Whats your experience with WRA 75%?

[thewood1]

In Soviet GCI systems, the pilots didn't even fire the missile. The ground controller did. The pilot was basically there to land and take off.

[BDukes]

In Soviet GCI systems, the pilots didn't even fire the missile. The ground controller did. The pilot was basically there to land and take off.

Wow. Did not know that.

Thanks

Mike

[thewood1]

It was pretty much the case with the Su-15. I think the Yak-28 also. The autopilot was connected to the GC radar and officer. The Mig-21 had a little more autonomy in the GCI role, but the autopilot took its vectoring directly from the GCI link. In fact, the US F-106 had a similar capability also. The development of the computer needed to manage the real-time link is part of the reason for its delay, IIRC.

[DaveFromCTX]

Charming in to say this was an excellent discussion. Wrote down multiple ideas to crib.

[SchDerGrosse]

A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

[BDukes]

A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

You can rebuild the scenarios to your preferred side default WRA as well. Its in the rebuild scenario dialog.

Rebuild with your pref WRA.png (70.02 KiB) Viewed 1586 times

Mike

[Tcao]

IMO, and from my experience, 75% misses too much, and wastes missiles.

50% is obviously better, but still not that great.

I suppose that it also depends on the specific a/c involved, weapons used, and situation.

Yes and no.
The effectiveness of missile engagements varies depending on a multitude of factors, including missile type, launch platform, altitude, and BVR tactics.

In optimal conditions—where you possess advanced very long-range missiles (such as AIM-260 JATM, PL-15, and Meteor) you can achieve success at 75%max or even 100%max. This scenario relies on outclassing your opponents with significantly longer ranges, with both parties positioned at high altitudes.
If keep the same conditions but change the missile to long range (AIM-120D), then effective range reduce to 50%-60%max.
Changing missiles to AIM-120C, AA-12, PL-12 will reduce the effective range to 33-40%.
In situations where neither side holds a substantial range advantage and both parties opt to fire their missiles at the same threshold, then fire at 25%max is the range you won’t see most missiles wasted in the thin air.

This phoneme is partially caused by A/C’s defensive posture in CMO. Right now the incoming missile can be detected by radar at very long distance, but the A/C will not begin defensive maneuver until missile is closer than 15nm distance.

That should explain why 75%max or even the 100%max works for some of the very long range missiles. Because the targeted aircraft closing the distance by using afterburners, inadvertently commencing defensive maneuvers when the missile is already dangerously close, leaving minimal time for evasion. The result is that these very long-range missiles tend to possess unspent fuel upon impact.
Shorter range missiles have low effective range, that is because this 15nm defensive maneuver range consists of large proportion of the total missile range.

This is assumed the engagement happens at high altitude, and both sides taking a crank posture. Changing the BVR logic to drag immediately will increase the complexity of the system.
I have a sandbox scenario with a pair of F-15EX armed with AIM-260 taking a pair of F/A-18E (AIM-120D) headon. Both fired at 50% max. F-15EX suffered a humiliated defeat because F/A-18E executed a “Drag immediately” maneuver, the AIM-260 ran out of energy in the wake of the fleeing F/A-18E while the F-15EX kept cranking until it is too late to begin evasion.

[SchDerGrosse]

A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

You can rebuild the scenarios to your preferred side default WRA as well. Its in the rebuild scenario dialog.

Rebuild with your pref WRA.png

Mike

Sorry for the late reply but thanks!

Where can I access the scenario rebuild function?

Edit: found it.

Is it possible to rebuild a scenario and ONLY tweak WRA and not touch the DB? I presume updating to the latest DB could cause some problems.

[thewood1]

Generally it shouldn't cause problems. There are times where something changed in the db as to unit performance that a designer never anticipated. A lot of that has to do with missile performance. I have never personally run into a scenario being broken by upgrading the db. There's a whole section in the manual on the mechanics and the creation of delta ini files that maintain customizations.

[BDukes]

A lot of good ideas in the topic.

What I think the best direction would be is to randomize WRA for each AI unit (or tie it to proficiency).

One thing is sure though. After a few dozen of tests in the editor I am not entirely statisfied with the 75% default range the devs determined for the AI. The Pl-12 missile for example is basically useless now as NATO fighters will evade it every time as the missile peters out too fast. I fear this might be the case for less advanced missiles too.

I will give the Chains of War campaign another go and see how the dynamics have changed in a prolonged campaign.

You can rebuild the scenarios to your preferred side default WRA as well. Its in the rebuild scenario dialog.

Rebuild with your pref WRA.png

Mike

Sorry for the late reply but thanks!

Where can I access the scenario rebuild function?

Edit: found it.

Is it possible to rebuild a scenario and ONLY tweak WRA and not touch the DB? I presume updating to the latest DB could cause some problems.

I don't think you update the WRA without a DB update. Seems to be a function/routine linked to the update function.

Amazingly enough, I'd presume the opposite. They may have adjusted things in the newer DBs to account for the new WRA settings.

Only time you get **sorta** hosed by the db update process is if a db entry doesn't exist anymore. I say sorta because it tells you, and it writes a backup file you can fall back on, so its a pretty thoughtful soft fail (aka you better not complain). I haven't seen that in some time, though.

Mike

Mike

[SchDerGrosse]

Set the WRA to 50%, didnt do a "deep rebuild", got the below message.

Will this hurt my expereince in any manner?



Thanks,

[SchDerGrosse]

IMO, and from my experience, 75% misses too much, and wastes missiles.

50% is obviously better, but still not that great.

I suppose that it also depends on the specific a/c involved, weapons used, and situation.

In optimal conditions—where you possess advanced very long-range missiles (such as AIM-260 JATM, PL-15, and Meteor) you can achieve success at 75%max or even 100%max. This scenario relies on outclassing your opponents with significantly longer ranges, with both parties positioned at high altitudes.
If keep the same conditions but change the missile to long range (AIM-120D), then effective range reduce to 50%-60%max.
Changing missiles to AIM-120C, AA-12, PL-12 will reduce the effective range to 33-40%.
In situations where neither side holds a substantial range advantage and both parties opt to fire their missiles at the same threshold, then fire at 25%max is the range you won’t see most missiles wasted in the thin air.

Lots of good stuff there but wanted to concentrate on this part.

I have been playing two campaigns paralel, Kashmir Fire and Chains of War to test how the new missile dynamics affect the overall gaming experience.

What is clear that the 75% percent default WRA just doesnt work. And apart from really high tech systems (like the PL-15 missile or the S-400 battery) this setting results in the AI wasting all of its missiles to no effect.

So my option was to (i) either go lower or (ii) open up the scenario and tweak each and every enemy unit individually. The latter is something that a player should never be compelled to do..

There remains option (i) then. 50% is still too much, mainstay Russian and Chinese ordenance are easily avoided by modern American planes. 25% is sweetspot where adders, alamos, and PL-12s start working but this also means that I have gimped anything more modern that the enemy could field (like the Pl-15 missiles in the Chains of war campaign).

I really think the above is a serius problem because in those two campaigns I can happily engage targets from 60%+ WRA with the aim120Ds.

Dont know what would be the best solution for a player like me could take to enjoy these campaigns (i.e. expereince at least some of the indended difficulty) before the developers address this WRA situation in the future.

Because I am positive that the current system requires a serious overhaul if the devs want CMO to also function as a game not just a digital sandbox for military hardware.

Edit: the whole purpose of this topic is intended to be me seeking advice from the playerbase (who use CMO as a game and a not a simulator) on how do they deal with the "legacy campaigns and scenarios" until the matter is properly resolved by the developers.

[BDukes]

Set the WRA to 50%, didnt do a "deep rebuild", got the below message.

Will this hurt my expereince in any manner?



Thanks,

Subjective, but it is not bad at all to be honest. Just jump into the editor and change the loadouts on the Tejas.

Mike

[thewood1]

It might be easier to just go into the editor and change the side doctrine for the appropriate side. Depends on how many AA loadouts there are.

[flex0r]

Might be a dumb question but is that WRA set to 75% also by default to enemy AI ?

[thewood1]

Thats mostly what its for. For the player, they can easily do it in side-level Doctine WRAs.

[Tcao]

Lots of good stuff there but wanted to concentrate on this part.

I have been playing two campaigns paralel, Kashmir Fire and Chains of War to test how the new missile dynamics affect the overall gaming experience.

What is clear that the 75% percent default WRA just doesnt work. And apart from really high tech systems (like the PL-15 missile or the S-400 battery) this setting results in the AI wasting all of its missiles to no effect.

So my option was to (i) either go lower or (ii) open up the scenario and tweak each and every enemy unit individually. The latter is something that a player should never be compelled to do..

There remains option (i) then. 50% is still too much, mainstay Russian and Chinese ordenance are easily avoided by modern American planes. 25% is sweetspot where adders, alamos, and PL-12s start working but this also means that I have gimped anything more modern that the enemy could field (like the Pl-15 missiles in the Chains of war campaign).

I really think the above is a serius problem because in those two campaigns I can happily engage targets from 60%+ WRA with the aim120Ds.

Dont know what would be the best solution for a player like me could take to enjoy these campaigns (i.e. expereince at least some of the indended difficulty) before the developers address this WRA situation in the future.

Because I am positive that the current system requires a serious overhaul if the devs want CMO to also function as a game not just a digital sandbox for military hardware.

Edit: the whole purpose of this topic is intended to be me seeking advice from the playerbase (who use CMO as a game and a not a simulator) on how do they deal with the "legacy campaigns and scenarios" until the matter is properly resolved by the developers.

If you don't want to re-build
I would say a short term solution is just open these legacy scenarios in editor mode, change the AI side's global WRA. You don't have to change the setting for every enemy units but just change the setting for a couple AAM /SAM. Save the file in the name like "....50%WRA", or "....25%WRA" and share the modified scenarios with the community.

[blu3s]

You can use a doctrine template to load the same settings to all the scenarios you want.