Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

ORIGINAL: zacklaws

You can bring down an artillery barrage down on helicopters as well and despite only hovering 50 metres or 80 metres above the ground, it does not destroy them, damage them or even drive them away.

zacklaws, I believe we've discussed this with you a few times on the Beta forums. Currently artillery doesn't damage aircraft. Works as designed.

To others: Are you aware that aircraft can abort their attack and escape via the closest map edge when they take fire, even if they're not damaged? This happens quite often.

Ok so it's not a bug but a design decision but why? Too difficult to implement?

ORIGINAL: Doggie3

I have used a Vulcan against infantry, got to love the sound of a minigun!)

Yeah I decided to bring more AAA than AAM stuff, at least they are effective against infantry.

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

I just did three attack runs on a default sized NTC map. A flight of MiG-27 vs a section of Roland SAMs. Every time one of the aircraft aborted its attack and escaped or was shot down.

Surprise surprise, the OP is citing anecdotal evidence and his feelings again. [8|] In other news, water is wet.

Surprise surprise, the OP is citing anecdotal evidence and his feelings again. In other news, water is wet.

citing anecdotal evidence*... soo apparently all the tests i conducted with my 500 damage SAM is anecdotal... id guess someone went too far with his feelings here

ORIGINAL: gbem

Surprise surprise, the OP is citing anecdotal evidence and his feelings again. In other news, water is wet.

citing anecdotal evidence*... soo apparently all the tests i conducted with my 500 damage SAM is anecdotal... id guess someone went too far with his feelings here

Having feelings is fine my dude. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with feeling strongly about something. As long as you don't cite your feelings as a source as if it's reality, it's normal for humans to feel emotional about things.

Having feelings is fine my dude. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with feeling strongly about something. As long as you don't cite your feelings as a source as if it's reality, it's normal for humans to feel emotional about things.

claiming that i used "feelings" instead of tests actually conducted using the game engine using the modded 500 damage OSA is ridiculous

hey nooo how about conducting the tests i did... set ur AAM to 500 damage and let loose a swarm of aircraft... see how fast they die...

ive conducted 3 tests... in all 3 tests the A-10 had smoke on the first missile hit and crashed soon after

I conducted a couple of tests this morning, the last one was on the NTC, 12 air defence sections (24 fire units) consisting of Gepard and Roland vs 19 flights of aircraft and helicopters. Not once did I get a flight to abort. But by the end of the scenario, all 38 aircraft had been shot down, only 20 "wrecks" on the map, so the other 18 must have crashed off map. How many Rolands had been launched and AA ammunition expended I do not know. In my first scenario around 10 to 15 missiles were needed to "down" an helicopter in volley fire.

First picture, all aircraft engaged by multiple fire units.

The aircraft fly through the barrage having engaged the ground tgts. No sign of aborted mission

Engagement over, no aircraft appeared to be hit, but unknown if any damaged and crashed off map.

This type of engagement was typical of the whole scenario.

In all fairness looking at it now, the map is not very wide, maybe with a wider map, its possible the aircraft may have aborted having a longer flight time before reaching the AA defences and maybe locked up by radar etc for longer. But I will try that out later if I have time. If not next week now.

^
did something similar to those tests but rather with 2 platoons of 500 damage OSAs... total of 6 aircraft were launched and all died at the first missile volley

also did another test with BMP (73mm grom and 9m113 konkurs) and T-80U (9m119 refleks) fire against kiowas... the damage simply forced a retreat rather than destroy the unarmored helicopter...
and we know what a stinger can do to a helicopter in real life

The problem here is a hit does not equal a kill for every shot. The quality of hit/proximity of a missile shot, the size of the warhead and the toughness of the target aircraft all need to be accounted for. In our system, upping the damage would have unintended impact to the hit by making a larger proximity size giving the weapon an unrealistic capability. Do we know how AB conducts its SAM fires?

what i did demonstrate at the least was that the problem was not hit vs miss but hit vs kill... which points the problem at the AA system damage values itself rather than the accuracy values... as per realisms sake helos for the most part are shot down by a stinger shot or 2... even the mighty MI24 hind can potentially be downed by a stinger... it should be that helicopters/planes with countermeasures can potentially doge missiles better than one without... but a hit of a missile or 2 destroying the craft in question...

ORIGINAL: zacklaws

Not once did I get a flight to abort. But by the end of the scenario, all 38 aircraft had been shot down

Engagement over, no aircraft appeared to be hit

I see contradictions in your reports. When you play the game the aircraft do not abort, are not hit, but all are shot down? How is it possible that when I tried this the aircraft aborted or took damage every time?

ORIGINAL: gbem

and we know what a stinger can do to a helicopter in real life

Real life example:

Mi-24 shot down in Syria with one missile

Another one from Ukraine

ORIGINAL: gerardo

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

ORIGINAL: zacklaws

You can bring down an artillery barrage down on helicopters as well and despite only hovering 50 metres or 80 metres above the ground, it does not destroy them, damage them or even drive them away.

zacklaws, I believe we've discussed this with you a few times on the Beta forums. Currently artillery doesn't damage aircraft. Works as designed.

To others: Are you aware that aircraft can abort their attack and escape via the closest map edge when they take fire, even if they're not damaged? This happens quite often.

Ok so it's not a bug but a design decision but why? Too difficult to implement?

If it was possible to shoot down helicopters with artillery then it would become a helicopter hunt. The helicopters should run away from artillery shells. Is it realistic to use artillery for that?

I see contradictions in your reports. When you play the game the aircraft do not abort, are not hit, but all are shot down? How is it possible that when I tried this the aircraft aborted or took damage every time?

There is no contradiction in my report, in that engagement, no aircraft were hit as is evidenced as they are about to fly off the edge of the map. How do you know if an aircraft has been hit? There is no effects of an hit on an aircraft either by an explosion or smoke trail as it flies over the map being engaged by air defences. They either just fly off the map or crash and one has to presume they have been hit. So how can you state that an aircraft has took damage when there is no visible evidence of such happening. Am I supposed to see a box flash up saying that it has been hit or damaged in the same way as a ground unit?

But during the whole scenario, aircraft where hit (non ever aborted), one has to presume as they just crashed on the map after being engaged by the air defences. At the end of the scenario, there was 20 wrecks on the map caused by engagements later on in the scenario, and the summary stated 38 had been shot down. Perhaps in the engagement I posted pics of, maybe non of them had been hit and crashed off map. or maybe all of them had been hit and crashed off map or just 1 or 2 did. During the game, there is no way of knowing of such happening.

As for what happens in your case and my case, I do not know what is happening. Has it to do with morale and training levels? For my scenario, both were set at 100%.

The helicopters should run away from artillery shells. Is it realistic to use artillery for that?

I know for a fact that helicopter pilots have a strong disliking to artillery shells, either being close to them exploding on the ground but equally just as much possibly having to fly in an area with artillery shells passing through in flight. And if helicopters were seen close to the ground hovering, then it would be a viable target to engage with artillery.

Just squeezed in a repeat of the same scenario that I posted the pics in with adjusted training and morale levels. FRG, +100% for both, Russia -100% for both. Totally different scenario, FRG destroyed 4 helicopters with a mass volley straight away and all aircraft flights aborted after receiving a mass volley of missiles and AAA and only the odd one flew over the FRG. In case I was missing something, I studied carefully if I was missing something to denote if an aircraft was hit or damaged and saw nothing, so how does one know if an AI aircraft has been damaged? And this probably points out why we had different results, morale and training values.

The picture denotes aircraft aborting and about to leave the map edge, 1 aircraft has already left and the two others not being engaged, have they been damaged, hence why they are not being engaged? After they left the map. I zoomed out and watched them fly off till they faded away:-

So is there a way to give players better feed back regarding aircraft being shot down during the scenario?

Cheers

ORIGINAL: Lowlaner2012

So is there a way to give players better feed back regarding aircraft being shot down during the scenario?

Cheers

The line symbol below the NATO icon tells the damage type, if any. When the aircraft is going to crash you see the "going down!" message. This is only for the friendly aircraft.