Pls. no more 4HE AAM....

[molnibalage]

When will Eugen realize what an inbalance is cause by this?
8+ years was not enough to understand YOUR system...?????

[Keinutnai]

Agreed! It's ridiculous that we even have to get a discussion about this.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by Keinutnai:

Agreed! It's ridiculous that we even have to get a discussion about this.

And yes, still we are speaking about this even I mentioned at least twice since the release of WARNO beta.

It is insane how blind and deaf Eugen while the issue is 100% obvious since AGES.

[sadoeconomist]

What is the issue you're talking about? I haven't ever seen anyone say 4HE AAMs specifically would be a problem in these games. Do you think that's too weak, too strong, or what?

[abyssalKILLJOE]

Ya, i don't understand what's the problem here.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by sadoeconomist:

What is the issue you're talking about? I haven't ever seen anyone say 4HE AAMs specifically would be a problem in these games. Do you think that's too weak, too strong, or what?

Originally posted by abyssalKILLJOE:

Ya, i don't understand what's the problem here.

Any fighter with a 5HE + 4HE missile or just having 4HE missile is a GARBAGE compared to the 5HE equipped. The 6+4 or 5+5 HE capable planes can kill a target with two hits while the other planes needs three. Which means giving for ex twp AIM-9L with 4HE to any plane (or older AAM) is simply pointless. They never will kill anything no matter their veterancy.

The cumulative Pk with this s*it 4HE missile

50% ACC 4 missiles 3 hits = 31%
40% ACC 4 missiles 3 hits = 17%
30% ACC 4 missiles 3 hits = 8%

If the ACC is 40% to hit 3 times from 4 missiles is 17%. = ***** useless.

If you change the dmg to 5HE it means the following:

50% ACC 4 missiles 2 hits = 68%
40% ACC 4 missiles 2 hits = 52%
30% ACC 4 missiles 2 hits = 34%

Also a plane with SARH + IR missile can use the same time BOTH and kill the target. While a plane with 5HE SARH + 4HE IR can't do.

A German F-4 without AIM-7 and only 4HE SR IR AAM literally can't shot down 0% ECM old plane...
This is true also backwards. The old Red jets with only 4HE AAM are simply does not have ANY FUNCTION in the game.

While check the price and avail different of the crap 4HE capable planes...

It is amazing that so many ppl. do not understand the foundation of the game regarding AIR tab... Not even the creator of the game following 8+ year of experience with the WG...

[SS]

In theory the HE represents the potency of the missile. Old missiles were less potent. So if you want mpre HE in the old missiles, the new should get buffed too. But if you do this, you introduce a dilemma. Those current missiles that have 6 HE, will have 7, and with a crit that will mean one-shot, a very annoying situation.

I think its not necessary to buff the HE, just apply what the modders did in the 1991 mod, i.e. split missile loadouts, or provide repply fire to those planes without M-R AAMs.

Furthermore, I don't know if it's intendent or not, and if is not, it maybe will get backward, but autocannons in this game are op, due they inflict more damage compared to WGRD. If they dont change this, with the adition of the above, those planes that currently are bad, could be as good as current EG "MIG-21bis LAZUR" or the YUG "L-17K" (WGRD planes).

[DamNed]

Hey there and thanks for feedbacks
The AA / Planes interractions are not carved in stone already, as there are still balance work to be done until release.
Anyway, even if some interesting analysis were done here, there are multiple facts to ce taken into account about AA.ECM are very differents, speeds, but mostly, the AA net you create in game.
Even if calculating a hit ratio is interesting, i think it lacks a very important aspect of the game, the AA net you create. You can't analyse AA by looking at HE from one missile, even if you check for a salvo of 3. AA net is supposed to be composed with several units type, AA missile inf, AA mechanized, SPAAG, Planes...
It may not be that obvious, but some very slight changes about 1HE, can f*** up a lot of balance in the AA / plane area.

As a matter of fact, I think you bring an interesting thoughs here, and be sure that we got some ideas / setting to try out on our side about AA here, but i just wanted to bring some additionnal intel here ;)
Thanks for taking the time to developp your thought !

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by SS:

In theory the HE represents the potency of the missile. Old missiles were less potent. So if you want mpre HE in the old missiles, the new should get buffed too. But if you do this, you introduce a dilemma. Those current missiles that have 6 HE, will have 7, and with a crit that will mean one-shot, a very annoying situation.

I think its not necessary to buff the HE, just apply what the modders did in the 1991 mod, i.e. split missile loadouts, or provide repply fire to those planes without M-R AAMs.

Furthermore, I don't know if it's intendent or not, and if is not, it maybe will get backward, but autocannons in this game are op, due they inflict more damage compared to WGRD. If they dont change this, with the adition of the above, those planes that currently are bad, could be as good as current EG "MIG-21bis LAZUR" or the YUG "L-17K" (WGRD planes).

The base ACC and range differentiates the missile and aim time not their HE should do...

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by DamNed:

Hey there and thanks for feedbacks
The AA / Planes interractions are not carved in stone already, as there are still balance work to be done until release.
Anyway, even if some interesting analysis were done here, there are multiple facts to ce taken into account about AA.ECM are very differents, speeds, but mostly, the AA net you create in game.
Even if calculating a hit ratio is interesting, i think it lacks a very important aspect of the game, the AA net you create. You can't analyse AA by looking at HE from one missile, even if you check for a salvo of 3. AA net is supposed to be composed with several units type, AA missile inf, AA mechanized, SPAAG, Planes...
It may not be that obvious, but some very slight changes about 1HE, can f*** up a lot of balance in the AA / plane area.

As a matter of fact, I think you bring an interesting thoughs here, and be sure that we got some ideas / setting to try out on our side about AA here, but i just wanted to bring some additionnal intel here ;)
Thanks for taking the time to developp your thought !

You can't create a 'net' with a weapons system what does not have any firepower.

Low ACC and low HE means that. Also the 3-4HE MANPADs are also very questionable from my POV.

I had many more simple ideas to improve the air combat and SAMs but sadly none of them were applied. :(

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by Friendo:

Originally posted by DamNed:

Hey there and thanks for feedbacks
The AA / Planes interractions are not carved in stone already, as there are still balance work to be done until release.
Anyway, even if some interesting analysis were done here, there are multiple facts to ce taken into account about AA.ECM are very differents, speeds, but mostly, the AA net you create in game.
Even if calculating a hit ratio is interesting, i think it lacks a very important aspect of the game, the AA net you create. You can't analyse AA by looking at HE from one missile, even if you check for a salvo of 3. AA net is supposed to be composed with several units type, AA missile inf, AA mechanized, SPAAG, Planes...
It may not be that obvious, but some very slight changes about 1HE, can f*** up a lot of balance in the AA / plane area.

As a matter of fact, I think you bring an interesting thoughs here, and be sure that we got some ideas / setting to try out on our side about AA here, but i just wanted to bring some additionnal intel here ;)
Thanks for taking the time to developp your thought !

This creates a race to the bottom where prices on AA have to be consistently lowered because you must bring too many relative to ground forces. You wouldn't bring an entire battery of KUBs to cover a single tank platoon in reality but that's what is required ingame.

If you asked me I would say because of the scale of the game every SAM which is not a "self contained" SHORAD simply should not be in the game in the 3D world. They should be strat. assets in the campaign. HAWK, 2K12, 2K11 (which is not even in the game...) are not fit to the 3D world. 9K33 OSA, Roland these are good.

Or if Eugen still wish to use them the whole speed - distance compression should be rethink with pricing. It is insane how the Kub is modelled both in range and ACC wise... It is pointless to put into the game a SAM which provided area defense compared to the range of unguided rockets, bombs or even compared to AGM-65...
... while in the game the hit distance of a Kub is literally identical with an OSA or 2K22...
In fact in reality even the OSA had limited area denial against any strike planes while in the game it does not have this feat...

Give a real longer range and high price and low avail it to model its function or delete the Kub. (and HAWK). It is pointless to have such an impotent 20 km range SAM which in the game acts rather like a 10 km range SAM or even shorter range translated to the RL.

The main issues of the game that simply does not discriminate the launch range from guided range. If the track is not broken above max. range value against the receding plane the hit and tracking range can be even twice than against than incoming.

In RL to hit an incoming target at ~ 20 km with the Kun the missile has to be launched at ~ 26-28 km target range against a 300 m/s fast incoming target. So the track shall be done 30 km+. While the game the range = tracking range then comes the aim and launch. Which is TOTALLY silly.

This happens because the insane range compression...

[sadoeconomist]

Aren't you just completely ignoring the guns on the plane here? If you land 2 hits with 4HE AAMs the gun usually quickly makes up the difference, so the math is not as dire as you're making it out to be. It's just false to say that the German F-4 literally can't shoot down planes, you're ignoring their primary weapon - older Vietnam-era fighters are just more dependent on using their guns than newer ones. I watched a replay yesterday from Protosszocker where he used MiG-21s in combination with ground AA to shoot down tons of aircraft, including F-15s - older fighters are justified in having a low price/high availability but they're not worthless garbage with no function in the game like you're saying, they can easily justify their point investment with one kill against pretty much anything else in the sky.

The difference between planes with 4HE IR AAMs and 5HE is in how dangerous they are specifically at medium range, the older planes have to close in and chase down their targets more, but they can still potentially shoot down aircraft that are double or triple their points cost and make it back alive to do it again. And against helicopters in particular an F-4 with 6 AIM-9Js is arguably more effective than an F-15 with 2 AIM-9Ms but far more cost-efficient.

You're looking at these missiles in isolation, while as the dev pointed out, you need to judge them in the context of the complete AA environment. A 4HE missile will do the job just as well as a 5HE missile against a plane that's taken a hit from a 6HE+ missile from a radar SAM or ASF, and two will have the same effect against a plane that's been hit by a MANPAD or a short burst from a SPAAG. If a plane can come in and do the same job as a newer model at half the cost, it's not exactly worthless.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by sadoeconomist:

Aren't you just completely ignoring the guns on the plane here? If you land 2 hits with 4HE AAMs the gun usually quickly makes up the difference, so the math is not as dire as you're making it out to be. It's just false to say that the German F-4 literally can't shoot down planes, you're ignoring their primary weapon - older Vietnam-era fighters are just more dependent on using their guns than newer ones. I watched a replay yesterday from Protosszocker where he used MiG-21s in combination with ground AA to shoot down tons of aircraft, including F-15s - older fighters are justified in having a low price/high availability but they're not worthless garbage with no function in the game like you're saying, they can easily justify their point investment with one kill against pretty much anything else in the sky.

The difference between planes with 4HE IR AAMs and 5HE is in how dangerous they are specifically at medium range, the older planes have to close in and chase down their targets more, but they can still potentially shoot down aircraft that are double or triple their points cost and make it back alive to do it again. And against helicopters in particular an F-4 with 6 AIM-9Js is arguably more effective than an F-15 with 2 AIM-9Ms but far more cost-efficient.

You're looking at these missiles in isolation, while as the dev pointed out, you need to judge them in the context of the complete AA environment. A 4HE missile will do the job just as well as a 5HE missile against a plane that's taken a hit from a 6HE+ missile from a radar SAM or ASF, and two will have the same effect against a plane that's been hit by a MANPAD or a short burst from a SPAAG. If a plane can come in and do the same job as a newer model at half the cost, it's not exactly worthless.

Planes die long before they can use that. Or follolwing dmg. their CTH is so low that you can igonre it, because the ECM decreases that which is plain silly.

[sadoeconomist]

Originally posted by molnibalage:

Planes die long before they can use that. Or follolwing dmg. their CTH is so low that you can igonre it, because the ECM decreases that which is plain silly.

That's not true. Especially for older planes with the worst 4HE AAMs like the F-4E, their cannon has a range of 3180m compared to their missiles' range of 3534m, barely any difference, while the accuracy on the M61 cannon and the AIM-9J is exactly the same, 40%, and ECM works the same way against both but cannons get more chances to hit. They fixed the bug with ECM decreasing chance to hit months ago IIRC.

If your planes are always dying before they can get any work done with their guns, you must be throwing them away in suicide runs over concentrated enemy AA - if you use them to pursue CAS planes and bombers evacuating along the edge of the map, or send them to attack unsupported helicopters, you can often see them use their guns to get kills.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by sadoeconomist:

Originally posted by molnibalage:

Planes die long before they can use that. Or follolwing dmg. their CTH is so low that you can igonre it, because the ECM decreases that which is plain silly.

That's not true. Especially for older planes with the worst 4HE AAMs like the F-4E, their cannon has a range of 3180m compared to their missiles' range of 3534m, barely any difference, while the accuracy on the M61 cannon and the AIM-9J is exactly the same, 40%, and ECM works the same way against both but cannons get more chances to hit. They fixed the bug with ECM decreasing chance to hit months ago IIRC.

If your planes are always dying before they can get any work done with their guns, you must be throwing them away in suicide runs over concentrated enemy AA - if you use them to pursue CAS planes and bombers evacuating along the edge of the map, or send them to attack unsupported helicopters, you can often see them use their guns to get kills.

So it means guns are also modeled in funny way.

Simply EUGEN did not learn ANYTHING about their system in the last 8 years.
It is shocking to me.

[Radioshow]

PACT generally has better AA systems overall and more of them. PACT has far more AA options and generally better ones. So NATO gets a marginally better MANPAD while PACT gets better AA overall. Dont forget only Apaches are armoured, Cobras die to a fart. And Iglas have longer range as well and a 9 per card while Stingers are only 6 per crad. You are looking at one unit without the whole picture as stated by Eugen above.