Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[PARTIAL FIX B757.12, IMPR PLANNED v1.11] Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [PARTIAL FIX B757.12, IMPR PLANNED v1.11] Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[PARTIAL FIX B757.12, IMPR PLANNED v1.11] Anti-air/surf... - 11/22/2015 9:46:37 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline
Hi, I had already pointed out such an issue in a previous post, but I didn't bring enough evidences, and when I finally did the thread has been forgotten.

That's why I (re)create this thread because I think this is a serious issue.

The war is always a race bteween the shield and the sword, but to me in C:MANO, the shield is over-represented.

Missile defense can basically shot down incoming threats way too easilly imho and if the missile pk is well represented for aircrafts with a lot of modifiers, it isn't really the case for surface base systems, partly because there isn't that many modifiers. In some cases, it's more rewarding/effective to bring an aircraft that will evade incoming missiles to drop dump bombs on the target instead of using stand-off weapons.

Hence, after noticing that in my missions, I carried out several tests. Those tests were mainly carried out with French stuff, because I know it better.


I think those issues are mainly due to the fact that the only modifier that decrease the AA missiles probability of hit is the signature modifier of the targeted weapon, and it rarely exceed 25%.

But mainly, many weapons shoudln't be able to engage bombs and missiles. And also, there is no differencies between a basic cruise missile, a glide bomb, a smart cruise missile, a nuclear missile, an anti-ship missile etc. Many upgrades have seen their range extended as IRL, but their properties and behaviour hasn't been really changed.

For example the Exocet MM40 Block 3, or the SM/AM-39 block2 mod2 the latests exocets in service, are still marked with a pop-up terminal maneuveuring, while they are using random evasive maneuvers, their IR and EM signatures hasn't been imporved either, the older exocet are using zig zag manuvers, etc
When you see missiles as big as this

There is also a specific issue with glide bombs/smart bombs :

How can something like this :
[spoiler][/spoiler]
engaging and destroying on a very regular basis small bombs like that
[spoiler][/spoiler]
arriving with such an angle
[spoiler][/spoiler]

It doesn't seems very realistic to me.

Outside of the Naval missiles and similar systems, Tunguska and Pantsir, which systems can reliably destroy modern missiles ? And which one can manage to destroy a bomb ?

Because ingame even old missiles like SA-2, SA-5, etc can engage and destroy both glide bombs and advanced cruise missiles.

I've even saw a 1960 SA-5c, designed to destroy strategic bombers (!), destroying a 2010, mach 3, stealth, smart and manoeuvrable ASMP-A nuclear missile. And all this while shooting only 2 missiles at it. It has been detected 145nm away. Screenshot of the PH probability, and save available. Why is there such a little signature modfier on a stelath missile ? Why thre is no speed modifier on a missile flying at Mach 3+ and why this missile is flying at high alt and not just above earth ?

I think all this stuff would need a rework and definitly isn't working as intended. In the current state air to ground ammuntions are way to easilly destroyable.

Maybe adding properties to the missiles that would add modifier to the PH calculations, as well as making a differance between the different kinds of missiles and bombs, and removing the ability of some of those system to engage such targets. Also, bringing up to date all the features os severall weapons.

On the other hand, I've noticed that anti-radiation missiles are waaay too effective against ships, and have became more effective to kill ships than dedicated anti-ships missiles.
A couple of sead missile are enough to deal deadly damages to a frigate size ship, while their warhead is very tiny and not designed to kill ships (HARM warhead 65kg, Exocet Warhead 165kg).
Moreover they damage the whole ship while they are supposed to destroy radars and antennas and shoudn'lt really affect the hull of the ship at the contrary of anti-ship missiles.
Lastly, I don't think they have any terminal maneuvers properties at the contrary of anti-ship missiles.
This could be dealt by making those missile hit only the radars and the near stuff and reduccing their destruction power.

Here attached, a scenario where 3 planes are involved, one with dumb bombs and one with smart bombs on a single targets, the plane with dumb bombs will succeed better than the plane with smart ones.
Lastly a plane with a ASMP-A missile which 1/2 will be shot down by 1960 AA systems ...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 11/28/2015 11:06:38 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 11/22/2015 11:54:25 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Very dramatic post but we'll definitely take a look.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 2
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 11/23/2015 12:40:50 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline
Great Thanks ! :)
The Drama wasn't really intended though.

PS : Btw, is there a Spoiler function on this forum ?

< Message edited by FoxZz -- 11/23/2015 1:41:40 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 11/28/2015 7:08:02 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13184
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
Tweaked AAW modifiers in Build 757.12 .

_____________________________


(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 4
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/1/2015 9:17:53 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline
SO I've run again my test scenario with the 752.12 changes, and if indeed it's slightly better, I don't think it's enough.

The speed modifier for a mach 3 missile is only 15% while the intercepting missile max target speed is mach 4, I guess it should be much higher.

The signature modifier is still kind of weird, never exceeds 20% even for agile low flying stealth missile.

Lastly the glide bomb thing is still broken and you can still see salvos of bombs being entirely destoyed by 1960 AA systems designed to intercept strategic bombers from medium to high altitude.

I think the weapons stats themselves need changes to reflect their real life limitations, maybe trough properties and stuff ?

Could be have more explanations on the modifiers ? How those are calculated, more details on the dice rolls and so on ?

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 5
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/1/2015 11:35:00 PM   
ryszardsh

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline
I am not so sure that the software is inartful in regards to representing SAM results. Perhaps it was merely maiskirova, but the Royal Navy, rather publicly in the 1980s spoke about the Sea Wolf missile routinely intercepting inbound 5" artillery rounds. Granted the 5" round was ballistic and not maneuvering, but still pretty good for a missile. A decent radar guided AAA, using VT fused rounds, should be able to knock down a bomb.
.

(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 6
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/1/2015 11:37:44 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FoxZz

SO I've run again my test scenario with the 752.12 changes, and if indeed it's slightly better, I don't think it's enough.

The speed modifier for a mach 3 missile is only 15% while the intercepting missile max target speed is mach 4, I guess it should be much higher.

The signature modifier is still kind of weird, never exceeds 20% even for agile low flying stealth missile.

Lastly the glide bomb thing is still broken and you can still see salvos of bombs being entirely destoyed by 1960 AA systems designed to intercept strategic bombers from medium to high altitude.

I think the weapons stats themselves need changes to reflect their real life limitations, maybe trough properties and stuff ?

Could be have more explanations on the modifiers ? How those are calculated, more details on the dice rolls and so on ?



LOL. Ok we'll get right on that.

I'll add this to our list of things we need to look into. Honestly we haven't had many complaints on this and without files and specific examples it will take some time to sort out if there are issues or not though. We'll definitely look into it though.

Mike

M

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/2/2015 12:41:10 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 7
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 6:51:28 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13184
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: FoxZz

SO I've run again my test scenario with the 752.12 changes, and if indeed it's slightly better, I don't think it's enough.

The speed modifier for a mach 3 missile is only 15% while the intercepting missile max target speed is mach 4, I guess it should be much higher.

The signature modifier is still kind of weird, never exceeds 20% even for agile low flying stealth missile.

Lastly the glide bomb thing is still broken and you can still see salvos of bombs being entirely destoyed by 1960 AA systems designed to intercept strategic bombers from medium to high altitude.

I think the weapons stats themselves need changes to reflect their real life limitations, maybe trough properties and stuff ?

Could be have more explanations on the modifiers ? How those are calculated, more details on the dice rolls and so on ?



Savefiles and logs for each of the above would help. We're not investigating hearsay.

_____________________________


(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 8
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 9:22:45 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
What posting a picture of a LGB and making ****ty comments doesn't do the trick

_____________________________


(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 9
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 4:31:26 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline
Ok I'll try to provide those.

Maybe could you give us some explanations/links on how the hit calculation work, how each modifier is taken into account, etc ?

But basically what I mean here is it seems that missiles can engage too much different types of targets.

There is several types of missiles for several types of targets, and it's difficult for them to intercept other things than those targets.

We could simplify :

- Very long range missiles will engage planes and IBCM
- Long Range missiles (Patriot/S300/Aster30) will engage planes and tactical ballistic missiles (Scud/ATACMS)
- Medium range missiles (Kub/Hawk) will engage planes, helicopters and cruise missiles
- Short Defense missiles(Seawolf/Crotale/Chaparral/Pantsir) will engage planes, helicopters, anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles
- Point defense AAA (Phalanx/Tunguska guns) will be able to engage bombs, artillery shells, small and fast missiles

In the current state long range missiles can engage cruise missiles, bombs, chopers, etc

Even if each system has its particularities and that the newest system are more sofisticated and can engage more types of target they're still optimised for a primary mission, and this is even more true for older systems and medium range system should'nt be able to intercept a diving glide bomb, etc

I'm just saying that the success rates of anti air missiles agaisnt air to ground ordonnace are too important, and that many systems shoudln't even be able to engage those. Why bother using standoff weapons when those have less chances to make it to their targets than the planes that carry them ?

Currently, missiles and bombs are in the same target type catergory, this shouldn't be. If a system can intercept a cruise missile, it may not be able to intercept a small missile or a bomb.
I propose more target type categories to make the anti-air system gameplay more precise, more realist : plane, helicopter, balistic missile, cruise and anti-ship missile, tactical missile (KH29, Maverick,AS30L), bombs (LGB, glide bombs, etc).
Than each category would come with its modifiers (speed modifier, altitude modifier, manœuvrability, signature (size and stealth), attackinng vector/evasive manouvers) that would depend of the weapon, then the SAM performances (based on era ?) and engagement enveloppe would dictate if the weapon can indeed be fired and the result of the dice roll. The target type would mainly act as a safeguard to be sure that an anti-satellite weapon cannot engage an anti-ship missile.

That being said I gonna find logs to illustrate all this stuff.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FoxZz -- 12/2/2015 7:36:29 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 10
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 6:35:57 PM   
FoxZz

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 4/28/2015
Status: offline
Here is a log of the above posted scenario, I've added many things during the scenario to test different kind of weapons, with the dice rolls and so on.

Things to note :
- The ASMPA only got -10% speed modifier at mach 3
- The AM.39 BlockII exocet didn't got the sea_skiming modifier while those are sea-skiming
- The glide bombs being engaged and destroy by different king of missiles without troubles
- Nothing exceeding 20% signature modifier


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FoxZz -- 12/2/2015 7:36:42 PM >

(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 11
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 11:47:38 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
None of your files seem to work.

Could you please upload them again.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to FoxZz)
Post #: 12
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/2/2015 11:51:09 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

None of your files seem to work.

Could you please upload them again.

Thanks!

Mike


Strike that doesn't seem to be you. Tried to grab another file off the forum and got the same error. Looks like a forum issue.

If you want email to me at bostonmyk @ gmail.com. Remove spaces to the left and right of the @.

M


< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/3/2015 12:51:25 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 13
RE: Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? - 12/4/2015 11:40:38 PM   
giantsquid

 

Posts: 270
Joined: 9/8/2014
From: Milan, Italy
Status: offline
Thanks, interesting post.
I noticed the same, with Standard and ESSM missiles easily shooting down very fast Klub, Harm and Kh31 missiles with minimal negative modifiers (5-10%)
Probably we need slightly more negative penalties for small targets and gliding bombs interceptions, especially by older systems.
Terminal maneuvers now included, nice work!

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [PARTIAL FIX B757.12, IMPR PLANNED v1.11] Anti-air/surface weapons missiles too effective ? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.324