COMThing

I'm not arguing that the -7E is good. I'm saying that you can't compare the statistics from completely different situations. You need consistency for a reliable comparison. The -7E in Vietnam was affected by poor storage conditions in a high humidity environment, whereas the -7M didn't face such conditions. The -7E entered service at a time when most Phantom crews didn't get proper A2A training and had transitioned from ground attack aircraft and even bombers. Those are just a couple of examples. I'm also not convinced the statistics you have presented are accurate, especially the idea that the -7M has a 70km range.

Despite having more kills than the Navy, the Air Force's ratio is worse. The Air Force had a little over 3 A2A kills for every A2A loss whereas the Navy were close to 6 kills for every loss. The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables. Technology isn't the only thing that changed in the 15 years between the -7E and -7M. You can't even really compare the 15% -7E to the 68% -7M because the results come from very different environments (Vietnam vs the Middle East). This is the reason it should be added, not because it would balance the F-4 vs MiG-21 fight.

The biggest reason for that 15% chance to hit was the lack of training in A2A combat. The Air Force's solution was to add a gun, whereas the Navy decided to start a fighter school for air combat training. The Navy ended up with the better kill ratio despite not having a gun on their Phantoms. Basically, statistics are only marginally useful because they don't tell us the situation or the factors needed, only the result.

Regarding the weapons, they are usually left out because they were not in use with the version modelled. E.g The F-5E we have now was not AGM-65 capable in real life. Other times it is due to more complex real-life licensing/military contract issues which I'm pretty sure are why the AGM-65E was removed from the game. Also, if you have ever used the copy/paste function in a text file, you have the skills to add "missing" weapons to a plane. It is not the same when integrating the required systems. The EF-2000 and F-14 have also had confirmation that A/G weapons will be available. Self-designation and guidance for laser-guided weapons is yet to be confirmed. Also, with the Mirage 2000 nearly out of beta and the F/A-18C nearing early access (probs early/mid next year), you can't actually complain about A/G combat being abandoned.

Only because they are waiting on the A/G radar developments from ED that is required for the Gr.7

1 - Taiwan or Korea 2 - Libya/Mediterranean Sea or Egypt/Israel/Red Sea 3 - Bering Strait (Russia - Alaska)

The Harrier is already in development. I'd like to see the Tornado Gr.1 and F.3 (preferably with ALARM), the F-4E G M and S and the Su-22M4.

Yeah, isn't it something like 1 in 4 US Apaches use the Longbow? I remember reading a youtube argument where one guy stated the Ka-52 is superior to the -64E for that reason, along with doctrine limiting the loadout to 2 AGM-114Ls per heli with the rest being laser-guided. Of course, being a youtube argument, I'm not sure how accurate those statements are.

The Apache itself is fair bit cheaper than that (I think somewhere around $40m), the price goes up to ~$65m when you ask for the Longbow radar to be added. Don't ask me why the radar is so expensive though, I'm just going off memory.

Should also note that part of the reason the Tiger UHT loses the gun is due to the recoil of the 30mm (alternate 20mm guns were considered ineffective due to the lack of range). Part of that is due to it being very lightweight; apparently when loaded it is still lighter than an empty Apache. Basically, the Tiger attempting sustained fire will not be as accurate as the Apache regardless of whether the GIAT 30 is considered an accurate weapon. When firing in small bursts they might have similar performance, but I would still rate the Apache as a better gun platform.

That reminds me a lot of the old Enemy Engaged series, flying the Comanche around in that awesome dynamic campaign is probably the most time I've spent on a single-player game.

Mine was F/A-18 Hornet 3.0, then A-10 Attack/Cuba before moving on to Enemy Engaged with it's awesome dynamic campaign.

;) Can go hunting in any of them though. Much better to get a gunship that has a chance against armoured vehicles.

We need some more European aircraft: Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar, M2000D etc

Perhaps stop AI fighters afterburning at unnecessary times and just use maximum standard thrust?

@original AeroOrange post good post :D I've probably mentioned it already but there are a huge number of games that have far better AI. If those games worked on Win7 then I would probably not even use this game for the lack of SP basics.

Is there a way to have a group of say; F-16s perform a CAP on the way to a ground target then switch to CAS. Or if that isn't possible have a group search for targets in the air and on the ground? What I would like to do is have 2 groups of fighters; the first group would attack ground targets and then change to an air to air task to cover the second group which would take over the ground attack. Group 2 would cover group 1 to start with.

Thanks for the quick replies :D

I was testing my mission just before and encountered something I haven't seen on the forums: An F-15C, after landing and taxiing, had missed it's parking spot within a hangar and was trying to get in through a corner by using afterburner :( :lol: (I can't decide whether to laugh or worry that the AI really is non-existent, after all, it had done it's job)

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I bought this game thinking it would be the best simulator I've used, which it is until you look at the AI, if you can possibly call it that. I have read through a lot of these threads and I have encountered a lot of the problems other people have, most notably excessive use of afterburner leading to low fuel in fighters and aircraft jettisoning all air to ground weapons the moment a missile is launched and therefore ruining some basic missions. When I look at other sims especially fairly basic ones like F/A-18 Korea I begin to wonder why the AI is virtually non-existant in this game considering that in 1997 the AI of F/A-18 Korea was able to do tasks better than in DCS. Simple things like not afterburning to a target were implemented. In Enemy Engaged helicopter AI was clearly well thought out with helicopters hiding behind trees and popping up briefly to attack. Although I wouldn't expect helicopters to be that good in a jet game I do expect the same quality of AI jet aircraft in a jet game. A good simulator needs to have competent AI to the point of not doing ridiculously stupid things such as using afterburner for almost everything, dropping all weapons at the first sign of danger etc TL;DR - The AI in this game is non-existant in most aspects; a good sim needs a well thought out environment including the behavioral aspect. Other Sims have good AI so why doesn't this one? My question; Is there going to be an update for the AI, to at least stop them using afterburner excessively and dropping their weapons at the first sign of danger? According to a lot of the threads this problem has been consistent through out the Lock On and DCS series and should be fixed