Kula66 Posted July 23, 2006 Posted July 23, 2006 Why so many SAMs in A2A scenarios? If you fly high you spend most of the time dodging SAMs! In a game that has no fast moving SEAD platforms why? I can understand airbase defence to stop vulching ... but some of the maps are just a forest of red/blue rings! It just encourages jammers to be on and people to fly fighters ultra low ... both unrealistic! Please can we have a few servers without wall to wall SA-10s!
brewber19 Posted July 23, 2006 Posted July 23, 2006 Which server(s) you been flying on? The vvs504 "air to air" server is actually mixed A2A and A2G, so expect some decent air defenses to keep you glory-hunting fighter jockies honest...and high :D Remember NOE is OUR territory (bombers), come down in the weeds with us....we get lots of unwelcome attention down low...but us bombers do make history ;) Seriously though, what servers do you experience this the most? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 487th Helicopter Attack Regiment, of the VVS504 Red Hammers
Kula66 Posted July 23, 2006 Author Posted July 23, 2006 Well, specifically on 169 yesterday ... but it seems to be a growing trend. And without proper SEAD planes/systems to roll-back the defences its a bit silly! I appreciate all you guys putting up servers ... but its just a little (hopefully constructive) feedback. And I know, if I don't like it, I should put my own server up ... I probably get downed by SAMs more often that AAMs!! Well you can stay down in the weeds ... but watch out for AMRAAMs from on-high! :)
Pilotasso Posted July 23, 2006 Posted July 23, 2006 Those problems you have with SAM rich enviroments is because you and others havent adapted their tactics. Instead more of the same tactics of flying low are employed and the only reaction I see to sams is to fly even lower. I also flown 169 yesterday and while clutter affects my missiles heavily, those flying low will have a hard time fighting it out vS low and high threats. .
Kula66 Posted July 23, 2006 Author Posted July 23, 2006 Those problems you have with SAM rich enviroments is because you and others havent adapted their tactics. True ... move away from RL tactics and more towards whatever wins the 'game' ... like flying at less than 10m, uber ETs and ECM on all the time. Hmm ... shame.
Pilotasso Posted July 23, 2006 Posted July 23, 2006 I wish they implemented radar proprotional burn through distance instead of same burn through range for all aircraft. It would totaly change how people employ their ECM as they don know if they are atracting attention by trying to jam a SU-27 in vain or doubling the migs radar range by HOJ. When Burn through distance was annouced to be adjusted in FC the same on all aircraft at about 20 miles, I was probably the only one to express my aprehention here for its unrealistic implications. Ever since then, ECM spam, blinking and ET long range high altitude maddogs started to plague the game and replace real skills and tactics. If you make ACMI tracks youll be able to see there are certain times where it gets utterly rampant, specialy when there are no squad senior oficers watching. In the absense of high fidelity sensor modeling I would make the burn through distance a funtion of radar signal strength, RCS of the targeted aircraft and the strength if its ECM emmiter. F-15 and Su-27 should have no problems breaking the migs jamming at 40 miles since the mig has an internal jammer whose strength I doubt would be of much use for standoff jamming as we can see in this game. As oposed to this the Migs burn through range should be much shorter, somewhere 10-20 miles. After all it has a weak radar. But then as I told, jamming the mig innadequatly would result in an increased range at wich the mig could launch a missile in HOJ such as against a target flying low where you could easely estimate the distance to target and fire. Oh BTW Blinking exploit should be avoided by automaticaly locking on the strobe after a locked target starts to jamm. In conjuction with present auto-STT it would make blinking of litle use. ANother alternative would be to give several seconds of delay for the pod start to emmit the signal as IRL they need to sync their signals to the targets wavelenghs and to start its internal cooling mechanisms. .
Kula66 Posted July 23, 2006 Author Posted July 23, 2006 Never having flown Sov a/c much I never reaslised that they all burn through together. Bit of an over-simplification isn't it? Surely it's not that bad?
Pilotasso Posted July 23, 2006 Posted July 23, 2006 yeah it is, you can be snuck in by a mig down to 15 miles if you fly an F-15 or a SU, or a mig for that matter. .
Guest Cali Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 I agree with you pilotasso, burn through shouldn't be the same for all a/c. And it sucks that R/L tactics can't really be used do to this and other problems lock on has. You see why to many people flying very low which fighters but really do. <----- I'm talking about less then 30m. Also 120's coming off the rail and not tracking. Rugg and I have both talked to 16 pilots and the 120's are way undermodeled in the game. But I guess they have to do it that way.
brewber19 Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Hi Kula, Ah, the 169th server...well, thats a bit different from most servers, and I guess a 169th pilot might want to correct me but.... The missions on 169th are "objective based", rather than simply an "environment with targets" which is what most other servers are like (504 included)....so this months objective is to eliminate the other sides carrier group...which the 504 and 44th did last weekend (w00t). Now, on this mission specifically, there are (in the region of) 40 SAM systems per side (red and blue) protecting all the feet-dry ingress routes, particular densities around Bullseye (Mt Cougar) etc. Personally I quite like the idea of this type of server mission, as it forces each side to work as a team, and avoids the usual "air-quake" scenario we see on other servers (504 included) where there might happen to be 10 pilots on each side....but in reality there are probably 6 teams...cos only a couple per side are actually working co-operatively to kill targets etc. So....the 169th mission is good in that if you want to have a chance of success...you need to work with the people on your side, as a team, and co-ordinate against air threats, while working with your A2G guys to eliminate SAMS etc. The mission was to enticing that the 504 and the 44th got together 16 pilots to eliminate the enemy carrier group and, as a bomber pilot (Su25T), let me tell you it was hard work because: a) We couldn't take a direct route to target cos of air/ground threats so we took a long way round. b) Flight was a 400km, 1 hour ingress to target c) the Moscow can intercept ALL missiles a SINGLE frog can throw at it....so we used FOUR frogs all firing in unison to swamp the Moscow. d) Final stages of ingress were at <20metres at 600kmh+ e) We landed at a "conveniently nearby" airfield and only had 300kg of fuel left at wheels down (having started with 3750kg) f) You're fighter cover needs to really have its act together....which they did. I had a real blast cos I gunzoed two Su-33s in my Frog...hee-hee. Anyways, that's why the 169th server is SAM-heavy...because the type of server/mission it is is "objective based", not "an environment in which to play". I don't think the 169th realistically expect the mission to be "completed", but expect the mission to last some time...I know I would, given how much effort it takes to create the dang things in the first place. Kudos to the 169th for the effort in putting the mission together, nicely designed, requires a very different approach to multi-play rather than the usual take-off > fly direct to enemy > splash a few > get splashed > respawn. I would say though, that I wouldn't dream of going on the 169th server as a solo! I would always want to hook-up with someone on TS, whether A2A or A2G...cos solo is just gonna get you killed quick...as you avoid a SAM, someone will launch at you....to evade a A2A missile...a SAM (or 5) will get you. All good fun, thats my two cents (or 5 dollars?) anyways. Well, specifically on 169 yesterday ... but it seems to be a growing trend. And without proper SEAD planes/systems to roll-back the defences its a bit silly! I appreciate all you guys putting up servers ... but its just a little (hopefully constructive) feedback. And I know, if I don't like it, I should put my own server up ... I probably get downed by SAMs more often that AAMs!! Well you can stay down in the weeds ... but watch out for AMRAAMs from on-high! :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 487th Helicopter Attack Regiment, of the VVS504 Red Hammers
Kula66 Posted July 24, 2006 Author Posted July 24, 2006 Brewber, Thanks for the explanation ... very helpful. I hadn't really realised that it was setup for team play ... Sounds like fun. Perhaps I'll have to invest in a headset etc! James
Recommended Posts