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

[Knight0vvl]

OP doesnt mean opposition lol it means original post or original poster

[kimpromo2]

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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.

This is such a painfully bad argument it hurts. Firstly, people need to stop saying the P-700 doesn't work because "I don't think it does", that's a very bad line of thinking. Even if the datalink is fake, the fact of it being a supersonic, sea-skimming long range missile is very real and easily verifiable.

And this question of "Why does no one else have it if it works" is a bad question to start with. Military procurement is not simply based on what can kill something in a video game. Place yourself in the shoes of the USN; you need to maintain a wide naval presence across most of the world, with the core of your naval power based on aviation and carriers. Which missile will you use: a monstrous, 15000 pound missile that requires you to build entirely new ships and submarines around it, or the 10x lighter missile that can be strapped onto every single ship in your fleet with minimal difficulty and deck space, instantly giving your entire fleet effective ASHM capability, and can be carried in droves by your carrier planes that can strike from multiple directions at ranges well beyond the range of the aforementioned 15000lb missile.

(Not to mention, the US recently accepted the LRASM into service, which is a long ranged anti ship missile that uses the same swarm-communication datalink concept as the Granit).

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

This is such a painfully bad argument it hurts. Firstly, people need to stop saying the P-700 doesn't work because "I don't think it does", that's a very bad line of thinking. Even if the datalink is fake, the fact of it being a supersonic, sea-skimming long range missile is very real and easily verifiable.

And this question of "Why does no one else have it if it works" is a bad question to start with. Military procurement is not simply based on what can kill something in a video game. Place yourself in the shoes of the USN; you need to maintain a wide naval presence across most of the world, with the core of your naval power based on aviation and carriers. Which missile will you use: a monstrous, 15000 pound missile that requires you to build entirely new ships and submarines around it, or the 10x lighter missile that can be strapped onto every single ship in your fleet with minimal difficulty and deck space, instantly giving your entire fleet effective ASHM capability, and can be carried in droves by your carrier planes that can strike from multiple directions at ranges well beyond the range of the aforementioned 15000lb missile.

(Not to mention, the US recently accepted the LRASM into service, which is a long ranged anti ship missile that uses the same swarm-communication datalink concept as the Granit).

Did you see such in action ? Did you see it working ? It may be bad argument for you but this is one even if you can't deal with you. No one ever saw that kind of thing in action.

You are messing up different doctrine. It's a personnal opinion, if it's too much to you why do you even comment ? To proves me you're right ? I've put things I think are broken, it's my opinion. Just deal with it if you think it's bad. Not gonna change my life.

I don't think you do think better than me. Not here to fight if you have nothing interesting to say then just don't. It's not a matter of thinking here it's a matter of video game.

[kimpromo2]

I'm really not a fan of how it's becoming normalized to blame any sort of loss in military games on the devs being biased towards Russia. It can't possibly be that the USSR maybe posed a threat, or that maybe the game accidentally has some wrong stats, or perhaps the US military operates better when commanded by people with decades of education and training, and not some person playing a Steam game. No, it's obviously the devs artificially buffing Russia for propaganda purposes because... they just are!

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 ?

Were your radars on? An AWACS at max alt with the radar on should be easily spotting those MiG-25s as at least neutral contacts, and you should be sending out your F-14s to ID and engage any airborne targets. Same with your ships, if their radars are not on, they won't spot planes until they're very close. Ship based SAMs are currently weirdly weak against planes, but it's definitely not unique to NATO. You can dodge SA-N-6s by chaffing and flying straight in a F-15C.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 !

Yes, this is actually fairly accurate. In the timeframe of the game, none of the NATO ships have received upgraded Standards (Block III MR/ER) with improved fusing to allow them to reliably engage sea-skimming missiles, so you need to fire multiple to guarantee an interception. This is the same for the Soviets, but the Harpoon's slower speed gives them more chances to intercept. However, a Slava sinking half your fleet means you definitely didn't have any early warning systems. Try using helicopters as radar pickets, hovering around 1000ft with their radars on. They can spot sea-skimmers early and give your ships time to prepare to engage. AIM-54 is also not meant to engage sea-skimmers, it was mainly intended to shoot down high altitude AS-4/6s as well as the bombers launching them.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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.

It is a different time, yes. But they certainly didn't overpower NATO in the 80s, I'm not sure how you're getting this conclusion from a game where a NATO CVBG can easily wipe a dozen Soviet ships, nor why you're bringing tanks into this. And losing F-14s to MiG-23s mean you aren't utilizing the Phoenix's range, though air to air combat is also really bad right now (F-14 refuses to do anything but fly straight while guiding a Phoenix, lol). But real life is also not a video game; the MiG-23s were not commanded by an omnipotent, instant-reacting AI.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 because you can avoid having to be defend against a swarm of ASHMs in the first place. There are plenty of things you can do against a Slava; using helicopters as early warning, staying on EMCON, striking it with planes/missiles before it can fire back, etc. You say NATO isn't supposed to win every engagement, yet then complain that a real advantage of Soviet ships during the time period is unfair and bias. I'm also confused on the F-4 phantom comment, I'm not sure how a swing-wing interceptor is "built from F-4 scraps".

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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).

Not the right ship, you're thinking of the Slava/Moskva, which was much more an example of the horrendous training and maintenance of the modern Russian navy than anything else. It's on the same level as the USS Stark incident (though way more embarrassing due to the much worse outcome).

[[=VF=]-ZaRa]

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

I'm really not a fan of how it's becoming normalized to blame any sort of loss in military games on the devs being biased towards Russia. It can't possibly be that the USSR maybe posed a threat, or that maybe the game accidentally has some wrong stats, or perhaps the US military operates better when commanded by people with decades of education and training, and not some person playing a Steam game. No, it's obviously the devs artificially buffing Russia for propaganda purposes because... they just are!

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 ?

Were your radars on? An AWACS at max alt with the radar on should be easily spotting those MiG-25s as at least neutral contacts, and you should be sending out your F-14s to ID and engage any airborne targets. Same with your ships, if their radars are not on, they won't spot planes until they're very close. Ship based SAMs are currently weirdly weak against planes, but it's definitely not unique to NATO. You can dodge SA-N-6s by chaffing and flying straight in a F-15C.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 !

Yes, this is actually fairly accurate. In the timeframe of the game, none of the NATO ships have received upgraded Standards (Block III MR/ER) with improved fusing to allow them to reliably engage sea-skimming missiles, so you need to fire multiple to guarantee an interception. This is the same for the Soviets, but the Harpoon's slower speed gives them more chances to intercept. However, a Slava sinking half your fleet means you definitely didn't have any early warning systems. Try using helicopters as radar pickets, hovering around 1000ft with their radars on. They can spot sea-skimmers early and give your ships time to prepare to engage. AIM-54 is also not meant to engage sea-skimmers, it was mainly intended to shoot down high altitude AS-4/6s as well as the bombers launching them.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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.

It is a different time, yes. But they certainly didn't overpower NATO in the 80s, I'm not sure how you're getting this conclusion from a game where a NATO CVBG can easily wipe a dozen Soviet ships, nor why you're bringing tanks into this. And losing F-14s to MiG-23s mean you aren't utilizing the Phoenix's range, though air to air combat is also really bad right now (F-14 refuses to do anything but fly straight while guiding a Phoenix, lol). But real life is also not a video game; the MiG-23s were not commanded by an omnipotent, instant-reacting AI.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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 because you can avoid having to be defend against a swarm of ASHMs in the first place. There are plenty of things you can do against a Slava; using helicopters as early warning, staying on EMCON, striking it with planes/missiles before it can fire back, etc. You say NATO isn't supposed to win every engagement, yet then complain that a real advantage of Soviet ships during the time period is unfair and bias. I'm also confused on the F-4 phantom comment, I'm not sure how a swing-wing interceptor is "built from F-4 scraps".

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

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).

Not the right ship, you're thinking of the Slava/Moskva, which was much more an example of the horrendous training and maintenance of the modern Russian navy than anything else. It's on the same level as the USS Stark incident (though way more embarrassing due to the much worse outcome).

And I'm really not of fan on how it's becoming normal to defend russian assets nowadays. There are enough exemple of how USSR or russian proved themselves in lying about their capacities.

You really think I'm not gonna have radars ON for air fighting ? USSR TF was clearly spotted because one single ship isn't supposed to kill off a whole TF despite the capacities (I'm still waiting to see one russian ship destroying CVBG during present time, just show me a true exemple of this happening). AIM-54 was totally designed against bombers and ASM it why Carrier Wing were made with the F-14 being the defender of the fleet that was his main role.

I think you are lacking of arguments. I've never took my conclusion from games this is why I'm thinking the actual game is not giving things how they were supposed to happen. You won't persued me that USSR technology is better than NATO whatever the time. I think I perfectly know how to use AIM-54 since I have experienced the F-14 a lot on DCS.

I'm complaining about how it's happening. It's not really smart to stay EMCOM while you should fire first from longer range. But whatever. And I think you're confused because you have in fact absolutely no idea of what you're talking.

[Kimbo]

Originally posted by =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

Sea power devs came out and said they nerfed all NATO units and changed values of equipment to create "balance" Half the RU roster never existed except on paper and their equipment way outperforms their IRL counterparts. Main reason I did not buy this Propaganda piece

[kimpromo2]

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

And I'm really not of fan on how it's becoming normal to defend russian assets nowadays. There are enough exemple of how USSR or russian proved themselves in lying about their capacities.

I'm no fan of Russia, but I think it's incredibly silly to just assume nothing Russian ever works, and that it's bias if they pose a threat in a video game.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

You really think I'm not gonna have radars ON for air fighting ? USSR TF was clearly spotted because one single ship isn't supposed to kill off a whole TF despite the capacities (I'm still waiting to see one russian ship destroying CVBG during present time, just show me a true exemple of this happening). AIM-54 was totally designed against bombers and ASM it why Carrier Wing were made with the F-14 being the defender of the fleet that was his main role.

It's entirely possible, unless there was a bug. I recently played the Desert Strike workshop mission (or whatever the one that recreates the first night of the Gulf War is called) and my AWACS picked up the 5 MiG-25s almost as soon as they started flying towards me. And why is it unrealistic for a ship to be able to wipe out a small task force with 16 supersonic sea skimming missiles? You only need one or two hits to mission-kill a ship. And there aren't any examples of a single Russian ship destroying a CVBG, because there never was a WW3, but it also shouldn't be happening in game. There's also no examples of a CVBG successfully defending against a missile swarm attack, doesn't mean it can't happen. Also, yes. That is what I said. The AIM-54 and F-14 were designed to counter the AS-4 and AS-6 ASHMs, as well as the Backfires and Badgers that carried them. I believe later AIM-54s did have improvements against sea-skimming targets (RID or something like that), but it still has trouble locking low flying targets, especially ones traveling at around 2000km/h (though supersonic missiles do have a weirdly low interception chance in the code due to their speed it seems).

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I think you are lacking of arguments. I've never took my conclusion from games this is why I'm thinking the actual game is not giving things how they were supposed to happen. You won't persued me that USSR technology is better than NATO whatever the time.

That's what I am trying to say. This is a video game, it does not model the millions of external factors that go into fighting a war. You are an omnipotent commander with subordinates who perfectly follow your every order with no confusion or delay, and can pause to collect your thoughts at any moment. I'm also not trying to convince you USSR tech is better, but it is a fact that the USSR had supersonic, sea-skimming ASHMs that outranged US missiles.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I think I perfectly know how to use AIM-54 since I have experienced the F-14 a lot on DCS.

I'm sure your skill at a flight sim correlates to both real life performance and performance in a RTS.

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I'm complaining about how it's happening. It's not really smart to stay EMCOM while you should fire first from longer range. But whatever. And I think you're confused because you have in fact absolutely no idea of what you're talking.

It is very smart to stay on EMCOM until you are engaged. ESM is incredibly powerful in this game; try flying a RA-5C to high altitudes and watch as every radar emitting within ~100nm is pinpointed on your map. That's why you have early warning, so you know when your cover is blown and you can turn on your radars.

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

It's entirely possible, unless there was a bug. I recently played the Desert Strike workshop mission (or whatever the one that recreates the first night of the Gulf War is called) and my AWACS picked up the 5 MiG-25s almost as soon as they started flying towards me. And why is it unrealistic for a ship to be able to wipe out a small task force with 16 supersonic sea skimming missiles? You only need one or two hits to mission-kill a ship. And there aren't any examples of a single Russian ship destroying a CVBG, because there never was a WW3, but it also shouldn't be happening in game. There's also no examples of a CVBG successfully defending against a missile swarm attack, doesn't mean it can't happen. Also, yes. That is what I said. The AIM-54 and F-14 were designed to counter the AS-4 and AS-6 ASHMs, as well as the Backfires and Badgers that carried them. I believe later AIM-54s did have improvements against sea-skimming targets (RID or something like that), but it still has trouble locking low flying targets, especially ones traveling at around 2000km/h (though supersonic missiles do have a weirdly low interception chance in the code due to their speed it seems).

I did the math a few days ago and the difficulty of interception on a missile that is flying straight at your ship is... Interesting and not sure it is wrong. The P700 at Mach 1.6 for instance, the aperture angle for intersection increases ridiculously fast. To the point where if the supersonic cruise missile gets within 2.5Km, a Sea Sparrow would need a 32G manoeuvre to intercept the cruise missile. Which is impossible. As the sea sparrow can only sustain 30Gs. A d even before that the angle change is just fast. And if the missile does evasive manoeuvres then the max point of interception becomes over 3Km. Mathematically speaking. So not sure the game is wrong.

[kimpromo2]

Originally posted by Mr.Gold:

I did the math a few days ago and the difficulty of interception on a missile that is flying straight at your ship is... Interesting and not sure it is wrong. The P700 at Mach 1.6 for instance, the aperture angle for intersection increases ridiculously fast. To the point where if the supersonic cruise missile gets within 2.5Km, a Sea Sparrow would need a 32G manoeuvre to intercept the cruise missile. Which is impossible. As the sea sparrow can only sustain 30Gs. A d even before that the angle change is just fast. And if the missile does evasive manoeuvres then the max point of interception becomes over 3Km. Mathematically speaking. So not sure the game is wrong.

Eh I'm speaking more about the AS-4 and AS-6, which seem to have a really low interception rate. Even when diving in a straight line towards a ship, they seem very difficult to intercept, and the F10 menu reveals that missiles traveling at 2000kt/h+ essentially halves the intercept chance, and 3000kt/h+ makes them almost uninterceptable. I know speed plays a huge factor, but that just seems a bit absurd.

[F.U.D.F.]

Originally posted by Knight0vvl:

OP doesnt mean opposition lol it means original post or original poster

Lmao yeah I was confused at the beginning of the post...

[Julhelm]

Originally posted by Kimbo:

Sea power devs came out and said they nerfed all NATO units and changed values of equipment to create "balance" Half the RU roster never existed except on paper and their equipment way outperforms their IRL counterparts. Main reason I did not buy this Propaganda piece

Show me where we've ever said that. It's a complete lie.

[Julhelm]

Originally posted by =VF=-ZaRa:

I think I perfectly know how to use AIM-54 since I have experienced the F-14 a lot on DCS.

DCS is F-14B with AIM-54C. This is F-14A with AIM-54A which is much less reliable missile. Also people complain about the lackluster modelling of missiles in DCS all the time so not sure how it is relevant.

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

Originally posted by Mr.Gold:

I did the math a few days ago and the difficulty of interception on a missile that is flying straight at your ship is... Interesting and not sure it is wrong. The P700 at Mach 1.6 for instance, the aperture angle for intersection increases ridiculously fast. To the point where if the supersonic cruise missile gets within 2.5Km, a Sea Sparrow would need a 32G manoeuvre to intercept the cruise missile. Which is impossible. As the sea sparrow can only sustain 30Gs. A d even before that the angle change is just fast. And if the missile does evasive manoeuvres then the max point of interception becomes over 3Km. Mathematically speaking. So not sure the game is wrong.

Eh I'm speaking more about the AS-4 and AS-6, which seem to have a really low interception rate. Even when diving in a straight line towards a ship, they seem very difficult to intercept, and the F10 menu reveals that missiles traveling at 2000kt/h+ essentially halves the intercept chance, and 3000kt/h+ makes them almost uninterceptable. I know speed plays a huge factor, but that just seems a bit absurd.

Same problem. Aperture angles start increasing rapidly making it hard to get an intercept trajectory that works. Especially if the missiles perform evasive manoeuvres.

[patton610]

Dcs is F14A and 54A as well. To the extent thst the A was less reliable as a missile it less reliable against fighter sized maneuvering targets. It was fine against large bombers which were it's intended target. the B tomcat had upgraded engines. Nothing in the WCS changed.

[Julhelm]

Originally posted by patton610:

Dcs is F14A and 54A as well. To the extent thst the A was less reliable as a missile it less reliable against fighter sized maneuvering targets. It was fine against large bombers which were it's intended target. the B tomcat had upgraded engines. Nothing in the WCS changed.

How does DCS simulate defensive ECM on the bombers, if at all?