Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Command: DLCs >> Command: Chains of War



Message

fatgreta1066 -> Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/23/2018 1:49:15 PM)

So a couple of Salvo questions.

1) Has anyone conducted SEAD strikes without losing at least 4 airplanes in the process? Every time I launch such an attack (I target Okinawa with one and the defenses around Kunsan with another, for range purposes) at least 4 of my aircraft end up being lost to SAMs and/or enemy fighters. I also have never successfully destroyed any enemy SAM sites. Some radars yes, but never any SAMs. That's a secondary concern if the ARM missiles distract the SAMs from my strikes, but losing 4 planes is 200 points that I can't really afford

2) If my ASAT batteries are set to weapons free will they automatically engage enemy satellites when they come into range? I have twice managed to manually target satellites when they were not "not in DLZ," otherwise I've had no success in shooting them down. Ideally I'd like not to have to manage that manually.

Thanks,

Chris



blkholsun -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/23/2018 2:00:31 PM)

To save yourself massive amounts of frustration, I recommend reading through this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4288085&mpage=1&key=



fatgreta1066 -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/23/2018 4:14:31 PM)

Thanks, I did read that, and a very comprehensive AAR that led to victory. I've tried to emulate those strategies and have come close but no cigar. That's why I'm wondering about those 2 specific questions, they will inform my next attempts.

Thanks,

Chris



Airborne Rifles -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/23/2018 6:03:03 PM)

You can do the SEAD attacks without losing any aircraft to SAMS by launching the ARMs at max range and then turning and burning away. To avoid losing aircraft to enemy fighters you need to either close the runways before they take off (in the case of Okinawa you have a window of a couple of minutes in which to do this with your DFs) or escorting the strikers with PL-15-armed fighters in the case of Korea. The long range of the PL-15s should keep the enemy fighters at bay.



blkholsun -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/24/2018 2:33:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fatgreta1066

Thanks, I did read that, and a very comprehensive AAR that led to victory. I've tried to emulate those strategies and have come close but no cigar. That's why I'm wondering about those 2 specific questions, they will inform my next attempts.

Thanks,

Chris

I empathize with you--this scenario is profoundly frustrating.
I don't remember the details of my eventual win, but I wouldn't worry too much about actually hitting anything during your SEAD runs. Those missions are to soak up enemy ammo. If you look at the loss/expenditure reports from those who have been successful, you won't see much in the way of radar or SAM sites on there. Like Airbornes Rifles said: get just within range, fire everything you have in their general direction to force them to waste some ammo, and then jet.
In terms of your second question, I remember needing to do that manually.



Tailhook -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/24/2018 12:22:20 PM)

I think the scoring needs to be adjusted so that only special aircraft (bombers, C4ISR, MP) of which China has few should cost the full amount. The loss of even a single fighter right now can mean victory is unattainable in some circumstances.



blkholsun -> RE: Salvo questions - succesful SEAD and ASAT strikes? (4/24/2018 12:49:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook

I think the scoring needs to be adjusted so that only special aircraft (bombers, C4ISR, MP) of which China has few should cost the full amount. The loss of even a single fighter right now can mean victory is unattainable in some circumstances.

Yeah, it's sort of thematically indefensible. As I've said before, if China could trade aircraft 1:1 with the U.S. they would consider that nothing less than an unmitigated tremendous victory. The reward for shooting down a plane should be at least equal to if not a little greater than the penalty for losing one.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125