Xeno's air tabs changes

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4337
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby hansbroger » Tue 31 Jan 2017 00:42

FrangibleCover wrote:
hansbroger wrote:Tu-22, Canberra and other related "Medium bombers"

Eh? Those aren't comparable at all.

Canberras are B-5/F-111 sized aircraft and within the top end of the game's scale, suitable for use by nations that don't have other good options for heavy HE delivery, like South Africa or Argentina. Tu-22s are humongous. No, like, massive. They're definitely heavy bombers.

The other thing is that in game Canberras would have 15HP, be relatively slow and probably have 10% ECM from their old RWR. Tu-22s would have at least 15 HP and at least 30% ECM while being rather quick, which will make them very very difficult to kill. Mounting SEAD missiles on them would be the last straw, with the 10% ECM boost from being a SEAD aircraft and the long stand-off range combined with the suppression of the majority of long-range high-HE ground AA systems that would be their natural predator the Tu-22 SEAD would be nigh-impossible to kill without a massive point investment.


I doubt anything other than a dedicated ECM variant of the Tu-22 like Tu-22P/KP would have anything close to 30% ecm even with the boost for being SEAD. The missile carriers like Tu-22K would likely have terrible ecm like max 10%, there's a reason why every regiment had a dedicated squadron of Tu-22P attached.

That being said its probably a bit big still for the game. I guess a better candidate would just be the good old Yak-28 as far as Derp class SEAD
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby FrangibleCover » Tue 31 Jan 2017 01:13

hansbroger wrote:I doubt anything other than a dedicated ECM variant of the Tu-22 like Tu-22P/KP would have anything close to 30% ecm even with the boost for being SEAD. The missile carriers like Tu-22K would likely have terrible ecm like max 10%, there's a reason why every regiment had a dedicated squadron of Tu-22P attached.

Well, what're we talking about? The SEAD ones or the missile trucks for Naval?
From the Command database, as always:
  • Tu-22B (from 1962 in the 70's database) - SPS-3 DECM, SPO-3 Sirena-3 RWR, ASO-2I chaff/flare dispenser. 30% ECM in Wargame. Bombs only.
  • Tu-22K (I can only find the Iraqi one in the '80s database, which is the relevant one) - SPS-3 DECM, SPO-3 Sirena-3 RWR, ASO-2I chaff/flare dispenser. 30% ECM in Wargame. Carries a single AS-4 Kitchen B with a 950kg SAP warhead.
  • Tu-22KD (from 1979) - SPS-3 DECM, SPO-3 Sirena-3 RWR, ASO-2I chaff/flare dispenser. 30% ECM in Wargame. Carries a single AS-4 Kitchen A or B with either a 950kg SAP warhead or a 350kT nuke.
  • Tu-22KPD (from 1980) - SPS-3 DECM, SPO-3 Sirena-3 RWR, ASO-2I chaff/flare dispenser, SEAD training. 40% ECM in Wargame. Carries a single AS-4 Kitchen C ARM with either a 950kg SAP warhead or a 350kT nuke.
That's pretty conclusive 30% ECM. Now, the systems I've mentioned are old and crap and only very barely merit the stats but the abstraction strikes again. Also the AS-4 is a horrifying weapon that should be fireable from well outside of the range of any land or sea based AA in the game. I certainly don't want to see what the 350kT nuke looks like in game but a 950kg SAP warhead with 630kg of HE must be the most powerful ARM in game, capable of killing a Challenger Marksman in one shot. It'll evac after one shot, which has a blessedly high chance of missing and functionally your only chance of beating it is a pair of Tomcats. That's definitely not good for gameplay.

That being said its probably a bit big still for the game. I guess a better candidate would just be the good old Yak-28 as far as Derp class SEAD

Now we're talking! That's a good way of freeing up the Su-24 to do other things.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Now with Spreadsheet!
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby Partibrejker » Fri 3 Feb 2017 19:09

Isn't Tu22 too big for wargame standards ?
Spoiler : :

User avatar
Darkmil
Colonel
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2012 15:17
Location: Lyon
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby Darkmil » Fri 3 Feb 2017 20:45

Partibrejker wrote:Isn't Tu22 too big for wargame standards ?

I guess you could squeeze it in, becoming the biggest plane in the game.
Image

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3671
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby Vulcan 607 » Fri 3 Feb 2017 20:47

Darkmil wrote:
Partibrejker wrote:Isn't Tu22 too big for wargame standards ?

I guess you could squeeze it in, becoming the biggest plane in the game.


Only for anti ship same with the badger but I would want 2 NATO warships to counter type 42 and 22

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4337
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby hansbroger » Fri 3 Feb 2017 22:32

Darkmil wrote:
Partibrejker wrote:Isn't Tu22 too big for wargame standards ?

I guess you could squeeze it in, becoming the biggest plane in the game.

It would only belong in a Naval Revamp
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby FrangibleCover » Fri 3 Feb 2017 23:10

Vulcan 607 wrote:
Darkmil wrote:
Partibrejker wrote:Isn't Tu22 too big for wargame standards ?

I guess you could squeeze it in, becoming the biggest plane in the game.

Only for anti ship same with the badger but I would want 2 NATO warships to counter type 42 and 22

You mean British, don't you ;) ?

I realise how long it takes to model warships and so on so I'd advocate only making one new BLUFOR Warship if they had to be countered: The Ticonderoga VLS. 2x 5" guns, 8x Harpoons, 122x Standards (with buffed stats so that they're realistically ridiculous). That's what counters Tu-22s :lol:. Furthermore, using a slightly unrealistic division of labour between the ships, we can have a Tico Strike VLS with 2x 5", 61x TASM (slow AShMs with a poor warhead but huge range), 61x TLAM-D (Basically Smerch but with no obvious red glare to indicate rockets). It's all the same model so that's fine.

hansbroger wrote:It would only belong in a Naval Revamp

Not only that but The Wrong Sort of Naval Revamp. Naval would be kind of okay if it were just another tab and you only had riverboats (not the Strb 90 with magic AP Hellfires) but doubling down on the disappointment of Wargame's Blue-Water combat with Strategic Aviation and suchlike is a classic military blunder: Reinforcing failure.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Now with Spreadsheet!
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby FoxZz » Wed 8 Feb 2017 22:58

Xeno426 wrote:Mirage IIIC
ECM: 0% -> 10%
Explanation: Mirage III had an RWR, so at least 10% ECM is warranted.

Jaguar A
Loadout: 2xAS-37 -> 1xAS-37, 2xR.550 Magic I
ECM: 30% -> 40%
Turn: 500 -> 425
Explanation: The Martel missile was simply too big to be placed anywhere except the centerline. However, this does free up the interwing pylons for countermeasure pods, so the ECM could be bumped up to 40%.

Mirage F1C-200
Model: Mirage F1C - Jaguar A
Name: Jaguar A ATLIS
Year: 1983 -> 1980
Loadout: 2xR.550 Magic II, 2xSuper 530F -> 2xBGL-400
Fuel: 4000L -> 3000L
Loiter: 120s -> 90s
Turn: 400 -> 425
Explanation: The F1C-200 is quite pointless. The Magic II is from 1986, but moving the aircraft up to there makes doesn't help the deck much. At its current location, it's completely redundant with the regular F1C. This change brings LGBs to the Eurocorp on the platform that usually carried them (bombs on the inboard pylons, ATLIS on the centerline). The outboard pylons are left open for countermeasure pods.

(model) Mirage F1C (all versions): wingtip rails for Magic


May I suggest a more realistic alternative to what you're proposing, which would even prevent model swapping.

First, in the 70s the Mirage IIIC was no longer a frontline aircraft, but the Mirage IIIE still was. The Mirage IIIE was a Mirage with much better avionics allowing all weather navigation (E stands for Électronique), optimised for attack and with increased fuel capacity (longer airframe). One of its primary mission was SEAD with the Martel missile.

http://www.escadrilles.org/wp-content/u ... 8_3-JD.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LVwkr5pYcyc/T ... +624+2.jpg

So it could have 1 Martel missile, and 40%ECM (would carry ECM pods), very much like the Jaguar loadout you're proposing. The Martel missile could see its accuracy improved to compensate the only missile though.

The Napalm loadout of the Vanilla Mirage IIIC would be given to the Mirage 5.

Then, The Mirage F1-CT would be renamed Mirage F1-CR and would keep its current loadout, but with only 30% ECM.

The Mirage F1-200 would be renamed Mirage F1 CT, with the same stats as the vanilla CT, and would get a loadout of 8*400kg bombs and 2 AAMs : 3 AUF1 adapters with two bomb each under centerline, inner underwings, and 1 more bombs on outer pylons of each wing. No fuel tanks ofc.

Lastly, the Jaguar should receive 2*1000kg sinc eit could carry two of those, 2*400kg would be worthless. Furthermore, the Jaguar was a primary user of the 1000kg version as shown in the pictures below.

Spoiler : :
Image
Image


Also, the Rafale autonomy should be increased to the level of the Typhoon's one. And it should have 6 Mica EM and 4 Mica IR and not 6 IR and 4 EM.

This would give France and EC an LGB bomber as well as good bomber at the expense of worst SEAD capabilities without the need of a new model or model swap.

Also, I didn't see any changes concerning the French missiles.

The Magic II should be 60% acc and 5HE, base Magic could probably get an accuracy boost as well and 5HE.
The Super 530 family should have 6HE.

User avatar
CuteKitten
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2017 14:22
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby CuteKitten » Thu 9 Feb 2017 14:41

Hello,
i compared the Su-24 to the French SEAD plane and I'm wondering why the Su24 didn't get 30% ECM. Can anyone explain?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12013
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Xeno's air tabs changes

Postby Mike » Thu 9 Feb 2017 22:42

CuteKitten wrote:Hello,
i compared the Su-24 to the French SEAD plane and I'm wondering why the Su24 didn't get 30% ECM. Can anyone explain?


On Xeno's list or in game? In game there are plenty of inconsistencies.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], XanderTuron and 18 guests