out the boats

To

CAS: Advising of enemy boats on the map CAS is prepared to engage them upon your request.

SIDE [AO Soldier]: Sure take out the boats

Would this circumvent the rule but be still the same problem?

 

Perhaps it might be better to do a Firemission Checklist on engaging targets that a good even inexperienced player will eventually reach here’s a draft:

Firemission Checklist:

This Checklist applies to CAS and Firesupport (Check, Invade & Annex Jet/CAS/Artillery ROE for Classification)

If you haven't or failed to do these listed actions you are to abort the mission/run of the target/s.

1.Have you either, Received a Request(A) or Given a Request(B)?:

(A) Received a Request: Any ground force that is not a JET/CAS/Pilot/Artillery person from the proximity of the AO to Request you to engage

(B) Given a Request: You have made a request for a set target/s to be destroyed and have been responded with an Acknowledgement from ground forces that is not a JET/CAS/Pilot/Artillery person from the proximity of the AO.

2. Is the Request/Acknowledgement Genuine?

-Was the Request/Acknowledgement made through Side Channel?

-Was it Directed at You?

-Can you confirm if the originator of the Request/Acknowledgement location is either a UAV operator or is a soldier on the ground near the AO?

-Does it Specify the Targets Type especially if there more than one?

-Is the Position of the Target based on a marker, smoke grenade or laze and can it too be specified if there more than one?

-Is the target not near any places you aren’t allowed to hit?

-YOU CHECK FOR NO FRIENDLIES ON THAT POSITION?

3.Have you acknowledge your mission/run?

-Have you replied in Side Channel?

-Have you notified the TS of your mission/run?

4.When about to commence the mission/run?

-Have you checked any updates on the target?

-Is the target not near any places you aren’t allowed to hit?

- YOU CHECK FOR NO FRIENDLIES ON THAT POSITION?

5.When doing your mission/run

-You didn’t receive any request to abort?

-YOU DIDN’T SEE ANY FRIENDLIES ON THAT POSITION?

 

 Anyways, sorry for the long message, have another good day.

Just as an aside nitpick to the main discussion, I find players that are challenged and entertain be a better then 'fun' as a subjective never reaching tug of war of one’s idea of fun over another. Such cases in the AO of a When being in the tank at Malden on Friday the 11^th and having 3 AOs the armour was on hill supported by helo dropping crates of different services for most part engaging at will with depending on the ground vocal request for support through group channel, no complaints I recall sent by ground for doing so, yes we can argue the map designs plays a role but the same thing can happen in other maps is a most certain scenario to occur, that even I wonder where are ROEs for armour at least bear minimum like don’t shoot the Tower and HQ for the same reasons?

[decibel_spl 76]

1 hour ago, Swordster said:

Another thing I thought about while writing this is if there where ways around this potential rule such as approaching it on Semantics. Such as if I can’t say

 

CAS: Requesting to engage enemy Boat on the map

 

SIDE [AO Soldier]: Sure take out the boats

 

To

 

CAS: Advising of enemy boats on the map CAS is prepared to engage them upon your request.

 

SIDE [AO Soldier]: Sure take out the boats

 

Would this circumvent the rule but be still the same problem?

 

 

I think you'll find this would nowhere near as often get a response as often as you'd think. Besides, it's not really circumventing the rule because the problem is when the pilot directly asks to engage something - the latter is an advisory and doesn't actually ask to engage a target. The key word is "Your request", not "Requesting to"

1 hour ago, Swordster said:

-Does it Specify the Targets Type especially if there more than one?

This is my biggest gripe. The whole "Lasing tank" or "Requesting cas on my lase" without in any way specifying what said target is. It gets to the point where if I'm in the jet, I'll just ignore isolated map markers, and respond to any ambiguous request with "What is the target". If they don't give me an answer, I don't strike it.

1 hour ago, Swordster said:

1 hour ago, Swordster said:

- YOU CHECK FOR NO FRIENDLIES ON THAT POSITION?

Within reason, I don't think it's the pilot's job to make sure no friendlies get hit in their air support run. Outside of checking if they're requesting a strike on a group of friendlies, a friendly vehicle, or directly on a friendly; it's the person's requesting fault for not updating there is friendlies nearby (or calling a danger close), or in the case someone wandered into a strike zone, it's their fault for being oblivious to it.

Otherwise, I very much like your checklist and it should be something all air support pilots should follow.

Edited January 13, 2019 by decibel_spl