Electronic warfare too op

[Landbernt]

Sent 2 growlers withing 5nm of Kirov and spammed harpoons. Growlers survived and no needed to use AAA. Wtf is that? Sea power or Electronic power?

[Flanker90]

I suspect it's due to be rebalanced, similar to some other systems. Although I'm very eager for an update to the game to improve on the current state, if I were you, I wouldn't fret. Nothing about gave development is in our hands.

[thunda]

Its not EW thats OP, its the AI thats underpowered. It cant do anything about EW because its totally braindead and there's no scripting for counter-measures against Growlers among many other things. So when you send out a Growler or two and turn on the high beams, AI doesnt react at all. Thats why it feels OP. For example if the Kirov has a buddy ship with AA-missiles, they should split from formation so that the other ship gets out of EW beams and can shoot the Growlers down.

The answer is not to nerf EW, its to give AI a resemblance of intelligence. But I heard the dev team is quite small, the game is huge in scope and AI scripting is difficult because of all the different use cases. So I dont have much hope for decent AI in this game

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by thunda:

Its not EW thats OP, its the AI thats underpowered. It cant do anything about EW because its totally braindead and there's no scripting for counter-measures against Growlers among many other things. So when you send out a Growler or two and turn on the high beams, AI doesnt react at all. Thats why it feels OP. For example if the Kirov has a buddy ship with AA-missiles, they should split from formation so that the other ship gets out of EW beams and can shoot the Growlers down.

The answer is not to nerf EW, its to give AI a resemblance of intelligence. But I heard the dev team is quite small, the game is huge in scope and AI scripting is difficult because of all the different use cases. So I dont have much hope for decent AI in this game

To be quite honest, the burn-through distance seems extremely low, I've noticed that as well.

Not sure why, but it appears to me that for fire control radar, there is simply a weapon range reduction being calculated, while what should be done is burn-through capability of the radar being considered.

You'll notice that effect with the lower range soviet SAMs, I'm no radar technician but I doubt that a burn-through of less than 2nm is what it should be.

[navywades3]

During the eighties our prowlers were able to disrupt enemy radars to withing 2 nautical miles of the coast. The tactic was to use one prowler/intruder pair to head toward a radar site. While the prowler would jam the enemy radar site would increase power to burn through the field when they did this the intruder would launch an agm-88 harm to home in. When they maxed out the power they would see the prowler and intruder but the jammer would keep the missile hidden until boom

[navywades3]

Also for reference points the "growler" is the EA-18G the "Prowler" is the EA-6B

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by navywades3:

During the eighties our prowlers were able to disrupt enemy radars to withing 2 nautical miles of the coast. The tactic was to use one prowler/intruder pair to head toward a radar site. While the prowler would jam the enemy radar site would increase power to burn through the field when they did this the intruder would launch an agm-88 harm to home in. When they maxed out the power they would see the prowler and intruder but the jammer would keep the missile hidden until boom

That might be the case, however the SA-N-9 is affected as well, where the FCR has infrared tracking capability and the missile is command-guided.

Even if we accept the idea that the jamming is effective enough to reduce the FCR to 5% of its initial capability, which is quite a stretch to begin with.

Edit: At least the SA-N-9 can be explained by the radar apparently being set to the wrong band in game files, which combined with the set output would indeed put a simplified calculation in the area observed, when it actually should only be minimally affected at best. Additional infrared tracking mode isn't implemented as far as I can tell.

[navywades3]

But during the eighties all aspect ir homing was a brand new concept and wasn't a reliable guidance until the mid 90s

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by navywades3:

But during the eighties all aspect ir homing was a brand new concept and wasn't a reliable guidance until the mid 90s

It isn't IR homing, it is IR tracking command guidance, TV tracking with IR channel to be exact.

But that isn't implemented in game, and as I've found the FCR is not set to the correct band in game files, which at least somewhat explains the abysmal performance when it should be nearly unaffected by the AN/ALQ-99.

[navywades3]

Got it sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. And you're right that shouldn't have been affected by the all. Now late 90s we added ir jammer for command line. I wonder if the sa9 was the reason

[Stix_09]

based on this being a cold war era game I would expect the version in game to be the 9K330 "Tor" with the 9M330 missile.

Variants
9K330 "Tor" with the 9M330 missile, minimum range 2 km (1.2 mi), introduced in 1986
9K331 "Tor-M" with the 9M331 missile, minimum range 1.5 km (0.93 mi), introduced in 1991, with greatly improved missile accuracy and the ability to engage two targets simultaneously
9K331M "Tor-M1", "Tor-M1T" with the 9M331 missile, minimum range 1.5 km (0.93 mi)
Tor-M1V has a protection against spoofing

This is the ship version
https://en.missilery.info/missile/kinzgal

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Stix_09:

based on this being a cold war era game I would expect the version in game to be the 9K330 "Tor" with the 9M330 missile.

Variants
9K330 "Tor" with the 9M330 missile, minimum range 2 km (1.2 mi), introduced in 1986
9K331 "Tor-M" with the 9M331 missile, minimum range 1.5 km (0.93 mi), introduced in 1991, with greatly improved missile accuracy and the ability to engage two targets simultaneously
9K331M "Tor-M1", "Tor-M1T" with the 9M331 missile, minimum range 1.5 km (0.93 mi)
Tor-M1V has a protection against spoofing

This is the ship version
https://en.missilery.info/missile/kinzgal

Yes, the missile is the 9M330, though the issue in this case is with the FCR, not the missile.

[havocsquad]

Originally posted by Landbernt:

Sent 2 growlers withing 5nm of Kirov and spammed harpoons. Growlers survived and no needed to use AAA. Wtf is that? Sea power or Electronic power?

Yes, I understand a plane getting that close might be extremely frustrating.

Keep in mind that radar jamming burn through effect calculations are a very messy and complex business involving a host of factors that have to be factored in on how to implement a proper balance in the game.

Right now I would put this low on the list of priorities.

Right now the developers have bigger fish to fry, mainly:

1. Squeezing the most efficiency out of the Unity game engine has possible.
2. Full-court pressure on the Unity game engine 3rd party to optimize their engine better because it's this part that's making the game performance go to crap in long missions.
3. Aircraft AI improvements
4. Save game support
5. Framework/foundation work towards dynamic campaign.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by havocsquad:

Originally posted by Landbernt:

Sent 2 growlers withing 5nm of Kirov and spammed harpoons. Growlers survived and no needed to use AAA. Wtf is that? Sea power or Electronic power?

Yes, I understand a plane getting that close might be extremely frustrating.

Keep in mind that radar jamming burn through effect calculations are a very messy and complex business involving a host of factors that have to be factored in on how to implement a proper balance in the game.

Right now I would put this low on the list of priorities.

Problem isn't really the plane being close, but more the fact that a single EW plane does pretty much nullify any and all missile defense for a whole surface group too.

Just to illustrate, jamming from a single EA-6B (or the Soviet Ko-45, exact same performance) at 13nm (3000ft) will result in the following engagement distance reductions for the primary SAMs on these ships:

Ticonderoga, 40nm to 4nm
Slava, 50nm to 3.5nm
Virginia, 24.7nm to 2.3nm
Perry, 24.7nm to 1.6nm
Udaloy, 6.5nm to 0.5nm

Keep in mind that is against the aircraft, not even a missile with even lower RCS.

Distance is a factor obviously, but doesn't change anything in the big picture. Interestingly enough, crew training appears to be a factor as well, but not enough to make a difference either.

I wouldn't agree with low priority at all here to be honest, since despite the many failings it might currently have, the AI does make use of EW planes with ruthless efficiency.

In fact, I've yet to see the AI launch an airstrike where EW didn't turn up prior to the attack planes like clockwork if they are available.

Whats worse, with the current implementation of flight ops, this doesn't even come at an opportunity cost.

[thunda]

Again like I said, you are all barking up the wrong tree. Issue isnt EW effectiveness, its AI being more A than I. For example, breaking a dedicated AA destroyer or such off of the formation and send it ahead or away from the group to destroy the jammers could be a play. AI doesnt do any of that, it just sits there.

So they should #1 focus on making AI have some sh1t to do above all else. Give it reactions. They need to hire like minimum 2 dedicated AI script programmers

[supersound99ss]

Originally posted by thunda:

Again like I said, you are all barking up the wrong tree. Issue isnt EW effectiveness, its AI being more A than I. For example, breaking a dedicated AA destroyer or such off of the formation and send it ahead or away from the group to destroy the jammers could be a play. AI doesnt do any of that, it just sits there.

So they should #1 focus on making AI have some sh1t to do above all else. Give it reactions. They need to hire like minimum 2 dedicated AI script programmers

Not disagreeing AI needs major work and should on the top of the list, but I don't think you have ever read anything about standoff jamming.

As for your tactic suggestion, what chance do you think a ship can have of catching up to a EW plane and engaging? That would have to be a dumb player or dumb AI to allow a ship to move that far without repositioning.