Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by Balthagor »

Somewhere buried in these forums is a discussion we had almost 20 years ago on this topic, but I can't find it. Someone asked recently why we don't include Air to Air missiles as separate missile units. I think I still recall the reasons for our decision and I anticipate the question may come up again for the next SR title, so I figured I'd start a new thread.

Many missile types are separate missile units which means the missile properties don't affect the stats of the unit that carries them. This also means those missiles can be directly targeted and intercepted between time it leaves the attacker and the target. This also means that a region has a limited inventory of that weapon type for fielding in combat. Air to Air missiles are excluded from this for a few reasons;
- AA missiles travel very fast. They aren't really "intercepted". The factors in determining hit or miss are all about the launching platform, the missile's capabilities, and the target's ability to evade/avoid/counter the missile.
- If AA missiles were units, the "attack" value of most aircraft would be reduced to a value that represents any guns or rockets they carry.
- Regions could not effectively fly intercepting aircraft without having one or more missile production facilities.

IIRC these were the core factors in deciding to abstract aircraft AA missiles into the stats of each craft.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by SGTscuba »

Yes, AA missiles should stay as they are.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
AVP
Lieutenant
Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 10 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by AVP »

Agreed.
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 70
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by arakan94 »

There is one major downside to it though - it makes fighters to have static performance when that really isn't the case - introduction of newer missiles often increased combat capabilities of same old aircraft significantly.

Could we perhaps get something like a "loadout" for units, that would modify its base stats? And not just for missiles - this could work well with different ammunition (artillery, tanks, ...) getting new shells as well as different kits (extra range, spy containers) for aircraft.

Besides that, it would be great to have an upgrade path for deployed units - a way to refit existing unit to newer version. This is especially needed for ships, which usually undergo few significant upgrades over their lifetime but would be useful for tanks and aircraft too.

Pretty please! :oops:
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by evildari »

arakan94 wrote: Oct 07 2022 There is one major downside to it though - it makes fighters to have static performance when that really isn't the case - introduction of newer missiles often increased combat capabilities of same old aircraft significantly.

Could we perhaps get something like a "loadout" for units, that would modify its base stats? And not just for missiles - this could work well with different ammunition (artillery, tanks, ...) getting new shells as well as different kits (extra range, spy containers) for aircraft.

Besides that, it would be great to have an upgrade path for deployed units - a way to refit existing unit to newer version. This is especially needed for ships, which usually undergo few significant upgrades over their lifetime but would be useful for tanks and aircraft too.

Pretty please! :oops:
allthough iam rather in favor of the simple integrated solution as is now,
i can imagine me clearing the skies with a horde of AA laser zeppelins :-)
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by mrgenie »

evildari wrote: Oct 08 2022
arakan94 wrote: Oct 07 2022 There is one major downside to it though - it makes fighters to have static performance when that really isn't the case - introduction of newer missiles often increased combat capabilities of same old aircraft significantly.

Could we perhaps get something like a "loadout" for units, that would modify its base stats? And not just for missiles - this could work well with different ammunition (artillery, tanks, ...) getting new shells as well as different kits (extra range, spy containers) for aircraft.

Besides that, it would be great to have an upgrade path for deployed units - a way to refit existing unit to newer version. This is especially needed for ships, which usually undergo few significant upgrades over their lifetime but would be useful for tanks and aircraft too.

Pretty please! :oops:
allthough iam rather in favor of the simple integrated solution as is now,
i can imagine me clearing the skies with a horde of AA laser zeppelins :-)
I can guarantee you - having worked several years with a 100kW laser - that I'll cut through the textile of a zeppelin a lot faster than you could damage incoming F-16/35 or even old Messerschmidt's .

But other than that - I can also guarantee you if you manage to put a 100kW laser on a zeppelin - vs a non-laser F-35 I'll cut through your wings like butter..

it's just if you manage to put a 10kW laser on your F-35, you'll cut through my zeppelin like through air.

So can totally see lasers cutting down anything from zeppelins to fighter jets - if you manage to get the AI, EWS, cooling, etc. all done and wrapped up to fit the - whatever you wanna put it on.

If you manage to get it on a zeppelin - it's very plausible 200 old zeppelins from 1920 armed with modern day EWS/AI/lasers, etc.. to cut through the modern day Russian Air Force like butter - except of course they'd be upgrading too.

But that being said - 100 hot air balloons can already disturb fighter jet missions. Sure fighter jets can shoot them down - but with bullets? You need a hell of a lot of bullets.. and with missiles, very costly to take down a hot air balloon with a missile.

Binkov always has nice analysis like:'could modern day German Luftwaffe with Eurofighters win the battle of Britain?"

logical analysis:'no'

replacement parts, not enough missiles, supplies, maintenance, etc.

It simply wouldn't be enough to counter WWII UK/US production, despite all the advantages - the Germans back then would simply faster running out of spare parts and missiles than they'd be able to cut through UK/US production.

So I wouldn't put it past the realm of reality - that a zeppelin with modern day anti-air missiles, lasers currently under development, modern day AI, EWS, would be able to make a stand. It's just the power projection is worthless - it's too slow to move around.. so modern day tactics would bypass them first.. take out their landing strips, maintenance yards, and many more factors.. and wear them out.. eventually due to their low speed - you can ground them indefinitely without ever firing a single shot.
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by evildari »

mrgenie wrote: Oct 08 2022
evildari wrote: Oct 08 2022
arakan94 wrote: Oct 07 2022 There is one major downside to it though - it makes fighters to have static performance when that really isn't the case - introduction of newer missiles often increased combat capabilities of same old aircraft significantly.

Could we perhaps get something like a "loadout" for units, that would modify its base stats? And not just for missiles - this could work well with different ammunition (artillery, tanks, ...) getting new shells as well as different kits (extra range, spy containers) for aircraft.

Besides that, it would be great to have an upgrade path for deployed units - a way to refit existing unit to newer version. This is especially needed for ships, which usually undergo few significant upgrades over their lifetime but would be useful for tanks and aircraft too.

Pretty please! :oops:
allthough iam rather in favor of the simple integrated solution as is now,
i can imagine me clearing the skies with a horde of AA laser zeppelins :-)
I can guarantee you - having worked several years with a 100kW laser - that I'll cut through the textile of a zeppelin a lot faster than you could damage incoming F-16/35 or even old Messerschmidt's .

But other than that - I can also guarantee you if you manage to put a 100kW laser on a zeppelin - vs a non-laser F-35 I'll cut through your wings like butter..

it's just if you manage to put a 10kW laser on your F-35, you'll cut through my zeppelin like through air.

So can totally see lasers cutting down anything from zeppelins to fighter jets - if you manage to get the AI, EWS, cooling, etc. all done and wrapped up to fit the - whatever you wanna put it on.

If you manage to get it on a zeppelin - it's very plausible 200 old zeppelins from 1920 armed with modern day EWS/AI/lasers, etc.. to cut through the modern day Russian Air Force like butter - except of course they'd be upgrading too.

But that being said - 100 hot air balloons can already disturb fighter jet missions. Sure fighter jets can shoot them down - but with bullets? You need a hell of a lot of bullets.. and with missiles, very costly to take down a hot air balloon with a missile.

Binkov always has nice analysis like:'could modern day German Luftwaffe with Eurofighters win the battle of Britain?"

logical analysis:'no'

replacement parts, not enough missiles, supplies, maintenance, etc.

It simply wouldn't be enough to counter WWII UK/US production, despite all the advantages - the Germans back then would simply faster running out of spare parts and missiles than they'd be able to cut through UK/US production.

So I wouldn't put it past the realm of reality - that a zeppelin with modern day anti-air missiles, lasers currently under development, modern day AI, EWS, would be able to make a stand. It's just the power projection is worthless - it's too slow to move around.. so modern day tactics would bypass them first.. take out their landing strips, maintenance yards, and many more factors.. and wear them out.. eventually due to their low speed - you can ground them indefinitely without ever firing a single shot.
zounds like a szenario i haz to do with zose zeppelinz (so much evil zzz) :lol:
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by Nerei »

Not sure if you have seen George Geczys post in the combat tiers thread but it does to some extend address this. The optional tech modifers would allow older designs to get increased attack and defence strength as new technologies allow it.
https://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtop ... 05&t=32753

Also one issue I have with AAM or SAM being missile units is that sometimes the AI goofs its missile production. If that means it has no long range cruise or anti-ship missiles is annoying but fundamentally survivable. A massive reduction in its air defence capabilities however is much more of a problem as that almost certainly means it loses an air war and probably is going to get pasted by bombers.
Basically it necessitates much more capable missile handling by the AI for this to be viable in any way.
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by evildari »

Nerei wrote: Oct 10 2022 Not sure if you have seen George Geczys post in the combat tiers thread but it does to some extend address this. The optional tech modifers would allow older designs to get increased attack and defence strength as new technologies allow it.
https://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtop ... 05&t=32753

Also one issue I have with AAM or SAM being missile units is that sometimes the AI goofs its missile production. If that means it has no long range cruise or anti-ship missiles is annoying but fundamentally survivable. A massive reduction in its air defence capabilities however is much more of a problem as that almost certainly means it loses an air war and probably is going to get pasted by bombers.
Basically it necessitates much more capable missile handling by the AI for this to be viable in any way.
1. there are already tech effects in SRU - that increase ie. range of artillery and such (even if it confuses me sometimes about the values shown in tech blueprints of research screen and in unit stats , i think one just shows basevalues and the other includes all researched modifiers)

2. the problem beim AAM or SAM as dedicated missile units: already wrote that production weighting would need to differ between WMD and non-WMD else it favors the more bang-for the buck-type or rather the more damage per warhead type.

So Nerei is totally right: much more capable missile handling by the AI would be needed!
Though iam still in favor of abstracting things rather with either an ammunition counter(a stat) like ie. in Battle Isle 2+ and Advanced Strategic Command
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 588
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Design clarification: Air to Air missiles

Post by Uriens »

IIRC the reasons mentioned as to why Air-to-Air missiles are the way the are is that only missiles that can be shot down by AA guns/systems are actually simulated. Air-to-air missiles are too fast and not really targetable by those defenses.
At least that's what i remember.
I also prefer them to stay the way they are.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - 2030”