Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris



While typing this, I just realized that a middle-of-road compromise might be workable: Keep the above-described behavior while evading shots from aircraft (OR if the evading aircraft is SEAD-tasked, in which case it does want to get closer to the SAM), but opt for the first approach if evading SAMs (in which case we asume that the aircraft does prefer to stay away from them rather than duel them).

Would this work?

quote:

I have noticed this "problem" as well with AI behavior. That said I am not presuming to speak for DWReese but his posts have only mentioned SAMs and as he has described the issue in this thread I broadly agree with him.

Dimitri, your suggestion would be a good thing for me if the devs don't want too spend much time on this (Which I wholeheartedly understand as the amount of work in the last months must have been grueling).


To answer Apache85 otherwise a slightly more optimized solution would be

IF missile is an AAM THEN perform evasion maneuver
IF missile is a SAM AND of unknown type AND within 5 nm of a/c at time of detection THEN perform evasive maneuver,
IF aircraft is not destroyed THEN go to X, IF aircraft is destroyed END
X
IF no illuminating radar detected THEN dive and run on approx same course as missile had
when detected until no more missiles pose a threat, continue run for 5 sec after last
missile posed a threat
IF an illuminating radar is detected THEN dive and run from detected illuminating FCR until
no more missiles pose a threat, continue run for 5 sec after last missile posed a threat
IF missile is a SAM AND of unknown type AND more than 5 nm from aircraft at time of detection THEN dive and run on course that allows observation of missile and take evasive maneuver when missile reaches 2,5 nm from aircraft, REPEAT until no more missiles from same launcher is a threat, continue run for 5 sec after last missile posed a threat
IF missile is a SAM AND a SAM launcher has previously been identified (Not detected, only identified. Sic!) in a 60 degree cone extending backwards from the detected missile in a thought-up axis extending from aircraft to detected missile THEN perform rough calculation (With some chance of error, perhaps amount of error depending on pilot skill) assuming identified SAM launcher as threat to decide if chance of outrunning (presumed) missile (type) exists, IF TRUE go to Y, IF FALSE dive and run
Y
IF endgame chance of hit roughly anticipated to more than 5 % dive and run anyway
IF endgame chance of hit roughly anticipated to less than or equal to 5 % perform evasive
maneuver
IF unknown illuminating fire control radar detected THEN aicraft(s) being illuminated dives and runs from illuminating FCR on optimal course
IF illuminting FCR detected and identified AND illuminating radar associated with specific missile type/types THEN use actual missile range to perform rough calculation (With some chance of error) to decide if chance of outrunning presumed missile type exists, IF TRUE then dive and run, IF FALSE go to X

(EDIT: I apologize for not being able to structure the IF-THENs as they should be laid out but the forum software doesn't seem to recognize blank spaces at the start of a new row).

All numeric values are there as suggestions much more than definitive proposals. I only thought this up as I wrote it so I might have missed something and I am in no way sure that my solution is optimal or how easy it would be to implement, but
1) It would allow closing in on old, outdated SAM Systems with a almost zero chance of a hit with a modern aircraft with a (Compared to the SAM system) very modern self protection EW system (DECM in CMO parlance).
2) while always running away if it seems like a possibility to reach outside the missile's envelope in time (Which gives a zero probability of being hit) and
3) at the same time always running away from advanced SAMs
4) Also makes aircraft run away from suddenly appearing illuminating fire control radars mounted on prevously undiscovered SAM systems even when no missile is detected yet which might be a good thing if one is flying above the height of cloud cover and thus cannot visually acquire a missile while
5) Maintaining realism at a reasonable level.

The last two IF-THENs are kind of optional though (Running away from illuminators) an probably would require an option in doctrine to disable it as it would be easy to make an opponents aircraft run away just by turning on an illuminator, which in the game would be detected by all aircraft in the vicinity of said illuminator and just not the one or two aircraft in realty being painted (Ie being inside the highly directional illuminating radar's beam) as CMO doesn't model the highly directional characteristics of illuminators as regards detection by RWR/ESM equipment.
I am also aware that many SAM systems with the same illuminator use different missiles with different ranges (Eg Buk and Buk-M1) but I think there is a case for using the real value of the missile range since what equipment the enemy has access to would most likely be known in almost all real life cases. It does become a problem with regards to realism if a side in the game uses for instance both Buk and Buk-M1 systems though, but such occasions are fairly uncommon.

Also, running at high altitude if the calculations indicate the aircraft can escape the SAM that way might be an idea to use against missiles with early 2000s or later active seekers since background clutter probably won't give much of a protection for an aircraft being targeted by such a missile (In other words, almost all missiles with the characteristic "Capable versus Sea-skimmer" in-game) anyway.

As a side note, it's somewhat unfortunate that DECM systems does not function in a more realistic way in CMO, ie the same way as OECM systems so the system could break the lock-on from the tracking radar and then the missile would quickly veer of course, which the pilot would notice and which would not lead to any evasive maneuvering. For instance an AN/ALQ-211 self protection ECM system coming up against an non-upgraded SA-2f would probably be able to break lock almost all of the time, except at very short ranges.
It would be very handy if a DECM system would be able to jam a single or perhaps a few emitters, the latter on more modern aircraft or aircraft with two pilots, with much lower jamming power than ECM systems but enough to break lock-on for incoming missiles. That would make this problem much easier to solve."

quote:

ORIGINAL: c3k

At combat ranges, full afterburner time is measured (in some cases) in just single-digit minutes.

I like the ideas for IF/THEN with various missiles. Getting away from the launcher is THE highest priority...unless you're just about to be hit by a missile. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I vote for the opposite and reverting to a more abstracted model because you'll never account for all the variables and possible interactions no matter how much work is put into it. And it will be done at the expense of other development efforts.

And here we are.

quote:

Whether that's barreling down the pipe right at an enemy SAM with a missile in the air, inching closer or further away through weaves, beaming the threat, or turning and running, those options at least manage player expectations and won't leave them scratching their heads in frustration that the airplanes aren't doing what they want them to be doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I come back to the point of Command. Its not to drive individual airplanes. I think it has already gone down a significant rat hole of ever increasing expectations as more the devs try to mollify the detailed individual unit crowd. Its slowly losing its flavor as an operational simulation. And devs deciding to go further down that rat hole will only weaken other parts of the game.

Just take a look at some of the requests for details like visibility out of a canopy. Each time one of those requests are fulfilled, the next request is waiting in the wings. The refrain is that if you did that, you need to do this.

If people are frustrated that individual planes and tanks aren't adhering to their perception of realistic detailed tactics, they are probably playing the wrong game. They should be playing DCS or Combat Mission. And note that those games have extremely limited scopes compared to this game. I feel like they are trying to turn Command into DCS. Its why the devs went to the effort to create the 3D view. And got pretty much hammered for it. In fact, its probably causing more expectation issues from the flight sim crowd than anything.

And I come back to my main point. There will be no compromise. The devs will tweak and add a few things in. But in a month or two, we'll get the next thread asking pilots can't do X or Y when DCS lets them do it. Or why isn't armor facing taken into account. It has been and will be never ending.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim
I think you're missing a finer point that these are all very much operational-level concerns.

quote:


That's why being able to set "rules" and lateral limits is even more important for a sim like Command. So you don't have to plot courses and take control of individual airplanes, you can worry about other things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

I don't disagree with you, but it's also important that the rules you're asking aircraft to follow are actually meaningful in the context of the game. Some of the tactics you're describing (e.g. hot weave) work in part because you're aerodynamically defeating the weapon, forcing it to expend energy maneuvering and decreasing its effective range. Since Command doesn't model the missile flyout in that level of detail (notice how weapon speed is constant throughout flyout) it's unclear if the tactic would work properly in the simulation even if players used it. It also doesn't pre-emptively release decoys unless told to. Without those details, does it even matter if the simulation behaves exactly the way you think it ought to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

PC pilots tend to only focus on aircraft capabilities. Missing completely that the point of Command is how all the various operational components work together. Why model all this supposed detail in response to SAMs, when the SAMs themselves have significant abstractions? As was said before, ECM, SAM performance, radar capabilities, pilot experience, etc. all are a factor that the level of detail that is being requested need to consider. This thread shows an unhealthy obsession with only one minor aspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenSim
And to the point of merging operational components together, we still don't even have a proper way to do that in the first place. The lack of a strike package planner or TOT function is the biggest handicap in my eyes for bringing Command back into that "mission"-level sweet spot. The less I have to worry about whether Airplane X is going to end up precisely 30 seconds ahead of Airplane Y and what airspeed Airplane Z has to fly at to be 30 seconds behind X the better. If our tools for doing mission-level tasks were better than the tools we have for doing tactical-level tasks such as micromanaging launch times, running route/fuel calculations, and manually firing weapons, there would probably be far fewer tactical-level requests for changes.