[WAD] Implausible dogfight behavior.

[Knightpawn]

[not sure if this post belongs here or in tech support]

Drawing from my experience in BMS (some centuries ago) it seems to me that air dogfights are not represented very accurately in CMO. I am not talking about implementing flight models of BMS or DCS standard, but I would expect that an F16 and and Mig 29 merging into a dogfight at 36K and chasing each other's tail, will be gradually sacrificing altitude for speed and sustaining their turn rate. In contrast, I observe that they run in circles staying more or less at the same altitude at speeds around 500+ knots which is I believe implausible even with afterburner.

I dont have save readily available, unfortunately but I guess this is easy to recreate.

[Dimitris]

This is broadly correct. While we do have a much improved 6-DOF ACM flight model in prototype stage, maturing it into a releasable state has taken a back seat in priority compared to other things in the near/mid-term pipeline.

Some background on why close-ACM mechanics don't (currently) get much love in CMO: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5851

[Knightpawn]

Thanks for the reply. Makes sense.

[HalfLifeExpert]

This is broadly correct. While we do have a much improved 6-DOF ACM flight model in prototype stage, maturing it into a releasable state has taken a back seat in priority compared to other things in the near/mid-term pipeline.

Some background on why close-ACM mechanics don't (currently) get much love in CMO: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5851

How on EARTH did I miss this article!?! This is great information!

It makes sense and I agree with your reasoning, though I do hope for a future improvement anyway, because if nothing else, the older period scenarios that only feature rear-aspect only IR Missiles makes me very frustrated at times, partly because the circling behavior makes shots hard to come by, and partly makes me want to jump back in time and strangle those in the late 50s & 60s who thought ACM would be obsolete with missiles.

Guys, these IR missiles are REAR ASPECT. How do you get to the rear of an enemy plane that sees you? You maneuver behind it. What if the enemy maneuvers too? Then you've got a dogfight!

All-Aspect missiles change this of course, but on older scenarios (largely pre-1970 or 1975) it can be quite frustrating at times.

I think an improvement in ACM modelling would be needed for any possible future Indochina content (Vietnam). This is because the historical USAF & USN had ROE, along with weather conditions, that made WVR clashes quite common. They often were required to get visual ID before shooting, and that in many cases negated the value of Radar AAMs, thus forcing dependence in many cases on rear-aspect (and unreliable at first) IR Missiles. Plus, in the earlier phases, the VPAF didn't have AAMs, so they needed to close for guns against target aircraft. And during the course of the war, they only got IR Missiles.

[Dimitris]

As we explain on the article, even when the available weaponry was of a kind that favored/forced close-range, rear-quarter attacks on air targets (e.g. guns with no LCOS, early IR-guided AAMs, and even early beam-riding radar AAMs like the AA-1 or Sparrow-I), the majority of kills were obtained by slashing or surprise attacks rather than as a result of aggressive ACM.

A good historical example of this is the "happy hour" of NVAF interceptor attacks against USAF/USN aircraft in the mid- and late-60s, before US forces drastically revised their training, tactics and equipment. The majority of the NVAF kills were made by surprise pop-up attacks from low-altitude (under close guidance by the EW/GCI network) or by high-speed slashing attacks from the rear (exploiting the poor rear visibility of most US aircraft of the era). Both these tactics are readily modellable in Command right now.

Dogfights of the kind celebrated in popular media were far and few between (and frequently inconclusive - it was not unusual for both sides to run out of weapons, fuel and ideas); which was part of their mystique and fascination.