Targeting

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Presumably, the loss of the LRDG unit in question would be of consequence.

There is a 9.7% risk to the LRDG unit. The reward still far exceeds the risk. But that reveals another reason not to use a TO - the Commonwealth player could wait until the LRDG unit had been eliminated before exorcising it. Very gamey.

Isn't the advantage pretty massive? You mentioned a shock bonus and extra theatre recon.

There are a few turns of shock disruption. But the long term effect is that the Axis "Desert Fox" bonus of 4% shock is reduced to neutral. Hardly massive.

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Presumably, the loss of the LRDG unit in question would be of consequence.

There is a 9.7% risk to the LRDG unit. The reward still far exceeds the risk. But that reveals another reason not to use a TO - the Commonwealth player could wait until the LRDG unit had been eliminated before exorcising it. Very gamey.

Or the use of annother event to cancel the TO if the LRDG is destroyed.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There are a few turns of shock disruption. But the long term effect is that the Axis "Desert Fox" bonus of 4% shock is reduced to neutral. Hardly massive.

The fighting strength of the entire Axis force is reduced by 4%. Pretty substantial.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

The Royal Navy AA system at the time of the Falklands- the Seacat- was supposed to be able to destroy missiles like the Exocet. In this role and others, it was generally regarded as a failure and a disappointment. I would not place too much emphasis on an untested weapons system.

Well a) IIRC it was fine so long as it only had one target at a time and b) as I've said some twenty-four years have passed since then, and technology has advanced apace.

My point is that the Seacat was thought of in terms similar to how you think of Phalanx- before it was vetted in combat. Once in combat, it turned out to not be the panacea it was reputed to be.

At any rate, SSM technology has advanced since then as well, and I'm not aware of any weapons system which has reliably and successfully served as a countermeasure to precision munitions, things like cruise missiles in particular. Thus, there is no need to model countermeasures which apparently do not exist.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

My point is that the Seacat was thought of in terms similar to how you think of Phalanx- before it was vetted in combat. Once in combat, it turned out to not be the panacea it was reputed to be.

Sure- but such systems were in their infancy at the time. It's a bit like if I were to dismiss guided missiles themselves because half of the Argentine Exocets ditched into the sea because they couldn't find their targets.

At any rate, SSM technology has advanced since then as well, and I'm not aware of any weapons system which has reliably and successfully served as a countermeasure to precision munitions, things like cruise missiles in particular. Thus, there is no need to model countermeasures which apparently do not exist.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to shoot them down- they are just missiles after all, and there has been some success in shooting down scuds. The only reason to think it would be harder to shoot down precision munitions is if they have some sort of countermeasures, which in itself would imply that there is indeed a means to shoot them down in the first place.

Naturally, some precision munitions will get through. But some can be shot down. I'll also note that no-one has yet attempted to dismiss my idea of interfering with guidance systems of the projectile itself.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to shoot them down- they are just missiles after all,

For one thing, cruise missiles fly nap of the earth. They're hitting their target before they can be engaged. Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

and there has been some success in shooting down scuds.

Actually, no. It's been proven that the Patriot missile did not shoot down any Scuds, and that is a obsolete missile at that.

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to shoot them down- they are just missiles after all,

For one thing, cruise missiles fly nap of the earth. They're hitting their target before they can be engaged. Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

and there has been some success in shooting down scuds.

Actually, no. It's been proven that the Patriot missile did not shoot down any Scuds, and that is a obsolete missile at that.

This is misleading. Cruise missiles have been shot down by AAA guns precisely because they fly nap of the earth in a straight line at a speed that is not particularly high when compared to aircraft.

They haven't been shot down by SAMs because they fly below the radar coverage. As for the Patriot, those used in the 1st Gulf War were not intended to be anti-missile missiles, so the fact that they failed to destroy the Scud warhead is not surprising, but intercept Scuds they did. Since then newer missiles are available that have included this capability.

[DanNeely]

In particular, shooting down theater balistic missles was a planned feature for the 92/93 upgrade, but since alpha level code for the feature was written it was deployed because there weren't any other systems that could do the task and the worst that could happen was that it wouldn't work leaving us in the same place we were without them.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to shoot them down- they are just missiles after all,

For one thing, cruise missiles fly nap of the earth. They're hitting their target before they can be engaged. Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

and there has been some success in shooting down scuds.

Actually, no. It's been proven that the Patriot missile did not shoot down any Scuds, and that is a obsolete missile at that.

This is misleading. Cruise missiles have been shot down by AAA guns precisely because they fly nap of the earth in a straight line at a speed that is not particularly high when compared to aircraft.

They haven't been shot down by SAMs because they fly below the radar coverage. As for the Patriot, those used in the 1st Gulf War were not intended to be anti-missile missiles, so the fact that they failed to destroy the Scud warhead is not surprising, but intercept Scuds they did. Since then newer missiles are available that have included this capability.

In fact there are a host of contemporary weapons systems specifically designed to take down cruise missiles, UAVs, and tactical and intermediate range ballistic missiles. Look at the Russian S-300 series (SA-10 Grumble, SA-12 Giant and Gladiator), S-400 (SA-20), and Tor-M1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) SAMs - these have all been fielded and upgraded over the past couple of decades. How effective these SAMs are in combat remains to be seen, but they are in fairly wide use - meaning someone, and not just a few, think they might just work.

Cruise missiles are also rather easy to down by aircraft with modern look-down shoot-down capabilities. The F-14 Tomcat was originally designed to intercept and shoot down Soviet surface-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles as far as possible from their carrier battle group. I'm sure modern Russian Su-27 variants have such capability.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

There hasn't been a conflict between two modern forces in the era of the cruise missile. The closest thing to an exception was the Falklands War, and that was so long ago that it is hardly a useful source of information.

Sort of like if you wanted me to post an account of a T-90 being knocked out by another tank. Can't? Obviously the T-90 is invincible.

Actually, no. It's been proven that the Patriot missile did not shoot down any Scuds, and that is a obsolete missile at that.

It's certainly true that the Patriot was less effective than previously thought. However, I really doubt that it's been proven that it didn't shoot down any scuds.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
Or the use of annother event to cancel the TO if the LRDG is destroyed.

The "Unit Destroyed" trigger doesn't work if the unit is sub-divided. Besides, the unit can be destroyed and then reconstitute. And this is becoming a ridiculus event-hog project - far beyond what it warrents.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The fighting strength of the entire Axis force is reduced by 4%. Pretty substantial.

But surmountable.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
Or the use of annother event to cancel the TO if the LRDG is destroyed.

The "Unit Destroyed" trigger doesn't work if the unit is sub-divided. Besides, the unit can be destroyed and then reconstitute. And this is becoming a ridiculus event-hog project - far beyond what it warrents.

Unit destroyed trigger should be fixed for the Matrix Games Edition. In the meantime, if the LRDG is a commando unit, then you don't have to worry about it reconstituting, since one of that icon's properties is to disallow reconstitution. You can also use the section unit size to prevent unit breakdowns, if that is a design goal for the particular unit.

[JAMiAM]

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

[Rob322]

The F-14 Tomcat was originally designed to intercept and shoot down Soviet surface-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles as far as possible from their carrier battle group.

Well, sort of. The idea was to try and shoot down the bombers first of course and if that failed shoot down the missiles. How could they would have been at that is an open question since Russian cruise missiles, while big, were awfully fast. You'd likely get one chance to fire at them if they were coming towards you but you'd be hard pressed to catch them (and by you I mean your AAM's) if you were behind them or to the side. The same goes for the battlegroup SAM's whose only saving grace is that the missiles are approaching you at all times and make them a bit easier to engage. Of xourse that also means you will have a reasonable chance of dying in the next few minutes but [:-]

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

Hallelujia!

[DanNeely]

Are there any other changes/bug fixes/additions that we're allowed to discuss in public now?

[JAMiAM]

Nope...[:D]

I'll dish out bits and pieces as we get closer to release, and they are confirmed to be working properly.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

There hasn't been a conflict between two modern forces in the era of the cruise missile.

That actually touches on my point quite nicely. Whatever countermeasures are out there haven't been used and many are likely to remain unused, as a full on conventional conflict between two fully modern armies is unlikely in the near term.

Also, all precision munitions aren't missiles. Many "smart bombs" are just that- bombs. Good luck shooting those down.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Of course, you are free to post an account of a cruise missile being "shot down" as a counterargument.

There hasn't been a conflict between two modern forces in the era of the cruise missile.

That actually touches on my point quite nicely. Whatever countermeasures are out there haven't been used and many are likely to remain unused, as a full on conventional conflict between two fully modern armies is unlikely in the near term.

Also, all precision munitions aren't missiles. Many "smart bombs" are just that- bombs. Good luck shooting those down.

I don't get it - are you arguing that because anti-PGM/SSM weapons systems aren't likely to be used in all-out conventional conflicts in the future, they shouldn't be modeled in ACoW? Nuclear/chemical weapons are even more unlikely to be used on the battlefield, yet they are modelled.

I think modern anti-PGM/SSM SAMs should be modeled in ACoW (as should dedicated SEAD). As it is now SSMs are virtual 'super weapons' which can rain down unrealistically high levels of damage at will, with no effective countermeasures, even for forces equipped with systems at least theoretically capable of knocking SSMs down.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the US Patriot PAC-3 on globalsecurity.org:

PATRIOT battalions with PAC-3 fire units were employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) against TBMs. In OIF, PAC-3 interceptors were ripple-fired against ballistic missile threats, a user requirement that was not demonstrated during operational testing. This eliminated the need for a follow-on test to demonstrate this capability. All PATRIOT engagements were conducted in a complex operational environment. There were three instances of erroneous engagements between PATRIOT batteries and friendly aircraft. System performance against TBMs appears to have been highly effective and consistent with expectations documented in DOT&E’s beyond low-rate initial production report submitted to Congress in October 2002. PATRIOT performance during OIF is detailed in the classified FY03 BMDS annual report.

(From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm)


This excerpt brings up another interesting and increasingly important phenomenon that is also not currently modeled in ACoW: Losses from friendly fire - ground-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-ground, and air-to-air. For instance, I've read anecdotal accounts that dozens of Arab (Egyptian and Syrian) aircraft were downed by their own SAMs during the 1973 Yom Kippur war.