Scoring System

[159th_Dorsk81]

Scoring System

 

I just want to see a scoring system which encourages pilots to fly in formations and use the fundementals of BFM. Points for Offensive and Defensive BFM should be shared between the flight. A single fighter that engages and manages to shoot down a two-ship should get more points.

[Pilotasso]

Right now the only western embarked aircraft that can be modeled with the technology on LOMAC would be the A-4 skyhawk. We would need the brazilian carrier bu then it wouldnt make much sense, for the roles we would use it in this region of the globe.

[suntrace1]

Twist your words? No. Merely read between the lines. Funny it was ok for you to treat Wolverine's post in the same manner eh?

 

And as to your definition of what's fair or not that depends on what you're wanting to do. If you're happy playing airquake then fine. But not if you're interested in simulating something close to actual military operations. It's hard enough to do with a PC simulator due to obvious linitations, spamming just makes it worse. Different horses for different courses.

 

It also seems to me your definition of a crybaby is someone that doesn't agree with you. You might want to check that one in a dictionary.

 

 

Let's clear my misinterpetation of what Wolverine wrote:''Up against a lone or pair of f-15's that employ proper military tactics isn't too bad. Survivability is about 50/50. Heck I've even shot them down with R-73's and Vikhrs and evaded up to 3 missiles launched in close succession.''

 

Is that a proper military tactic for F-15, to get into WVR- needless- battle?! Jester, the only thing i see between my lines is empty space. What you're trying to find there, only you know.

 

If there really was a manual that said spamming is not ''proper military tactics'' , you would already quote it. But there isn't, no need to guess about that one. If you do find it, please, let me know, i'll change my mind, until then...

 

From my Oxford Dictionary - ''crybaby - child who cries often or easily without good or apparent cause.''

 

You got killed, fair & square, no cheats, no nothing and you're not man enough to admit it - ''shame on you'' , ''air-quake'', ''proper military ...'' , blah, blah, blah - well if that's not a crybaby, what is? Here's a tip - look in your dictionary for rhetorical question.

 

And Wolverine, you're just loling onto yourself. I was (being sarcastic) and obviousely right, when i said that you're just seeking an opportunity to get that ''fun'' kill to brag about. Also you may want to check your facts. AIM120 can be launched in millisecond sequences. I see that as an advantage of a missile, not the other way around. There is a reason why they have that possibilty. You can guess why.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I guess scoring system would prevent spamming and would enforce more rational weapon deployment, but i'm affraid that after Black Shark, we wil only get one more patch before ED leaves LOMAC ''as is'' and continues work with their new simulation.

[Jester_159th]

Suntrace. Dream on.

 

You obviously haven't got a clue about real world A-2-A tactics. And I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's only form of argument is to reverse what the other party said. You want to believe that the USAF use that as a tactic, you help yourself m8.

 

You want to prove me wrong? Go for it. Or go back to playing airquake. Up to you m8. I don't particularly care either way.

[D-Scythe]

Dude, you think you know anything about real world A-2-A tactics either? Let's get this straight - the most you can know is the basics, okay? Tactics are classified, so stop acting like (A) you know what you're talking about, and (B) saying that other people don't know what they're talking about.

 

If anything, I too am against spamming - I like the challenge of getting into my AIM-120's NEZ and killing things with one shot - but to be truthful, there is nothing in the real world that suggests spamming is not a valid military tactic. For all we know, USAF pilots may have been trained in a WWIII scenario to just point and shoot in 8 different directions and disengage.

 

Right now, the AIM-120 is modelled in a way that I don't really mind the spamming - it's not really accurate enough to make spamming totally unreasonable. It doesn't hit anything; there is (literally) no NEZ to speak of.

 

Suntrace. Dream on.

 

You obviously haven't got a clue about real world A-2-A tactics. And I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's only form of argument is to reverse what the other party said. You want to believe that the USAF use that as a tactic, you help yourself m8.

 

You want to prove me wrong? Go for it. Or go back to playing airquake. Up to you m8. I don't particularly care either way.

[GGTharos]

Maybe I should quit over people turning off padlock, eh ;)

 

It's amusing how people react badly to something they don't like, but then, when it's their own brand, they'll go to hell and back for it.

 

I'm sorry that A2G pilots feel so badly persecuted. But what did you expect? You're flying a target in a public server - you'll get shot down (That's right. Anything carrying AG munitions is a target). I've seen rather unfair things happen (3 F-15's going after the only red plane in the server, which happens to be a Su-25, say, I've see it from the other side, too) - but the whole spamming whine is just ridiculous.

 

Why would you think at all that you'll survive an encounter with a fighter? I mean, granted, you 'have a chance', but that's a rather small chance, really. So what difference does it make if he knocks you out with a volley or if he closes in after you dodge the first 2-3 and whacks you from up close? Does it feel 'more fair' to you, or what? Spamming is a nuissance, nothing more - even the 'big boys' spam, and I know some flanker pilots who are rather notorious about this, hoping to shoot down an AMRAAM with their heaters before it hits them, while the rest of the missiles head for you - and it works, too.

 

In the end those people won't matter where endurance is required, which is something coordinated missions may require.

 

But on a public server where everyone can join, what are you expecting?

Ask someone you know does good CAP to CAP for you - someone who understands what the opposition will likely do and why they'll do it - then you get a much better chance of surviving and encountering a more realistic scenario where you deal with fewer weapons in the air.

 

Insofar as 'missile spamming' being used for real, don't doubt for a moment that it is - under the right circumstances. Keep in mind that most kills with 120's so far however have been one-shot, one-kill, so that should tell you something.

 

On the other hand, LOMAC's ARH's don't appear to be quite that effective, so you take the middle ground.

 

Either way, this whole whining about missile spamming is ridiculous - one guy drops in and spams a bunch of missiles, and next thing you know people are quitting over it.

[GGTharos]

Anyway, I am copying and pasting Vap0r's request to the beta forum in the hopes that this sort of system will make it into 1.2

[Jester_159th]

Dude, you think you know anything about real world A-2-A tactics either? Let's get this straight - the most you can know is the basics, okay? Tactics are classified, so stop acting like (A) you know what you're talking about, and (B) saying that other people don't know what they're talking about........

 

 

Sorry you feel that way. Just out of interest, did you read the posts that lead up to that last one you quoted?

 

As it stands, whether I know the basics or more is irrelevent. According to what I've seen and know about tactics, spamming (as we refer to it within the flightsim world) is not a tactic used by any air force. If you can prove me wrong, that's fine. I'm always open to learning new stuff.

 

As to the rest of your post. I fully agree everything you said.....Well apart from the bit about spamming "not totally unreasonable" (But I wouldn't agree with that ;) )

 

If the missile is not as accurate as it should be (with regard to the latest details available) then I hope it's adjusted in a patch. But how much of the data about the 120 (and other missiles modelled in the game) is fact and how much is guesswork?

[GGTharos]

We know that the 120 has a pretty good Pk, actually, esp. as compared to the AIM-7.

 

Capabilities will likely not be adjusted in the patch too much, simply because it's very hard to udnerstand and model all the different things that the missile can do - those things are pretty smart, and unfortunately without knowing the techniques, we have to guess and simulate them, which would then lead to a model that approximates the real thing, but unfortunately that's all too time-consuming.

 

In any case, missile capability is represented in a relatively realistic way (in a broad, general sense) ... specifically, RH missiles are very effective in the front quarter, and IRH are very effective in the rear quarter. As I said, broad generalities. If you dig a little deeper into it you'll find that ARH's aren't as much more effective than SARH's, for example, but they're supposed to be.

[Ice]

Theres a few things here that need to be pointed out.

 

Firstly. If you are shot down by someone spamming missiles. It's your own fault for putting yourself in that position in the first place.

 

Secondly once you get good at this sim you soon realise that missile spamming or mad-dogging is not nearly as effective as a 1 or maybe 2 well timed, positioned locked shots.

 

Thirdly. Anyone who tells you that they won't spam a maddog AIM-120 or R77 at the guy who shot them if they get the chance before ejecting is a downright liar.

 

One final note. We've already been informed that the gimbal limits in 1.11 have been drastically reduced and therefor more realistic. So maddogging / spamming will probably become next to useless.

[GGTharos]

If you mean 'long range maddogging' then yes, it will be far less effective.

 

Spamming will be about the same.

[Ice]

Getting back to the point system. One thing that should be implemented is:

 

If you land at an airfield and park on the apron stop your engines, Then pressing esc and quit to change load or aircraft should NOT count as a loss.

[D-Scythe]

Sorry you feel that way. Just out of interest, did you read the posts that lead up to that last one you quoted?

 

As it stands, whether I know the basics or more is irrelevent. According to what I've seen and know about tactics, spamming (as we refer to it within the flightsim world) is not a tactic used by any air force. If you can prove me wrong, that's fine. I'm always open to learning new stuff.

 

As to the rest of your post. I fully agree everything you said.....Well apart from the bit about spamming "not totally unreasonable" (But I wouldn't agree with that ;) )

 

If the missile is not as accurate as it should be (with regard to the latest details available) then I hope it's adjusted in a patch. But how much of the data about the 120 (and other missiles modelled in the game) is fact and how much is guesswork?

 

Yes, actually, I did read the posts up to this point. Wolverine started it basically by saying spamming = bad and a Frog should have a 50/50 chance against an F-15 or two (which is total rubbish IMO).

 

Just let me chip in a few points. You say you want proof that spamming is a valid military tactic. So I say, in response, prove that it isn't a valid military tactic. You can't, and by the off chance that spamming is valid (even though I, like you, don't think it is), it would be classified.

 

Just think about it - who in their right minds would want their potential enemies to know that their pilots were trained to spam their entire missile load?

 

Secondly, the Vikhr is overmodelled currently in LOMAC as an AAM. Bottom line, it was designed to kill tanks, with a secondary application against slow moving, non-evasive targets. As it is now, it is superior to both the AIM-9M and the R-73 against any target moving slower than 800 kmph - you tell me if that is realistic.

 

Thirdly, anything carrying A/G ordnance is a target. If a Su-25T runs into an F-15 and the Eagle spams 8 missiles at it - well, whatever way the F-15 wants to kill its target is up to the pilot. Realistically, a Su-25T wouldn't stand a chance against an F-15. Wolverine's assessment of a 50/50 survival rate is utter bull.

 

Finally, with regards to the AIM-120's performance: overall, its pK in combat so far is between 60-70 percent, although 10 or so of its kills have been achieved with 100% accuracy (including about 5 MIG-29s). I interpret this as if the AIM-120 is launced in its NEZ, the missile is deadly, and scores a hit almost everytime. On the other hand, firing from unfavorable conditions (two F-15Cs fired 3 AIM-120s at a flight of MiG-25s from max range during Desert Fox - none of them hit), pK drops drastically.

 

So in LOMAC, I'm thinking it shouldn't take more than 2 or maybe 3 AIM-120s to take a single bandit down (player or AI).

 

Unfortunately, I had literally emptied all 8 of my AIM-120s at NEZ (no more than 6-8 miles) and had none of them hit. Now, can you really blame people for spamming?

 

F4:AF modelled both the AIM-120 and R-77 better in terms of accuracy and PK. Fired from within NEZ, you are basically gauranteed a kill (or be killed) with both of these weapons. Most telling is the fact that you don't ever hear any of the F4 boys and girls complaining about spamming.

[Weta43]

My reading of it was that the believes that given his skills he HAS a 50/50 chance against an F15 - unless they spam him...

[Pilotasso]

 

Insofar as 'missile spamming' being used for real, don't doubt for a moment that it is - under the right circumstances. Keep in mind that most kills with 120's so far however have been one-shot, one-kill, so that should tell you something.

 

On the other hand, LOMAC's ARH's don't appear to be quite that effective, so you take the middle ground.

 

Dont want to sound like a party spoiler but you are a bit off reality.

 

In 1999 Balkan war, it too 4 AMRAAM's for 2 Dutch fighters down a single mig-29. This engagement, as well as others the target didnt do apropriate evasive manuevers.

In Ethiopia Both Eritrean and ethiopian birds rippled multiple R-27's, all missed.

 

In 1991 Iraq war, the oposition was usualy downed , when using an AMRAAM, very close like 10 miles. Often Iraqui fighters were so overwelmed with multiple US spikes, they didnt quite figure out the best way to turn tail and run.

 

Thing is, online human players are much more agressive than real pilots during evasive manuevers, hence missiles will fail alot if you compare their perfomance with "one shot 1 kill" thing that only happens when the enemy is handed over in a plate.

 

Spamming is an usual tactic. Like it or not. And for those who think its not by the book, wars cant be fought by the book. There were those who tried it and failed.

 

Having said that one must remenber the US tactic called "The grinder" ;) Employing multi AMRAAM armed air superiority fighters.

[GGTharos]

No, I'm not 'a bit off reality' ;)

I said "Most kills were single shot kills", not all. I'm well aware of the shots that missed, and I'm well aware of the ranges a lot of shots were fired at - and many of them were over 10nm (but almost always under 16nm).

[Bungle_uk]

Getting back to the point system. One thing that should be implemented is:

 

If you land at an airfield and park on the apron stop your engines, Then pressing esc and quit to change load or aircraft should NOT count as a loss.

 

Yes, second that

[TucksonSonny]

These are some ideas I've thought of for the scoring system that I think would encourage teamplay and add to the fun of online playing:

 

*A total score for both coalitions (all points scored or lost on that coalition would add here).

 

*AI controlled units (both air and ground) would add their kill points to the total for that coalition. For instance: a blue SAM shoots down a red player, blue side gets those points added to the total. Ground vehicles killing each other would affect this as well.

 

*Plane losses from crashing would deduct from the coalition total .

 

*Ordinance that is fired (or jettisoned) that doesn't hit any targets should take some points from that player (this would help prevent spamming missiles). Different weapons could have different point costs depending on the value of the weapon.

 

*Buildings!! Buildings that are assigned as mission targets in the editor should have a score. So if you are tasked with attacking a bridge or one of the placeable ammo depots you will get points for it. Any buildings that ARE NOT assigned as targets should be considered civilian and given a penalty if destroyed.

 

Anyone like these ideas or have anything to add to it?

 

 

I would vote for stay alive.

A high score is nothing if you’re killed several times.

1/0 makes more impression than 16/8.

 

I vote for resetting your kills (A/C score) after getting killed!

[VapoR]

I thought of another one that I think is actually pretty important:

 

If the server quits the current mission, all scores should be zeroed when the next mission is loaded.

[TucksonSonny]

I thought also of another one:

 

Spamming missiles is all right with me. The missiles are there anyway for use.

I would suggest adding in the score something like missile kill ratio (“hit/miss value”) so we would know who is a spammer (if a noob spammer is online) and thus we can stay out of range.

 

Anyway, you can run a way faster after a missile spam and use less fuel :icon_jook .

[D-Scythe]

Dont want to sound like a party spoiler but you are a bit off reality.

 

In 1999 Balkan war, it too 4 AMRAAM's for 2 Dutch fighters down a single mig-29. This engagement, as well as others the target didnt do apropriate evasive manuevers.

 

Don't know what sources you've been using, but in actuality, in Allied Force a single Dutch F-16 MLU engaged and destroyed a MIG-29 with a single AIM-120 at 11 miles. USAF Lt. Col Rodriguez, who's credited with a Fulcrum and a Flogger kill in Desert Storm also killed a second MiG-29 that night with a single AIM-120.

 

It was a 493rd FS F-15C (pilot = Mike Showers I think) who launched 3 AIM-120s, the first from 30 miles (miss) and the last from NEZ (hit), to destroy a MiG-29. All 3 incidents happened in the same night.

 

Get your facts straight before posting next time.

 

In Ethiopia Both Eritrean and ethiopian birds rippled multiple R-27's, all missed.

 

In 1991 Iraq war, the oposition was usualy downed , when using an AMRAAM, very close like 10 miles. Often Iraqui fighters were so overwelmed with multiple US spikes, they didnt quite figure out the best way to turn tail and run.

 

No. Just no. It has been reported by Janes that AIM-120s have been fired in Desert Storm, but that's it - nothing else in terms of facts and info have been released.

 

In fact, the AIM-120 has been so effective so far in combat that it actually is easier to document all its misses rather than its kills. The most significant failure as I've brought up before was during Desert Fox, when three AIM-120s were launched at Iraqi MiG-25s, all of which missed. However, it is interesting to note that in the same day, an AIM-7M and two AIM-54Cs were also launched at intruding MiG-25s. None hit home - the U.S. was 0 for 6 that day.

[Pilotasso]

 

No. Just no. It has been reported by Janes that AIM-120s have been fired in Desert Storm, but that's it - nothing else in terms of facts and info have been released.

 

In fact, the AIM-120 has been so effective so far in combat that it actually is easier to document all its misses rather than its kills.

 

...You should searched better before you wrote this.

from:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/amraamsrc.htm (just an example)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The transcript of Benji 41's kill -1/13/93 Aerospace Daily F-16/AWACS coordination v Radar acqusition and lock-on of the lead MiG was almost immediately at around 20 nm as the MiG's "turned to confront" the F-16's.

The MiG-25's were reported to have fired at least one missile.

AWACS: "Benji 41, Lock Leader, Leader Past the Line, now 18 miles, Angels 29"

Benji 41: "Roger, they're south of the line."

AWACS: "Benji 41, status trailer"

Benji 42: "I have a lock, it's tracking"

AWACS: "OK, I show 'em well south of the line, 14 miles. Toot Sweet, try to get the trailer"

Benji 41: "Benji Burners"

AWACS: "12 miles, 12 miles"

Benji 41: "Bogey Dope"

AWACS: "Benji, I show them 8 miles"

Benji 41: "Benji, I am looking for a Clearance to Fire"

AWACS: "Benji 41, Cleared Kill, Cleared Kill"

Benji 41: "Benji, understand Cleared Kill?"

[sound of lock-on tone of AMRAAM]

AWACS: "Cleared to Kill, Cleared to Kill, you've got .....Bandits"

[sound of launch tone of AMRAAM]

Benji 41: "Benji Fox"

AWACS: "Benji let's come hard left"

Benji 41: "Splash" [missile running time around 8 seconds]

Benji 41: "Benji, burners, let's take it down. Go Low."

[F-16's dive from 29,000 ft to 17,000 ft, new lock]

Benji 41: "Benji, Splash One, Splash One"

AWACS: "Copy, Splash One."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

;)

 

On another Occasion:

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AW&ST, 4Jan93, pg 26) The first AIM-120A AMRAAM fired in combat downed an Iraqi fighter 20 miles inside the no-fly zone. It also represents the 1st USAF air-to-air kill by an F-16. It was around 11:00 am local (3:00 am EST) when 2 x F-16C Blk 42's from either the 19th of 33rd Fighter Squadron from the 363rd Fighter Wing based at Shaw AFB, S.C. The F-16 pilots flew to within visual contact with the MiG-25's but were unable to ID them at the time. Verbal warnings were passed over radio f frequencies but the MiG's turned into the F-16's. The Lead F-16 fired 1 x AMRAAM in an active mode at around 3 nm. It instantly guided to an impact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the dutch Mig kill the information was offered to me "as is" a few years ago by an officer who was part of my countries AF fighter contigent in Aviano.

 

To much of my upset I cant find any confirmation over the NET.

 

What I remenbered was, there were 4 Dutch MLU fighters in the vicinity when AWACS warned them of 3 migs inbound. 2 of those F-16 got interception first, and both fired AMRAAM's (order and number of AMRAAMs fired by wich aircraft was not mentioned) the pilots watched as 4 missiles flew off but only 1 hit home, the remaning 2 migs escaped.

[D-Scythe]

...You should searched better before you wrote this.

from:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/amraamsrc.htm (just an example)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The transcript of Benji 41's kill -1/13/93 Aerospace Daily F-16/AWACS coordination v Radar acqusition and lock-on of the lead MiG was almost immediately at around 20 nm as the MiG's "turned to confront" the F-16's.

The MiG-25's were reported to have fired at least one missile.

AWACS: "Benji 41, Lock Leader, Leader Past the Line, now 18 miles, Angels 29"

Benji 41: "Roger, they're south of the line."

AWACS: "Benji 41, status trailer"

Benji 42: "I have a lock, it's tracking"

AWACS: "OK, I show 'em well south of the line, 14 miles. Toot Sweet, try to get the trailer"

Benji 41: "Benji Burners"

AWACS: "12 miles, 12 miles"

Benji 41: "Bogey Dope"

AWACS: "Benji, I show them 8 miles"

Benji 41: "Benji, I am looking for a Clearance to Fire"

AWACS: "Benji 41, Cleared Kill, Cleared Kill"

Benji 41: "Benji, understand Cleared Kill?"

[sound of lock-on tone of AMRAAM]

AWACS: "Cleared to Kill, Cleared to Kill, you've got .....Bandits"

[sound of launch tone of AMRAAM]

Benji 41: "Benji Fox"

AWACS: "Benji let's come hard left"

Benji 41: "Splash" [missile running time around 8 seconds]

Benji 41: "Benji, burners, let's take it down. Go Low."

[F-16's dive from 29,000 ft to 17,000 ft, new lock]

Benji 41: "Benji, Splash One, Splash One"

AWACS: "Copy, Splash One."

 

Maybe you should read the transcript more carefully before you trust it. A lock on tone for an AIM-120? ;)

 

And IIRC, the F-16 vs. MIG-25 engagement took place in 92, not 91.

 

I don't know why some people place so much trust on internet websites. I get most of my information from aviation publications myself. But I guess $80 to $120 aviation journals lose out to free websites. Whatever.

[D-Scythe]

What I remenbered was, there were 4 Dutch MLU fighters in the vicinity when AWACS warned them of 3 migs inbound. 2 of those F-16 got interception first, and both fired AMRAAM's (order and number of AMRAAMs fired by wich aircraft was not mentioned) the pilots watched as 4 missiles flew off but only 1 hit home, the remaning 2 migs escaped.

 

The remaining two MiGs did not escape. They were splashed by USAF F-15Cs shortly after.

 

Okay, my source is AirPower International (I think), when they had a multi-volume special on Allied Force. You can trust your source (military officer or what not) all you want, but let's just agree to disagree, okay?

[Pilotasso]

Maybe you should read the transcript more carefully before you trust it. A lock on tone for an AIM-120? ;)

 

And IIRC, the F-16 vs. MIG-25 engagement took place in 92, not 91.

 

I don't know why some people place so much trust on internet websites. I get most of my information from aviation publications myself. But I guess $80 to $120 aviation journals lose out to free websites. Whatever.

 

1) Early AMRAAM missiles were pre-production examples and the planes were simply adapted for them. I believe I have read somwhere that back then, a lock on was acompained by a 7 blip sound. Full scale production and integration was only reached after the war.

 

2) as for the F-16VS Mig 25 the site displays the correct date (click the link I gave), the quote I mentioned it was the first POST WAR no-fly zone violation, not in 91 as you mistakenly quoted me.