Is something wrong ?

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Hello everyone.

First you can keep your "OP is saying" thing for yourself, I'm not opposition, I'm a player having experience (currently not even a bad one but a really strange one). So I'm here to exchange, not fighting. Mostly risking the internet comment to know if you guys having such experience and feeling about the game.

How only three MiG-25 can avoid the air cover of an AWACS and two flights of F-14s with AIM-54 ? Getting through a whole task force with Leahy, Tico, Spruance and Perry ships ? I need to fire at least 5 to 8 missiles to shot down one single aircraft while this same aircraft only have to fire one missile to shot down a F-14 ? With no miss ? And quietly flying over the task force without being shot down ?

A Slava is able to sink 6 ships including my carrier while none of the defense surface missile launched by 14 of my ships can take down the incoming vampire efficently ? A single Slava destroying half of the fleet ? AIM-54 are all missing the incoming vampires ? AIM-54 was made to be anti-surface. "Defender Of The Fleet" was F-14's nickname and this weaponry is just useless anytime !

Let's be clear ! I understand perfectly the miss radar factor and so the missile spam strategy for the USSR. I'm not saying NATO is supposely overpowering USSR in any situation but something is clearly broken ! Well either I don't know how to play either something is wrong. What I see so far is a game with great potential but completly pro-russian. It's a feeling I have, not saying it's the ultimate truth. Yes I know the devs aren't pro-russians and got no reasons to do so. I did played "Cold Waters" and to be honest I never felt the game unbalanced and I had hard time with Soviet but that was totally fair even in defeat. "Cold Waters" was and still is, according to me: realistic.

And yes I'm gonna go into politics: if USSR 1980 overpower NATO why it is not the case in 2024 ? And don't start telling me it's different time, actual russia is using 70s-80s material don't tell me a T-72 is a last generation tank and don't come up with T-14 which is a myth. USSR lost weapon race against Reagan's policies during 80s, USSR broke down for something. Two time F-14s were able to shot down MiG and Su in History without a single losse. Everytime I've tested F-14s against MiG-23 I'm always losing one. When I'm playing MiG-23 I'm instantly wiped out by the F-14s. So there is clearly something broken.

And yes ! Game is in Early Access and that's why I'm writting this. I think these issues needs to be fixed and I'm surprised people are okay with a spam of vampires that you can't never, never stop ! Even if you have a larger fleet. I've watched a lot of video on YT but in these missions the USSR opposition is larger, no problem with that. Here we're talking about one ship alone. If a Slava ship can do such job wow I'm impressed USSR lost Cold War. I'm not saying NATO is supposed to win every engagement, I'm saying there is an obvious problem. Cold War is always in the supposition. we can't know for sure what would happened but what I know is that USSR and even today russia never had any EW to sustain properly against NATO technology. MiG-23 for exemple was basically built from F-4 scraps.

It's my personnal opinion. Still I'm curious to know if you had some similar things while playing. I've also read multiple time that the Kirov is OP (and still was sunk by a country without navy, quite funny). It's good to make uchronia especially with the Orel prototype but still I'm not sure messing up with History is a good idea. If devs are reading this, please excuse me for the salty comment, you're doing hard job and it's still work in progress but I think the actual stage can be sometimes frustrating.

If you any one has advices (because it's maybe, surely me who don't know how to play properly despite I've played a lot of RTS of any kind) please feel free. I feel like this is a taboo about this kind of unbalanced problems but I think it's important to talk about such for the game development.

Cheers and have fun

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Question you should ask yourself, why did your air wing allow the Slava to exist anywhere in launch range to hit your carrier?

You have to play your forces according to the doctrine they were designed around, with US CVBGs that means see the other guy first, kill him before he knows where you are, and blind him while doing so.

Dominate the skies, the Soviets can't beat you there, and they can't see you before you see them if you own the skies.

The Slava on the other hand, that ship was specifically designed to kill CVBGs, as are quite many of the Soviet assets. If you don't respect and handle that threat, then you are going to have a bad time.

On a side note, the developers are from Sweden, Poland and Germany. None of these have a particular high opinion of Russia at the moment, so 'russian bias' is out the window.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

How am I supposed to dominate the skies when my aircraft missiles are missing everytime ?

How can I destroy him first when the range of my surface missiles are shorter ?

It's not because they were designed that way that it's working all the time. If we are thinking that way my air wings cannot miss the vampires because they have AIM-54

Russian bias is in the window in that particular case and many other. A MiG-25 cannot flyby a task force without being shot down before multiple air cover assets. It may be out of window for you, it is for me.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Your A-6s can carry Harpoons, 4 of them each in the 'heavy anti-ship' loadout. You have a massive range with your Harpoons, easily more than twice of the Slava, and unlimited stock (for now at least).

As for aircraft missiles missing, they do that sometimes. (Insert stupid joke about missing being in the name.) You launch another one and hope for the best.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Okay thanks, maybe I'm not aggressive enough. I'll try to attack with the A-6s.

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Question you should ask yourself, why did your air wing allow the Slava to exist anywhere in launch range to hit your carrier?

You have to play your forces according to the doctrine they were designed around, with US CVBGs that means see the other guy first, kill him before he knows where you are, and blind him while doing so.

Dominate the skies, the Soviets can't beat you there, and they can't see you before you see them if you own the skies.

The Slava on the other hand, that ship was specifically designed to kill CVBGs, as are quite many of the Soviet assets. If you don't respect and handle that threat, then you are going to have a bad time.

On a side note, the developers are from Sweden, Poland and Germany. None of these have a particular high opinion of Russia at the moment, so 'russian bias' is out the window.

What he said. You are acting surprised that a weapon system is being successful at doing what it was specifically designed to do.

That being said, were you on EMCON? When you are in emcon you have less weapon tracks than when your radars are active and that makes a huge difference. The horizon for sea skimming missiles is about 7nm. That means that even if you have a couple of seconds of EMCON your window of opportunity for successful interceptions is drastically reduced.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by Mr.Gold:

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Question you should ask yourself, why did your air wing allow the Slava to exist anywhere in launch range to hit your carrier?

You have to play your forces according to the doctrine they were designed around, with US CVBGs that means see the other guy first, kill him before he knows where you are, and blind him while doing so.

Dominate the skies, the Soviets can't beat you there, and they can't see you before you see them if you own the skies.

The Slava on the other hand, that ship was specifically designed to kill CVBGs, as are quite many of the Soviet assets. If you don't respect and handle that threat, then you are going to have a bad time.

On a side note, the developers are from Sweden, Poland and Germany. None of these have a particular high opinion of Russia at the moment, so 'russian bias' is out the window.

What he said. You are acting surprised that a weapon system is being successful at doing what it was specifically designed to do.

That being said, were you on EMCON? When you are in emcon you have less weapon tracks than when your radars are active and that makes a huge difference. The horizon for sea skimming missiles is about 7nm. That means that even if you have a couple of seconds of EMCON your window of opportunity for successful interceptions is drastically reduced.

I'm indeed surprise that the weapon system is being successful at doing what it was specifically designed to do only work on one side. Why my anti-surface ammo and AIM-54 are completly useless and faulty ? The real problem is there. I'm not sure the actual russian weaponry even if supposed to be efficient is nowaday. You know what I mean. There is a huge difference on what something do on paper and for real.

No EMCON, only my subs are EMCON most of the time and I'm having no problems with ASW warfare. I'm saying USA faulty weaponry is really dumb compared to how USSR weaponry is supposed to be faulty and air combat are broken.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Weapons are only effective if used in the proper situation. For example your AIM-54s are absolutely great at dealing with long range bombers at high altitude, that's what they were designed for.

They are not effective at dealing with targets that are hugging the ocean, they don't deal with ground clutter very well. Even a helicopter can evade them at 20 feet. Switch to your AIM-7s in that case. Or get in close and personal with AIM-9s.

For the most part, your SAMs are way more effective than the soviet SAMs, and so are your CIWS. That doesn't mean you should rely on them, you will have leakers, and the soviet ASMs are generally powerful enough that a single hit is going to cost you a ship.

As far as effectiveness of defenses goes, while your SAMs are better, the soviet ASMs are typically a lot better than yours. The Harpoon is fairly easy to intercept compared to the Sunburn.

Again, prevent them from shooting at you first.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Weapons are only effective if used in the proper situation. For example your AIM-54s are absolutely great at dealing with long range bombers at high altitude, that's what they were designed for.

They are not effective at dealing with targets that are hugging the ocean, they don't deal with ground clutter very well. Even a helicopter can evade them at 20 feet. Switch to your AIM-7s in that case. Or get in close and personal with AIM-9s.

For the most part, your SAMs are way more effective than the soviet SAMs, and so are your CIWS. That doesn't mean you should rely on them, you will have leakers, and the soviet ASMs are generally powerful enough that a single hit is going to cost you a ship.

As far as effectiveness of defenses goes, while your SAMs are better, the soviet ASMs are a typically lot better than yours. The Harpoon is fairly easy to intercept compared to the Sunburn.

Again, prevent them from shooting at you first.

AIM-54 was designed against ship missiles. Bombers were no longer a treat at that time. It's mostly why I'm upset in that case: F-14s are supposed to do the job against the Vampires.

That being said, the game working differently, I'll try your approach with AIM-7s or 9S if too close.

Thing is as I said my SAM on ships are not even able to shot down three poor MiG. I understand there RNG but it's a lot of misses for that. Because I'm okay with the Kirov and Slava being anti-carrier with ASMs but in that case it has to be the same for me with SAMs and it's not the case.

I pretty much sure the Granit is total fantasy in the capacities. But I'll accept the fact that Soviet ASMs are better than NATO ones. I'll try your tactic with striking with aircraft more agressively.

Also to point out: the mission was happening in a close sea that's why both TF were close in the scenario.

Thanks for the help !

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I'm indeed surprise that the weapon system is being successful at doing what it was specifically designed to do only work on one side. Why my anti-surface ammo and AIM-54 are completly useless and faulty ? The real problem is there. I'm not sure the actual russian weaponry even if supposed to be efficient is nowaday. You know what I mean. There is a huge difference on what something do on paper and for real.

No EMCON, only my subs are EMCON most of the time and I'm having no problems with ASW warfare. I'm saying USA faulty weaponry is really dumb compared to how USSR weaponry is supposed to be faulty and air combat are broken.

I know what you mean but Soviet Union is not Russia. Their equipment was new and well maintained back in the 80s. If you read NATO documents regarding Russian weapons from tanks to ways they adopted naval missions to account for the surprising level of soviet readiness in the 80s, there were tradeoffs. NATO was generally better technology wise but not to a point that matters. In their Next War exercise from 1988 even from a pure US perspective, NATO traded 7 boomers a couple of SSGNs and 26 SSNs for 23 US SSNs. That is a high attrition rate irrespective on how you look at it. And some of the engagements heavily favoured NATO forces as they were blue on blue water.

The Summerex 1985 was also a wake up call a sit involved over 200 USSR ships from 3 main fleets in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. And coordinated. Mid 80snwhere this game can take place the Soviet Navy was probably at its zenith.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

The AIM-54A that your planes have was designed to combat the threat of Tu-22 bombers, and if that failed the AS-4 and AS-6 missiles they carried in the initial phase of flight.

They do not work against sea skimmers, they are designed against high altitude targets.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by Mr.Gold:

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I'm indeed surprise that the weapon system is being successful at doing what it was specifically designed to do only work on one side. Why my anti-surface ammo and AIM-54 are completly useless and faulty ? The real problem is there. I'm not sure the actual russian weaponry even if supposed to be efficient is nowaday. You know what I mean. There is a huge difference on what something do on paper and for real.

No EMCON, only my subs are EMCON most of the time and I'm having no problems with ASW warfare. I'm saying USA faulty weaponry is really dumb compared to how USSR weaponry is supposed to be faulty and air combat are broken.

I know what you mean but Soviet Union is not Russia. Their equipment was new and well maintained back in the 80s. If you read NATO documents regarding Russian weapons from tanks to ways they adopted naval missions to account for the surprising level of soviet readiness in the 80s, there were tradeoffs. NATO was generally better technology wise but not to a point that matters. In their Next War exercise from 1988 even from a pure US perspective, NATO traded 7 boomers a couple of SSGNs and 26 SSNs for 23 US SSNs. That is a high attrition rate irrespective on how you look at it. And some of the engagements heavily favoured NATO forces as they were blue on blue water.

The Summerex 1985 was also a wake up call a sit involved over 200 USSR ships from 3 main fleets in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. And coordinated. Mid 80snwhere this game can take place the Soviet Navy was probably at its zenith.

Russia was core of Soviet Union. USSR did regroup a lo of countries but mostly to die for the motherland first.

What your saying is fair but I'm still sceptical about one fact: propaganda. Soviet or Russia, whatever, always played the big arms in telling: "We have better things". You are talking about maintenance. K-19 was a pure fiasco as first nuclear submarine. Oscar-II "Kursk" sustained an accident because of bad maintenance. Same with Chernobyl in the 80s and we never saw any soviet assets in action to truly prove that their equipement at that time were powerful enough. If you have a "Granit" working but just one... what kind of power it is ?

My point is: they did had dangerous weapons during Cold War. Like you said NATO said it. I'm just thinking that one some aspects some assets were totally not what they were supposed to be. Okay they had the "Granit" being a super intelligent missile. Then why no one has such at the moment ? I've noticed that when nation got something powerful they keep it for themselves and when you know about it they usually have something even more powerful. It's just what I'm saying. I'm not saying USSR should be destroyed everytime in "Sea Power", I'm saying I think the assets in the game are too much powerful compared to what they are supposed to do on the field.

Plus the inside problems in USSR that russia encoutered (in fact still had) after the collapse were in fact true since 1917. Even USSR was still a dictatorship with a disease in the core. I'm really sceptical about the well maintaned equipement, even during Cold War.

I'm not a flat earth believer guys just to reassure you I'm just sceptical because we're talking about "potential" things.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

The AIM-54A that your planes have was designed to combat the threat of Tu-22 bombers, and if that failed the AS-4 and AS-6 missiles they carried in the initial phase of flight.

They do not work against sea skimmers, they are designed against high altitude targets.

I'm okay with that but still the 54 is not supposed to miss fighters like that.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

There are multiple reasons why they would miss, a good candidate might be your planes not guiding them before they go terminal. You have to guide them a good while before their own seeker takes over, if the launching Tomcat loses radar track, then it's over.

Another one might be targets at very low altitude, as I said at 20 feet even a helicopter can evade them, the early AIM-54 wasn't equipped to deal with ground clutter.

And countermeasures are always a possibility of course, even if you did everything right they still might get spoofed, it happens.

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

There are multiple reasons why they would miss, a good candidate might be your planes not guiding them before they go terminal. You have to guide them a good while before their own seeker takes over, if the launching Tomcat loses radar track, then it's over.

Another one might be targets at very low altitude, as I said at 20 feet even a helicopter can evade them, the early AIM-54 wasn't equipped to deal with ground clutter.

And countermeasures are always a possibility of course, even if you did everything right they still might get spoofed, it happens.

It's funny that you mention helicopter because they obliterated each helicopter with one missile ! I was like: "There you work ???" lol

But having played a lot as RIO on DCS on board F-14 the 54 barely miss against fighters. I'd say alone against 4 bandits, when launched 4 AIM-54 usually 3 hit sometime on some occasion it's 2 on 4. Then we quickly go close up and personnal with AIM-7 or 9

Also I've noticed a thing: one of my F-14 was right behind a MiG I've ordered him to go gun the AI just took two turn to position it self while it was in position ... it's why I'm forgiving still air combat because I feel it's just broken honestly

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

What your saying is fair but I'm still sceptical about one fact: propaganda. Soviet or Russia, whatever, always played the big arms in telling: "We have better things". You are talking about maintenance. K-19 was a pure fiasco as first nuclear submarine. Oscar-II "Kursk" sustained an accident because of bad maintenance. Same with Chernobyl in the 80s and we never saw any soviet assets in action to truly prove that their equipement at that time were powerful enough. If you have a "Granit" working but just one... what kind of power it is ?

My point is: they did had dangerous weapons during Cold War. Like you said NATO said it. I'm just thinking that one some aspects some assets were totally not what they were supposed to be. Okay they had the "Granit" being a super intelligent missile. Then why no one has such at the moment ? I've noticed that when nation got something powerful they keep it for themselves and when you know about it they usually have something even more powerful. It's just what I'm saying. I'm not saying USSR should be destroyed everytime in "Sea Power", I'm saying I think the assets in the game are too much powerful compared to what they are supposed to do on the field.

Plus the inside problems in USSR that russia encoutered (in fact still had) after the collapse were in fact true since 1917. Even USSR was still a dictatorship with a disease in the core. I'm really sceptical about the well maintaned equipement, even during Cold War.

I'm not a flat earth believer guys just to reassure you I'm just sceptical because we're talking about "potential" things.

Only Chernobyl was an accident in the USSR. Kursk was an accident after the fall of the soviet union at a point where Russia was at its lowest... Well except now. The accident report indicates shoody discipline and lack of maintenance. Which tracks with late 90s early 2000s Russia. Not with 1985 Soviet Union. Bot in this way
The K-19 was an abomination. All militaries produce trash sometimes. This was rushed into service in a posturing exercise in response to the US nuclear boomers. I mean... It was a prototype.


Point is, NATO had an edge in submarine quieting and generally sensors and avionics. Soviet Union had an edge in cruise missiles, long range Anti Air missile systems and stockpiles of everything. Part of the Soviet doctrine against NATO fleets was to launch everything and the kitchen sink at them.