JSOW is OP

[Legendofdino]

Defense in depth

[Harlikwin]

The reason why the JSOW are "OP" is because the mission designers do not create realistic scenarios and DCS doesn't support a realistic tens of thousands of units war.

 

Yup... exactly this. You can buy the "line" that DCS simulates modern combat all you want, but honestly it doesn't, its not even close in most areas. A big reason I'm always yelling about "older" aircraft and systems, is that with some work, it "could" probably do a decent job of modeling the 70's or early 80's warfare enviroment, and honestly it would probably be more fun.

[Harlikwin]

There’s a reason every Russian SAM after the SA-3 was designed to be mobile. A competent SAM commander would move his launchers around, put up decoys, etc. anything but keep his SAMs stationary and exposed in the open.

 

Yup. I'm not even sure if DCS models moving sams at all? or moving AAA like the shilka/tungaska. which can fire on the move or from a quick halt at least.

[tosmonkey]

Make them penetrate airspace thats actually well defended. Like layered SAM threats backed up by modern mig threats coming in from different vectors. Also I'm not sure if DCS can do it but IRL there are absolutely ways to make SAM traps, wherein not all radars are on, and only switch on when the package is well within range and detected by EWR's etc. Make sure the airfield has point defense anti-missile assets (not sure how DCS does it with JSOW, but SA-15's and tungaskas can shoot down Harms no problem)

 

If you are using online servers like inferno or GAW as your "reference" for what a modern battlefield looks like you are sadly barking up the wrong tree.

I understand that IRL there are many ways to defend against standoff weapons like JSOW. Unfortunately most of those are not simulated in DCS. In my limited testing of JSOW's it seems that air defenses as currently modeled have little chance. They may shoot down a couple but ultimately will be overwhelmed quite quickly. JSOW is very stealthy.

[Harlikwin]

Will sa-15 target jsow? I know it will target Mavericks and HARMs.

 

Also- I recently saw an article (don’t remember where) which talked about how air power and SAMs have historically gone back and forth in which was more powerful, but for the last several decades air power has essentially triumphed (assuming unlimited munitions) due to the range and precision of modern air launched munitions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I5 3570K @ 4.5Ghz, 16Gb DDR3 @ 2400, Vega64 @1080p

 

Sounds like it does in DCS at least.

 

Modern ALCM's and other munitions have been designed with stealth tech in mind precisely because systems like Tor and tungaska can shoot down conventional cruise missiles and other munitions.

 

 

Also if you think the JSOW is overpowered just wait till we get SLAM-ER

[Harlikwin]

I understand that IRL there are many ways to defend against standoff weapons like JSOW. Unfortunately most of those are not simulated in DCS. In my limited testing of JSOW's it seems that air defenses as currently modeled have little chance. They may shoot down a couple but ultimately will be overwhelmed quite quickly. JSOW is very stealthy.

 

Sounds like we have some different opinions on SA-15 vs JSOW. I personally haven't used it yet so I'll defer to people who have. I do know the SA-15 and tungaska will smoke down HARMS and Mav's all day long. Secondly the limited munitions argument is actually a good one. Exactly how much ordnance do you think a modern carrier carries? Its nowhere near unlimited (this is a good argument against the phoenix too). Mostly though what I see on online servers is a very bad representation of "modern" war. But its fun/balanced so people will actually play. No fun if your chances of surviving a strike against BAI "whatever" are basically gonna be nil because its covered by layered Sa11, SA10, Sa8/13's and a few tungaskas, and then to have red air vectored on you the moment the GCI figures out where you might be going. Its alot more fun flying your hawg over a mostly permissive target and laying waste to it with whatever "fun" weapons you want to carry. So thats what you see online.

 

I also did see the beslan SA10 site on GAW stay up for a darn long time even with people chucking harms and JSOW's at it for a while.

[ricktoberfest]

I think something like the 104th does with escalating target sites might work. Red has a ring of outer SAM sites that need to be taken out before moving in to the inner sites- and have all the outer sites also covered by long range inner SAMs. You want them to be vulnerable to some degree, but also make it a process to get to the high priority targets at the “center” or behind the front lines.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I5 3570K @ 4.5Ghz, 16Gb DDR3 @ 2400, Vega64 @1080p

[Tippis]

Also, I guess you should be happy that we only got the awfully-performing A and C variants, rather than the delete button B (or the SDB for the F-16, which would have been even worse in terms of picking apart SAM sites). :P

[Kazius]

A good mission designer can build a mission that will make doing strikes using JSOW difficult.

 

Wars are not fought with 100% recon knowledge. There will be hidden units blue side won't know about. Many of these could be SA-10, SA-11, etc that don't activate until a unit is actually within a terminal range. To make it worse you could have them activate when red air engage in air to air defense of there airspace. Not knowing where these SAMs are located means no PB/PP strikes against them. Use other SAMs deeper into red territory which are more permanent IADS (protecting city government buildings, interior airfields, etc) to lure in blue forces as they are IADS that don't get moved and blue has likely found them with recon planes, drones, satellites, etc. After blue retreats these left over (ones that don't get destroyed by opportunity shots) mobile SAMs that were hidden might move to new hiding places to ambush again in the future. You see where this is going.

 

Basically to make a good mission you need to think big (game of chess).

 

I made script that turns radars of SAMs on and off using detection of other units. It was very effective and hard to defeat without ED putting in a proper jamming model. If you do this then JSOWs are no longer OP.

 

Basically it will fall on mission designers to build something challenging yet not impossible. Also look at costs of weapons like these and build budgets. Perhaps JSOWs are not available until initial SEAD/DEAD type missions are done because you can't afford to use to many in the opening parts of war. Maybe they need to be saved for important bunkers, depots, etc deeper into enemy territory. Wiki estimates the cost of the C model at nearly $720,000.

 

Hard to investigate how many of these were used in recent wars. But I'm thinking even the US with there massive military budget probably uses them wisely.

 

If I didn't have university courses I would design a mission that uses a point / budget system where each side gets points to use towards there budgets. They could buy supplies using points and JSOWs would be quite costly.

[Rick50]

JSOW is awesome, but yes, it's cost is the reason the JDAM is so common, as JDAM is much cheaper. And yet, since it doesn't need fuel or turbines, JSOW is sill much cheaper than the powered standoff cruise missiles like Apache, SLAM and variants.... the 154 is kinda half-way between the two extremes in cost and capability, which makes it a very nice choice for the mission planners IRL.

 

There's an old saying: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers", loosely translated means performance costs big money. And just like space exploration costs big, so too does war and aerospace!

 

My point? Simply that while we have all sorts of amazing super capable weapons... we the public usually have no idea of quantities in ordnance depots. Some of these weapons don't number in the 10;s of thousands, but in the hundreds or even less. So design accordingly: limit the number of Hornets designated for JSOW deployment, somehow.

[NineLine]

If you want "realism" consider the fact the TLAM and other ALCM's aren't in DCS AFAIK

 

;)

 

[Harker]

Like others have said, the MP scene needs to evolve in order to keep up and more thought has to go into designing mission corridors and layered defenses, coordinated CAP flights, instead of Airquake solo players and actually playing tactically. Using the AWACS. SAM traps are possible with the use of triggers and can be made even more effective with the use of random triggers. I've designed a couple of missions like that in SP and it works pretty well, it trashes the HARM. SAMs can also shut down and move via triggers as well. A SAM site that suddenly activates under a Hornet armed with JSOWs can take it out quickly and reposition.

[Fri13]

Yup... exactly this. You can buy the "line" that DCS simulates modern combat all you want, but honestly it doesn't, its not even close in most areas. A big reason I'm always yelling about "older" aircraft and systems, is that with some work, it "could" probably do a decent job of modeling the 70's or early 80's warfare enviroment, and honestly it would probably be more fun.

 

Once we get even a semi-realistic military structure, we can start modeling actual modern (cold-war era) war.

 

- Smallest infantry unit size is a two man team: Sniper team, ATGM teams, JTAC etc.

- Normal smallest unit sizes are four man teams: Recon teams, special forces, MANPADS teams etc.

- Normal infantry unit size is 7-15 man squad: A MG, few RPG, couple MANPADS, DRM etc.

- A platoon that allows to command 3-4 squads around the map as individual unit.

- A company that allows to command 7-9 platoons around the map as individual unit.

 

A group can be build from any units, be it a combination of the MBT platoon supporting a infantry company and whole brigade (3-6 companies) is supported by a two MBT companies and 1-2 SAM (six platforms) battery etc.

 

And then start to have easy way to just simulate all those individual soldiers with just dice rolling in the possible combat if not close to any human camera. And once closer to human camera, start to have the simple infantry positions around the buildings for defensive. So placeholders on roofs, corners, and walls. Edges of the forests, around individual trees etc.

 

If we could run a scenario where there is 5-7 brigades across the map, we would start to have far more interesting missions. A more clear combat zones, no-flight zones etc.

 

It would be slow paced combat, where every inch needs to be won, each aircraft would need to be protected as it can turn the whole war around. Each missile has value by logistics etc.

 

Multiplayer would be far more interesting when air quake would be gone, and trying to get even 15-20 fighters down in MP would be behind a serious challenge among 30-50 players and war mission that runs for 14-30 days.

 

But how many would really love the more realistic combat? Take-Off, fly to point A, contact and drop a bombs and then get out or refuel and back to loiter. Fly to unsafe area and you are shot down by air defence units and no one is going to save your pilot as you are way behind the enemy lines.

[Mad_Max2]

Just take the weakness of the JSOW and incorporate it into the mission. Have threats that are unknown to attackers. Spread out/layer defenses to mess with launch zones. Use terrain to mask targets. Use moving targets. Inject some enemy enemy air to disrupt approach. There's quite a bit you can do to make it challenging tbh...

 

 

I think this is a case of new toy, how do we use it? Let it simmer in the community for a few weeks and it will work itself out.

[tosmonkey]

A good mission designer can build a mission that will make doing strikes using JSOW difficult.

 

Wars are not fought with 100% recon knowledge. There will be hidden units blue side won't know about. Many of these could be SA-10, SA-11, etc that don't activate until a unit is actually within a terminal range. To make it worse you could have them activate when red air engage in air to air defense of there airspace. Not knowing where these SAMs are located means no PB/PP strikes against them. Use other SAMs deeper into red territory which are more permanent IADS (protecting city government buildings, interior airfields, etc) to lure in blue forces as they are IADS that don't get moved and blue has likely found them with recon planes, drones, satellites, etc. After blue retreats these left over (ones that don't get destroyed by opportunity shots) mobile SAMs that were hidden might move to new hiding places to ambush again in the future. You see where this is going.

 

Basically to make a good mission you need to think big (game of chess).

 

I made script that turns radars of SAMs on and off using detection of other units. It was very effective and hard to defeat without ED putting in a proper jamming model. If you do this then JSOWs are no longer OP.

 

Basically it will fall on mission designers to build something challenging yet not impossible. Also look at costs of weapons like these and build budgets. Perhaps JSOWs are not available until initial SEAD/DEAD type missions are done because you can't afford to use to many in the opening parts of war. Maybe they need to be saved for important bunkers, depots, etc deeper into enemy territory. Wiki estimates the cost of the C model at nearly $720,000.

 

Hard to investigate how many of these were used in recent wars. But I'm thinking even the US with there massive military budget probably uses them wisely.

 

If I didn't have university courses I would design a mission that uses a point / budget system where each side gets points to use towards there budgets. They could buy supplies using points and JSOWs would be quite costly.

some very good points. scripting smart sams seem to be a big part of the answer. wish that was easier to do. does that tax the resources of a multiplayer server/

[Fri13]

Yup. I'm not even sure if DCS models moving sams at all? or moving AAA like the shilka/tungaska. which can fire on the move or from a quick halt at least.

 

Not simulated. Way too many things in DCS are requiring scripting, what is totally wrong way to do things.

 

Every unit type should get a AI logic for their behavior. Like if a colonna is on the move, they should have already a great separation instead all driving 20 meters from each others like idiots, unless on the very safe area. Once there is change for a air strike, visual range or something like 500 meters is a more common one. That already eliminates every single possible air strike you would do against them.

 

Once a air threat is alarmed for troops on the area, there will be hundreds of eye pairs observing the skies as well. Attack once and you have from tens of kilometers area MANPADS, SAM's and AAA etc informed from the location, direction etc. And likely CAP is approaching at the max speed. So every second makes death bells closer unless you move away from the area and through a safe corridor.

 

But to get anything like that, one needs a crazy amount of scripting and yet not succeed in that at all. As the AI in each unit is already lacking the basic self-awareness, self-protection and will to survive and complete the mission.

 

Like why we need to do any complex scripting to get troops mounted and unmounted from vehicles at logical positions and moments? To get it done in logical way like near air cover etc? To quickly move after each attack run to make the pilot job far more difficult when the target shifts is location? That the unmounted infantry platoon has a few MANPADS already aimed at you if alarmed or after surprise attack. So you are not totally going to just fly around and shoot every individual truck scattered to 50 meter radius and sitting as ducks on the pathtube.

 

That is why I have high hopes for the coming RTS elements, that ED hired a RTS game developer(s?) to do.

 

Add lots of more logic, streamline the tasks that mission designers doesn't need to make any complex scripts, instead just draw the command lines on the map and the AI does all the rest by logical manner.

 

Eventually all that will rain in the bucket of the dynamic campaigns, because everything has a meaning, and the slow pace and development and combat will make that it is not a 15 min hollywood movie where tens of thousands of units engage each others around in one airbase and puts every single CPU out there on their melting point.

Instead it would be lots of small clashes here and there, lots of support calls to drop bombs etc on long period combats and barely seeing anything being done via air, until the troops on the ground are doing the real fighting and gaining areas and routes to victory.

 

 

Like how many here are real fans of the Top Gun movie?

 

Just the opening scene is something amazing compared what was done previously.

And yet how many has considered that what is the time compression in that scene? From a bogey at 250 Nm range to 150 nm? How long it would take to fly that range with a "Mig-28" on your tail?

 

With all the hollywood drama and action, how many really wants to fly just a such simulation?

 

We can look all kind older RTS games from hexagon maps etc, and there is lots of interesting things happening on ground level.

 

So many high value targets that JSOW would be used, but not at all so often as people want to be using it now. And not at all such possibility to actually utilize it because ground troops being well protected by all kind anti-air shields.

 

So most wants to be the "rock stars", get their high value for 30 min action and then call it realism, like calling with many modules and their features. So they are given the most realistic simulation of the aviation, yet fly a "missions" and even just scenarios that are extremely unrealistic.

 

So of course everything will be highly overpowered when the enemy in the scenario is extremely nerfed.

[backspace340]

The easiest way to set up a mission like this where it's not easy to hit airfields would be to set up SA-10s 40-50nm away from the airfield in the direction of the attacker's approach. Good luck getting up to altitude and getting in range to drop them with an SA-10 shooting at you. Hide them from the F10 map so they can't just plug the coordinates in, that'll stop most OCA attacks on the airfield.

[Kazansky222]

The easiest way to set up a mission like this where it's not easy to hit airfields would be to set up SA-10s 40-50nm away from the airfield in the direction of the attacker's approach. Good luck getting up to altitude and getting in range to drop them with an SA-10 shooting at you. Hide them from the F10 map so they can't just plug the coordinates in, that'll stop most OCA attacks on the airfield.

 

 

Not the best example, however it shows that even S-300 can be defeated by a single JSOW.

[backspace340]

 

Not the best example, however it shows that even S-300 can be defeated by a single JSOW.

 

And right now, assuming they take the advice in the last sentence, the Hornet will have no way of precisely knowing where it is and so wouldn't be able to input coordinates for the JSOW. Obviously that changes with the TGP, but it's not here yet.

[Sniper175]

:doh: this thread exists, last i checked this is Digital COmbat Simulator, not a game like warthunder or il2 that has balance because its aimed at being a game and fun. Not simulating actual reality.

This is what makes having the best weaponry in the real world so powerful. Makes engagements easier and safer for the User.

[tosmonkey]

:doh: this thread exists, last i checked this is Digital COmbat Simulator, not a game like warthunder or il2 that has balance because its aimed at being a game and fun. Not simulating actual reality.

This is what makes having the best weaponry in the real world so powerful. Makes engagements easier and safer for the User.

First of all, if you think DCS accurately simulates conflict and modern weapons then you are deluded. They do about as good a job as can be expected but there are plenty of examples of tactics and weapons that are simulated poorly or not at all. Air defense systems being one example. Secondly, At the end of the day this is still a game, and you're a gamer. This thread is about how to make the game interesting and fun, with what is continuing to be the overwhelming superiority of one side.

[Kev2go]

Lol you think jsow is OP?

 

Just wait until agm84h slam er gets added. Itl have 170 nautical miles of range and get to target much faster.

 

 

And what other users said, just add some sa15s to cover targets and protect other air defenses they can shoot down missiles or bombs.

[Fri13]

:doh: this thread exists, last i checked this is Digital COmbat Simulator, not a game like warthunder or il2 that has balance because its aimed at being a game and fun. Not simulating actual reality.

This is what makes having the best weaponry in the real world so powerful. Makes engagements easier and safer for the User.

 

DCS simulates in excellent manner the aircraft avionics and very good flight modeling (I have few reservations for that one). But many things from anything outside of your aircraft is simulated lower accuracy and it radically drops when you get just few hundred meters from your aircraft.

 

Like, we still do not have fragmentation modeling for even missiles, bombs or anything really. Just a quick "fix" by having a HE damage for area. And that all affects a lot for AA missiles (like R-60 to others) and to air-to-ground bombs, rockets etc. Like you need to drop a Mk-82 just 2-5 meters from the MBT to get it killed (disabled from action, combat, mobility kill etc), while in reality a 155mm HE artillery shell (40kg vs 250kg) can do it from 30-50 meters.

 

Then our missiles guidance systems are something, lacking. Way too accurate A-G missiles, way too accurate A-A missiles etc. And then when comes question about counter measurements effectiveness, we are even worse case situation.

 

And none of that even yet includes things from ground, all the air defence networks, coverage, the ineffectiveness of notching etc against ground radars etc...

 

In reality you are not going to get anywhere near with any HARM or JSOW the high risk targets, as between you and them there is so many layers of the protection that is going to stop every weapon you really launch there.

 

If you are going to drop a JDAM on a couple Surgents in a shack middle of the desert, then go for it. Pretend that is so realistic and amazing. Same thing that every single MBT is sitting middle of the open areas while they have perfect forest for concealment and cover just next to them. Or that you have one SAM there doing nothing and waiting that someone would drop a bomb on them.

 

ED has lots of things under work to start adding the complex combat elements, but those ain't in DCS yet.

 

The best we really can do is to make a training target area where the task is to learn and train the avionics and the procedure to release specific weapons etc. But not to fight the combat.

 

Even multiplayer is totally unrealistic because everyone has infinite lives, no one has anything to fear from getting shot down, not penalties, nothing. Just respawn and try again to kill that one other player in the area where they just shot you down.

 

It is amazing how we can now experience using these weapons in at home. Something that most of us would have not even dreamed 15-20 years ago.

Amazing hobby. Amazing experience. Something that no other thing is providing.

 

But that should not be believed to be that DCS is simulating reality in overall war scenario.

[Kev2go]

DCS simulates in excellent manner the aircraft avionics and very good flight modeling (I have few reservations for that one). But many things from anything outside of your aircraft is simulated lower accuracy and it radically drops when you get just few hundred meters from your aircraft.

 

Like, we still do not have fragmentation modeling for even missiles, bombs or anything really. Just a quick "fix" by having a HE damage for area. And that all affects a lot for AA missiles (like R-60 to others) and to air-to-ground bombs, rockets etc. Like you need to drop a Mk-82 just 2-5 meters from the MBT to get it killed (disabled from action, combat, mobility kill etc), while in reality a 155mm HE artillery shell (40kg vs 250kg) can do it from 30-50 meters.

 

Then our missiles guidance systems are something, lacking. Way too accurate A-G missiles, way too accurate A-A missiles etc. And then when comes question about counter measurements effectiveness, we are even worse case situation.

 

And none of that even yet includes things from ground, all the air defence networks, coverage, the ineffectiveness of notching etc against ground radars etc...

 

In reality you are not going to get anywhere near with any HARM or JSOW the high risk targets, as between you and them there is so many layers of the protection that is going to stop every weapon you really launch there.

 

If you are going to drop a JDAM on a couple Surgents in a shack middle of the desert, then go for it. Pretend that is so realistic and amazing. Same thing that every single MBT is sitting middle of the open areas while they have perfect forest for concealment and cover just next to them. Or that you have one SAM there doing nothing and waiting that someone would drop a bomb on them.

 

ED has lots of things under work to start adding the complex combat elements, but those ain't in DCS yet.

 

The best we really can do is to make a training target area where the task is to learn and train the avionics and the procedure to release specific weapons etc. But not to fight the combat.

 

Even multiplayer is totally unrealistic because everyone has infinite lives, no one has anything to fear from getting shot down, not penalties, nothing. Just respawn and try again to kill that one other player in the area where they just shot you down.

 

It is amazing how we can now experience using these weapons in at home. Something that most of us would have not even dreamed 15-20 years ago.

Amazing hobby. Amazing experience. Something that no other thing is providing.

 

But that should not be believed to be that DCS is simulating reality in overall war scenario.

 

 

Name me one simulation ( thats available on the consumer market) that does "overall war scenario" better?

 

Maybe That 3 lettered sim that cannot be named ? but thats largely due to Dynamic Campaign system.

 

 

 

Up until Dynamic system gets added Its all up to mission designers to make a authentic mission utilizing the assets as they are supposed to be in an authentic manner.

 

However that's all besides the point. Yoy misunderstood the message that was conveyed by the user you responded to. Aircraft or thier weapons arent decided to be developed or in turn removed based on whats fair or balance. This is not meant to be a typical arcade game where everything is mean't be be made "fair". Basically like he said this isnt War thunder, or World of Warplanes or Ace combat.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Kev2go

[Mr_sukebe]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this thread.

 

As some have rightly pointed out, DCS is about trying to simulate reality as well as is possible (some of which might be because they're not allowed to, some, just because it's hard to do).

So if the real JSOW is this good, then the one in DCS should be too.

 

Balance is frankly irrelevant from the perspective of the overall technical capabilities of in game assets.

If you don't want it in your server, well that's a different matter.

Just remove it from availability at your airfields, problem solved.