NEZ: a Mig-29 can and will shot down an F-22..

[SchDerGrosse]

I have been doing multiple tests to map out the performance of various missiles.

Started with something simple and took the standard Russian A/A ordenance, the AA-12 Adder B (nominal range ~60nm), which is pretty much the mainstay weapon of many of the aircraft of the Russian Federation.

It turns out that the NEZ of the AA-12 Adder is between 15-20 nautical miles (dependent on the target).

After that I took another common NATO weapon, the AIM-120C (nominal range also ~60nm), a missile utilized for example by F-16s or the F-22 Raptor. The AIM-120C is however an abysmal piece of weaponry and has a NEZ of 6 (when fired by an F-16 against a SU-34) or 10 (fired by an F-22 against a MIG-29). The missile fared marginally better when i was using manual targeting (still garbage though).

I set up a test and pitted an F-22A Raptor and a Mig-29K against each other and set them both to fire at NEZ distances. The result was shocking. The F-22 gets detected at 21 nautical miles and the Mig-29 lets lose its missles at 18 nms. The F-22 on the other hand will not fire until the Mig is within 10 nautical miles. This means that the Mig will win each and every time.

(caveat: if I have no other radar/ELINT assets on the map, although the F-22 is detected at 21 nm, the Mig is unable to determine what aircraft it is, therefore the target though "certain", will remain yellow on the radar and I had to manually turn it to hostile for the Mig to engage it.)

I am no military expert but I am pretty sure that these things should not happen. I will definately be making more tests but these few examples further reinforce my belief that (i) the new missile behaviour system broke the ingame scenarios; and (ii) the game will need WAY MORE fine tuning than just setting all the AI planes to fire at NEZ to make the scenarios working again.

[BDukes]

I have been doing multiple tests to map out the performance of various missiles.

Started with something simple and took the standard Russian A/A ordenance, the AA-12 Adder B (nominal range ~60nm), which is pretty much the mainstay weapon of many of the aircraft of the Russian Federation.

It turns out that the NEZ of the AA-12 Adder is between 15-20 nautical miles (dependent on the target).

After that I took another common NATO weapon, the AIM-120C (nominal range also ~60nm), a missile utilized for example by F-16s or the F-22 Raptor. The AIM-120C is however an abysmal piece of weaponry and has a NEZ of 6 (when fired by an F-16 against a SU-34) or 10 (fired by an F-22 against a MIG-29). The missile fared marginally better when i was using manual targeting (still garbage though).

I set up a test and pitted an F-22A Raptor and a Mig-29K against each other and set them both to fire at NEZ distances. The result was shocking. The F-22 gets detected at 21 nautical miles and the Mig-29 lets lose its missles at 18 nms. The F-22 on the other hand will not fire until the Mig is within 10 nautical miles. This means that the Mig will win each and every time.

(caveat: if I have no other radar/ELINT assets on the map, although the F-22 is detected at 21 nm, the Mig is unable to determine what aircraft it is, therefore the target though "certain", will remain yellow on the radar and I had to manually turn it to hostile for the Mig to engage it.)

I am no military expert but I am pretty sure that these things should not happen. I will definately be making more tests but these few examples further reinforce my belief that (i) the new missile behaviour system broke the ingame scenarios; and (ii) the game will need WAY MORE fine tuning than just setting all the AI planes to fire at NEZ to make the scenarios working again.

Yeah it could happen, just like in real life. There is a noted case of a Serbian Mig-29 that dodged a number of NATO missile precisely for the reason in this model.

You clearly spent some time on this, for sure. Producing files makes that effort worth it, as a visual is worth a thousand words. The dev can actually point at something and say this is what is going on. If you're right on something, well, there it is. Argue with that, right?

Couple of things to be more successful.

If you're undetected, you can shoot farther out.

In general, I've found you can use the 25% of max setting, and it's largely successful. NEZ is the absolute safest shot in terms of physics and not getting turned and burned.

Amraams are better in most cases but terrible in others. This is why a lot of nations, including Israel and Russia, still use missiles with older guidance types and why newer classes of weapons use sustained propulsion, etc.

Mike

[Gizzmoe]

I set up a test and pitted an F-22A Raptor and a Mig-29K against each other and set them both to fire at NEZ distances. The result was shocking. The F-22 gets detected at 21 nautical miles and the Mig-29 lets lose its missles at 18 nms. The F-22 on the other hand will not fire until the Mig is within 10 nautical miles. This means that the Mig will win each and every time.

That does indeed sound weird, please post a save.

[thewood1]

Just set up a test. F-22A with AIM-120D loadout vs Mig-29K AA-12 loadout. 180nm f2f and radars on. NEZ set for all BVR weapons. No other changes. Ignore all other units. This is just a baseline testing scenario.

Screenshot 2023-01-29 131433.jpg (53.12 KiB) Viewed 2318 times

Results: Four playthroughs with the Raptor firing two missiles between 13nm and 15nm. The raptor detects the Mig-29 at 150nm through elint, but gets a firing lock at around 100nm. The Mig-29 only detects the Raptor at 15-16nm. Its not even a fair fight.

Edit: The original scenario attachment was the in process save. The unstarted one is now attached.

[Tcao]

Just set up a test. F-22A with AIM-120D loadout vs Mig-29K AA-12 loadout. 180nm f2f and radars on. NEZ set for all BVR weapons. No other changes. Ignore all other units. This is just a baseline testing scenario.


Screenshot 2023-01-29 131433.jpg


Results: Four playthroughs with the Raptor firing two missiles between 13nm and 15nm. The raptor detects the Mig-29 at 150nm through elint, but gets a firing lock at around 100nm. The Mig-29 only detects the Raptor at 15-16nm. Its not even a fair fight.

Edit: The original scenario attachment was the in process save. The unstarted one is now attached.

The problem is 120C, and 120B might has the same issue.

it is very similar to a fixed bug
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5032457

I will do more testing later, and make sure it is a bug

AIM120.jpg (288.95 KiB) Viewed 2288 times

[thewood1]

Just a side note I found interesting is that it appears that the AI logic of the Mig realizes its screwed so instead of a turn and burn, it attempts a notch. Didn't help, but it tried.

[thewood1]

I'm not sure the bug you are seeing.

[thewood1]

So tried it with the 120-C7. The Raptor fired between 7-8nm. The Mig detected the Raptor at 10nm, but only fired at 7 when it was just starting its defensive moves. The Raptor outran the AA-12s, but the mig got nailed every time with no losses on the Raptor. Just want to point out that the 120-C7 has a slightly shorter range than the upgraded AA-12. I assume thats why they launch close together. Its also one of the reasons the 120D was developed. btw, the C-7 variant is almost 15 years from its IOC. Any comparison to latest AA-12 is going to be a little unfair.

One thing I could see changed in WRA is that before going defensive, the targeted aircraft send out a snapshot on the hostile contact is fixed and they have active homing missiles.

[SchDerGrosse]

Starting positions (click on "open image in a new tab" to view it in full size):



Detection:



Missile away:



POW!:



When the mig is put on hold:



And yes I am talking about the C variant, as I was compering two missiles that were more or less identical in the previous patch. Moreover, I have played nearly all the campaigns of CMO, and only met F-22s that feature AIM-120C-s.

The D variant might fare better. But it is not present in the scenarios.

Which brings me back to my main point. Iam NOT saying that what the devs have done is not realistic. What Iam saying is that they completely ignored the gameplay aspects of the new changes and failed to make necessary tweaks to the scenarios.


(Save included)

[SchDerGrosse]

So tried it with the 120-C7. The Raptor fired between 7-8nm. The Mig detected the Raptor at 10nm, but only fired at 7 when it was just starting its defensive moves. The Raptor outran the AA-12s, but the mig got nailed every time with no losses on the Raptor. Just want to point out that the 120-C7 has a slightly shorter range than the upgraded AA-12. I assume thats why they launch close together. Its also one of the reasons the 120D was developed. btw, the C-7 variant is almost 15 years from its IOC. Any comparison to latest AA-12 is going to be a little unfair.

One thing I could see changed in WRA is that before going defensive, the targeted aircraft send out a snapshot on the hostile contact is fixed and they have active homing missiles.

Completely different outcome for me. (see attached save)

Detection: 21nm
Mig shoots: 17-18nm
F22A shoots (if i put the mig on hold, otherwise it gets destroyed): 10 nm.

One the one hand I cannot ever fathom a real life scenario where a Mig-29K could defeat an F22A Raptor, on the other hand thewood, you (and seemengly all the other persons on the forum) just completely miss the core of my argument.

As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update. Because after more and more testing it sure seems that the scenarios need a complete overhaul from the devs.

[BDukes]

Ok you've set the Mig-29 to shoot before it has an id, but lets push that aside.

The Adder B has a slightly longer range and burns longer. It has the advantage. If you think there is something wrong with the data best thing to do is to find sources and approach it that way.

Which brings me back to my main point. Iam NOT saying that what the devs have done is not realistic. What Iam saying is that they completely ignored the gameplay aspects of the new changes and failed to make necessary tweaks to the scenarios.

You're not a mind reader and even if you are the Mentalist, you're putting an extremely negative slant on it. If they didn't care why would they go to the trouble of updating? They like mind-numbing work? Easier to just let it go and tell designers tough gumballs. Let's push this aside too.

Can post you an example of an existing scenario that you think is completely broken?

Mike

[Tcao]

SchDerGrosse

I think you misunderstood an important concept of NEZ and current NEZ rule

NEZ is calculated based on target known speed
There was a tweak back in Dec
* TWEAK: When using NEZ missile shots, if the target is class-identified, use its known max speed-at-altitude as the NEZ reference speed instead of its current one (e.g. if shooting at a MiG-25R, even if he's currently subsonic, assume he'll turn tail and go to M3.2+ once he detects the missile).

in your scenario, both side close distance at 480kts.

F-22 has a clear identification of Mig-29K, knows that Mig-29K is a nimble fighter that can reach 920kt.

on the other hand, Mig-29K detected F-22 at 20nm away, and release the missile after OODA cool down, it failed to clarify the target, all his fire control system knows is the target moving at 480kt. NEZ is calculated based on assuming the target will evade at 480kt


Change both side to full speed, you will find out AA-12 is shot at 13nm. It is still a huge advantage compare to AIM-120C7 shotting at 9nm away


Now, the question becomes, why AIM-120C7 has such a terrible NEZ range???

[Tcao]

Or I should say, why AA-12 has such remarkable outstanding performance?

need to dig into this.

[thewood1]

btw, its not broken. You can change any scenario you want back to using a different WRA. The game is advertised and people by it to model as closely as the devs can to realistic operations. This is the first time I have seen any customer argue to make the game less realistic. Its the exact opposite argument we see.

These debates reminds me a lot of the discussions when the original Combat Mission game came out around 2000. The devs had done an immense amount of research around WW2 armored combat. The results in the game showed significant vulnerabilities in German Panther tanks. There was a large crowd of armchair historians that truly felt the Panther was so well designed and dominant that a single Sherman could never defeat a Panther. It took years to finally get some people to let that myth go. It was a shock to the wargaming ethos for some of those players. And there were players who harangued the devs to change the model, even knowing its not historical.

I think we are witnessing the same thing in these threads. It seems almost sacrilege to not hold the AMRAAM up as the pinnacle of BVR missile combat. It has shocked people that CMO has exposed the wargaming community to the gaps in the AIM-120 performance. There are other newer BVR missiles, like the Meteor, AA-12, or PL-15, that might equal or exceed the AMRAAM. But the biggest shock seems to be that the AMRAAM doesn't live up to the hype of the one-pager from Raytheon and its stable of in house and 3rd party marketers. And it might not just be the myth of the AMRAAM being exposed, but the myth of the PoK for BVR overall.

[SchDerGrosse]

Ok you've set the Mig-29 to shoot before it has an id, but lets push that aside.

On a complex battlefield the enemy is sure to have plenty of ELINT aircraft/other radar systems in the air/on the ground which means that the F-22 will be emitter or otherwise IDd by them. So I dont think the setting I made is skewing with the result.

The Adder B has a slightly longer range and burns longer. It has the advantage. If you think there is something wrong with the data best thing to do is to find sources and approach it that way.

I have 0 credentials to question the validity of the data used in missile/aircraft performance. I am just making the observation as a layman, that in the previous patch, the F-22 could approach the Mig-29 undetected, fire away its AIM-120C-s at 60nms and be done with it. Now we have a situation where a fight between an F-22 and measly Mig29 from 1992 can go either way. Is this realistic? Is this intended? I have no clue.

You're not a mind reader and even if you are the Mentalist, you're putting an extremely negative slant on it. If they didn't care why would they go to the trouble of updating? They like mind-numbing work? Easier to just let it go and tell designers tough gumballs. Let's push this aside too.

Can you an example of an existing scenario that you think an existing is completely broken?

Again, I am merely saying that:
- unit placement
- ordenance allocation
- mission areas
- events and other triggers

were set up with regards to the previous patch. The devs introduced a new system that completely rewrites air to air combat and all they did balance wise was to flick all enemy aircraft to fire at NEZ (correct me if any other changes have been to the scenarios).

As I have said before I will have to do more testing, but the from the ones I did, it is clear that any scenario that feature the AIM-120C (and the F-16s and F-22s carrying) sure plays out completely differently.

(and sorry for the tone, I dont mean to attack anyone, I love this game to bits, but feel the devs did not think through how this update will affect pre-existing scenario balance)

[Gizzmoe]

As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update.

Normally I would say "I am not as unhappy as you are with the update, but I feel with you, perhaps you should go back to the previous CMO version that you liked, there's no point in playing a version that you don't enjoy yet. Maybe try the new stuff later, once it evolved ." But unfortunately you can't, because you have the Steam version and you can't roll back.....

[BDukes]

Again, I am merely saying that:
- unit placement
- ordenance allocation
- mission areas
- events and other triggers

were set up with regards to the previous patch. The devs introduced a new system that completely rewrites air to air combat and all they did balance wise was to flick all enemy aircraft to fire at NEZ (correct me if any other changes have been to the scenarios).

As I have said before I will have to do more testing, but the from the ones I did, it is clear that any scenario that feature the AIM-120C (and the F-16s and F-22s carrying) sure plays out completely differently.

(and sorry for the tone, I dont mean to attack anyone, I love this game to bits, but feel the devs did not think through how this update will affect pre-existing scenario balance)

I build a lot so I definitely understand your concern. How bout we wait and see how things shake out? If they backed up everything they can probably walk back changes if there is a major thing.

M

[BDukes]

As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update.

Normally I would say "I am not as unhappy as you are with the update, but I feel with you, perhaps you should go back to the previous CMO version that you liked, there's no point in playing a version that you don't enjoy yet. Maybe try the new stuff later, once it evolved ." But unfortunately you can't, because you have the Steam version and you can't roll back.....

Man you're trouble

M

[SchDerGrosse]

btw, its not broken. You can change any scenario you want back to using a different WRA. The game is advertised and people by it to model as closely as the devs can to realistic operations. This is the first time I have seen any customer argue to make the game less realistic. Its the exact opposite argument we see.

These debates reminds me a lot of the discussions when the original Combat Mission game came out around 2000. The devs had done an immense amount of research around WW2 armored combat. The results in the game showed significant vulnerabilities in German Panther tanks. There was a large crowd of armchair historians that truly felt the Panther was so well designed and dominant that a single Sherman could never defeat a Panther. It took years to finally get some people to let that myth go. It was a shock to the wargaming ethos for some of those players. And there were players who harangued the devs to change the model, even knowing its not historical.

I think we are witnessing the same thing in these threads. It seems almost sacrilege to not hold the AMRAAM up as the pinnacle of BVR missile combat. It has shocked people that CMO has exposed the wargaming community to the gaps in the AIM-120 performance. There are other newer BVR missiles, like the Meteor, AA-12, or PL-15, that might equal or exceed the AMRAAM. But the biggest shock seems to be that the AMRAAM doesn't live up to the hype of the one-pager from Raytheon and its stable of in house and 3rd party marketers. And it might not just be the myth of the AMRAAM being exposed, but the myth of the PoK for BVR overall.

Is this a language barrier thing?

English is not my native tongue, but so far I was living under the impression that I had a pretty solid grasp of it, therefore it should be clear to others too when I am arguing for or against a certain subject. Apparently not.

How many times have I stated I am not asking the devs to keep unrealistic stuff in the game or not to touch systems that are considered holy cows (AMRAAMs aka CMO's panthers). My only gripe is that more and more testing by me revealed that the new missile system produces really whacky results that seriously affect the way the campaign and other scenarios play out. Thats all I am saying.

[thewood1]

Thats not all you are saying and you are now just saying it over and over again.