Missile hit ratio (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Have -> Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 2:53:17 PM)

Boy are my naval aviators and ship missile operators in need of some Top Gun training or what?
I'm playing Operation Bass Drum, where US Navy is fighting against Iran in 2017. After couple of hours of fighting the Losses & Expenditures panel has these numbers:

Expenditures:
124x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
19x AIM-9X Sidewinder
36x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6MR Blk I
27x RIM-162A ESSM
13x RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA
1x RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB

Iran Air Force Losses:
21x MiG-29M2 Fulcrum C
5x J-7IIH Fishbed
6x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
4x J-10A
3x F-14A Tomcat [F-14AM]
2x P-3F Orion

So 18.6% probability of kill. Air-to-Air kill ratio is something like 5:1 and that is by manually eliminating most of the stupid mistakes the AI does.

Luckily the opponent does not do much better, he has 13.6% Pk with his missiles. I wish the game would keep statistics by weapon type. I am pretty sure the AMRAAM does not have even 10% Pk. It seems that every opponent gets a decoy in the air (20% chance to seduce the sensor), defensive jammer on (even though the game does not indicate it in any way (~5% chance to spoof sensor) and then they always seem to get maximum evasive maneouvers putting the final probability of hit to somewhere around 25%, according to the game logs.

Maybe what is lacking is some pilot skill factor since it seems that every plane is piloted by a pilot of equal (maximum) capacity?



Dimitris -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 2:55:02 PM)

That, and reducing agility in successive missile evasions since every dodge costs energy.



Primarchx -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 4:15:06 PM)

OBD is meant to be hard. Those MiG-29M2s are some of the most difficult aircraft in the game to shoot down (good ECM/decoys + awesome Agility). There are alternatives to splashing them plane-by-plane, though.

However there are certainly improvements that can be made to the air combat model which should temper the effect of Agility.



Have -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 4:43:45 PM)

Yeah, OpBD is especially hard because of the 50p point penalty of every lost F-35. So far, I have lost 4 out of 6. Every time same story. I used them as CAP fighterss to help out the hornets. When they attack an enemy, they go head on, fire the AMRAAMS (which almost always miss) and then close in for Sidewinder range. This allows the enemy fighters to fire their missiles and get some easy F-35 kills. Only way to protect the fighters is to manually plot waypoints away from the enemies for them so that they don't get in close. Still, when there is a lot going on, you cannot sheperd every single plane.

Basically most of the time is spent fighting the stupid AI. It gets pretty frustrating after a while when you have to watch over everything - Can't allow automatic RTB because then you can't control speed, can't allow to automatically engage enemy fighters because of needless losses when closing in, can't allow automatic SAM fire because of excess missile consumption etc. etc.

Also, based on the logs of weapon hits, it seems that the F-35B does not even have a defensive jammer.

I like the game and the core idea, but playing it can be so frustrating.



john688 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 7:08:37 PM)

Does defensive maneouvering take into account target aspect and energy, or is it just a set die roll for each aircraft.?



Primarchx -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 8:11:22 PM)

Probably time to switch tactics and methods. Last time I played OBD the Iranians didn't see my first aircraft until I had Super Hornets over Cha Bahar destroying the airfield's ability to conduct flight ops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Have

Yeah, OpBD is especially hard because of the 50p point penalty of every lost F-35. So far, I have lost 4 out of 6. Every time same story. I used them as CAP fighterss to help out the hornets. When they attack an enemy, they go head on, fire the AMRAAMS (which almost always miss) and then close in for Sidewinder range. This allows the enemy fighters to fire their missiles and get some easy F-35 kills. Only way to protect the fighters is to manually plot waypoints away from the enemies for them so that they don't get in close. Still, when there is a lot going on, you cannot sheperd every single plane.

Basically most of the time is spent fighting the stupid AI. It gets pretty frustrating after a while when you have to watch over everything - Can't allow automatic RTB because then you can't control speed, can't allow to automatically engage enemy fighters because of needless losses when closing in, can't allow automatic SAM fire because of excess missile consumption etc. etc.

Also, based on the logs of weapon hits, it seems that the F-35B does not even have a defensive jammer.

I like the game and the core idea, but playing it can be so frustrating.




Primarchx -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 8:12:22 PM)

Not yet. There's been a lot of discussion about expanding the air combat model to take things like what you suggest into account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688

Does defensive maneouvering take into account target aspect and energy, or is it just a set die roll for each aircraft.?




john688 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 8:51:51 PM)

OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?



Primarchx -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 8:56:48 PM)

To a degree. At best the aircraft is not closing with the missile which may result in it running out of gas before hitting. It's also accurately depicting aircraft trying to avoid a missile and may do things like lose radar guidance on a SARH missiles it's guiding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688

OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?




Blu3wolf -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 9:29:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Have

Boy are my naval aviators and ship missile operators in need of some Top Gun training or what?
I'm playing Operation Bass Drum, where US Navy is fighting against Iran in 2017. After couple of hours of fighting the Losses & Expenditures panel has these numbers:

Expenditures:
124x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
19x AIM-9X Sidewinder
36x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6MR Blk I
27x RIM-162A ESSM
13x RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA
1x RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB

Iran Air Force Losses:
21x MiG-29M2 Fulcrum C
5x J-7IIH Fishbed
6x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
4x J-10A
3x F-14A Tomcat [F-14AM]
2x P-3F Orion

So 18.6% probability of kill. Air-to-Air kill ratio is something like 5:1 and that is by manually eliminating most of the stupid mistakes the AI does.

Luckily the opponent does not do much better, he has 13.6% Pk with his missiles. I wish the game would keep statistics by weapon type. I am pretty sure the AMRAAM does not have even 10% Pk. It seems that every opponent gets a decoy in the air (20% chance to seduce the sensor), defensive jammer on (even though the game does not indicate it in any way (~5% chance to spoof sensor) and then they always seem to get maximum evasive maneouvers putting the final probability of hit to somewhere around 25%, according to the game logs.

Maybe what is lacking is some pilot skill factor since it seems that every plane is piloted by a pilot of equal (maximum) capacity?


have you had a look at historical data for Pk? You are above average compared to history.

the delta slammer is new tech, so no idea how that should fare, but given what it is being shot at... I am hardly surprised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

To a degree. At best the aircraft is not closing with the missile which may result in it running out of gas before hitting.



pretty much all missiles that intercept their targets run out of gas first...



john688 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 9:32:03 PM)

Thanks



Dimitris -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 10:55:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688
OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?


No.



Primarchx -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/11/2013 11:53:00 PM)

I've seen the same %hit with the same quoted variables regardless of beaming or not. What does beaming do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688
OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?


No.




MR_BURNS2 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 5:50:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I've seen the same %hit with the same quoted variables regardless of beaming or not. What does beaming do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688
OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?


No.






It forces the missile to bleed more energy because it has to turn hard for the new intercept course and it has a longer way to fly, the missiles energy will be reduced greatly in the endgame.



Temple -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 6:09:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2
It forces the missile to bleed more energy because it has to turn hard for the new intercept course and it has a longer way to fly, the missiles energy will be reduced greatly in the endgame.


This takes me back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when I digesting Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert L. Shaw cover to cover so I could get a better understanding of how to play Air War Modern Tactical Air Combat by SPI a bit better. Things sure have changed...




[image]local://upfiles/7271/A7353C3A105644AD8E67303F898BEC3D.jpg[/image]



Dimitris -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 6:48:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2
quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I've seen the same %hit with the same quoted variables regardless of beaming or not. What does beaming do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: john688
OK, so when we see the AI appearing to try and beam the missile is this just cosmetic. ?


No.



It forces the missile to bleed more energy because it has to turn hard for the new intercept course and it has a longer way to fly, the missiles energy will be reduced greatly in the endgame.


There are also other factors involved, related to seeker tech generation & sensitivity.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 7:38:49 AM)

Comparing Weapon Expenditures directly to Losses doesn't factor in something extremely important: the tendency of the 'helper AI' to fire multiple missiles at one target (aka ripple firing).

If one of them hits, the other follow-on weapons in the same volley will miss no matter what. So the ratios aren't going to be right unless you're do a ton of 1v1 manual firing of single weapons for a good sampling.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 8:45:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Temple

quote:

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2
It forces the missile to bleed more energy because it has to turn hard for the new intercept course and it has a longer way to fly, the missiles energy will be reduced greatly in the endgame.


This takes me back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when I digesting Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert L. Shaw cover to cover so I could get a better understanding of how to play Air War Modern Tactical Air Combat by SPI a bit better. Things sure have changed...




[image]local://upfiles/7271/A7353C3A105644AD8E67303F898BEC3D.jpg[/image]

That brings back a memory! Been a long time since I've thought about that game.



Dimitris -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/12/2013 11:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
Comparing Weapon Expenditures directly to Losses doesn't factor in something extremely important: the tendency of the 'helper AI' to fire multiple missiles at one target (aka ripple firing).

If one of them hits, the other follow-on weapons in the same volley will miss no matter what. So the ratios aren't going to be right unless you're do a ton of 1v1 manual firing of single weapons for a good sampling.


That's very much true. Of course in combat, firing single means if the opponent dodges that single shot you're in a world of hurt.



Blu3wolf -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/13/2013 4:47:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
Comparing Weapon Expenditures directly to Losses doesn't factor in something extremely important: the tendency of the 'helper AI' to fire multiple missiles at one target (aka ripple firing).

If one of them hits, the other follow-on weapons in the same volley will miss no matter what. So the ratios aren't going to be right unless you're do a ton of 1v1 manual firing of single weapons for a good sampling.


That's very much true. Of course in combat, firing single means if the opponent dodges that single shot you're in a world of hurt.

I would argue that that doesnt really come up too much in BVR missile combat... typically, you would both have fired at least one shot, unless one aircraft managed to stay outside Raero and still get a shot off.

after one or both parties have fired shots, you tend to be worrying about defeating any inbound missile shots... unless well outside the applicable MAR for the fighter type.

If you have an A pole advantage, and fire one shot, forcing the other guy to turn cold, even if he dodges that, there is no "world of hurt"... after dodging, he should be nose cold and in a WEZ. perfect time to fire another shot, no?

still, with all that I would point out that frequently you do NOT have an A pole advantage, and typically you would launch more than one missile.

hmm. Thinking about WVR combat, it doesnt appear to apply either. obviously for WVR you are trying to put the opponent in a WEZ and once they get there, they should stay there. even if they dodge a missile or gunshot, the only way they can get out of a defensive position is if you screw up, or another party enters the fight (technically a screw up, though not necessarily yours....)



LuckyJim1010 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (10/13/2013 7:28:49 PM)

SPI's Air War - would have been easier to go fly the real thing [:)]



Dimitris -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 2:11:57 PM)

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/

Four AIM-7Ms fired, three misses and one hit, against a [probably] non-maneuvering, [certainly] no-ECM MiG-23. In a battle environment as close to a training range as possible (DS).



navwarcol -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 3:11:49 PM)

I would probably question why the opfor missiles do better against the -35 however. I would probably bet a lot of money on AMRAAM outperforming, or at least equally performing, anything on the other side, and the -35 is basically newer generation in every category, than anything on the other side as well(once it is fully operational at least).
That said however, Primarchx is correct I think. The key to that scenario-and many other ones, and real life often-- seems to be taking the airfield out of operation, rather than fighting them in the air.



jtoatoktoe -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 5:46:15 PM)

I think its hard to gauge real life performance as a2a combat has been limited to Desert Storm in 91 with closer modern weapons. One engagement against a Iraqi Mig 23 it took a 4th Sparrow shot to get a hit. That being said i've never been in love with the Sparrow. So that leaves us with the Sidewinder which has had some ok success and then the AMRAAM which hasn't seen a whole lot of action. Well all this is American gear, of course other countries have their own missiles.



navwarcol -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 7:39:41 PM)

I agree. I think my point was the OP mentioned BVR weapons being fired, missing (I am OK to this point) then the AI controlled a/c closing to the range of their next weapons system (still OK) then the missiles of the other side downing the F-35s, apparently much easier than the AMRAAM (here is where I have the problem, as the other side's missiles have been tested even fewer times, as well as their pilots in general).



Maromak -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 7:48:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

I would probably question why the opfor missiles do better against the -35 however. I would probably bet a lot of money on AMRAAM outperforming, or at least equally performing, anything on the other side, and the -35 is basically newer generation in every category, than anything on the other side as well(once it is fully operational at least).


There may be another factor here which others have already observed/reported. Perhaps the more distant F-35s in the formation were taking BVR shots while the closer F-35s with only AIM-9s remaining would not have fired due to the presence of other friendly missiles already being in the air. This seems to occur relatively often if the player does not have RTB on Winchester set to YES (which I currently do for SARH shots).



Tomcat84 -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 8:59:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/

Four AIM-7Ms fired, three misses and one hit, against a [probably] non-maneuvering, [certainly] no-ECM MiG-23. In a battle environment as close to a training range as possible (DS).


If you read the full pilot's account in the book "Debrief" you will see that these were all pretty low Pk shots, high to low in a (near) tail chase. Hardly a training range kind of shot. Doesn't mean that missiles should be hittiles but this aviationist article leaves out some small but important details that illustrate that these were lower Pk shots, especially the first two.



Yokes -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 9:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Perhaps the more distant F-35s in the formation were taking BVR shots while the closer F-35s with only AIM-9s remaining would not have fired due to the presence of other friendly missiles already being in the air. This seems to occur relatively often if the player does not have RTB on Winchester set to YES (which I currently do for SARH shots).


This is my biggest problem with the AI's AAW logic. This makes WVR-only fighters (early F-16s, for example) useless. They hold on to their 'winders and close in for a knife fight because someone a long ways away took a low-probability BVR shot. Then they die because they brought a knife to a gun fight.

My suggestions for improved AAW logic:
1. When deciding who should take a shot at a target, pick the closest unit to the target. The AI currently picks the one farthest away. This causes the guys close to close within knife fighting range while those max-range BVR (low-probability of killing) shots close in.
2. Allow aircraft to shoot back while "engaged defensive". I hate when an F-15 is RTBing Winchester with Sidewinders and some crummy WVR-only fighter (MiG-21) comes in and puts an Atoll up the tailpipe (or guns!!) while the F-15 does nothing until it sees contrails. (And then only drops flares and beams.) For an initial improvement, I would like the AI to shoot back at someone within the range of its AAW weapons (except guns) if it goes defensive.
3. This one is more difficult, so I understand if this never happens. Right now we have the "RTB when Winchester" option, and that's a fine first step, but it is not a very good "one size fits all" tool. I would like to see the AI prioritize the targets based upon threat level. For example, if I have IDed a target as a BVR-capable fighter then I want my WVR-only fighters (MiG-21s, BVR fighters with no BVR missiles, etc) to stay away (unless they are the only option). If the target is WVR-only, then feel free to continue to engage offensive even when the BVRs are gone. If the target is defenseless (bomber) then continue to engage offensive all the way to guns.

As you can probably tell, I hate to micro-manage. It is tedious and it provides the player with a HUGE advantage over the computer.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings.

Yokes



snowburn -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 10:05:12 PM)

i would add another thing:
Jettison external stores (bombs, a2g missiles, drop tanks) when dodging enemy attack (yes/no/inherit)

im no sure if the game gives an agility penalty to attacked aircrafts when fully loaded with external weapons that causes drag.



dillonkbase -> RE: Missile hit ratio (1/29/2014 10:52:01 PM)

Feature Request:

So since a pilot may know his relative prob of hit in any given situation (the 4 sparrow guy says he did?)... Could you give us an idea before we launch our missiles of what "the pilot" thinks about our command(some sort of filtered or scrambled PH). Or better yet, do that, and then allow us to tell our AI to wait to fire until they have an estimated hit percentage of X. I know part of this is already happening in the pessimistic optimistic controls.

I guess What I am looking for is a way to improve my micromanagement... Should I fire as soon as able? If I close and extra ten KM with the opponent is that buying me PH?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625