Any scenario with opponent WRA not to max settings

[morphin]

In most scenarios it is quit easy to win against SAM (and also AAM) the following way

Slowly flight toward the opponent until it fires (only if the opponent detect you behind max Range of missile of course)
then immediately turn around and head away. So the missiles run out of fuel

Repeat this until every missile is expended...

So i'm looking for scenarios where the opponent WRA is not set to maximum range (perfect would be a LUA script that randomly change WRA to a value(e.g. 60-95%), adjusted also on the threat type)

Anybody know such a scenario?

Thank's
Andy

[SeaQueen]

Sadly, it seems that most scenario designers are fairly naive about those kinds of tactics, so if I'm playing a scenario not my own, I almost always have to knock down the range a bit. It's not hard to do, just open the scenario editor and change the side doctrine settings, and you should see the change you want in most cases, unless they specifically set something on a lower level (which is usually not the case).

The WRA settings are really the heart of your missile tactics, though. To just roll with the defaults is usually to be very naive.

ORIGINAL: morphin
In most scenarios it is quit easy to win against SAM (and also AAM) the following way

Slowly flight toward the opponent until it fires (only if the opponent detect you behind max Range of missile of course)
then immediately turn around and head away. So the missiles run out of fuel

Repeat this until every missile is expended...

[morphin]

Thank's yes that is a solution, but when i open the scenario in the editor i can often not resist to view things i should not see from the AI-opponent....[:D]

So i usually resist to use the editor[:-] while playing. It is easier then once the scenario is open in the editor[:)]

Andy

[SeaQueen]

If their original plan was any good, then it shouldn't matter. I end up reworking almost all scenarios before I play them. There's no shame in starting with someone's raw material and making it better. I actually use the AI side's briefing space to add in notes describing what I was thinking, so that when I come back to it and make adjustments I have a record of it. I'm always surprised others don't do the same. I think people should design scenarios with the idea that eventually someone will start messing with it.

[AlexGGGG]

Arctic Tsunami is set up with short-range weapon release.

[hasler]

Short range releases are just as easy to abuse especially in ACM. Every second the enemy is not on the Defense is a second they can gain the initiative. My favorite tactic is to split a section fire at max range with one bird and push with the other. its easy to figure out the launch zone and fire before it and not get a return shot because the range limit. This is especially dangerous for emitting SAMs. If the radar is emitting and won't fire until an aircraft is in HARM range. The AI loses the SAM.

[morphin]

ORIGINAL: hasler

Short range releases are just as easy to abuse especially in ACM. Every second the enemy is not on the Defense is a second they can gain the initiative. My favorite tactic is to split a section fire at max range with one bird and push with the other. its easy to figure out the launch zone and fire before it and not get a return shot because the range limit. This is especially dangerous for emitting SAMs. If the radar is emitting and won't fire until an aircraft is in HARM range. The AI loses the SAM.

Hmm. I'm trying to understand this but failing. Anybody can help?
Thank's
Andy

[AlexGGGG]

In air-to-air SARH I see how this works breaking the lock/illumination at the right moment.

In air-to-air ARH, and against SAMs I can use an explanation too.

[templar42]

Hi everyone, first post on this forum after many hours of happy Command gameplay! I've thought about this issue and I don't think it's easy to resolve, although it affects different combinations of weapons differently. Sadly, as SeaQueen stated above, most scenario designers don't think about this, so it's easy to achieve unrealistically lopsided kill ratios.

1. Human SARH or ARH vs AI SARH:

If WRA set short, human can launch missile at AI knowing the AI will waste its shots because the AI will turn away when it sees the incoming missile. The human has disabled automatic evasion so his missiles are guided all the way whereas the AI's go ballistic and self-destruct. This even works if the human has slightly shorter range SARH missiles than the AI, since all it needs is for the AI to detect the human missile a few seconds before the AI missile is due to impact - detection causes the AI aircraft to turn away.

If WRA set long, human provokes a shot and then turns away. Planes turn more quickly when loitering, so it just needs a 180 degree turn on loiter and then a manual change to afterburner to escape. Again, automatic evasion is disabled so that the human aircraft runs away instead of flying a perpendicular course.

Incidentally, this shows how crude the automatic evasion script is. Even if incoming missiles must have been launched outside of their NEZ based on the observed launch platform (the game apparently does in fact track observed or inferred launch platforms for setting contacts to hostile), the AI pilots still just do the standard 'put the missile on the beam, dive, and go fast' routine.

The best solution for this is probably to randomise the WRA ranges within a range and frequently change them during the scenario to stop the human player gaming them. The next best solution is for the scenario designer to set WRA rules very carefully so that the human player has to time launches very precisely to avoid an AI missile impacting before the AI aircraft turns away. With a bit of testing an author should be able to at least make this tactic a lot more difficult, especially if the AI could attack along multiple axes - currently AI intercepts against fighters produce a stream of AI aircraft converging on the same point, with no attempt to spread out.

2. Human SARH or ARH vs AI ARH (or AA-6 with datalink + terminal IR)

If WRA set short, the human doesn't really have any exploit. If datalinks were properly modeled, he might hope to kill the AI aircraft or force it to turn away before the AI missile terminal seeker activates, and then change course, but Command doesn't model datalinks properly, so killing the AI aircraft will have no effect unless the AI aircraft that fired the missile is the only AI unit able to see the human aircraft. Even if a completely unrelated unit with no real world chance of providing a mid course update can see the human aircraft, the AI missile will behave as though it got a mid course update. Datalink behaviour should be a priority for a major Command update.

Incidentally, terminal seekers also seem to have suspiciously expansive fields of view, but that's admittedly a subjective impression.

If WRA set long, the human just does the same as case 1.

SAMs in Command are similar - most scenarios have SAMs set to fire at targets that could easily defeat them by running away. One issue is that IRL an aircrew might not have good enough information about the launch point of a SAM to infer that they could just turn and run in the opposite direction. I find that such information is consistently available in Command. Maybe scenarios or the game itself don't do enough to create a realistic fog of war.

This compounds the existing problem with SAMs in Command scenarios - they never move! It shouldn't be an effective strategy to locate a highly mobile SAM battery and then fire an INS/GPS TLAM at it knowing that it won't have moved when the missile arrives an hour later, and yet it is. Would it be so hard to simulate SAMs moving around periodically, with an appropriate time to deploy / pack up?

AI SAMs in scenarios should be set to launch at shorter ranges against aircraft and longer ranges against vampires. Hasler, above, suggests this is easy to abuse because you can then get into ARM range unimpeded. Generally, I don't think this is a big problem. SAMs that can't shoot down an ARM (and are thus vulnerable to this) are also SAMs that can't deal with low level targets, so you can always get into ARM range with such SAMs anyway, just by flying low.

Predictability is a general concern though. I don't know LUA, but is it possible to have WRA ranges for AAMs and SAMs against aircraft vary randomly at different times within the same scenario? This combined with not shooting at aircraft if they can turn and run would make AI opponents much more challenging.

[Cpt Black]

One issue is that IRL an aircrew might not have good enough information about the launch point of a SAM to infer that they could just turn and run in the opposite direction. I find that such information is consistently available in Command. Maybe scenarios or the game itself don't do enough to create a realistic fog of war.

You have to understand the threat sequence a little better I think. All modern military aircraft are equipped with a threat warning receiver of some type. They provide a visual display of threat activity. Given it's programming, it can tell you, at least, if that's a SA-6 or SA-2 for instance. Older models used a direction finding system that is good enough to tell you it's direction within a few degrees and a distance based on signal strength. Newer models probably use a doppler differential system that can pretty much pinpoint the threat emitter within a few feet anywhere on the face of the earth within a matter of seconds. Long before you are in range of it shooting you, you know about where it is, certainly you know what direction it is.

And you respect the threat.

Respect The Threat is a doctrine employed by all military aviators. Any threat warning is taken deadly (pun or no) seriously.

The sequence on most threat warning receivers (I'm gonna go with a generic APR-39 because it's what I'm familiar with) is Search, Lock, and Missile Activity. One assumes there is a Homing Activity as well, but it's not important to this discussion and I never hung around long enough to find out. [;)]

Search - You know the radar is out there, he may or may not know about you yet. You will get an icon on the receiver's display showing the direction and distance and what type of system.

Lock - The receiver has determined that the signal strength and regularity is such that the radar now knows you are there and probably your location and velocity. They aren't shooting at you but they do know an uncomfortable amount about you.

Missile Activity - Launch? YOU DON'T KNOW! What this means is that the SAM system has switched the guidance radar on you. That's the radar the missile follows to it's target. The missile itself is not (yet, in the case of terminal guidance) detectable to the receiver.

Respect The Threat. You could waste precious seconds you may not have doing a visual search to find that missile but you don't. You take action right then because it's all the warning you are going to get. You treat every case the same because if you don't break that lock you are going to die.

So yes, if the missile fires at max range, the aviator knows when it's fired and where it's coming from right then and would certainly take some action.

This got quite frustrating during Desert Shield. We would take our EH-60's on collection missions just south of the Kuwaiti border and fly along doing our thing. To get a deeper look we would slowly climb. At about 2000 feet we'd get search (these were always either SA-2 or SA-6), around 3500 feet we would get locked. Somewhere before 5000 feet we'd get missile activity. At that point we had no idea if a missile was on the way or not. Even though the shooting war hadn't yet started we'd pop chaff and dive to break the lock. Then we'd start the whole sequence again. Before long we started calling it "The Kuwaiti Coaster", a long slow climb followed by crazy, rapid descent. We didn't do this on one mission, we did it for months. I have no doubt at all about the laugh-fest going on at that missile controller's station. "Hah! Watch me make that evil American dive!" They were screwing with us and we knew it, but we had to respect the threat.

[Amnectrus]

Interesting that this should get resurrected today... I was just thinking, after I posted my recent AAR of the Kuril Sunrise scenario, that one of the other things I liked about it was that the WRA values were changed for several weapons. Kinda reminded me that screen is there. I don't make many of my own scenarios, but in the ones I play, I hardly ever check to see if it's been changed, because it rarely has, and when it has, it can be hard to tell. (Actually, it would be handy if it highlighted rows or weapons that have had their settings changed.) I admit I game the missile and evasion AI pretty ruthlessly sometimes. It's easy to just see the missile icons and forget the pucker factor that happens when someone is actually trying their best to kill you. I almost always micromanage my units and manually control all weapon firing, trying to get maximum effectiveness. I've experimented a bit with the WRA settings, but don't use them as much as I should; I could probably save myself a lot of clicking.

[BeirutDude]

So it depends upon the SAM system and its role. The S-400 is meant to be an area denial weapon and to fire to long range but also to be paired with the Pantsir for close in defense. Sometimes I adjust missile ranges in and sometimes I don't. Also sometimes I may allow land based SAMs to fire to max range but pair back the same SAMs on a SAG.

[DWReese]

I've played around quite a bit with your beloved S-400 system. (I said that because I know that you include it a lot in your scenarios. <lol>) The system is good, but in some areas of operation, it's not the best. Firing at long rang over different elevations allows the target a/c to dive and hide behind the mountains, etc., thus breaking the lock and losing the missile. If anyone thinks that they can simply fire away with it and get a kill they are sadly mistaken. It works great over water, but with mountainous terrain, the distance really needs to be adjusted.

With that in mind, it would be nice to either restrict the firing arc (rather than have it be a full 360 degrees, or be able to restrict the shooting distance in the various arcs. To return to our example of the SAM on the coast, I would allow it to shoot at any distance out over the water (like The Med), but would severely reduce its range shooting toward the north/south/east (over the mountains) because the launcher will go dry with very few kills.

Doug

[BeirutDude]

I've played around quite a bit with your beloved S-400 system. (I said that because I know that you include it a lot in your scenarios. <lol>)

Dang those pesky Russians (and Moose & Squirrel [:)] ) for deploying/selling S-400 systems in areas I like to design scenarios in! [:D] You're correct I do use it a lot, but only because they're out there. The United States just sanctioned the PRC because of an arms deal that included several S-400 Battalions. When I create a scenario I try my best to research and place the equipment actually deployed to the Hot Spot (sometimes I get it wrong, but heck the pay is the same [X(])! Therefore, when I create one in Antarctica, and if the Russian's haven't deployed one there yet, I won't include one for the defense of the Penguins [:D] [:D] [:D] [;)] [8D]

The system is good, but in some areas of operation, it's not the best. Firing at long rang over different elevations allows the target a/c to dive and hide behind the mountains, etc., thus breaking the lock and losing the missile.

Agreed

If anyone thinks that they can simply fire away with it and get a kill they are sadly mistaken. It works great over water, but with mountainous terrain, the distance really needs to be adjusted.

Agreed, but isn't that the very reason why the Russians deployed it along the Med coast in Syria? Because it works well over the water (as apparently the S-200 Divinia does as well [X(] ). You might note they deployed some BUKs in the southern mountains of the Syrian coastal mountain chain. BTW, its not always about getting a kill, thats the Aerial Denial aspect of the weapon system, if just the threat causes you to stand off it provides a mission kill. I know its fun to blow stuff up in Command but... [&o] [:D]

With that in mind, it would be nice to either restrict the firing arc (rather than have it be a full 360 degrees, or be able to restrict the shooting distance in the various arcs.

I would use that, but right now I can't...

To return to our example of the SAM on the coast, I would allow it to shoot at any distance out over the water (like The Med), but would severely reduce its range shooting toward the north/south/east (over the mountains) because the launcher will go dry with very few kills.

Agreed, so if in my scenario designs if the main threat axis to my high value targets is coming from the water and I want those attackers to stand off, well then my range for the Growlers is going to be maxed out and my layered SAM/ADA defenses (Pantsirs, Tunguska, and BUK) are going to get most leakers. After all some really, really, really, wicked smart people have designed these systems and they designed them to be layered with each component playing its roll. Now yes you can soak off the ADA system's resources but isn't that also a military tactic?

One other point, if the S-400 is so limited why is Israel (rightly) so opposed to one being given/sold to Syria for the Damascus area? I think we both know why!

Al

[BeirutDude]

Never mind file withdrawn, that was a mistake on my part...

The Layered ADA Challenge!

Initiated by Beirutdude

Ok so here is the deal. I'm really curious to see how people solve this problem. I have set up the Russian defenses in Syria (just the Russians, no Syrian not realistic but its not a real scenario) as I could find from “Open Source” intelligence sites. They compose of...

Khmiemim Air Force Base
A long/medium range 8 TEL SA-21a/b Battalion
A short range SA-22 Pantsir/Greyhound Company
2 Platoons of Tunguskas
Combat Air, ASW and Naval ASuW (last is a stretch) Patrols
Tartus Naval Base
A long/medium range 8 TEL SA-21a/b Battalion
A short range SA-22 Pantsir/Greyhound Company
2 Platoons of Tunguskas
Southern and Central Syria
4 SA-17/BUK Platoons (guarding Single Unit Air Bases at Hamah and Shayrat).

The ADA defenses are all at default/maximum range (for the first run then lets play a second time and adjust the Growlers down to half range for a second run). Give an AAR on what you built, how you attacked them and if the reduction to half range really made any difference.

Your mission is to build and conduct a REASONABLE U.S./NATO strike package to take out the Russian Air Base at Khmiemim and the Russian ADA system in Syria. You can use any base currently used by NATO or U.S. forces in the area (Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Turkey, Cyprus, Jordan, Italy) but you need to build a package which could reasonably be expected to be used. So having every Ohio class SSGN in the Red and Med Seas would be too much.

You have 12 hours of overnight time to attack beginning the scenario at 20:00 local time.
A Triumph would be 2,400 or greater VPs with 100 VPs awarded for every Russian land facility destroyed and Disaster “0”. There are no negative VPs for the destruction of air or naval units (some will like that!).
Have fun.

Al “Beirutdude” Sandrik

[Sharana]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

The Layered ADA Challenge!

Initiated by Beirutdude

Ok so here is the deal. I'm really curious to see how people solve this problem. I have set up the Russian defenses in Syria (just the Russians, no Syrian not realistic but its not a real scenario) as I could find from “Open Source” intelligence sites. They compose of...

Khmiemim Air Force Base
A long/medium range 8 TEL SA-21a/b Battalion
A short range SA-22 Pantsir/Greyhound Company
2 Platoons of Tunguskas
Combat Air, ASW and Naval ASuW (last is a stretch) Patrols
Tartus Naval Base
A long/medium range 8 TEL SA-21a/b Battalion
A short range SA-22 Pantsir/Greyhound Company
2 Platoons of Tunguskas
Southern and Central Syria
4 SA-17/BUK Platoons (guarding Single Unit Air Bases at Hamah and Shayrat).

The ADA defenses are all at default/maximum range (for the first run then lets play a second time and adjust the Growlers down to half range for a second run). Give an AAR on what you built, how you attacked them and if the reduction to half range really made any difference.

Your mission is to build and conduct a REASONABLE U.S./NATO strike package to take out the Russian Air Base at Khmiemim and the Russian ADA system in Syria. You can use any base currently used by NATO or U.S. forces in the area (Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Turkey, Cyprus, Jordan, Italy) but you need to build a package which could reasonably be expected to be used. So having every Ohio class SSGN in the Red and Med Seas would be too much.

You have 12 hours of overnight time to attack beginning the scenario at 20:00 local time.
A Triumph would be 2,400 or greater VPs with 100 VPs awarded for every Russian land facility destroyed and Disaster “0”. There are no negative VPs for the destruction of air or naval units (some will like that!).
Have fun.

Al “Beirutdude” Sandrik

There are 4 TELs of S-400 in Khmeimim. None in Tartus and 4 more about 40km north east of Tartus. 4 Pantsirs in Khmeimimg, but also Tor was noticed instead of Pantsir and 2 more in Tartus. No tunguskas.

And saturating that even with just 2 destroyers packed with cruise missiles is not hard. If you fell cheap you can level it with MLRS systems from Turkish territory (still NATO on paper).

Of course the reason it's lightly defended is because no one will actually attack it (not counting those garage made UAVs).