Jump to content

Nato with no AA capabilities


Recommended Posts

Honestly REDFOR on-map anti-air assets shouldn't even be firing at BLUFOR helicopters or planes. MANPADS and AAA have a ceiling of about 14k feet at their longest range. BLUFOR aircraft can easily fly above those altitudes and employ their weapons effectively without having to worry about being shot down. Helicopters are the ones most at risk but they shouldn't be doing strafing runs recklessly when you call them in.

Is the game assuming that the Syrian IADS is robust enough that BLUFOR aircraft are being hindered by it enough that they need to fly low enough to be hit by shilkas? That makes sense in CMBS sometimes but I don't think it makes sense in the Syria of 2008. So if its unrealistic for Brits to not have stingers, BLUFOR aircraft shouldn't be getting shot down by AAA.

Just my two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you want to know why we don't break rules, and only reluctantly bend them, look no further than this thread.  Sometimes trying to do something is worse than doing nothing at all.  We always have to keep that in mind.  For the record, I'm fine with most of the trouble it took to deliver Red Force air support (improved since CMSF1, BTW) and Blue Force defenses, but there are limits.

This is one of the main reasons why I like CM so much, its fidelity to reality in all respects. There are plenty of games that bend and break the rules of reality on purpose for the supposed benefit of gameplay. I'm glad CM does not do this and that there are no plans to do this in the future.

47 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Honestly REDFOR on-map anti-air assets shouldn't even be firing at BLUFOR helicopters or planes. MANPADS and AAA have a ceiling of about 14k feet at their longest range. BLUFOR aircraft can easily fly above those altitudes and employ their weapons effectively without having to worry about being shot down. Helicopters are the ones most at risk but they shouldn't be doing strafing runs recklessly when you call them in.

Is the game assuming that the Syrian IADS is robust enough that BLUFOR aircraft are being hindered by it enough that they need to fly low enough to be hit by shilkas? That makes sense in CMBS sometimes but I don't think it makes sense in the Syria of 2008. So if its unrealistic for Brits to not have stingers, BLUFOR aircraft shouldn't be getting shot down by AAA.

Just my two cents.

As I'm sure you know, there are basically two levels to an air defense network. Long range, high altitude, and short range, low altitude. Long range assets include systems like the US Patriot missile and the Russian BUK and KUB. These are well outside the scope of CM.

Short range assets are like the ones you've already listed, MANPADS, AAA, etc. There are plenty of NATO attack aircraft that have weapon systems that have to be employed within the range of these air defense assets. The A-10's gun for example, any aircraft with unguided rockets, etc. Where I definitely agree with you is when you are dealing with an aircraft like an F-16 for example dropping a JDAM on a target. Those can be accurately dropped from 30,000 feet, miles away from the battlefield, thus well outside any SHORAD. My guess as to why SHORAD can still engage aircraft using these types of weapons is that modeling the appropriate behavior would take a lot of time and work for a somewhat negligible effect in game. 

There is also a pretty big grey area with helicopters. This is just an anecdote from me, so I have no idea if this is the actual case, but I have observed both in BS and SF2 that when you assign an Apache to a 'Heavy' mission that favors the Hellfires, it is not readily engaged by SHORAD assets. However, if you assign the Apache to a 'Medium' or 'Light' mission in which it has to strafe, it is readily engaged by SHORAD. I was playing a scenario in which I had an Apache shot down by a AAA technical because I had it set to a strafe mission. I called the other Apache in using the 'Heavy' tasking and it never received any fire despite launching 6 of its 8 Hellfires at targets. I've noticed this in multiple instances in both SF2 and BS. Again, this is anecdote so it does not count as objective evidence, but based on my experience it seems that the Apaches "pop-up attack" behavior (staying at tree top level so that targeting it is extremely difficult) is modeled. 

All that being said, I think the behavior as it is currently is not broken or outside reality. It would be nice to see it refined, but personally there are plenty of other things I would like to see tweaked/developed before time was spent on how aircraft and AA operate. If and when the behavior is tweaked in the future, I think the SOP will still be largely the same. Once AA assets have been identified, its best to neutralize them before liberally using air units.

Edited by IICptMillerII
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As others have said the people advocating for some form of AA defense for the Brits have a very weak case to make.  Syrian forces aren't likely to show up with air support at all and it's unlikely to be effective even if it does.  The claim that the lack of AA defenses for the Brits somehow unbalances/kills QBs is ridiculous.  And I'm being kind.

Bottom line...

Brits not having any AA defenses at all is not realistic.  Giving them Stingers is not realistic.  Giving them Stingers that are labeled "Starstreak" is not realistic.  Having the Brits need AA defenses at all is not realistic.  And yet here we are, sucking up my time dealing with an issue that by any reasonable definition isn't worth it.

 

thanks for the full response.  Never said it kills QB but as @MikeyD showed further up his entire armored force got smoked by redfor air with no way to fight back, so again, not sure how our argument is weak.  Fair enough on not wanting to put in x representing y.

and please don't remove redfor air support! 

also this video of syrian airpower being timely and effective against an enemy without manpads IRL

 

Edited by professionalXMAZ
wording
Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure one can show a QB situation where there's an overmatch situation.  QBs are prone to being unbalanced because there's far too many ways for one side to have a distinct advantage.  Doesn't matter what CM game you're talking about.  For example, CMRT where it's a fairly dense wooded map and the Soviets decide to go all in with infantry and a few ISU-152s while the Germans decide to go with a few Tigers and skimp on the infantry.  Or CMBN where the British player opts for a bunch Shermans and finds himself on a fairly flat map against a bunch of King Tigers on the defensive.  Or in CMFI where the Allied player goes up against the Italians (OK, sorry for the stereotypical dig ;) )

As for air defenses in CMSF2, I think we all know which side we'd like to be on with the air assets vs. the air defenses.  I seriously doubt that a player would feel his luck would be better with Blue Force without air defenses vs a Red Force with air support (all else being equal).  Put another way, would you rather put your money on a Blue Force with air support and no air defenses or on a Red Force with both air support and air defenses (all else being equal)?  Air defenses are definitely not a make or break element for the Blue and Red air defenses are definitely not magical shield.  Which means air defenses, for both sides, are not all that important when all things are considered.

The point is the ONLY way to guarantee some degree of balance is to have a hand crafted scenario made with that intent by a designer who knows how to pull it off.  QBs, as fun as they might be, simply can't replicate that because the QB system itself inherently works against balance.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve’s post really brings me back to points I made in another thread about QB planning. Playing against an opponent, I usually have at least a brief discussion on what we are trying to simulate. Some opponents really don’t care, they tell me to set up a QB and they will live with whatever is handed them ( @IanL is like that, and I am with him) but others we do have some sort of notion what we want to do. So if e want to simulate that something is affecting NATO air power over our battle, yes, it’s fine to give the Red forces air power and sadly, the NATO player will struggle. 

On the other hand, as fun as it is to see an air strike be successful, air power in CM is rarely a decisive factor. Not in any battle i’ve played anyways, even against someone who wanted to stack the deck and have a lot of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

Honestly REDFOR on-map anti-air assets shouldn't even be firing at BLUFOR helicopters or planes. MANPADS and AAA have a ceiling of about 14k feet at their longest range. BLUFOR aircraft can easily fly above those altitudes and employ their weapons effectively without having to worry about being shot down. Helicopters are the ones most at risk but they shouldn't be doing strafing runs recklessly when you call them in.

Is the game assuming that the Syrian IADS is robust enough that BLUFOR aircraft are being hindered by it enough that they need to fly low enough to be hit by shilkas? That makes sense in CMBS sometimes but I don't think it makes sense in the Syria of 2008. So if its unrealistic for Brits to not have stingers, BLUFOR aircraft shouldn't be getting shot down by AAA.

Just my two cents.

Agreed.  Only helicopters and aircraft using ‘dumb’ ordinance should be getting shot at by SHORAD.  Shilkas firing on F-15s dropping JDAMs is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For example, CMRT where it's a fairly dense wooded map and the Soviets decide to go all in with infantry and a few ISU-152s while the Germans decide to go with a few Tigers and skimp on the infantry.

That happened to me, glad I was playing as the Soviets.

I think there's also an RL trend in NATO, especially here in Canada, with SPAAGs fading out of service. The Soviets in Afghan removed radar from their Shilkas and replaced it with ammo. Why? Only use it had was engaging infantry at high elevations. Honestly, that's the only use I can see for SPAAGs in SF2. I wouldn't mind them for wrecking buildings, but I've yet to encounter SAA CAS of any consequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know those damned shilkas shot down my Luftwaffe Tornado IDS on its first attack run...  AAA can still be formidable if you're in range. You can spoof bullets 

 

That said I did think it was absyrd that a Tornado IDS would allow itself into the threat envelope of radar equipped AAA. For one the radar lock would light up the Tornado cockpit - my father told me his greatest fear when flying F4s in Europe in a Cold War gone hot scenario were the shilkas.  The pilots considered their tac nuke drops one way missions because if they made it back they'd probably be downed by friendly fire; but the plan to make it back was trying low level NOE flying and therefore shilkas scared the hell out of him. The amount of cannon shells it put downrange and the auto calculated lead meant you.d fly into a swarm of autocannon fire. I mention this because if my father flying F4s out of Torejon in Spain or Incirlik in Turkey knew about ZSU23s Im certain pilots 25 years later in better ppames would have a healthyknowledge of this platform and fly high enough to avoid its bullets. Add to that Tornado IDS does have weapons that can be used above 10k feet etc.

Anyways in the end CM is about ground combat.  They added in anti air fire and planes gttn shot down. I think a lot of us take for granted where we.re at forgetting a lot of arguing and work went into getting CM where its at and a lot of ideas have come and gone.. The end of the day its about ground combat and I think asking them to fully simulate airstrikes is a bit much (and people really wanted actual models of planes doing passes getting shot at.. Its endless) Id much rather see bunkers of different levels and camoflauge levels in QBs a rework of MOUT as much as possible, the ability to designate or buy in fortifications a "fortify building" option that you can use. You select the building in setup to be fortified and IDK when you hit go the texture changes.  You could have hasty prepared cheaper regular, and then long term preparations. And differejt camo levels. Id also like to see a rework of thr trench system and have an option for different kinds of trenches. We can pick foxholes instead of trenches - id like there to be a weapons pit trench option, and trench (overhead cover) and trench (sandbag pillbox) i think these ideas alone would really help in all games 

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a couple years back some one should use the Red Air Force planes in a scenario to represent an Eastern European Country's contribution to the NATO cause, because some Eastern European countries were still using some of the same planes in 2008. I'm still waiting for such a scenario. I probably will be for quite some time :) . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. You speaking of dreams my reality last night was an epic pc crash and i seem to be stuck in the dell win 10 auto repair loop. It cant it cant revert, it wont install win10 amd reformat. Totally at a loss all i can think of is gettn a flash drive and downloading something to hard reset. Almost 200g of stuff gone. Fml

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't update my SF1 to SF2. But I don't like the idea of remove Syrian Air Assets. Penny wise and pound-foolish. It is going to be a blow to people who love to play Syrian civil war scenarios.

Modern air battles happen in a very large area. Early warning to detect threat at 500km away. BVR Air to Air missiles and long range SAMs shoot at target 100km away, CAS aircraft drop JDAM 8000 ft above. This is way beyond CM Map's scale.  So why not make off map Air-Defense assets available?

I had this idea when I was playing CMBS. Maybe BFC can add an option called "CAP/Area denial" to both sides just like the EW Strength concept in  CMBS.  This is to simulate something like a F-22 shooting two AIM-120C at your poor Su-25, or a S-400 Battery released several SAM 100km away. When "CAP/Area denial" setting is at high level, there is high possibility the opposite side's Aircraft will get shoot down, or cancel their current task, or be driven off from their current station area  (become temporarily unavailable) 

 

Edited by Chibot Mk IX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for feature adds now is highly unlikely.  Especially to this degree, but on the other hand BF has no intention of removing Syrian air assets.  As to the S400 capability.  So far they haven't shown themselves to have much impact on the Israelis.  They are also outside scope of a game set in 2008.  Syria didn't get them until 2015.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

I haven't update my SF1 to SF2. But I don't like the idea of remove Syrian Air Assets. Penny wise and pound-foolish. It is going to be a blow to people who love to play Syrian civil war scenarios.

I definitely agree with you. I do not want Syrian air assets, red air assets in general to be removed. This is also very useful for scenarios in Africa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sburke said:

Asking for feature adds now is highly unlikely.  Especially to this degree, but on the other hand BF has no intention of removing Syrian air assets. 

I know, I just want to share my thoughts on this,  maybe it should be labeled as "Requested Features and Ideas" . Hopefully the development team will consider this when they work on next modern conflict game  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

I definitely agree with you. I do not want Syrian air assets, red air assets in general to be removed. This is also very useful for scenarios in Africa.

I don't understand why you guys keep stating this.  Steve has already confirmed they are not removing Syrian air assets.  Steve agrees with you. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the cap/area denial is a good idea that perhaps can be considered for a CM:Black Sea 5.0 upgrade, but the "wish list" of which Steve is the noble steward is quite quite long and development of one wish comes at the expense of other wishes. I won't begin to speculate what the priorities for the wish list development are at this point. As for CMSF 2 I don't think it's ever been hinted at as to if will be included in whatever 5.0 upgrades we may receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...