AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness

AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (Full Version)

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

Message

jrotaetxe -> AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/13/2014 12:46:41 PM)
Hi, friends. First post and would like to rise some questions about the Canaries Cage scenery. I am a little bit surprised about the efectiveness of the AEGIS system in the game against incomig bandits. Considering the whole system is a "Zone anti-missile Defense system" (with the later versions being tested against ICBM threads) I find too much waste of 10 or more missiles in a incoming bandit. I realise it is very difficult to balance the efectiveness of the missiles (also find the amount of AMRAM needed to shot down other planes a bit high) against other threats, because the moment this is tweaked, there will be a claim saying is impossible to drill a hole in the task force when playing the other side. One of the ideas I support is that one about the energy, so evadnig the second missile should be toughest than with the first one, and to put a ratio of energy gain for planes (In general, missiles only lose energy in the terminal phase of their mission) and let this total energy of the plane play a role in the vulnerability of the plane And would like to ask also for some clue. I see the otomat efectiveness much better than the Harpoons (both under AI control) and the efectiveness of the Sidewinders better than the sparrows. Bored losing frigates. I am quite sure I am missing something in both cases. Jamming? Is the ECM system switched on while suffering an attack automatically or not? I have the ECM heli of the alfa Jamming while the attack, but those otomats does not seem to be jammed... Than you in advance for your responses Regards Jon

Flef -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/15/2014 12:59:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrotaetxe Hi, friends. First post and would like to rise some questions about the Canaries Cage scenery. I am a little bit surprised about the efectiveness of the AEGIS system in the game against incomig bandits. Considering the whole system is a "Zone anti-missile Defense system" (with the later versions being tested against ICBM threads) I find too much waste of 10 or more missiles in a incoming bandit. I realise it is very difficult to balance the efectiveness of the missiles (also find the amount of AMRAM needed to shot down other planes a bit high) against other threats, because the moment this is tweaked, there will be a claim saying is impossible to drill a hole in the task force when playing the other side. One of the ideas I support is that one about the energy, so evadnig the second missile should be toughest than with the first one, and to put a ratio of energy gain for planes (In general, missiles only lose energy in the terminal phase of their mission) and let this total energy of the plane play a role in the vulnerability of the plane And would like to ask also for some clue. I see the otomat efectiveness much better than the Harpoons (both under AI control) and the efectiveness of the Sidewinders better than the sparrows. Bored losing frigates. I am quite sure I am missing something in both cases. Jamming? Is the ECM system switched on while suffering an attack automatically or not? I have the ECM heli of the alfa Jamming while the attack, but those otomats does not seem to be jammed... Than you in advance for your responses Regards Jon I find the number of amraam need to shot down a plane quite normal. It is not WWII fighters you are fighting in this scenario but F16 peace vector (upgraded) and Mirage F1CH/F1CH200. They have their own ECMs and chaffs. but generally with 2 or 3 AIM120 any of those planes go down. For the OTOTMAT effectiveness, I had strictly no problem with a salvo of 32 otomats (I guess you got the same) A lot of missile fired, a few burst of merokas. But I also made my fleet change of course to present the ships' side. That way I was sure to fire with all the weapons xD.

jrotaetxe -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/15/2014 1:07:26 PM)
quote: ....made my fleet change of course to present the ships' side. That way I was sure to fire with all the weapons xD. ... which is completelly anti-intuitive and against the Maxwell law... Meanwhile I discovered a little about my lack of "luck". Defensive jamming is important, offensive ECOM also, and, last but no least, the best way to defeat a missile is not let it to be launched. Combat missiles is similar to combat malaria. Kill the mosquito... And thank you very much. I began to feel so alone.... Regards

Flef -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/15/2014 2:04:34 PM)
quote: ... which is completelly anti-intuitive and against the Maxwell law... What is the Maxwell law? I did that: [image]http://i.imgur.com/5sS5a2E.png[/image] [:D]

jrotaetxe -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/15/2014 3:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flef What is the Maxwell law? It is a little joke The laws that rules the propagation of the electromagnetic waves... The rule says that under a radar guided weapons attack, you must put the minimum cross section to the thread, so bow or stern... Regards

mikmykWS -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 1:07:59 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caqRJUFOMlA

jrotaetxe -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 6:21:52 AM)
From bow to stern..... Wow Anyway, i will be always better to show the less possible cross section. Regards

Flef -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 7:43:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrotaetxe From bow to stern..... Wow Anyway, i will be always better to show the less possible cross section. Regards well but in the canary's cage the player is in command of the Spanish forces the day of the hispanidad: [image]http://alexandre-cabanes.monipag.com/files/article_torero.jpg[/image] Ooooolllllיייייייי!!!!!

Galahad78 -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 10:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrotaetxe From bow to stern..... Wow Anyway, i will be always better to show the less possible cross section. Regards Once detected and under attack, I'd prefer to unmask my batteries and fire with everything at hand. The greatness of this simulator (I cannot label it as a "game" [:)]) is that you can try whatever tactic it appeals to you the most [:)]

thewood1 -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 1:14:16 PM)
My tactic and have found it somewhat successful to protect valuable targets is to point them away from the attack and let the escorts turn 90 deg to make sure all weapons are unmasked. Kind of a compromise.

Luidzi -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/16/2014 7:16:26 PM)
a) In Mega-FAQ is mentioned that Command simulates loss of energy and maneouvrability for SAM/AAM over long distance engagement. If you have better (ramjet-powered) or longer-ranged missiles than your opponent, it may be better to hold fire until target gets closer to improve hit probability. Missiles like Sidewinder are usually fired on very short distances, so their targets have no time to outrange them and they have mostly their maximum hit probability. Unless it is necessary, try not to get into dogfight with WVR missiles, it is fast, lethal and mostly luck-based (quality of your aircraft doesn't matter much). b) Defensive ECM efficiency is modified from the generation of the system, and in your case (Alvaro de Bazבn vs. Ramadan) it should be opposite. DECM of Ramadan has 15% probability of spoofing Harpoon and DECM of Alvaro de Bazבn has 25% probability of spoofing Otomat. c) For ASM attack you usually don't need precise target fix, only a general location of ship that is no higher than maximum uncertainity of the weapon (approx. 14nm). Actual range when the missile starts homing varies. Missiles capable of homing on jam can lock on target from greater distance than stated in their seeker description (if the target is using OECM). I think that orientation of the target doesn't matter for detection at all. During one test even the small stealthy ship Visby was locked on by Ghader as soon as she entered the radar cone of the missile. And if the target doesn't try to imitate a perfect black hole, but tries to defend itself (with radar/OECM), it will be locked on even greater distance. During the actual engagement you should turn your ships to unmask their weapons and radars (for example illumination radars on Bazבn have a blind spot forward, more on this in Baloogan wiki). This can be potentially used if you have a HVU that you absolutely don't want to be fired upon. Before attack set doctrine "Ignore EMCON under attack" to No and during attack deactivate radars on the HVU and activate everything else on its escorts. Incoming missiles should home on jam and radars of the escorts and ignore the HVU. Edit: Clarification

Sardaukar -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/17/2014 8:57:02 AM)
Actually, the orientation does matter for detection. But, when you are detected, "jig is up" and you definitely should unmask batteries.

jrotaetxe -> RE: AEGIS destroyers and Sea Sparrow efectiveness (10/17/2014 2:21:39 PM)
Thank you for all your responses!!! Getting more and more stuck to this thing... Regards

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875