Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

ledarsi
Master Sergeant
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 07:35
Contact:

Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby ledarsi » Sat 5 Apr 2014 04:04

I am hypothesizing about a potential redesign of the anti-air in Red Dragon. Before going to the trouble to implement the large number of changes, I was wondering what others thought of the concept.


Radar Missiles

Radar missiles would have their range vastly extended across the board, measured in tens of kilometers instead of in single kilometers. However this extreme range only applies to flying units at high altitude; aircraft. For example, a Hawk radar missile might have a 30km range against aircraft, but only a 3km range against helicopters. This is the biggest change- multiplying radar AA's range by a factor of ten and redesigning around the new range.

Radar missiles would also have their accuracy greatly increased, but their aim time and reload time increased as well. This has the effect of making ECM more effective against radar missiles. But still, due to their vastly increased range, radar missile SAM sites would need a large points cost increase.

Helicopters would be able to largely ignore the presence of radar AA, or could even be used to hunt for SAM sites. Planes would need to respect the radar AA, knowing they are risking a missile hit or two by flying into the battlefield if SAM's are up. SEAD aircraft would potentially become more useful for revealing and destroying the more valuable long-range SAM sites.


Infrared Missiles

Infrared missiles would be mostly unchanged in design, but would become F&F (fire and forget) across the board. They would retain their (relatively) high rate of fire, but with the ammo count for infrared systems increased to make IR systems more independent in the field. Higher-end infrared missile weapons would have longer range for a higher cost, more in line with existing radar anti-air at under 5 kilometers.

In addition, plane-carried infrared missiles would have their range increased significantly. Increased anti-helicopter missile range would make fighters handle better when shooting down helicopters.


Guns

Self-propelled AA guns, cannons mounted on aircraft, and other cannons would ignore ECM. Fighters would be very capable of shooting down SEAD aircraft using their guns, particularly since SEAD aircraft typically cannot fight back.


Gameplay

Radar SAM's would be expensive and relatively few in number, but effective as a large-scale deterrent against aircraft across significant chunks of the map. A couple expensive radar SAM's would act as a very powerful deterrent, but birds with good ECM could mostly still operate in an area covered by a few SAM's due to the SAM's low rate of fire. And spending too many points on radar SAM's actually makes you vulnerable to helicopters.

Covering the map with cheap, increased ammo capacity infrared SAM's would be a better deterrent against helicopters. But with their inferior range and accuracy, they are a local deterrent, and areas that lack infrared AA won't be protected. This is particularly important because the AA in a specific area might be targeted and destroyed to open up air operations there.

User avatar
COMThing
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 11:54
Location: NZ
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby COMThing » Sat 5 Apr 2014 08:40

In my own experiments I have given them fairly distinct roles.

- Shoulder launched IR and vehicle SACLOS missiles gain range but lose out on speed (higher effectiveness against heli but much less effective against fast planes)
- IR missiles like the Chap gain equal range against planes and helis but a slower rate of fire
- Radar SPAAGs have equal range against helis and planes and increased accuracy (would be the most common AA)
- non radar SPAAGs retain the range against helis that their radar counterparts have but lose out on plane range and accuracy (would be most common on maps such as the new mazes map)
- Radar missiles gain significant range against planes but lose out on rate of fire and take longer/cost more to rearm, basically what you have said
- If the radar missile change is used I also give planes the ability to detect active radar at longer ranges since most have a Radar Warning Reciever

IMO with plane guns though, since fighters use their radar to assist aiming, either plane guns sacrifice accuracy, or they stay affected by ECM (maybe ignore 50% of the ECM value as a compromise)

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6277
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby KattiValk » Sat 5 Apr 2014 09:01

ledarsi wrote:I am hypothesizing about a potential redesign of the anti-air in Red Dragon. Before going to the trouble to implement the large number of changes, I was wondering what others thought of the concept.
This won't happen. Massive balance changes are already out of time. Wait for the next Wargame (which won't be coming out anytime soon if ever).

ledarsi wrote:Radar Missiles
Radar missiles would have their range vastly extended across the board, measured in tens of kilometers instead of in single kilometers. However this extreme range only applies to flying units at high altitude; aircraft. For example, a Hawk radar missile might have a 30km range against aircraft, but only a 3km range against helicopters. This is the biggest change- multiplying radar AA's range by a factor of ten and redesigning around the new range.
Radar missiles would also have their accuracy greatly increased, but their aim time and reload time increased as well. This has the effect of making ECM more effective against radar missiles. But still, due to their vastly increased range, radar missile SAM sites would need a large points cost increase.
Helicopters would be able to largely ignore the presence of radar AA, or could even be used to hunt for SAM sites. Planes would need to respect the radar AA, knowing they are risking a missile hit or two by flying into the battlefield if SAM's are up. SEAD aircraft would potentially become more useful for revealing and destroying the more valuable long-range SAM sites.
In-game ranges are greatly reduced to instigate more interesting gameplay and focus on maneuver warfare. The devs envisioned their game way back in EE and such a change goes against that vision.

If you don't like the short ranges, perhaps you'd be happier if the Ataka missiles reached out to 5,800m? Or maybe if we had 8,000m Hellfires? Or even, say, Abrams' cannons touching targets as far out as 4,000m? ;)

ledarsi wrote:Infrared Missiles
Infrared missiles would be mostly unchanged in design, but would become F&F (fire and forget) across the board. They would retain their (relatively) high rate of fire, but with the ammo count for infrared systems increased to make IR systems more independent in the field. Higher-end infrared missile weapons would have longer range for a higher cost, more in line with existing radar anti-air at under 5 kilometers.
In addition, plane-carried infrared missiles would have their range increased significantly. Increased anti-helicopter missile range would make fighters handle better when shooting down helicopters.
Again with the ranges. Current IR loads already often reflect realistic load amounts. Just look at the Chap, it's already carrying maximum load.

ledarsi wrote:Guns
Self-propelled AA guns, cannons mounted on aircraft, and other cannons would ignore ECM. Fighters would be very capable of shooting down SEAD aircraft using their guns, particularly since SEAD aircraft typically cannot fight back.
Except most SPAAG systems in-game are radar-based and as such are SEAD targetable.

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

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby hansbroger » Sat 5 Apr 2014 09:04

This would be an awesome set of changes, It would be interesting if they were implemented in a small perhaps marshals only setting just for the sake of trying it out.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6277
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby KattiValk » Sat 5 Apr 2014 09:09

hansbroger wrote:This would be an awesome set of changes, It would be interesting if they were implemented in a small perhaps marshals only setting just for the sake of trying it out.
He's asking for realistic ranges on radar AA systems which are massively out of sale for the map sizes. I'd rather not have games end up with radar AA being parked back at spawn instantly killing aircraft spawning from the other side of the map.

User avatar
COMThing
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 11:54
Location: NZ
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby COMThing » Sat 5 Apr 2014 09:54

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
hansbroger wrote:This would be an awesome set of changes, It would be interesting if they were implemented in a small perhaps marshals only setting just for the sake of trying it out.
He's asking for realistic ranges on radar AA systems which are massively out of sale for the map sizes. I'd rather not have games end up with radar AA being parked back at spawn instantly killing aircraft spawning from the other side of the map.


Keep in mind this is for a mod, not the base game. As such if he wants to do things like this he can. I have done similar things (obviously not the whole map) and they can work out well.

User avatar
Soundwolf776
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2341
Joined: Thu 13 Sep 2012 11:52
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby Soundwolf776 » Sat 5 Apr 2014 10:02

30km anti-plane range is bull, of course, but 7-9km is perfectly fine - see Hobmod - and actually much more in a Eugen's own scale of ranges.
4,2km as max anti-plane range makes absolutely no sense as even light 81mm mortars become a viable SEAD weapon.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Sun 6 Apr 2014 16:15, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6277
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby KattiValk » Sat 5 Apr 2014 10:05

COMThing wrote:Keep in mind this is for a mod, not the base game. As such if he wants to do things like this he can. I have done similar things (obviously not the whole map) and they can work out well.
Yes, and Marshal testing is in no way a part of modding. The modding stays in the community, Marshals often take part but again as part of the community.

Soundwolf776 wrote:30km anti-plane range is bull, of course, but 7-9km is perfectly fine - see Hobmod - and actually much more in a Eugen's own scale of ranges.
4,2km as max anti-plane range makes absolutely no sense as even light 81mm mortars become a viable SEAD weapon.
I've yet to try HobMod, but I could see a mod with >10km ranges on long range AA pieces.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby Bryan » Sat 5 Apr 2014 10:30

Realistic ranges = realistic targeting and acquisition times aswell

You can have your 30km BUK-M1, but then it will only work if you can keep a jet in sight for 30 seconds.

User avatar
jubedy
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 04:23
Location: Location Location
Contact:

Re: Design Concept: Anti-Air Redesign

Postby jubedy » Sat 5 Apr 2014 14:21

You also couldn't increase the accuracy too much, since 50% accuracy at 30km is a guaranteed hit by the time the plane comes anywhere close to target.
Image
Spoiler : :
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests