The improved wildfire missions

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The improved wildfire missions

      I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.

      Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
    • Barake wrote:

      I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.

      Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
      I agree heavily with the thought of needing larger wildfire missions. What we have right now is nothing compared to one of California’s fires. Also, I have noticed if I send 8 regular tankers that already exceeds the 30k water gallon requirement so, I would say either get rid of the tanker requirement or raise the gallon requirement so 8 tankers is exactly equal to the gallon requirement.

      I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by WinWin ().

    • WinWin wrote:

      Barake wrote:

      I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.

      Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
      I agree heavily with the thought of needing larger wildfire missions. What we have right now is nothing compared to one of California’s fires. Also, I have noticed if I send 8 regular tankers that already exceeds the 30k water gallon requirement so, I would say either get rid of the tanker requirement or raise the gallon requirement so 8 tankers is exactly equal to the gallon requirement.
      I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.
      Just had an idea... What if the water requriements were deleted. Still with me? Ok so now, what if a bar (like the water required one) is added, but for two things. How many acres it has burned and the containment percantage. If you don't have enough units on scene, the acreage will increase and the containment will decrease.... If you have a lot of units on scene the conatinment will increase and the acreage will start to slow down. Don't be afraid to make suggestions to my suggestion
    • WinWin wrote:

      I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.
      But would you need to count the personnel? We have this with SWAT, and we know that each SWAT AV holds 6 and the SUV 2-4 and we send appropriately. All we have to know is that a full carrier caries 12 individuals, T3/4 Engines 5 individuals, and whatever it is for 6/7s. Now without training, this gets much more difficult to count, so maybe we need a special training for Wildfire Hand Crews (carried by Crew Carriers or Wildland engines) and only persons with this training count for the person count?

      weeman_tuy wrote:

      Just had an idea... What if the water requriements were deleted. Still with me? Ok so now, what if a bar (like the water required one) is added, but for two things. How many acres it has burned and the containment percantage. If you don't have enough units on scene, the acreage will increase and the containment will decrease.... If you have a lot of units on scene the conatinment will increase and the acreage will start to slow down. Don't be afraid to make suggestions to my suggestion
      We could take that farther. Water Brought to the scene, either via air tanker, ground tanker, or engine could in turn affect the acreage bar. Crew Carriers with the Wildfire Hand Crew Training I mentioned to WinWin as well as the new dozer units could affect containment. The job ends once acreage reaches 0 and containment reaches 100%. If acreage is increasing, the it is likely that containment will also decrease as well.
    • CTFire wrote:

      WinWin wrote:

      I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.
      But would you need to count the personnel? We have this with SWAT, and we know that each SWAT AV holds 6 and the SUV 2-4 and we send appropriately. All we have to know is that a full carrier caries 12 individuals, T3/4 Engines 5 individuals, and whatever it is for 6/7s. Now without training, this gets much more difficult to count, so maybe we need a special training for Wildfire Hand Crews (carried by Crew Carriers or Wildland engines) and only persons with this training count for the person count?
      The thing with SWAT is, the maximum mission for them will only ever require 4 full SWAT vehicles. That’s not hard to count and plus, the SWAT Bearcat REQUIRES 6 personnel to operate. So, you are really not counting the personnel but the vehicle it’s self. I just can’t imagine counting out the amount of personnel needed for the mission say divided by 12. I know that a real wildfire can get up to 1,000+ personnel on scene so, I would like that function but it’s just not viable. If we put a 12 capacity operation on the Crew Carrier, that would be unrealistic. In real life we don’t always fill them and saying we send like 10 of them to a mission, Crew Carriers were never that popular anyways.

      weeman_tuy wrote:

      WinWin wrote:

      Barake wrote:

      I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.

      Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
      I agree heavily with the thought of needing larger wildfire missions. What we have right now is nothing compared to one of California’s fires. Also, I have noticed if I send 8 regular tankers that already exceeds the 30k water gallon requirement so, I would say either get rid of the tanker requirement or raise the gallon requirement so 8 tankers is exactly equal to the gallon requirement.I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.
      Just had an idea... What if the water requriements were deleted. Still with me? Ok so now, what if a bar (like the water required one) is added, but for two things. How many acres it has burned and the containment percantage. If you don't have enough units on scene, the acreage will increase and the containment will decrease.... If you have a lot of units on scene the conatinment will increase and the acreage will start to slow down. Don't be afraid to make suggestions to my suggestion
      The reason why that would not work is because we know people are going to use it to just upgrade fires and get more credits. All of them would make it so it’s the biggest it will get. And quite frankly some just may not have the resources so I don’t think I would want to be waiting for the mission to cancel because it got out of control.


      I do love the idea, but it just won’t work.

      If you say, the mission it’s self can have that function sure. I would make it so, a “medium wildfire” stays the same no matter how out of control it is but it will take more resources but not expand to a larger mission.

      You see, the problem now is, that’s not very realistic and, if a player has like 200 missions ready, they will have to just let that mission grow because they have that many missions. That’s just not how this game would work either.

      Kinda a dilemma, sorry for bringing the bad news. More ideas?









    • WinWin wrote:

      The thing with SWAT is, the maximum mission for them will only ever require 4 full SWAT vehicles. That’s not hard to count and plus, the SWAT Bearcat REQUIRES 6 personnel to operate. So, you are really not counting the personnel but the vehicle it’s self. I just can’t imagine counting out the amount of personnel needed for the mission say divided by 12. I know that a real wildfire can get up to 1,000+ personnel on scene so, I would like that function but it’s just not viable. If we put a 12 capacity operation on the Crew Carrier, that would be unrealistic. In real life we don’t always fill them and saying we send like 10 of them to a mission, Crew Carriers were never that popular anyways.
      In reality though, the 1,000+ personnel fires are not that common as a percentage of total wildfires sparked each year. Maybe more often in CA and CO than the other western states, but in those states it is more common for structure to be threatened and it becomes about structure protection as opposed to just make sure it doesn't get out of control like a lot of fires in MT/WY/ID etc. It may be worth making the largest fires just take less personnel than in real life or just not having them in game. The fact that missions are points makes super large fire like the recent CA outbreak or the '18 CA fires not realistic for current game mechanics anyways.

      I'd propose increasing the Crew Carrier to around 20 people as this is a fairly standard squad number based on my understanding (and this is what NWCG uses for its production hourly rates), and it is an easy number for math. Even if they aren't always filled in your experience, we need to find a way to simplify the idea if it is to be implement in the game, and I'm sure some crews do fill them or several of them (in fact, I know that, because the dorm I RAed for in my undergrad housed firefighters in the summer, and we did quite a bit of chatting during my time).

      WinWin wrote:

      The reason why that would not work is because we know people are going to use it to just upgrade fires and get more credits. All of them would make it so it’s the biggest it will get. And quite frankly some just may not have the resources so I don’t think I would want to be waiting for the mission to cancel because it got out of control.
      I agree that the credits shouldn't increase because the player doesn't attack the fire. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to set it at the acreage, and not have it be expanded. Then the fires decrease in acreage with water, increase containment with personnel and dozers.

      I know you say that the Crew Carrier wasn't popular anyways, but for amount that I have seen them in the summer in MT and WY for fighting fires, I'd say they are still used enough to justify having.
    • CTFire wrote:

      WinWin wrote:

      The thing with SWAT is, the maximum mission for them will only ever require 4 full SWAT vehicles. That’s not hard to count and plus, the SWAT Bearcat REQUIRES 6 personnel to operate. So, you are really not counting the personnel but the vehicle it’s self. I just can’t imagine counting out the amount of personnel needed for the mission say divided by 12. I know that a real wildfire can get up to 1,000+ personnel on scene so, I would like that function but it’s just not viable. If we put a 12 capacity operation on the Crew Carrier, that would be unrealistic. In real life we don’t always fill them and saying we send like 10 of them to a mission, Crew Carriers were never that popular anyways.
      In reality though, the 1,000+ personnel fires are not that common as a percentage of total wildfires sparked each year. Maybe more often in CA and CO than the other western states, but in those states it is more common for structure to be threatened and it becomes about structure protection as opposed to just make sure it doesn't get out of control like a lot of fires in MT/WY/ID etc. It may be worth making the largest fires just take less personnel than in real life or just not having them in game. The fact that missions are points makes super large fire like the recent CA outbreak or the '18 CA fires not realistic for current game mechanics anyways.
      I'd propose increasing the Crew Carrier to around 20 people as this is a fairly standard squad number based on my understanding (and this is what NWCG uses for its production hourly rates), and it is an easy number for math. Even if they aren't always filled in your experience, we need to find a way to simplify the idea if it is to be implement in the game, and I'm sure some crews do fill them or several of them (in fact, I know that, because the dorm I RAed for in my undergrad housed firefighters in the summer, and we did quite a bit of chatting during my time).

      WinWin wrote:

      The reason why that would not work is because we know people are going to use it to just upgrade fires and get more credits. All of them would make it so it’s the biggest it will get. And quite frankly some just may not have the resources so I don’t think I would want to be waiting for the mission to cancel because it got out of control.
      I agree that the credits shouldn't increase because the player doesn't attack the fire. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to set it at the acreage, and not have it be expanded. Then the fires decrease in acreage with water, increase containment with personnel and dozers.
      I know you say that the Crew Carrier wasn't popular anyways, but for amount that I have seen them in the summer in MT and WY for fighting fires, I'd say they are still used enough to justify having.

      I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. San Jose California to be precise. I really don’t see crew carriers often nor does Cal fire have a lot of them. Mostly, personnel work on the larger Wildland engines only.

      That would work. If we have a acreage and water need for these missions. Although it would be very confusing to know exactly what to send.

      And plus, this containment idea is really just the red bar for mission status itself. That bar will go down proportional to the amount of units required that are on scene.

      I would just like larger wildfire missions and the other ideas can come later. The Gallons of water already took a good step that way. Just give it some time and ideas. I love this idea and concept so we just need to incorporate it and refine it.









    • I'm born in raised in the Rockies, and can wildfires are often 3-5 hours from any major civilization out here. Probably why I see more crew carriers and less engines out here.

      Yep - we just gotta refine. I'd love it to be more complex than just creating an ARR and we send units. I think that why I play on and off over the years is I want more depth to the game mechanics.

      Enjoy :)
    • WinWin wrote:

      CTFire wrote:

      WinWin wrote:

      The thing with SWAT is, the maximum mission for them will only ever require 4 full SWAT vehicles. That’s not hard to count and plus, the SWAT Bearcat REQUIRES 6 personnel to operate. So, you are really not counting the personnel but the vehicle it’s self. I just can’t imagine counting out the amount of personnel needed for the mission say divided by 12. I know that a real wildfire can get up to 1,000+ personnel on scene so, I would like that function but it’s just not viable. If we put a 12 capacity operation on the Crew Carrier, that would be unrealistic. In real life we don’t always fill them and saying we send like 10 of them to a mission, Crew Carriers were never that popular anyways.
      In reality though, the 1,000+ personnel fires are not that common as a percentage of total wildfires sparked each year. Maybe more often in CA and CO than the other western states, but in those states it is more common for structure to be threatened and it becomes about structure protection as opposed to just make sure it doesn't get out of control like a lot of fires in MT/WY/ID etc. It may be worth making the largest fires just take less personnel than in real life or just not having them in game. The fact that missions are points makes super large fire like the recent CA outbreak or the '18 CA fires not realistic for current game mechanics anyways.I'd propose increasing the Crew Carrier to around 20 people as this is a fairly standard squad number based on my understanding (and this is what NWCG uses for its production hourly rates), and it is an easy number for math. Even if they aren't always filled in your experience, we need to find a way to simplify the idea if it is to be implement in the game, and I'm sure some crews do fill them or several of them (in fact, I know that, because the dorm I RAed for in my undergrad housed firefighters in the summer, and we did quite a bit of chatting during my time).

      WinWin wrote:

      The reason why that would not work is because we know people are going to use it to just upgrade fires and get more credits. All of them would make it so it’s the biggest it will get. And quite frankly some just may not have the resources so I don’t think I would want to be waiting for the mission to cancel because it got out of control.
      I agree that the credits shouldn't increase because the player doesn't attack the fire. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to set it at the acreage, and not have it be expanded. Then the fires decrease in acreage with water, increase containment with personnel and dozers.I know you say that the Crew Carrier wasn't popular anyways, but for amount that I have seen them in the summer in MT and WY for fighting fires, I'd say they are still used enough to justify having.
      I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. San Jose California to be precise. I really don’t see crew carriers often nor does Cal fire have a lot of them. Mostly, personnel work on the larger Wildland engines only.

      That would work. If we have a acreage and water need for these missions. Although it would be very confusing to know exactly what to send.

      And plus, this containment idea is really just the red bar for mission status itself. That bar will go down proportional to the amount of units required that are on scene.

      I would just like larger wildfire missions and the other ideas can come later. The Gallons of water already took a good step that way. Just give it some time and ideas. I love this idea and concept so we just need to incorporate it and refine it.









      SCU has a crew carrier, also there is a Vol Dept East of San Jose they have a crew carrier as well. I live in Hayward.
    • Barake wrote:

      I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.

      Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
      Too much water? So did that stop you from completing the mission - as in you have to hit it exactly, or what?