After completing the new game wizard but before initializing turn 0,
open a dialog to allow the player to customize their air wing. With this
they can remove squadrons from the game, rename them, add players, or
change allowed mission types. *Adding* squadrons is not currently
supported, nor is changing the squadron's livery (the data in pydcs is
an arbitrary class hierarchy that can't be safely indexed by country).
This only applies to the blue air wing for now.
Future improvements:
* Add squadron button.
* Collapse disable squadrons to declutter?
* Tabs on the side like the settings dialog to group by aircraft type.
* Top tab bar to switch between red and blue air wings.
This only takes effect for default loadouts. Custom loadouts set from
the UI will allow LGBs. In the default case there will not be buddy-lase
coordination so we should take iron bombs instead.
Also adds single/double Mk 83 and Mk 82 weapon data to accomodate this.
Hornet should be compatible with 1990 campaigns now. Air-to-ground
weapon restrictions are less interesting for AI aircraft so I haven't
covered *all* the variants here (the >2 variants of each carried by the
B1 and such).
This is a bit of a hack that makes the TGPs fall back to AIM-120s. It
works okay because this only applies to a few cases:
The A-10 gets an empty pylon. That's fine. Maybe later we can add
multiple fallback paths and depth-first-search through them so that that
pylon could carry bombs instead.
The Viper has no replacemnt for that station. The jammer goes on the
other fuselage station, the HTS isn't a replacement, and we don't have
LANTIRN for the Viper. No weapons can be fit to those stations.
What this helps is the Hornet, where any Gulf War scenario ends up with
an empty cheek station because we don't have the NITE HAWK to fall back
to. In this case we can instead fall back through the air-to-air
missiles to fill the station.
Test cases:
1. Target is not threatened.
The IP should be placed on a direct heading from the origin to the
target at the max ingress distance, or very near the origin airfield
if the airfield is closer to the target than the IP distance.
2. Unthreatened home zone, max IP between origin and target, safe
locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the closest point to home.
3. Unthreatened home zone, origin within LAR, safe locations available
for IP.
The IP should be placed near the origin airfield to prevent
backtracking more than needed.
4. Unthreatened home zone, origin entirely nearer the target than LAR,
safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
5. Threatened home zone, safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
6. No safe IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the point nearest the threat
boundary.
This will allow expert users to disable the automatic MissionScripting.lua replacement. There are many warnings and errors which have to be ignored to achieve this because DCS Liberation will not work with unmodified MissionScripting.lua
Much of the UI was using the old budget which wasn't removed from Game
like it should have been when Coaltion was introduced. The UI displayed
(and in some cases pulled from) the starting budget rather than the real
budget.
Both types use JSOW -> Walleye -> Mk 84. The JSOW A should maybe fall
back to some CBU instead, but I think the standoff capability is more
important to preserve than the warhead type.
The only parts of the old weapon data that worked well (didn't commonly
result in empty pylons) did this implicitly, so make the grouping
explicit.
This also moves the data out of Python and into the resources, which
both makes the data moddable and isolates us from a huge amount of
effort and a save compat break whenever ED changes weapon names.
I didn't auto migrate the old data since the old groups were not
explict and there's no way to infer the grouping. Besides, since most of
the weapons were *not* grouped, the old data did more harm than good in
my experience. I've handled the AIM-120 and AIM-7 for now, but will get
at least all the fox 3 missiles before we ship.
This places the split point based on the best path from the IP to home,
rather than the best path from home to the target. The outcome is that
the planner might choose an alternate route out of a threatened area
based on the safest escape from the IP, which is where the aircraft
should be when it releases its weapons, rather than at the target.
That's of course not always perfect since the IP distance is not based
on the carried weapon, but it's a better choice when it matters more
(when carrying standoff weapons attacking a more dangerous target).
Try all the nav points between the origin and the target rather than
just the first non-threatened point. This prevents us from using the
fallback behavior for any target that's sufficiently far from the
package airfield.
This makes it so that the mission planning effects are applied only if
the package can be fulfilled. For example, breakthrough will be used
only if all the BAI missions were fulfilled, not if they will *attempt*
to be fulfilled.
Consider BAI missions planned this turn when determining if a control
point is still garrisioned for preventing breakthrough.
This isn't very accurate yet since the HTN isn't checking for aircraft
fulfillment yet, so it might *plan* a mission to kill the garrison, but
there's no way to know if it will be fulfilled.
This improves the AI behavior by choosing the stances non-randomly:
* Breakthrough will be used if the base is expected to be capturable and
the coalition outnumbers the enemy by 20%.
* Elimination will be used if the coalition has at least as many units
as the enemy.
* Defensive will be used if the coalition has at least half as many
units as the enemy.
* Retreat will be used if the coalition is significantly outnumbers.
This also exposes the option to the player.
IADS that are in detection range (but not attack range) of missions will
be targeted at very low priority. These will typically only be planned
when no other targets are in range.
The players can still manually assign strike missions on other target
types since that's sometimes better for player waypoint generation (one
waypoint per unit is nice for SAMs), but it's bad for the AI so by
default we should exclude non-buildings.
This also prevents double targeting of groups, since they might have
been identified by other missions as well.
We already did some of this, but since we were excluding specific TGO
types rather than only allowing building TGOs we were often missing
things (missile sites, coastal defenses, and EWRs, it seems).
Garrison groups should be preferred with the following priority:
1. Groups blocking base capture
2. Groups at bases connected to an active front line
3. Rear guard units
Previously they were being prioritized based on the distance to the
closest friendy control point, which is similar to this but an
aggressively placed carrier could throw it off.
