NEZ: a Mig-29 can and will shot down an F-22..

[thewood1]

The worst part of passing 50 is hearing a song you think is one of the new ones that the young kids listen to just to find out its been out 10 years.

[davedashftw]

The fundamental problem CMO faces right now after these changes is not actually the missile physics, I appreciate the changes (although I feel some aspects still need tweaking).

There's two fundamental issues which leads to unrealistic outcomes:

Skill doesn't matter much, unless you the player does a lot of micro
In actual A2A combat, nearly every real pilot that I have spoken to says that skill is basically the deciding factor. This is also plainly evident based on real world data and combat (Israel, Gulf War, etc).

However the skill modifiers in game are not strong enough and are outweighed by platform characteristics. Generally longer range missiles will win over skill, for example.

Also its hard to model real world tactics because the game is still quite simplistic in its modelling, such as radar, situational awareness, command and control, etc.

The ONLY exception to this skill comment is when we start to talk about new generation of planes or generational leaps. We have heard direct evidence from Red Flag that the situational awareness of the F-35 is so good, that newbie pilots are shooting down 4th generation veterans. This leads me to my next point...

Situational Awareness in the game is far too good
Radar platforms are WAY more powerful than they are IRL, azimuth doesn't really seem to be simulated, lock on doesn't seem to be simulated (which for many platforms like Mig-29 greatly reduces their situational awareness), and I think a big fundamental problem in the game is that everything is guaranteed to be spotted, it's a matter of WHEN not IF.

I have heard from real F-16 pilots in Red Flag for example a common tactic is to sneak around with radar OFF, finding enemies using RWR, and using terrain masking so they remain completely unhidden, pop up behind the enemy fighters, and engage them. This kind of stuff is basically impossible in CMO, because like I said, spotting seems to be based on WHEN not IF.

Stealth platforms for example like the B-2 suffer a lot because of this, they are basically guaranteed to be engaged nearly immediately as soon as they get into a certain range, making them unsuited for their mission IRL. Whereas IRL we have heard from real pilots going up against stealth platforms that there is a LOT of confusion and uncertainty as to where they are.

It's the same when it comes to engaging defensive against missiles, SAM systems engaging low flying cruise missiles, and the list goes on.

Just as an aside, even the US with all its advanced electronics and recon capabilities does not have as clear a picture on the battlefield as we get in CMO. At one point in generation kill the Marines thought they were under assault from a tank division and called in the USAF. The USAF effectively erased that entire grid, but later not a single tank was found.

The game is a good weapons platform simulator, but it is not get a good conflict simulator
I say this from a good place, because the game is one of the best MilSims that I have played since the Falcon 3.0/4.0 days, but there are problems when it comes to actually simulating a conflict that lead you down the path of kind of this deterministic "best platform wins" outcome, due to what I listed above.

What I would do to change
Situation Awareness on the battlefield is really king, I would add in a roll to see if systems are noticed based on their cross section and proficiency of the spotter. I would also introduce an optional "advanced fog of war" option like Command Mission like system where if you click on a unit, it only shows other units that it can see directly. The game "kind of" simulates this, but not really.

Radar needs a complete overhaul and actually needs to be tied to proficiency. Higher proficiency operators should function how the game works now, but lower proficiency should give a penalty.

Proficiencies across the board need more impact on outcomes, with lower proficiencies providing a PENALTY not a small bonus.

OODA loops are far too high, probably due to the effectiveness of radar. and also need to be tied to proficiency more. A novice SAM installation should have a much higher OODA loop than an ace platform, and be at real risk of actually not seeing a lot of incoming missiles for example. At the moment even a novice S-400 will basically destroy a huge barrage of up to 64 incoming cruise missiles regardless of angle.

Same goes with SAM vs Stealth. We have seem SAM operators fire BOL in Iraq, and heard from pilots that going up against stealth is extremely confusing, even from veteran skill levels. In game, as soon as you're close enough, you're spotted (and usually dead).

Novice pilots also should have higher OODA loops, and there should be the option that they simply don't see aircraft that have a significant difference in altitude to them (and emissions off). F-22s and F-35s really should be able to sneak up on older platforms as we heard it time and time again coming out of Red Flag in the US. 4th gen can sneak up on 4th gen too.

And situational awareness needs to be tweaked and reduced for older platforms. Right now everything feels like a F-35. I do know some work here was introduced in the last patch, which is a good thing. Thank you for that.

Only then will we get results similar to what we are hearing from Red Flag, where 5th gen platforms are taking out 4th gen platforms 0 losses to 12 - including newbies flying the 5th gen. Right now, due to the way engagements and situational awareness works, this is impossible unless you're EXTREMELY lucky.

Again though I want to say the game is incredible. Looking forward to the next update.

[musurca]

My only gripe is that more and more testing by me revealed that the new missile system produces really whacky results that seriously affect the way the campaign and other scenarios play out.

I loaded up the save that you provided and ran it a few times. Sometimes I did see what you're reporting: the F-22A was indeed defeated by the MiG-29. In other runs the F-22A defeated the missiles by maneuvering, then fired back and killed the MiG. But given the situation you've set up, in which the MiG-29 has already somehow detected the F-22A, and the F-22A has been prevented from using its offensive ECM due to your EMCOM, these coin-toss results seem fairly plausible. Why?

Real-world BVR tactics and timelines are quite complex and would rarely take place in a contrived head-on 1v1 situation like this, but they are dependent on 1) what you're trying to achieve, and 2) the disparity in capabilities between you and the target. Even assuming that you're intending to kill the target with a single missile— waiting until the target is in the No Escape Zone of your weapon is a highly risky strategy at best unless you know that there is a massive capability gap in your favor.

In fact, the No-Escape-Zone of your weapon is much less relevant than your Minimum Abort Range (MAR), the point before which you have to go completely cold and run for your life to escape the enemy's missile. This is related to the enemy's NEZ, but is actually somewhat larger because you need time and space to make the maneuver. As the Falcon BMS manual puts it: "In a BVR engagement, if you want to stay alive... you need to respect MAR. This range will depend on the type of missile the enemy has, the altitude and speed of your opponent, or rather the difference of altitude and speed between you and your opponent."

In other words, just because the scenario has set a default WRA of "shoot at NEZ" doesn't mean that you have to use it. You should change it to a more appropriate setting depending on what you're trying to do. I can't necessarily tell you what that setting is because there is no "right answer" when it comes to BVR -- it is entirely situational.

Given the save you provided--and assuming the F-22A wasn't allowed to use its OECM for some reason-- I had a lot of success with the following Doctrine/WRA settings:

1) Ignore plotted course when attacking -> YES
(you've given the F-22A a waypoint so currently it's trying to prioritize that over using a smarter attack course)
2) BVR Engagement Logic -> Crank and Drag
(this means that the F-22A will crank as long as possible to support the AIM-120 C, then go cold when necessary to defeat the incoming missile)
3) WRA for AIM-120-C7 - Automatic Firing Range -> 50% of max (28nm)
(this takes into account the MAR)
4) Tell the F-22A explicitly to attack the MiG-29 and go offensive!

So yes, this does require some "continuing education" and rethinking previously winning tactics in older scenarios—but isn't that the fun of playing CMO?

Also, looking at this from the pilot's view may be helpful, if you have the time for a long-ish video:

[thewood1]

"Situational Awareness in the game is far too good"

I think this is the most salient point. The rest of your list means turning CMO into a 2D combat flight simulator. It starts us down the path of where does it stop. If you go to that level of detail for aircraft radar, you then have to have SAMs more accurately modeled. Now you have to have ships more accurately modeled...etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. Players are already complaining about memory and performance. Can you imagine what adding that load would do? Some abstraction is needed.

But on the situational awareness aspect, I agree. In the scenarios I build for myself, I do a lot with multiple sides on the same side. IADS separate from CAP from navy from army from recon from AWACS from etc. You can slice it pretty finely. I also use events to switch sides and comms on or off. The isolation you get from switching comms off is way under-utilized. Both building it and playing it is not for the feint of heart.

Just look at this discussion. Can you imagine what the OP would think of the chaos and frustration of the Mig-29 showing up on your six unannounced because a critical node in the comms network got canned.

[boeckelr]

Is this a language barrier thing?

English is not my native tongue, but so far I was living under the impression that I had a pretty solid grasp of it, therefore it should be clear to others too when I am arguing for or against a certain subject. Apparently not.

How many times have I stated I am not asking the devs to keep unrealistic stuff in the game or not to touch systems that are considered holy cows (AMRAAMs aka CMO's panthers). My only gripe is that more and more testing by me revealed that the new missile system produces really whacky results that seriously affect the way the campaign and other scenarios play out. Thats all I am saying.

I’ve been here since I was a beta tester of CMANO a long time ago although I pretty much lurk. Anyway this isn’t a language issue. They either didn’t read thru the entire thread or else they are being intentionally obtuse and/or defensive.

The reason I buy Matrix created DLC is because the scenarios are well written and balanced by someone who knows the in’s and outs of the systems involved much more than I do. I couldn’t create a scenario of that caliber if my life depended on it. Mine are simple scenarios where I test systems against systems. I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand that your concern is the new missile changes potentially unbalance all of the DLC we bought. Now we finally get to share the spoils of features - some that were promised since cmano - and they give you the run around and behave like you’re not sophisticated enough to use the new update. It’s bs bc that’s not your problem. Your problem is my problem or question too. Are the existing pre-tiny DLCs just as balanced as before? Will they turn out as the designer intended? It sounds like it might not be possible for the side that’s supposed to win a scenario to actually win it now wo significant work, and that renders the DLC useless. I appreciate that someone went and rebuilt the scenarios but it sounds like they should receive complete overhauls so the intention of the scenario designers remain.

[davedashftw]

"Situational Awareness in the game is far too good"

I think this is the most salient point. The rest of your list means turning CMO into a 2D combat flight simulator. It starts us down the path of where does it stop. If you go to that level of detail for aircraft radar, you then have to have SAMs more accurately modeled. Now you have to have ships more accurately modeled...etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. Players are already complaining about memory and performance. Can you imagine what adding that load would do? Some abstraction is needed.

But on the situational awareness aspect, I agree. In the scenarios I build for myself, I do a lot with multiple sides on the same side. IADS separate from CAP from navy from army from recon from AWACS from etc. You can slice it pretty finely. I also use events to switch sides and comms on or off. The isolation you get from switching comms off is way under-utilized. Both building it and playing it is not for the feint of heart.

Just look at this discussion. Can you imagine what the OP would think of the chaos and frustration of the Mig-29 showing up on your six unannounced because a critical node in the comms network got canned.

Fair point on the complexity.

If I was to request one or two changes that scenario designers can’t control, it would be a debuff to low skill and changing the system from WHEN something is spotted to IF.

The later I think would have a big impact on gameplay that is a net positive.

I also do appreciate it when scenario designers simulate events such as C&C degradation, fog of war, etc.

[thewood1]

Is this a language barrier thing?

English is not my native tongue, but so far I was living under the impression that I had a pretty solid grasp of it, therefore it should be clear to others too when I am arguing for or against a certain subject. Apparently not.

How many times have I stated I am not asking the devs to keep unrealistic stuff in the game or not to touch systems that are considered holy cows (AMRAAMs aka CMO's panthers). My only gripe is that more and more testing by me revealed that the new missile system produces really whacky results that seriously affect the way the campaign and other scenarios play out. Thats all I am saying.

I’ve been here since I was a beta tester of CMANO a long time ago although I pretty much lurk. Anyway this isn’t a language issue. They either didn’t read thru the entire thread or else they are being intentionally obtuse and/or defensive.

The reason I buy Matrix created DLC is because the scenarios are well written and balanced by someone who knows the in’s and outs of the systems involved much more than I do. I couldn’t create a scenario of that caliber if my life depended on it. Mine are simple scenarios where I test systems against systems. I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand that your concern is the new missile changes potentially unbalance all of the DLC we bought. Now we finally get to share the spoils of features - some that were promised since cmano - and they give you the run around and behave like you’re not sophisticated enough to use the new update. It’s bs bc that’s not your problem. Your problem is my problem or question too. Are the existing pre-tiny DLCs just as balanced as before? Will they turn out as the designer intended? It sounds like it might not be possible for the side that’s supposed to win a scenario to actually win it now wo significant work, and that renders the DLC useless. I appreciate that someone went and rebuilt the scenarios but it sounds like they should receive complete overhauls so the intention of the scenario designers remain.

Well, I've here since the beginning and as far back as DB2000 and Red Pill. I'm just as qualified to say that coming in hot and trashing the game will get pushback. You have to wade through posts before you get to the point that he's altruistically worried about all the poor scenarios that have been ripped from the hands of the maligned designers. And he never even had the commitment to his cause to put up a real scenario as an example. There is no one who has a clue if there has been any real impact on scenario play. There have been some very big changes in the game over the last 10 years. People point out scenarios that have issues. People fix them. The better way would have been to do what a couple other people have done...come in and ask relatively politely. Instead, he stayed just as aggressive. He got back what he put out.

If you want to defend a guy who came in like he did, have at it. If this guy is what draws you out of lurker mode...well we can thank him for that.

[thewood1]

"If I was to request one or two changes that scenario designers can’t control, it would be a debuff to low skill and changing the system from WHEN something is spotted to IF."

Are you saying that there should be some randomness or a plus minus based on proficiency? Doesn't proficiency already impact detection chance/distance? I'm not sure, but I thought it did. Maybe the issue is designers don't take advantage of it.

edit: It doesn't look like proficiency has any impact on detection range. But there is some variability in detection range. I used an F-22 as a testbed so the superpower capability of its radar might not be a good test. I'll try it on older radars.

[boeckelr]

Is this a language barrier thing?

English is not my native tongue, but so far I was living under the impression that I had a pretty solid grasp of it, therefore it should be clear to others too when I am arguing for or against a certain subject. Apparently not.

How many times have I stated I am not asking the devs to keep unrealistic stuff in the game or not to touch systems that are considered holy cows (AMRAAMs aka CMO's panthers). My only gripe is that more and more testing by me revealed that the new missile system produces really whacky results that seriously affect the way the campaign and other scenarios play out. Thats all I am saying.

I’ve been here since I was a beta tester of CMANO a long time ago although I pretty much lurk. Anyway this isn’t a language issue. They either didn’t read thru the entire thread or else they are being intentionally obtuse and/or defensive.

The reason I buy Matrix created DLC is because the scenarios are well written and balanced by someone who knows the in’s and outs of the systems involved much more than I do. I couldn’t create a scenario of that caliber if my life depended on it. Mine are simple scenarios where I test systems against systems. I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand that your concern is the new missile changes potentially unbalance all of the DLC we bought. Now we finally get to share the spoils of features - some that were promised since cmano - and they give you the run around and behave like you’re not sophisticated enough to use the new update. It’s bs bc that’s not your problem. Your problem is my problem or question too. Are the existing pre-tiny DLCs just as balanced as before? Will they turn out as the designer intended? It sounds like it might not be possible for the side that’s supposed to win a scenario to actually win it now wo significant work, and that renders the DLC useless. I appreciate that someone went and rebuilt the scenarios but it sounds like they should receive complete overhauls so the intention of the scenario designers remain.

Well, I've here since the beginning and as far back as DB2000 and Red Pill. I'm just as qualified to say that coming in hot and trashing the game will get pushback. You have to wade through posts before you get to the point that he's altruistically worried about all the poor scenarios that have been ripped from the hands of the maligned designers. And he never even had the commitment to his cause to put up a real scenario as an example. There is no one who has a clue if there has been any real impact on scenario play. There have been some very big changes in the game over the last 10 years. People point out scenarios that have issues. People fix them. The better way would have been to do what a couple other people have done...come in and ask relatively politely. Instead, he stayed just as aggressive. He got back what he put out.

If you want to defend a guy who came in like he did, have at it. If this guy is what draws you out of lurker mode...well we can thank him for that.

I’m not defending him…I just have the same questions he does. I have no idea how he came in hot or trashed anyone, that has absolutely nothing to do with me as I have no more affiliation with him than I do you. About being brought out of lurker mode. Trust me, it’s a good thing I’m in lurker mode: I’m not a serious or competent enough player to contribute to this forum other than by pointing out that this issue concerns me as well. And I read your comments regularly, have learned a lot from your posts. My question isn’t intended to trash the developers….I buy almost everything they put out for CMO and will continue to do so. I’ve been playing these games since idk the late 80s or early 90s with 360s game, so I recognize that they give us an awful lot in these updates compared to other developers who leave games unfinished. That’s my part in this little saga.

[blu3s]

But on the situational awareness aspect, I agree. In the scenarios I build for myself, I do a lot with multiple sides on the same side. IADS separate from CAP from navy from army from recon from AWACS from etc. You can slice it pretty finely. I also use events to switch sides and comms on or off. The isolation you get from switching comms off is way under-utilized. Both building it and playing it is not for the feint of heart.

Mmm you can create a blind side to simulate undetected enemies, the problem is that this does not depend on the platform in front of you but on other issues. For this, you could create zones around the radars and based on which units enter them that there is a probability that the radar will pass to a "blind" side but it is quite a lot of work and complexity for a scenario.

It's cool to know where the limits are, what are "the weaknesses of the simulation", what are the abstractions and where is room for improvement, what things can be implemented using Lua and what cannot. Remember this is "only" an amazing game

[davedashftw]

"If I was to request one or two changes that scenario designers can’t control, it would be a debuff to low skill and changing the system from WHEN something is spotted to IF."

Are you saying that there should be some randomness or a plus minus based on proficiency? Doesn't proficiency already impact detection chance/distance? I'm not sure, but I thought it did. Maybe the issue is designers don't take advantage of it.

edit: It doesn't look like proficiency has any impact on detection range. But there is some variability in detection range. I used an F-22 as a testbed so the superpower capability of its radar might not be a good test. I'll try it on older radars.

I think proficiency should have a greater impact. For example: - 10% to + 15%, with "regular" being +0%.

I also think it should impact more things, including whether or not you spot enemy missiles, planes, ground targets, etc. Like an actual "IF" on the spotting too, not that you're guaranteed to see every incoming missile.

The 70 or so F-16 pilots that flew over the doomed raid over Baghdad were fricken good, but two didn't even see the SA-2's or SA-6's that hit them.

One guy did and he dodged 6 missiles. His gun cam footage is on youtube, it's incredible.

Also out of those 70 odd F-16s, only two were shot down. Try doing that in CMO, you'll end up with a large number of shot down F-16s even if they're all aces (and before you ask, the SEAD planes bugged out of the mission due to refueling issues, the EW had to leave early and also couldn't jam all the SAMs, there were too many).

And I'm not really asking for a 2D flight simulator, just something a little less deterministic and at the same time, less micro-intensive. If my pilots are simply better due to skill alone, I can rely on missions more and less micro.

If things have a chance of failing to be spotted at all (also based on skill), then it'll also lead to more interesting scenarios, and not the current situation where it's more "With X missiles I win, with Y missiles I lose".

[thewood1]

"I’m not defending him…I just have the same questions he does. I have no idea how he came in hot or trashed anyone, that has absolutely nothing to do with me as I have no more affiliation with him than I do you. About being brought out of lurker mode. Trust me, it’s a good thing I’m in lurker mode: I’m not a serious or competent enough player to contribute to this forum other than by pointing out that this issue concerns me as well. And I read your comments regularly, have learned a lot from your posts. My question isn’t intended to trash the developers….I buy almost everything they put out for CMO and will continue to do so. I’ve been playing these games since idk the late 80s or early 90s with 360s game, so I recognize that they give us an awful lot in these updates compared to other developers who leave games unfinished. That’s my part in this little saga."

Then how about taking a look at what he actually posted before jumping in. He might have a point about scenarios. But he did a terrible job of making it. And he buried it in multiple posts of rants. And neither he nor you have brought anything but a guess or opinion about the impact on older scenarios. I go back and play old scenarios all the time only a couple of them have ever had issues that needed to be addressed. And they were.

And if you want to keep trying to show your historical cred, I owned one of the Harpoon boxes from 360, as well as played the Harpoon miniatures game by Larry Bond when it was first released.

[SeaQueen]

(caveat: if I have no other radar/ELINT assets on the map, although the F-22 is detected at 21 nm, the Mig is unable to determine what aircraft it is, therefore the target though "certain", will remain yellow on the radar and I had to manually turn it to hostile for the Mig to engage it.)

Suggestion: If the F-22 is detected at 21NM, then it would be stupid for an F-22 to give up its stealth advantage by getting any closer than that. You want to shoot before the no escape zone at say 25-30NM. Will you miss more shots? Maybe, but if he can't shoot you then it's a good trade off.

It's a mistake to think of the tactical problem as "missile v. missile." It's more like, "missile, radar, and aircraft versus missile, radar and aircraft." Good tactics is a matter of understanding the whole family of systems in play and their interactions. The F-22, in the above example, has the potential to dominate the fight not so much because of the missile, but by denying its oppponent the opportunity for a shot. Your bad tactics (closing within 21NM) undermined that advantage, allowing the MiG to defeat the F-22. There's a tendency in the community to resolve warfare into purely system v. system duels. This is an incorrect understanding of warfare.

You're right, though, scenarios will in general require much more tweaking than just setting the AI to shoot at the no escape zone. Generally speaking, shooting at the no escape zone, is both overly conservative and unwise. It will force scenario designers to consider the threat, set the AI to behave reasonably according to that threat. A blanket, "no escape zone is the answer," is not the correct solution.

[thewood1]

I don't disagree with you that it might be an issue. But this thread was about two things: the OP was just ranting with no practical approach and I have yet to see a scenario where this change in BVR has manifested itself to break the scenario. Does it change tactics...in some cases yes. Does it change the designer's original intent...have yet to see it from what I can tell. Does it break the scenario...have yet to see it. A big part of that is the BVR is still a small part of the simulation. Most scenarios don't currently feature a huge amount of BVR with modern missiles. And those that do, there are so many other assets in play, its hard to see what effect the changes in BVR really have. I have played the following scenarios since 1304 beta came out...

Op Brass Drum
My own Pushing Through Hormuz (An upscaled Op Brass drum)
A few of the Northern Fury scenarios
Salvo
Hail Mary
God War
Hand Brake
The Empire Strikes Back
Flaming Sea
Aegean Fire (partial twice)
Spratly Spat
Black Gold Blitz

And I'm sure a few others. I have yet to see anything broken. The only real change I had to make was my tactics in BGB. I had to make sure Saudi fighters didn't chase targets over SAM sites. On some, I actually went in and changed all AI fighters to NEZ WRA before the devs did it. I actually found it a better experience than the original.

In most scenarios, designers never adjust WRA for the AI. A bunch of them were originally built before WRA was available. So what you get in most older scenarios was max WRA for all AI and no adjustment for different targets. That has always been a big disadvantage for the AI. At least with NEZ, its different for different targets by default. With the old default WRA, players themselves admit to the tactic of coming into the edge of max AI range and then turning around. Then repeat that until AI missiles run out. That doesn't make the scenario broken, but it makes you rethink you tactics.

[Rain08]

I think one overlooked thing here is that the erroneous fuel burn times in the DB

Let's take a look at some AAMs here (AAM | Rmax | Burn time).

• AA-12A | 43.2 nm | 13 secs

• AA-12B | 59.4 nm | 26 secs

• AA-12C | 48 nm | 75 secs

• AIM-120A/B/C | 27 nm | 4 secs

• AIM-120C-4 | 27 nm | 22 secs (superior burn time than the 120D!)

• AIM-120C-5/C-6/C-7 | 56.7 nm | 5 secs

• AIM-120D | 86.4 nm | 19 secs

• AAM-4 | 54 nm | 50 secs

• AAM-4B | 64.8 nm | 23 secs

• AIM-7P | 38 nm | 4 secs

As seen from some of the missile entries listed here, the range upgrade is logical from the newer variants of the same missile. However, the fuel burn times are not. They seem to be all over the place.

AAMs used on surface launchers.

• MIM-120B | 16 nm | 12 secs

• MIM-7P | 14 nm | 30 secs

Do the ground-based systems actually have the 'real' fuel burn times of the equivalent air-launched variants? They appear to be more realistic given the expected anti-air ranges they have for the air-launched variants (like AIM-7P with 38 nm Rmax 'should' have a burn time of 30 secs rather than 4 secs).

A SAM example.

• RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA| 90 nm | 36 secs

• RIM-156A SM-2ER Blk V | 130 nm | 28 secs (somehow ended up having a lower burn time when the additional rocket motor should increase the fuel burn time)

Personally, I like the missile kinematics model, but sometimes it is hard to enjoy because the values used for the formulae are just wrong to begin with.

[thewood1]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=392372

Right below this thread...for now.

[musurca]

Your bad tactics (closing within 21NM) undermined that advantage, allowing the MiG to defeat the F-22.
You're right, though, scenarios will in general require much more tweaking than just setting the AI to shoot at the no escape zone.

Yes exactly! I would argue, if there’s a concrete suggestion here for improvement to the game, it would be perhaps incorporating more concepts from BVR timelines into the Doctrine/WRA customization window. Your weapon’s No Escape Zone isn’t so relevant if your priority is to survive--but it would be very helpful to take into account Minimum Abort Range (MAR) or Decision Range (DR), instead of setting a blanket range in NM for all targets.

Since these values change depending on the threat one is facing (and for the purposes of the game we would assume that pilots had been prebriefed on all relevant threats), then pilot proficiency values might then affect their ability to estimate these values in combat.

[Dimitris]

I think one overlooked thing here is that the erroneous fuel burn times in the DB

Let's take a look at some AAMs here (AAM | Rmax | Burn time).

• AA-12A | 43.2 nm | 13 secs

• AA-12B | 59.4 nm | 26 secs

• AA-12C | 48 nm | 75 secs

• AIM-120A/B/C | 27 nm | 4 secs

• AIM-120C-4 | 27 nm | 22 secs (superior burn time than the 120D!)

• AIM-120C-5/C-6/C-7 | 56.7 nm | 5 secs

• AIM-120D | 86.4 nm | 19 secs

• AAM-4 | 54 nm | 50 secs

• AAM-4B | 64.8 nm | 23 secs

• AIM-7P | 38 nm | 4 secs

As seen from some of the missile entries listed here, the range upgrade is logical from the newer variants of the same missile. However, the fuel burn times are not. They seem to be all over the place.

AAMs used on surface launchers.

• MIM-120B | 16 nm | 12 secs

• MIM-7P | 14 nm | 30 secs

Do the ground-based systems actually have the 'real' fuel burn times of the equivalent air-launched variants? They appear to be more realistic given the expected anti-air ranges they have for the air-launched variants (like AIM-7P with 38 nm Rmax 'should' have a burn time of 30 secs rather than 4 secs).

A SAM example.

• RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Blk IIIA| 90 nm | 36 secs

• RIM-156A SM-2ER Blk V | 130 nm | 28 secs (somehow ended up having a lower burn time when the additional rocket motor should increase the fuel burn time)

Personally, I like the missile kinematics model, but sometimes it is hard to enjoy because the values used for the formulae are just wrong to begin with.

We explained the logic behind the "wrong" burn times here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5068024

In cases where you see an absurdly long burn time compared to flight range (e.g. AIM-120C-4 above) this is likely an error in the other DB stats (possibly weight or frontal area) which forces a very long burn time in order to meet the nominal range. I've asked the DB team to have a look at such cases but they have their hands full with other things so it may take a while.

[SeaQueen]

Since these values change depending on the threat one is facing (and for the purposes of the game we would assume that pilots had been prebriefed on all relevant threats), then pilot proficiency values might then affect their ability to estimate these values in combat.

Since you have a radar, pilot proficiency shouldn't impact that. I'm actually pretty happy with the way the simulation deals with engagement timelines. It's supposed to be doctrine neutral, after all. I don't think there needs to be an explicit construct in the software that corresponds to US/Western tactical doctrine. Other nations' air forces might not even use those concepts and rely on different tactics.

[musurca]

Since you have a radar, pilot proficiency shouldn't impact that.

Doesn't it go somewhat beyond that, though? The relevant ranges are fairly dynamic, and depend on relative differences in speed and altitude, what weapon the threat is using, and the timing and execution of the escape maneuver -- all of which have to be estimated very quickly by a stressed-out human being. Choosing the "correct" range at which to shoot in a particular BVR situation would very much be a question of pilot experience and proficiency in general (i.e. across the eras that CMO covers. I couldn't say what kind of automation exists in cockpits right now).

I don't think there needs to be an explicit construct in the software that corresponds to US/Western tactical doctrine.

I see what you're saying there, and I agree -- but what I'm suggesting is more doctrine-agnostic, I think? To put it another way, right now the WRA window is currently all about "what YOU can do to THEM and when." But BVR tactics take into account "what THEY can do to YOU and when" and as far as I know, there's no way to handle this in your WRA right now without a lot of micromanagement. It would be great to be able to set your WRA to release your missiles "before a threat can shoot me and while I can still escape," without having to laboriously figure out what that range might be for any particular match-up.

I wholly agree that it's possible to manage with the current options (see my earlier post on how I would manipulate the doctrine/WRA to win that F-22A vs. MiG-29 situation) but it might be worth providing a more player-friendly option of delegating some of this to the pilot, under the assumption that they want to survive an encounter.