Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Post some real numbers (actual hits vs misses) with the corresponding logs. There are lots of variables that make missiles easier (or harder) to defeat: range, aspect, presence of ECM, terrain, etc.
I've played plenty of scenarios and Russian weaponry isn't 100%.
That said, if the devs have it wrong, they're willing to make corrections. But posting made up numbers won't do jack.
Comparing the game to what's being seen in the Ukraine seems premature. The amount of propaganda coming out that war is astounding. The Russians have been losing the war since the war started. Or, the Russians have been dominating the war since the war started.
As far as game goes, I believe it's the deepest recreation of weapon/airplane/ship mechanics that I've ever played. Judging from what's going on in Ukraine, I have to wonder if Russian equipment is way overrated. Or is it the scenarios? Either way, if I'm to believe this game, the US needs to serious upgrade their SAMs, AtA missiles, cruise missiles, JSOWS because their AtA and SAMs are 50% effective and the cruise/JSOWS get shot down in mass by Russian SAMS.
And maybe that's the case. The game is accurately showing our aging tech. No clue. But something is definitely off. What's happening in Ukraine vs what's happening in this game doesn't add up.
And sorry Rincon, it's not just fake news. The Russians are and have been losing badly.
Actually this war is showing that the "might" of russian army, as well as the effectivenes of russian weapons and equipment, is just an huge fake, or at lest has been overestimated a (huge) lot.
If NATO and/or USA had intervened last February, the war would have already ended with the complete defeat of Russians, or it might not even have started if they had deployed troops in Ukrainian territory prior to the invasion.
Shame they didn't: they would have saved thousands of innocent lives.
But you can keep on dreaming of a victorious retreat with enemy pursuing in panic bro.
You are using too much Copium my friend.
I feel for you.
I'm sorry bro, but you are wrongly assuming that I care of "debate" with a Russian Propagandist... Believe me, I don't: feel free to live in your comfort zone.
At the very least, I didn't make any reference to your "cognitive level"
(on the other hand, I wonder if it can be considered an insult... I think I'll let the administrators decide this).
And why I should edit the DB?
We do have verifiable accounts, most likely through US Satellites, that Russia is in complete retreat. That shouldn't be discounted. The brits are saying the same. I don't believe that to be fake news.
The Russian military has systemic issues from corruption to a lack of an NCO corp, and top down decision making hampering those in the field. Why have so many Russian generals died? Because they had to go to the front to get their troops moving forward. The lower echelon officers didn't feel empowered or were too afraid to move their troops forward. That should be evident by now to anyone following this.
How much has this corruption affected the quality of their products? Russia has adopted WW1 tactics. They can't seem to mount a modern combined arms attack which is why they failed at Kyiv. They should have achieved air superiority by now and interdicting Ukrainian movements. Yet the Ukrainians were able to surprise Russian in the north? How can that possibly happen in this age of satellites? Their military doesn't seem effective unless they are shelling. Again, WW1 tactics. This has happened in Georgia, Chechnya and now Ukraine. Something is very off with Russian military.
However, look at the F-22 and F-35, both of which have huge operational costs, and the US isn't very different. Bloated DOE contractors creating sub-par quality product. There's even 3 scenarios out there comparing F-18 to the F-35 because of the current debates going on. Brass Drum scenario has the introduction of the F-35 and it's the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps it is, but you can't keep them running.
As far as Russian super weapons, look at what happened to the Moskva. 3 tiered defense system and taken out by 2 cruise missiles and if the publications are somewhat correct, 2 300lb warheads! Some reports say Harpoons, others say Ukrainian anti ship cruise missiles. Granted, the Moskva's system are older and not upgraded and there are little to no reports if the Moskva had support ships. No reports about the human aspect of this. Were the systems offline? Were they out of ammo? More fog of war. But if I were to run a simulation of this in CMAO, I'd bet that it would take 20+ Ukrainian cruise missiles to overcome their defenses, possibly more, and probably not possible with support ships unless I fired 50+. It would be interesting for someone to try this out.
Did Ukraine fire 20+ missiles? I have no clue. But this is my point. Is Russian tech overrated? If I were the US Military, I would not under-estimate and assume the worst. Real life is telling a different story. I believe that 30 years of graft and corruption has ruined the once vaulted Russian military and this game is overrating it.
I would also bet that the military version of this, in addition to having access to the weapons we can't know about, allows multiple people to play on a side. This provides command and control simulation in addition to the weapon/target mechanics and removes the single person micro manage that we have to do. Wouldn't that be f@cking cool to have access to?
So as a game, not the best, requires massive hand holding. As a simulation, the best.
As for Russian equipment being too effective, keep in mind that unless a scenario editor has manually changed the readiness of a unit (eg the OODA loop time), units are assumed to be operating with a competent crew. Russia appears to be lacking competent crews, but that's a scenario design thing, not an actual game issue. I personally thing the malfunction rate of Russian equipment should be increased a bit, but hard data is needed before changes should be made.
One last thing. "Our cruise missiles and JSOWS are far too slow to get past SAMS." This is partially a real life thing. The US is investing in new ASMs and hypersonics for a reason. Tomahawks and Harpoons are subsonic munitions, and JSOWs are essentially glide bombs. They aren't going to outrun SAMs, so saturation attacks plus the use of dedicated ARMs like HARMs are the key to success.
I can and play around with WRA a LOT
I was wondering if JSOWS and Cruise are too slow because they keep getting shot down. Thank you I'm not totally insane
As far as HARMS go, the HARM/JSOW load out is both good and bad. If the target isn't radiating, JSOWS rock. If they are, they suck. I'd rather have 4 HARMS and have cruise missiles launched in coordination attack. They will eventually light up and boom I have more harms to attack with. If current US doctrine is HARM/JSOW, bad call.
I've realized saturation attacks are the only way to go against SAMS. Coordinated cruise/SEAD/whatever else I can throw together. Put too many targets in front of them attacks.
Thank you. I'll try beta. I can't believe the ATA success rate and US SAM success rate is that low.