[WAD+TWEAK] S400 cant hit evading targets.. (post patch)

[Dimitris]

During debugging, I came across a recent change which may contribute to the issue observed by the OP, so I'll keep this comment short:

We have recently began looking into revising the way that aircraft nominal acceleration is calculated, in order to reach more faithful values. This includes research on a number of different things (thrust-at-altitude for example) and is going to take some time. As an interim measure, and in recognition that the current values are too high across the board, we have applied a "halve the current value" hotfix as an interim measure. This is obviously important in missile avoidance as it affects the "time window" available to an aircraft once it has detected an incoming missile. You will see this change in the next official update release.

I'll follow up after I have a better understand of this suspect change....

[thewood1]

"non existent AI"

This is absolutely not true. CMO has one of the best AIs in gaming/simulation. And thats because the way its built gives the scenario designer excellent control over how the AI operates and reacts. Having lua available and the plethora of ROE/WRA settings is an amazing opportunity...if designers take advantage of it. The mission logic is still key and if you aren't using missions, you'll think the game doesn't work. CMO is mission-based not unit-based.

For example, you can swap ROE/WRA out on the fly as a part of both lua and missions. A simple special action to state that you want CAP to be aggressive or conservative can swap out all the WRAs. Very few designers take advantage of it. Granted it is fairly complex. But its pretty doable.

[Dimitris]

I added a tweak in the loft logics that encourages missiles to take a more plungy/"curvy" trajectory on their terminal dive, to maximize the time spent as high as possible (ie. less drag ie. more speed at terminal).

It seems to work quite well (in the OP example, 40N6s consistently impact at 75% WRA) but we'll need to test this carefully to ensure it doesn't break other cases.

[Horchata]

I seem to have ruffled some feathers.

"non existent AI"

This is absolutely not true. CMO has one of the best AIs in gaming/simulation. And thats because the way its built gives the scenario designer excellent control over how the AI operates and reacts. Having lua available and the plethora of ROE/WRA settings is an amazing opportunity...if designers take advantage of it. The mission logic is still key and if you aren't using missions, you'll think the game doesn't work. CMO is mission-based not unit-based.

For example, you can swap ROE/WRA out on the fly as a part of both lua and missions. A simple special action to state that you want CAP to be aggressive or conservative can swap out all the WRAs. Very few designers take advantage of it. Granted it is fairly complex. But its pretty doable.

I understand the game is based around missions, my comment wasn't that general more about the lack of an easy way to make a functional SAM site that doesn't do stupid stuff.
How can I make a realistic S-400 or PAC-3 site that acts similar to a knowledgable human player or how a skilled crew would in real life?
I am not a programmer. Ease of content creation is important to the longevity of any game and basic stuff like this requiring programming locks a lot of people out.

Most of the games scenarios do not have this, therefore it is evidently too difficult, and thus is a problem for a game centered on missile gameplay.

The game needs an included plug-in for quality SAM sites and IADS.
(of course the most realism would also need adding of C3 vehicles and command links)

Example skill levels:
Elite - the well drilled, intelligent, highly motivated crews of the manufacturing country or a key partner. for example the serbs like Zoltan Dani and the RuAF guys who pulled off the Belarus>Kiev MiG-29UB kill.
Professional - The above, but without the motivation (When they're not in a defensive war less is at stake, so less motivation)
Average: Developing world states like India and China (I realize china is somewhat technically an advanced country, but unlike the US and Russia they don't use IFF and doctrine thus says SAM sites are entirely shut off during an air strike)
Poor: Third world states like Syria, Iraq, UAE and Saudi Arabia where being a vehicle crew isn't considered prestigious. (The states that give SAM systems a bad rap due to poor crew skill)

This determines things such as how often they make mistakes, how easy it is to fuck with them as a human player and how long it takes them to go into-action during the opening salvo of a war where no one is sure if it is real.

Elite crews will:
Not waste missiles on targets they aren't likely to hit
At the same time sometimes play keep away with far off targets unlikely to connect, firing one missile at a flight of attack jets in order to force them to evade.
Fire only one missile per far off targets when there is enough time to "fix mistakes"
Fire missiles per TEL to not have to reload a 2/4 TEL during combat action
Do a "fake launch" to also play keep away and make them doubt if it is the real thing next time. (A Russian S400 crew in Syria did this to a F-35 pilot that strayed too close to the base, but I am not really sure what exactly it entails)
Properly observe EMCON tactics
Leave a few incoming cruise missiles to the local easier to reload SHORAD close protection detail units.
Shut off the radars if an incoming ARM is of the type that otherwise can't guide, or only leave on the CPD's radars as they can attempt to engage and if hit it isn't a critical loss.

They will also:
Be disciplined to move at the assigned time or when things get too intense, although the game doesn't yet support the move by road ability.
Vary the time a radar is shut off for maintenance to not get predictable, and also ensure the site is protected during that time.
Ensure the vehicles and radars are maintained properly (since in real life radars can't operate indefinitely)

[DWReese]

I agree with you from a scenario design perspective---many designers think nothing of emptying the coffers and firing a dozen (or so) $1M SAMs at targets that they could never come close to hitting. In real life, I'm sure that they would be a little more conservative with their approach to wasting a valuable resource, like missiles from the S-400.

I used to use things like MALDs to draw out SAMs, and make the AI waste its missiles. Now, you just have to get on the fringe of the launch radius, and the AI will waste them on its own, with little to no chance of hitting anything.

These missiles are expensive, and limited in numbers as far as availability goes. I'm sure that each country, in each circumstance, has restrictions regarding the use of their platforms and ammunition. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes", the mantra allegedly originating from the Battle of Bunker Hill, was geared toward preserving ammo (gun powder), and that clearly proves that often, in important battles, the weapons/men/etc., don't always have an unlimited supply of ammo/resources available.

As a side note, it seems that many scenarios are created with only the newest, and best, platforms available. In reality, there are plenty of chances that that might not always be the case. For example, the Frigate in a scenario that gets fired upon just might not be the top-of-the-line warship available, and might not have the best equipment, or be topped off with weapons.

So, in summary, it would be nice to have less missiles fired (wasted, as you implied) that have little to no chance of hitting anything, and also have platforms that aren't always the newest and best available. I believe that those two things would make things a little more realistic, as you desired.

I love your idea of fine-tuning the crew levels. I know that the game currently sort of approaches this topic using response times as their defining point, but I do believe that there is more to it in real life, as you pointed out.

In any case, thsy is just a dream for another day.

[thewood1]

As to wasting missiles...isn't that what WRA is for? You can easily limit missile wastage by using WRA properly. And EMCOM can easily be used by a designer to adjust emission based on proximity and type of units detected. You can use comms and sides to create integrated defense. And all of this without an lua. The tools are there and have been there for a long time. In fact, I believe too much lua is used in most complex scenarios. Designers try to do weird things to make a story or force a player down a funnel. You can build exciting and highly realistic scenarios with no lua or, at worst a single event line.

Building scenarios in CMO is no harder than in Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, or even DCS.

edit...but just like those games, its easy to build a very basic scenario. But it takes patience and understanding the game and the real-life processes to build a life-like scenario.

[BDukes]

I seem to have ruffled some feathers.

Until you read about past the second or third sentence and realize you're just showboating abit to draw attention without looking at things more objectively.

I understand the game is based around missions, my comment wasn't that general more about the lack of an easy way to make a functional SAM site that doesn't do stupid stuff.
How can I make a realistic S-400 or PAC-3 site that acts similar to a knowledgable human player or how a skilled crew would in real life?
I am not a programmer. Ease of content creation is important to the longevity of any game and basic stuff like this requiring programming locks a lot of people out.

It is not a lock. It provides a way for somebody to do something until development gets there. I get that its frustrating but its not preventing you from learning, doing, making friends who can, whatever. I comment the crap out of my code to make it extremely easy to copy and use again. Lot of people here do that.

If you're saying the devs are hanging their hat on Lua to avoid dev work I can provide you a pretty lengthy list where they have addressed things. Dare me to do it

Most of the games scenarios do not have this, therefore it is evidently too difficult, and thus is a problem for a game centered on missile gameplay.

The game needs an included plug-in for quality SAM sites and IADS.
(of course the most realism would also need adding of C3 vehicles and command links)

Example skill levels:
Elite - the well drilled, intelligent, highly motivated crews of the manufacturing country or a key partner. for example the serbs like Zoltan Dani and the RuAF guys who pulled off the Belarus>Kiev MiG-29UB kill.
Professional - The above, but without the motivation (When they're not in a defensive war less is at stake, so less motivation)
Average: Developing world states like India and China (I realize china is somewhat technically an advanced country, but unlike the US and Russia they don't use IFF and doctrine thus says SAM sites are entirely shut off during an air strike)
Poor: Third world states like Syria, Iraq, UAE and Saudi Arabia where being a vehicle crew isn't considered prestigious. (The states that give SAM systems a bad rap due to poor crew skill)

This determines things such as how often they make mistakes, how easy it is to fuck with them as a human player and how long it takes them to go into-action during the opening salvo of a war where no one is sure if it is real.

Elite crews will:
Not waste missiles on targets they aren't likely to hit
At the same time sometimes play keep away with far off targets unlikely to connect, firing one missile at a flight of attack jets in order to force them to evade.
Fire only one missile per far off targets when there is enough time to "fix mistakes"
Fire missiles per TEL to not have to reload a 2/4 TEL during combat action
Do a "fake launch" to also play keep away and make them doubt if it is the real thing next time. (A Russian S400 crew in Syria did this to a F-35 pilot that strayed too close to the base, but I am not really sure what exactly it entails)
Properly observe EMCON tactics
Leave a few incoming cruise missiles to the local easier to reload SHORAD close protection detail units.
Shut off the radars if an incoming ARM is of the type that otherwise can't guide, or only leave on the CPD's radars as they can attempt to engage and if hit it isn't a critical loss.

They will also:
Be disciplined to move at the assigned time or when things get too intense, although the game doesn't yet support the move by road ability.
Vary the time a radar is shut off for maintenance to not get predictable, and also ensure the site is protected during that time.
Ensure the vehicles and radars are maintained properly (since in real life radars can't operate indefinitely)

How does the game's current proficiency stuff impact all this? How are one nation's procedures different from another and how as a game designer do you code to them all. Or is what you think the only way? Do you see what I'm saying about objectivity?

Mike

[DWReese]

As to wasting missiles...isn't that what WRA is for?

I talking about game designers making the opposition better when the scenario is created. I'm not talking about the game player doing anything while he playing the game.

Yes, it's true, the game player can use WRA to not waste his missiles. But, the game player can't do anything about the AI side if the scenario designer doesn't use WRA (or some method) to do so. There are many really good scenarios that people have created, but they have a flaw like this.

If the game player has to use the Scenario Editor to fix it himself, then the SUPRISE FACTOR is now gone.

[thewood1]

I was also talking about WRA for scenario designers. IMO, this whole discussion is rooted in people throwing up one WRA and running with it...players and designers. In scenarios where you have a side turn hostile, how many people go back and adjust their WRAs or add no fly zones based on the posture changing. I bet it would be very few. And scenario designers have a lot of tools available to them through events, triggers, posture, alertness, etc., not to mention lua if needed, to adjust WRA and ROE.

[BDukes]

I was also talking about WRA for scenario designers. IMO, this whole discussion is rooted in people throwing up one WRA and running with it...players and designers.

To be fair, the devs did set a single WRA baseline and added a check box with a single value, so of course, anybody who isn't obsessed isn't going to think beyond that.

In scenarios where you have a side turn hostile, how many people go back and adjust their WRAs or add no-fly zones based on the posture changing?

Tough one because it is linked to how much players micromanage and how many trust enough to set the AI and be hands-off. I think a lesson was learned from polling for the initial baseline value that was used and is now revised.

I bet it would be very few. And scenario designers have a lot of tools available to them through events, triggers, posture, alertness, etc., not to mention lua if needed, to adjust WRA and ROE.

Yeah, that is why I've kind of lost interest in this discussion-mostly. Just easier to do my thing, code, and maintain what I want. This doesn't mean, though, that I'm insensitive to the rub of those who can't, though. I document my code so people can copy and understand what I did.

Anyways, I think the devs have made some changes so there were clearly issues else they wouldn't spend the time. I'm very happy things are moving forward.

Mike

[Kobu]

Hi

First of all very interesting topic with a lot of things to learn.

I'm glad to hear that airplane acceleration has been identified as a problem. From what I have seen, height does affect, and more or less correctly (taking an average) the maximum speed that a plane reaches.

I think that a good solution would be to unite the agility characteristic that the plane currently has (the one used in the final calculation of the probability of impact of a missile) with the maximum acceleration and speed that the plane can develop and thus it would be updated with what the plane is doing (less fuel, less weapons...).

Thus, an airplane configured for AG and with more than half the fuel would have a much lower acceleration and maximum speed than another configured for AA and with half the fuel, something that does not happen now and is of special importance in reality.
Stealth planes have an advantage here in terms of drag.

But in general terms the acceleration and maximum speed are well above what would be expected in most cases and in reality.

Regards