Wargame: Airland Dragon

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6632
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Mon 9 Apr 2018 23:05

12Cal wrote:
Antiflagellum wrote:Another question I had, since you seem to be a stickler for realism like me, are you going to change the ef111 Raven at all? Ingame it's a generic SEAD plane with 2 anti radar missiles but irl the Raven didn't carry any armaments and was an electronic warfare aircraft equipped with an AN/ALQ-99E jammer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_EF-111A_Raven. I'm not sure how well radar jamming could be replicated within wargame and it very well may be outside the scope of a wargame match itself. It could be best to just remove it and add a different SEAD plane altogether.


It can be done, the Ash & Shadows mod did a wonderful job on this, by creating a 'jammer' weapon that on deals suppression damage at really, REALLY long ranges.

Which is bad because morale lowering not only ACC but aim and fire time...
Simply convert to another F-4G with AGM-88 instead AGM-45. It would be 100% historical.

What about speed of many airplanes? F-5, F-104, Su-17/22 should have 900-1000 km/h speed as MiG-21.

12Cal
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby 12Cal » Tue 10 Apr 2018 06:33

molnibalage wrote:Which is bad because morale lowering not only ACC but aim and fire time...


It's the closest thing we got to a suppressive weapon instead of turning the plane into a DEAD-specific aircraft.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6632
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Tue 10 Apr 2018 13:21

12Cal wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Which is bad because morale lowering not only ACC but aim and fire time...


It's the closest thing we got to a suppressive weapon instead of turning the plane into a DEAD-specific aircraft.

I rather vote on converting F-4G with AGM-88. USSR also had SOJ variant of Su-24. This made inbalanced the game because simply negates the long range SAM layer of red side.

To me is more problematic some RCG radar SHORAD is immune to SEAD some is not. Based on what? As long as 2K22 Tung. is immue to SEAD with misisles all RCG SAM should be treated the same. My eyes on you Roland. Crotale is also RCG guided and is immune to SEAD in WG.

Are way too many idiotic modeling issues and discrepancy in WG...

User avatar
Sireyn
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Tue 10 Apr 2018 21:00

molnibalage wrote:
Sireyn wrote:For Soviet doctrine units on Wargame's scale, a maximum of 12 attack helicopters should be standard.


With how many cards? If with using 5 cards of helos it would be a good change.


Likely cards of 2-3 attack helos. Being that I don't have research in this area done for NATO countries, nor have I considered the implications for gameplay, this change is on the backburner for now.

My range values are directly proportional to Eugen's range values, with the accuracies largely unchanged. I would want a technological basis to justify new values, but I am not opposed to the idea of of an accuracy or range buff for the low-end heavy SAMs and a possible nerf to V-600P equipped systems. Thank you for bringing this up.

If you can find technical documentation comparing these systems to their contemporaries, I would be appreciative.

molnibalage wrote:viewtopic.php?f=104&t=61141
Range values of SAMs are not proportional to RL and Neva should not be in the game at all. 2K122 Kub-M3 was the best army air defense system of WPACT minors during the Cold War considering guidance and missile kinematics. Even only USSR had two brigades of Buk-M1 in 1989/90, one of them was in Hungary. 2K12 Krug had larger raneg but in many areas was weaker, especially in missile kinematics but had some very special EW feature.


Once I finish with my current work I will look into this. I will approach this by determining what a comparable system is and assigning values based on Wargame's abstractions. To be clear, you are referring to the Yugoslavian RSPVO Neva M1's? It is my understanding that the missile systems existed, just not on the self-propelled platforms we see in game - is this the point of contention? (granted, I have yet to read your link)

Antiflagellum wrote:Another question I had, since you seem to be a stickler for realism like me, are you going to change the ef111 Raven at all? Ingame it's a generic SEAD plane with 2 anti radar missiles but irl the Raven didn't carry any armaments and was an electronic warfare aircraft equipped with an AN/ALQ-99E jammer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_EF-111A_Raven. I'm not sure how well radar jamming could be replicated within wargame and it very well may be outside the scope of a wargame match itself. It could be best to just remove it and add a different SEAD plane altogether.


Turning the Raven into a proper EWAR platform opens the door to a lot of potential issues. For one, how do I apply the same standard across every nation, especially with a mostly experimental weapon system (game mechanics-wise). How would such a thing be balanced (range, rate of fire, rate of success, cost, rearm time, etc)? If I remember correctly, there was an issue where even 0 damage weapon's criticals have a small chance of causing damage; though I presume there may be a way to solve that.

Overall, I don't believe the payoff to be worth the effort. Therefore, I am planning on replacing it with, most likely, an F-4G Wild Weasel V using HARMs.


molnibalage wrote:To me is more problematic some RCG radar SHORAD is immune to SEAD some is not. Based on what? As long as 2K22 Tung. is immue to SEAD with misisles all RCG SAM should be treated the same. My eyes on you Roland. Crotale is also RCG guided and is immune to SEAD in WG.

Are way too many idiotic modeling issues and discrepancy in WG...


I had the idea to add extra weapons to several platforms that would allow it to change between active radar and passive modes. I am only hesitant about adding unnecessarily complex game mechanics and micromanaging requirements.

Antiflagellum
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 4 Apr 2018 16:16
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Antiflagellum » Tue 10 Apr 2018 23:32

Overall, I don't believe the payoff to be worth the effort. Therefore, I am planning on replacing it with, most likely, an F-4G Wild Weasel V using HARMs.


That seems like the best route in terms of both ease of implementation and in keeping with the vanilla wargame gameplay design. Another option for a SEAD aircraft would be the F-16CJ but it started production in '91 so I'm not sure if it would make the cutoff for the wargame timeline and you've already added another F-16 variant per my request so I don't want to be too greedy.

On a different topic, with the removal of the mi-4 are you looking at removing the hog or heavy hog from the us helos? They seem to fill the same role of helo-free-fire missile-spam and while I do enjoy them it seems a little one sided to remove the mi-4 but not the US counterpart.

User avatar
Sireyn
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Wed 11 Apr 2018 02:30

Antiflagellum wrote:
Overall, I don't believe the payoff to be worth the effort. Therefore, I am planning on replacing it with, most likely, an F-4G Wild Weasel V using HARMs.


That seems like the best route in terms of both ease of implementation and in keeping with the vanilla wargame gameplay design. Another option for a SEAD aircraft would be the F-16CJ but it started production in '91 so I'm not sure if it would make the cutoff for the wargame timeline and you've already added another F-16 variant per my request so I don't want to be too greedy.

On a different topic, with the removal of the mi-4 are you looking at removing the hog or heavy hog from the us helos? They seem to fill the same role of helo-free-fire missile-spam and while I do enjoy them it seems a little one sided to remove the mi-4 but not the US counterpart.


I am still considering the F-16CJ, which was first available in 1992, but I don't want excessive overlap in roles between aircraft. To that end, there may be room to equip CBU's or Mavericks on the F-4 Wild Weasels, and/or replace the HARMs with Standards, in order to justify another top end SEAD aircraft.

The Hogs were removed/rerolled very early in this project. I don't want to remove all fire support helicopters, only those that are egregiously obsolete or detrimental to gameplay.

WIP: F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel
(alternative name for the F-4G Wild Weasel V which I'm using to distinguish them)
Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Image

Antiflagellum
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 4 Apr 2018 16:16
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Antiflagellum » Wed 11 Apr 2018 16:20

I am still considering the F-16CJ, which was first available in 1992, but I don't want excessive overlap in roles between aircraft. To that end, there may be room to equip CBU's or Mavericks on the F-4 Wild Weasels, and/or replace the HARMs with Standards, in order to justify another top end SEAD aircraft.


I think if you had the weasel v as a dedicated SEAD with 4 standard SEAD missiles and then did the F-16CJ as a multirole with only 2 HARM missiles and 2 AIM-9 it would both illustrate the change in usaf doctrine from dedicated role planes to multirole planes and present the player with a choice between older dedicated SEAD with more missiles or multirole with fewer missiles but a more advanced airframe.

The Hogs were removed/rerolled very early in this project.


I hadn't actually checked the hogs yet in-game and was just going off of the change notes on the op but that's good to hear that they are reworked. I'm looking forward to the next update!

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6632
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Mon 16 Apr 2018 12:49

Sireyn wrote:Likely cards of 2-3 attack helos. Being that I don't have research in this area done for NATO countries, nor have I considered the implications for gameplay, this change is on the backburner for now.[/color]

IMHO such attack helos which are just transport helos should be eliminated/making pointless only real combat helos should be in DB. In RL the real combat capability difference between "hacked" transport helos and a real combat helo is huge which cannot model well WG even if you use ECM values.

My range values are directly proportional to Eugen's range values, with the accuracies largely unchanged. I would want a technological basis to justify new values, but I am not opposed to the idea of of an accuracy or range buff for the low-end heavy SAMs and a possible nerf to V-600P equipped systems. Thank you for bringing this up.

Not only the range

[color=#FF0000]Once I finish with my current work I will look into this. I will approach this by determining what a comparable system is and assigning values based on Wargame's abstractions. To be clear, you are referring to the Yugoslavian RSPVO Neva M1's? It is my understanding that the missile systems existed, just not on the self-propelled platforms we see in game - is this the point of contention? (granted, I have yet to read your link)

SP transport should not be the only aspect for modeling. Neva never was any army mobile SAM system that Kub is that which also has YUG. No matter which version you consider Neva it is inferior in literally any technical paramter comparing to Kub.

Kub's missile have better maneuverability, SARH with CW and monopulse antenna is much more jam resistant - even in 1991 during ODS maybe the VGPO jamming worked against the FCR. So the first Kub- M1 should have at least similar base ACC as first HAWK - both used CW and monopulse antenna - but Kub-M3 should have at least 50% base ACC similar to PIP III HAWK.

For PACT is sadly the SA-4 is not modeled at all even all nations had which are in DB. EG, HUN, CZ and POL either, that was the longest range army air defense. I have no idea what was in mind of Eugen when they put Neva for PACT instead 2K11 Krug... Somtimes I feel Eugen does not have even the basic konwledge about weapon systems are in DB...

Antiflagellum wrote:Another question I had, since you seem to be a stickler for realism like me, are you going to change the ef111 Raven at all? Ingame it's a generic SEAD plane with 2 anti radar missiles but irl the Raven didn't carry any armaments and was an electronic warfare aircraft equipped with an AN/ALQ-99E jammer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_EF-111A_Raven. I'm not sure how well radar jamming could be replicated within wargame and it very well may be outside the scope of a wargame match itself. It could be best to just remove it and add a different SEAD plane altogether.

[color=#FF0000]Turning the Raven into a proper EWAR platform opens the door to a lot of potential issues. For one, how do I apply the same standard across every nation, especially with a mostly experimental weapon system (game mechanics-wise). How would such a thing be balanced (range, rate of fire, rate of success, cost, rearm time, etc)? If I remember correctly, there was an issue where even 0 damage weapon's criticals have a small chance of causing damage; though I presume there may be a way to solve that.

From my aspect as long only the Raven would be available it makes very unbalanced the game in air war. If you give also the USSR minors air power would be even weaker.

How does it work in another mod? If all AD units suffers even MANPAD adding such a SOJ aircraft is a huge mistake IMHO especially some RCG SAM is immune to SEAD some is not... Creating another A cat F-4G with AGM-88 seemt to me better.

What is your plan with AAMs? Because it is also insane some ASF has 5+4 HE missile config which mean without crit they cannot kill even with two hits and airplane. 3 HE AAM is the worst joke ever comparing to 5HE MANPADs. IMHO none of AAM and SAM should have less HE than 5. Two hits against 0 AP should ensure the kill, the base ACC should be the determinant and their range.

User avatar
Sireyn
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Fri 20 Apr 2018 02:26

IMHO such attack helos which are just transport helos should be eliminated/making pointless only real combat helos should be in DB. In RL the real combat capability difference between "hacked" transport helos and a real combat helo is huge which cannot model well WG even if you use ECM values.


For now, only special forces will have access to attack helicopter transports.

From my aspect as long only the Raven would be available it makes very unbalanced the game in air war. If you give also the USSR minors air power would be even weaker.

How does it work in another mod? If all AD units suffers even MANPAD adding such a SOJ aircraft is a huge mistake IMHO especially some RCG SAM is immune to SEAD some is not... Creating another A cat F-4G with AGM-88 seemt to me better.


I have rerolled the Raven into a more authentic SEAD/DEAD platform and will not be exploring the jammer weapon concept.

What is your plan with AAMs? Because it is also insane some ASF has 5+4 HE missile config which mean without crit they cannot kill even with two hits and airplane. 3 HE AAM is the worst joke ever comparing to 5HE MANPADs. IMHO none of AAM and SAM should have less HE than 5. Two hits against 0 AP should ensure the kill, the base ACC should be the determinant and their range.


That is a fair point to bring up. If you, or anyone else, has any suggestions I would be happy to hear them. My idea for the moment is to increase crit chances to scale with my MANPADS changes.

Work in Progress
- Working on an installer program for the next version
- Will dramatically reduce the missile splash radius for all ground based AA weapons
- Looking into non-radar weapons for certain vehicles (Roland for now)
- Looking into Kub vs Neva according to molnibalage's posts
- Looking into MANPADS-equipped vehicle prices compared to infantry
- Looking into alternative loadouts and additions for Swedish aircraft

(All) A-10, IL-102, and Su-25 hitpoints increased to 12 and armor reduced by 1 on each side
(Bluefor) Skyflash model corrected to the Sparrow on all respective aircraft
(PACT) Removed Mi-24 transports from all units except special forces
(USSR) Mi-24VP cannon corrected to Gsh-23L
(USSR) IL-102 bomb size reduced to 250kg in compliance with its bomb bays
(USSR) Mig-27 converted into a rocket attacker
(USSR) Mig-27M given 2 extra missiles
(E. Germany) Leichte Shutzen given same transport options as Mot-Shutzen
(US) Converted Delta Force's MH-6 transport into a good optics recon transport
(US) F-15C given AIM-120B AMRAAM (+5% accuracy)
(US) Fixed the LAV-L which was causing its deck to break when entering a match
(W. Germany) Tornado ECR weapon load reduced to 2x HARM and 2x AIM-9
(Netherlands) F-16A Block 15 OCU had its AMRAAM's traded for AIM-9M's and year changed to 1988
(Norway) F-16AM had its AMRAAM's traded for AIM-7P's (Equivialent to Skyflash SuperTEMP) and renamed F-16A Block 15 MLU
(Sweden) Several units and weapons renamed with their correct designations
(Sweden) Fixed a couple infantry units using the wrong AT weapon effects
(Sweden) LVKV 90 stabilizer removed
(Sweden) BKAN 1C allowed in Mechanized decks
(Sweden) Pansarskytte '90 given AK5 instead of AK4
(Sweden) JAS-39 Gripen name changed to "JAS 39A Gripen", changed loadout, introduction date, turn radius, price, and availability
Spoiler : :
Image


I have restructured the US SEAD lineup and differentiated between A and B model HARM's with a 5% accuracy increase for the B.
Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


Earlier stated changes from page 5
(US) Navy Seals restricted to Marine decks
(US) Added Force Recon for Marine decks (see page 5)
(US) Corrected F-16C Block 52 to an F-16ES Block 60 (see page 5)
(US) Added a proper F-16C Block 52 with Mavericks (see page 5)
(USSR) Mi-4A removed as it is redundant, obsolete, and potentially cancerous
(USSR) T-64BV1 AP increased to 20, price increased by 5
(USSR) T-80BV added to Marine decks
(USSR) Smerch given access to HE ammunition in addition to cluster munitions (it will default to cluster when firing)
(China) Lu Zhandui '90 speed reduced by 5km/h due to Type 89 HMG
(Netherlands) AH-64D Escort rerolled into a very good optics recon; price/availability adjusted

User avatar
cormallen
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu 26 Apr 2018 14:23
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby cormallen » Thu 26 Apr 2018 14:42

Greetings Sireyn!
Just wanted to say Thanks for a splendid mod! I'd been a miniatures gamer for decades and played a great deal of "Micromoderns" (1/285-300 scale tabletop WW3) back in the late 70s onwards with WRG and (the sadly increasingly flawed in gameplay terms) Challenger rulesets. I mostly play solo-skirmish (too old and slow to be overly competitive online and the ludicrous numbers of obscure units, including AA of various sorts!) and like to mod availability (MUCH larger formations generally, I've de-trucked NK militia and tried them as Human-wave in full divisional strength for that "Glorious Glosters" vibe! And tried to replicate real - 80s - Brigade Battlegroups of various sorts) to reflect historical formations in deck creation.
Finding your modifications to vehicle movement excellent, with the splendid side-effect of making the AI less predictable and more fun to play against. Liking the ATGM and tank ammo tweaks.
Still trying to field an historically realistic US Mech force but still struggling with lack of Dragons in normal infantry? Used to use mix of Infantry/Light Infantry in base game...
I've managed to make fairly good UK 80s Mech formations after modding Spartans to carry some of the Milan teams, shame the game has no Milan MCT for late 80s/90s Gulf War use.

Again, well done for all your very splendid work!

Many Thanks!

Return to “Modding”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests