|
VictorInThePacific -> Sleazy Airplane Tactics (11/12/2008 12:57:13 AM)
|
These tactics work in the game, but may not make sense in real life.
1) None of the Soviet AA missiles function at VH altitude, although I am not sure how, exactly, this is handled. Only a few NATO AA missiles function at VH altitude. Most modern airplanes in Harpoon can fly VH. So if I want to achieve air superiority, I can fly my fighters around at VH and never get hit, picking off the enemy airplanes at my leisure. If my opponent was doing this, one obvious response would be to go VH myself, which might lead to some sort of stalemate. I don't think the AI can do this, though. This tactic would seem to be at least partly reasonable in real life, and indeed the Harpoon "Battlebook" actually suggests it.
Does anyone know if this is appropriate in real life or is it just a sleazy gaming tactic?
2) Similar to the above, many naval or land-based SAMs do not function at VH altitude. So I can fly my bombers or attack airplanes around at VH, dropping iron bombs, cluster bombs, spitballs, whatever, with pinpoint accuracy from very high up. This is certainly appropriate for B-52s but NOT for A-6 Intruders.
For example, in GIUK (Med. Opposed Convoy), the Soviet SAG has SA-N-1, SA-N-4, SA-N-7, and SA-N-9 SAMs, none of which reach to VH. So I could, in principle use this tactic, although I have a different solution.
I have never actually used this because I generally use stand-off weapons, which have no cost or ammunition limit (another sleazy tactic).
3) Some fighters have only short-range missiles, where "short" is relative to the opposing missiles. Most Soviet fighters fall into this category, as do the Harrier and the early F-16. In real life, if such airplanes are used in an air superiority role, they would need to get past the opposing long-range missiles. One way to reduce the number of opposing long-range missiles is to hit them with your airplanes, which is sometimes done in real life. A better way is to avoid the long-range missiles by maneuver. Unfortunately, the scale of Harpoon does not allow this to be simulated in detail.
This is what I would like do if all I have available is fighters with short-range missiles: Fly my fighters towards the enemy fighters, threatening to launch missiles (or, really, try to get into a superior dogfight position). If the enemy fighters launch missiles, turn and flee using afterburner (or really, evade by maneuver and try to get into a superior dogfight position). The problem is that, in the game, my fighters simply cannot turn around fast enough, and maybe they shouldn't reasonably be allowed to.
What I actually do is this: Park my fighters in front of the enemy fighters, on their line of advance. Turn them around so they face in the same direction as the enemy fighters. The enemy fighters never get to a good launch position because my fighters appear to be flying away, even though they are actually parked. When the enemy fighters get within range of my missiles, I fire (backwards !!) and flee. Works like a charm against the AI, but it is obviously just a sleazy tactic which any human can refute. But is the overall result "wrong"? If you put a bunch of F-16s against a bunch of MiG-23s, would it not be the case that the F-16s would rout the MiG-23s? And how would this be accomplished in Harpoon?
|
|
|
|
