Air 2 Air attack Balancing

Post by **Balthagor** » Feb 07 2003

I'm currently working on balancing the Air to air attack values (see also air2ground...). For this example I'll use one battalion of F-18C vs. 1 battalion of F-5E. Each battalion has 18 planes. When they engage in close combat I am certain that the F-18s should win, but how many casualties would each side take before the other side was out of ammunition? Would any F-5Es survive and how many F-18s would be lost? In this situation the F-18s have a clear advantage in the fact that they carry for more AA missiles.

For Details on the units, see http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-5.htm for the F-5E and http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm for the F-18.

Praetorian · Post by **Praetorian** » Feb 08 2003

Hi

Although I've not gone and done a great deal of research my thought would be that (unless the Hornet pilots were very poorly trained) they should destroy all the F-5's without suffering any loss.

The main reason for this (and the most important factor in modern air to air combat) is the Radar/Missile package. The Hornet would detect the F-5's before the F-5's detect them and would be able to engage them with AMRAAMS way before the F-5's got into Sidewinder range. Each Hornet could fire 4 or more AMRAAM's at each F-5 guaranteeing a hit - so I don't really see how the F-5's could get close enough to score a kill.

I don't know if other people would agree with this, or if the F-5's could perhaps fly low to decrease the chance of detection, but if we are talking about establishing air superiority they would have to be up at altitude I would have thought.

I don't know how you intend to use air units - would it be possible to give units different orders (i.e Combat Air Patrol, Interdiction, Intercept etc) or do you simply move the unit to an enemy unit and then it's combat factors (air to air, air to ground) take effect.

I quite like the idea that aircraft would have to be based at an airfield and then could attack based on the orders given to the squadron.

If it was on Combat Air Patrol for instance it could attack any air units that come into it's range, perhaps with the number of attacks based on unit quality.

If the unit was given ground support orders it could assist in attacks by other units on enemy ground units.

If you had Tanker Aircraft at the airbase it could increase Aircrafts range.

This is probably totally different to the way you are doing things and it could be dificult to implement in a real-time game but thought I would share with you anyway

The war stories section is great by the way - gives a real flavour for the game!

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Feb 08 2003

I dont envy you guys balancing out all the different types of fighters .Seems like you'd need a really big scale on the combat tables to affectly match each aircraft type vs the others.Then you'd have to figure in default air to air missile capabilities of each.
Sounds like ALOT of calculating with even more fine polishing.

Like Praetorian my money in this case would be sqaurely on the f-18s,with little to no losses .
However terrain can have an even bigger effect on this combat than the air to ground example.Especially in mountianous or heavy forest(with occasional breaks).If the f18 are forced to go into heatseeker range with the f5s it could get ugly for both sides.Obstructing terrain and smart manuveering pilots can force this to happen fairly easily if both sides are spoiling for a fight.

Post by **Balthagor** » Feb 10 2003

In the model we have I don't think I can get the F-18s out unscathed, but I can certainly balance the numbers for a decisive win. I'll punch in the numbers and report back how it works.

Post by **Balthagor** » Feb 12 2003

I'm not so much in favor of including the tech level in the equation. We set the attack and defense values based on the technology that was used to build the unit so that would mean we hit older units twice for the same limitations. I've been working with the attack and defense values and have been able to re-balance them so that when the F-18s attack the F-5s, the F-5s are slaughterd and the F-18s take about 3-5% casualties if they go right in. If they fire from their maximum range, the F-5s are lucky if they can close the distance in time to get in a kill... Sidewinders vs. AMRAAMS seems to be a no win situation.

Post by **Balthagor** » Feb 13 2003

We've stumbled across another air to air issue. Anyone disagree that interceptors should slaughter helicopters?

We split air units into 3 classes. Close, Mid and High air. Close would be anything under 30k ft. Mid is 30-70k ft. The only things that qualify as high (above 70k ft) are things like U2 and SR-71. Planes fly at mid air (A-10 and SU-25 being the exceptions) and helicopters fly at Close. Planes other than strategic bombers must move to close air to attack ground targets making them vulnerable to low altitude anti air during attacks but should they move down to attack Helicopters? If they fire on Helicopters from Mid then the Helicopters would not be able to touch the planes since Helicopters have a zero Mid air attack value. If they move to close, we need to balance the attack so that a pack of Hinds doesn't wipe out a pack of F-15 Eagles...?

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Feb 13 2003

On 2003-02-13 14:40, Balthagor wrote:
We've stumbled across another air to air issue. Anyone disagree that interceptors should slaughter helicopters?

Not I, sounds right.

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Feb 17 2003

On 2003-02-13 14:40, Balthagor wrote:
We've stumbled across another air to air issue. Anyone disagree that interceptors should slaughter helicopters?

What about Airwolf????

Post by **BattleGoat** » Feb 17 2003

And "Blue Thunder"

Oh yeah, it got run over by a train...