How to determine the optimal altitude for agility (without penalties) for dogfight tactics in CMO

[Correcaminos]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been searching the forums trying to understand how altitude affects agility penalties for aircraft in the game, but I’m still a bit confused. From what I gather, lower altitudes generally mean better agility, but I’d like to know **how to identify the optimal altitude** for maximum maneuverability without significant penalties.

Here are my specific questions:
1. **Is there a table, formula, or in-game data** that explains how agility is penalized at different altitudes? For example, does the game use a fixed percentage reduction per 10,000 feet, or is it based on real-world aerodynamic principles (e.g., air density, wing loading)?
2. **How do you determine the best altitude for dogfights** for a specific aircraft? So far, I’ve been comparing velocity losses between altitude bands (e.g., 580kts at 12k ft vs. 550kts at 30k ft), but this feels like a rough approximation. Is there a more precise method?
3. **When planning a CAP mission**, how do you decide the optimal engagement altitude to gain a tactical edge over an enemy aircraft? Do you rely on trial-and-error, or are there advanced techniques.

For context, I’m trying to simulate realistic tactical advantages, like using altitude to maximize my aircraft’s agility while forcing the enemy into a disadvantaged position. Any insights or resources (e.g., spreadsheets, guides, or community tools) would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

[Fido81]

1. I've yet to encounter evidence that altitude directly affects agility (which I want to say is represented by a single number associated with each DBID in the database). Each a/c will have speed and fuel consumption impacted by altitude bands though, and those things will impact dogfighting performance. Pilot proficiency also impacts agility. I strongly recommend reading the manual cover-to-cover if you have not; it does speak to this topic.
2. I can't answer this question directly because I don't have a more precise tool. But there's 2 things I encourage you to keep in mind:
A The enemy gets a vote. What matters isn't player a/c deployment in the abstract sense, but player a/c deployment against the threat.
B CMO isn't really about fighting the a/c (the AI will do its best to accomplish that in accordance with our instructions). Our role is more to fight the squadron/wing/regiment at the operational level; the game wants us to take a bigger-picture view.
Note that sometimes the best thing in terms of mission outcomes is not doctrinally correct.
3. My general approach to CAP is to patrol at as high an altitude as possible to improve missile kinematics during any initial shots. I also like to patrol at cruise speed (as opposed to the default loiter) and disable AAR in order to make it more likely my a/c will get the benefits of quick turnaround, if it's enabled and I'm worried about a massive air raid. As a compromise, I prefer to approach hostile a/c at military power rather than afterburner. Also, I almost always set up a prosecution box so my CAP isn't chasing potential threats hundreds miles away.

[Correcaminos]

Thank you for taking the time to reply — I really appreciate your insights.You’ve given me a lot to think about

I think I might not have phrased my original question clearly. What I was trying to understand is how altitude directly affects agility during a dogfight , as seen in the combat log when it says something like:

"SQN #4 has nominal agility 2.3, adjusted for altitude: 1.2."

This suggests that the game does apply an agility penalty based on altitude in specific situations, even if the base agility value in the database stays constant. I was wondering if there’s a way to determine at which altitudes an aircraft like e.g. the Javelin FAW.9 doesn’t suffer such penalties — essentially, where its agility remains close to nominal.

I’ve gone through the manual a few times (it’s a great resource!), but I’m still piecing together how these dynamic adjustments work under the hood. If there’s no direct table or formula, then your operational advice is definitely the next best thing — and very valuable.

Thanks again for sharing your experience. It’s users like you that make this community so helpful.

[SunlitZelkova]

It would be interesting to know, is there any particular sort of aircraft you are using that you feel require this information to use more efficiently?

Agility is not going to be much of a factor in very modern (1970s+) air-to-air combat. Destruction is done with missiles and defense is done with ECM and other countermeasures.

As Fido81 said, specific dogfighting tactics and such are "above the paygrade" of the player in CMO. Focus is more on how aircraft are employed "strategically" (I'm using that as a common adjective, not the actual military definition of "strategic") rather than "tactically": Think in terms of how to spatially employ MiGCAPs and how to route strike missions, less how the F-4 and F-105 perform one-on-one against the MiG-21.

Even in areas where agility might be a factor, like in 1940s and 1950s scenarios where dogfighting with guns was still the main form of air combat, I personally think there are still a number of other factors that will decide the outcome of engagement over agility. Awareness, altitude (in terms of if the enemy is above or below on contact), and speed play a bigger role than agility.

This is because by the end of World War II, most aircraft designs had begun emphasizing speed over maneuverability. US designs evolved this way because of the adoption of boom-and-zoom tactics against Japanese aircraft in the Pacific and the desire for sturdy, well-built aircraft that required bigger engines to propel (there were other factors too of course, like the desire to create longer-range aircraft for bomber escort, necessitating more fuel). Later models of the Spitfire evolved in the same manner. By the time jet aircraft rolled around, speed became even more predominant, as the entire point of the jet engine was to increase an aircraft's speed beyond what a reciprocating engine could provide.

If your query is related to how to get better results in the game, that's my two cents—it's just not something you need to worry about. If you're just interested in the way the game works out of curiosity...

It was mentioned in another thread that altitude does have an impact on aircraft handling. I myself shared an experience where an F-35 cruising at 16,000 meters (well above the average operational ceiling of most military aircraft) could only fly at 470 knots, despite the speed/altitude window saying the desired speed was 480.

I'd suggest reading about how altitude impacts speed in real life (getting down into the nitty gritty math) and then taking those equations and seeing if they are replicated the way they should with a certain aircraft in the game.

At the end of the day though, this is a very complex simulator and it might be difficult to tell. I myself long wondered how the targeting of MIRVs worked and didn't find out until coming across an old thread from six or seven years ago. IMO learning bits and pieces about how it works and how it models things in real life, rather than having that info on demand, is part of the fun of the game

[Correcaminos]

Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful response.

I really appreciate the perspective on operational-level decision-making — it’s one I fully share. My question wasn’t about micro-managing dogfights or trying to "win" a turn fight by tweaking altitudes in real time. Rather, I’m interested in **how the game models specific performance penalties**, particularly for **1950s–60s era aircraft**, and whether these are something we should consider when planning mission profiles.

Here’s what prompted the question:
In a recent scenario, I had a **Javelin FAW.9** on CAP at **24,000 ft**. When it engaged a MiG-19, the combat log showed:
> *"SQN #4 has nominal agility 2.3, adjusted for altitude: 1.2"* — a **~50% reduction** in agility.
This directly impacted its ability to evade the MiG’s cannon fire, and it was hit.

I re-ran the engagement with the **same aircraft on CAP at 12,000 ft**, and in that case, **no altitude-based agility penalty was applied** — the agility remained close to nominal, and the outcome was more favorable.

So my real question is:
**At what altitude does the game start applying agility penalties for specific aircraft like the Javelin or MiG-19?**
Is it based on real aerodynamic thresholds (e.g. service ceiling, wing loading, air density), or is it a generalized model (e.g. all 1950s jets get penalized above 12k–14k ft)?
And does it vary between types? For example, would a MiG-19 suffer the same penalty at 24k ft as a Javelin, or is it modeled differently?

I understand that modern aircraft (like the F-16) don’t seem to suffer such penalties at similar altitudes in the combat logs, which suggests the mechanic is era- or design-specific.

I’m not looking to "game the system" — just trying to understand how CMO implements these details under the hood, especially for historical scenarios where guns and agility still mattered. Knowing this could help make more informed decisions when setting patrol altitudes for older aircraft, without falling into the trap of over-optimizing.

Thanks again for the insights — always great to read how others approach the game.

[Fido81]

I think if I had this question I'd try to solve it by coding. Here's my algorithm:

I'd use LUA to set up conflicting hostile CAPs of your aircraft at some pre-defined altitude, and let them engage.

After a hit, I'd append the hit message, shooter altitude as a string, and target altitude as a string to different variables.

I'd repeat that step for all interested altitudes (I'd add/subtract either 1k or 100 ft and cover from 300 to 45000 ft).

Then I'd print the variables, and that should have the info in question.

[Correcaminos]

I haven't run the tests yet, but I'm planning to —I'll likely automate a series of engagements via Lua to map out exactly where the penalty starts and how it scales.

My original question was whether there’s any known threshold or DB-side logic behind it — something that might hint at design-based limits (e.g. related to wing loading or service ceiling) rather than a flat rule. But if it’s not documented, then yes, scripting the test is the cleanest way to get answers.

[Knightpawn]

Recommend to take the thread below into consideration.
In a nutshell: accurate representation of dogfights is not a design priority for CMO.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 9#p5224169

[Correcaminos]

Yes, I read it, and it's very interesting. But in the end, flying scenarios from the 1950s won't avoid gun-based dogfights. Maybe it's not even worth overthinking it — for a MiG-17 or similar, just setting up engagements at low altitude is enough.

[Tcao]

A test is welcomed, please let us know what you found out

If I remember correctly, in CMO , agility only affects the final POH check. The reduction in agility follows a linear function. Take the F-14 as an example: its maximum agility is 4. When conducting the final POH check at or below 6,000 ft altitude, it can reach its maximum agility. At altitudes of 36,000 ft or higher, its agility is reduced to half of the maximum—i.e., 2. At around 12,000 ft, I remember the agility should be around 3.8.

According to the POH calculation formula in CMANO/CMO, agility contributes the largest portion of the evasion bonus during the final evasion check. For the F-14, under the same terminal missile energy conditions, the hit probability difference between high and low altitudes can be as much as 20%. So, back in the CMANO era, low-altitude flight didn’t just benefit dogfighting—it also gave a significant evasion advantage in BVR engagements. A low-altitude aircraft could enjoy up to a 20% reduction in missile hit probability, and when combined with the sea-skimming modifier, the missile’s final hit probability could drop to single digits.

However, this tactic became less effective in CMO after missile kinetic energy was introduced. Now, you’d prefer your aircraft to hold the high ground—even in dogfights—because missiles launched from low altitudes lose a significant amount of kinetic energy due to air drag. Even if the launch distance is short and the missile can reach a high-altitude target, its final POH—such as with the AIM-9X—can be reduced to just around 30% due to the missile's reduced terminal speed.

[Correcaminos]

I completely agree with you.

Altitude has a significant impact on evasion, and that can easily tip the balance of an air engagement one way or the other—especially in early jet-era scenarios. What’s interesting—and sometimes unfair—is that a technically superior aircraft might be suffering a severe agility penalty simply due to operating at an altitude where its performance is degraded, while a less advanced but more agile opponent gains a tactical edge just by being in the right altitude band.

This factor actually affects many 1950s and 1960s scenarios, where gun-based dogfights are still common, and the difference between survival and being shot down can come down to a 50% reduction in effective agility. And even though CMO doesn’t emphasize close-range combat as a primary focus, these engagements still happen—and when they do, these kinds of penalties *do* make a real difference.

At first, I thought this defensive penalty from altitude might be inferable from some data in the DB or aircraft specs, but I now realize it’s not—it only becomes apparent when you analyze the combat logs.

Thanks for sharing such detailed insight and for taking the time to dig into these underlying mechanics. It’s always a pleasure to read someone who goes beyond the surface level.

[Knightpawn]

My intuition from playing the game for the last six months (but I might be wrong) is that agility also affects the turn rate of an aircraft in dogfights. In other words how fast it can turn its nose towards the enemy.

[Correcaminos]

Hello everyone,

I’ve conducted tests to determine the agility penalty by altitude for two fighters with a nominal agility of 2.5: the Javelin FAW.7 and the MiG-19. Both aircraft were engaged at various altitudes using IR Firestreak missiles or their internal cannons. For both weapon types, the evasion of the defender remained consistent across all cases. After multiple engagements, the observed behavior was as follows:



e.g.



Agility Penalty Decreases Linearly with Altitude:
At each altitude, the nominal agility decreases equally for both aircraft.
Below 10,000 feet , the agility penalty is zero — no loss in evasion due to altitude.
Starting from 30,000 feet , the maximum agility penalty reaches 1.2 , and it does not increase further at higher altitudes.
Key Observations:
The maximum agility penalty occurs at or above 30,000 feet , where adjusted agility drops to 1.2 (a 52% reduction).
Between 10,000–30,000 feet , the agility penalty gradually increases, but remains manageable.
Below 10,000 feet , both aircraft maintain their nominal agility, making them highly maneuverable and difficult to hit.
Implications:
For less agile aircraft (with nominal agility around 2.5), setting engagements at high altitudes results in significant penalties, reducing their ability to evade attacks.
Operating below 10,000 feet maximizes agility and evasion, providing a tactical advantage in dogfights.
Here’s a summary of the findings:




This data has clarified things significantly for me, and I find it very interesting because it shows clearly that altitude penalties are quite severe for less maneuverable fighters when set to engage at high altitudes. It’s crucial to consider these factors when planning CAP missions or intercepts to maximize your aircraft’s effectiveness.

I understand that this applies to evasion from missiles, SAMs, or AAA, for example

Feel free to share your own findings!

Best regards,

[Knightpawn]

Is the evasion loss factor at a certain altitude the same across all agility levels?

[Correcaminos]

Good question. I don’t know yet — my tests have only covered agility 2.5. I’d need to test other aircraft to see if the penalty scales the same way.

That said, I’m mainly focused on 1950s–60s jets, where most aircraft in dogfighting roles have agility values between 2.0 and 3.5. For those, the altitude penalty seems particularly relevant when facing guns or short-range IR missiles.

For more modern, agile aircraft, I assume the missile’s intrinsic Probability of Hit (PH) becomes a bigger factor than the target’s evasion — especially with high-off-boresight missiles or better seekers.

[Nikel]

A graphic from your data. Not sure what should be X and what Y

G.png (17.82 KiB) Viewed 1288 times

G2.png (19.73 KiB) Viewed 1280 times