the moment you give a attack order for a specific target, your planes automaticly go to "weapons tight" again. Thats why they stop engaging, you need to set them free afterwards again. You kept overwriting your "weapons free" orders with every click at the enemy
It's been driving me insane watching Stealth do this every time. He has the new Weapons Free menu option that was recently added enabled, which explicitly states it will go back to "Hold" upon a command and yet he keeps doing it! Ahhhhhhh 😂
I believe that's being worked on/is actually possible now, I've seen discussion of a new model being made for a Nimrod (ASW patrol aircraft) mod on BM's discord server.
"Spoofing an infrared missile" is just a standard flare, and virtually all combat aircraft carry them, and then the chaff is for radar-guided (Fox 1 and Fox 3 missiles). The overall air combat and AI in Sea Power are likely the weakest aspects of the game overall. The thing is, those Mig's within Sea Power have a really high speed, and the way the US jets are modeled, you need to really get your intercept angles down, as sometimes even full afterburner plus the initial high speed of the missile you launch (while the rocket motor burns) isn't enough to catch up to them. The larger issue, of course, is modeling of the chaff/flares. Real-world aircraft generally carry about 20-60 total countermeasures without any delay in releasing them, and overall they aren't overly effective (at least modern countermeasures aren't overly effective, but I don't know about 1980's era effectiveness). The way the Sea Power developers decided to program the aircraft defenses is flawed. They're treating the chaff/flares just like chaff on the ships by providing a cooldown timer between each countermeasure deployment and then making each deployment extremely effective, while the AI aircraft magically know precisely the perfect time to deploy countermeasures. It would be more accurate for the aircraft to deploy chaff/flares when they feel threatened and not specifically as a missile approaches. Especially for the infrared/heat-seaking Fox 2 missiles, jets typically don't have an advanced warning of an incoming missile, as most aircraft have a radar warning receiver for an incoming radar-guided missile. The net result is Sea Power AI aircraft that are really fast and able to outrun most missiles fired more than about 1 to 2 NM behind them, and they magically know exactly when to launch chaff/flares regardless of the incoming missile type. I know this message is a bit unorganized. Ultimately, I'm agreeing with you and your frustration. The aircraft AI needs a complete overhaul.
Trying to hit low-altitude aircraft with missiles is the worst, I had 2 planes waste 6 missiles each on a friggin helicopter and still not take it down. It gotta be some kind of bug.
AI awareness is the bane of every simulator with missiles... but having it be 'realistic' might not be much fun either. The only way you're going to kill a Foxbat with a fighter in this instance is to get in close to it and shove a surprise Sidewider up it's butt from close range. Otherwise the combat is going to play out much as it did here... they turn tail, light fires, and outrun anything you chuck at them. 2nd generation IR gives you a much higher opportunity to take that first shot, but again, you do have to get into that bubble. I don't think there was anything NATO had at the time. that could both fly a long distance and had passive tracking.
@@jamison884 I will try to mod missiles to be less receptive to flares and chaff - I don’t believe there are any parameters for chaff or flares. Same as rcs: very small, small, etc )
@@TheLastPhoen1x it’s sorta realistic for radar guided missiles: low altitude especially slow helos have low radar contrast on top of water or ground, slow helos are barely visible on Doppler radar which measures Doppler effect of returns. Fox 2 and guns for helos. Ship launched semi active missiles work better because radar is low on mast and looks from the side not from above
Please Stealth, make sure that all the radars of your airplanes are on. This is extremely important for missiles like the AIM-7. If you do not do this, the plane cannot guide the missile and it will be trashed the moment it separates from the plane.
Trying to shoot down a MiG-25 in a tailchase is a sucker's game, esp with 80s tech. The missile's are barely twice as fast, so their effective range is less than halved, with no ability to maneuver. And as others have said below, thicker air, energy retention, etc. It's not just 'anything in this bubble defined by the stats of the weapons dies'. Angles and velocity matter here. The sensors matter here.
I noticed how the F-4s were surprisingly lacklustre despite their capabilities and I observed that: The aircraft combat looks like it needs an overhaul, although the AIM-7Es needs the launching aircraft’s radar to acquire the enemy craft before firing or have a ‘buddy’ acquire for them, otherwise they lose lock and miss as they are semi active radar homing missiles. Some of the Brujo F-4s were going in with EMCON, meaning as soon as some of the AIM-7Es left their rails, with few aircraft within vicinity with radars on, they lost lock and missed. With the AIM-9L, some of the angles of launch reduced their effective range from their max range. Ideally AIM-9Ls are best launched from behind the enemy craft before firing where the engine provides the IR lock.
dont all aspect IR missiles only lose launch range? why would max missile range be reduced from a bad launch angle and not the range from where they can be launched/acquire lock
That's exactly what an SARH needs, the launching aircraft to acquire and track the target through the intercept. Just because of how the game works its hard to tell if Stealth has figured that out yet?
Something I noticed around 20:50 is that the F-4 switched on its sensors when Stealth ordered it to launch a Sparrow. At 20:47 it's at EMCON; at 20:51 he tells it to fire a Sparrow and it instantly switches to "Radio Routine," meaning the Air/Surface Search is spinning. I can't tell if all the Phantoms did that, but if they did, then it's not an EMCON thing. EMCON isn't exactly great (and arguably shouldn't be the default emissions state, feel free to tell me why I'm wrong about that), but it isn't the root of _all_ evil, just quite a bit of it.
Definitely you got the point. The guys of the other comments got a good discussion of how the SARH acts. I only add to this that the Foxbats here are of the MiG-25RB version, the bomber one, which was notorious for the self-protection suit it had, one of the most effective and powerful. High capacity of flares, pwerful jammers and other such stuff with 360 degrees cover... Those birds were able to evade even the F-14s Sparrows. Add to this the relatively low reliability of the AIM-7 and you have the mix.
With air-to-air, at least for the initial merge, I've had more luck vectoring my figters within missile range, turning radars on and going weapons free but not assigning specific targets. The AI seems to handle the first engagement OK. It all goes to hell after that as usual.
Disbanding my groups and having the CAP run around as individual units on weapons free has helped mitigate the need for pulling out my hair with air micro.
Part of the problem with the MiG-25s is that they're one of the fastest combat aircraft ever developed - the AIM-7 and AIM-9 look like they don't have powerful enough rocket motors to keep up with them in a sustained tailchase reliably especially at low altitude in thicker air - the effective range will be far, far shorter than the "listed" range. The missiles lose speed over time after their booster burns out and need to glide to target, while the MiGs still have their engines running the entire time. Still partly the AI to blame, though.
Yeah, but that would be the pilot's job to compensate for. IRL, a pilot is going to handle issues with the missile's dynamic launch zone. In game, the programming seems to be: if range_to_target < missile_range, then fire = true. A tactical commander shouldn't need to babysit his pilots.
@UndatedAbyss I think the models are not very sophisticated even compared to dcs, I looked at aim7 sparrow model, it set to lose omyly 20% of speed at the max range, not realistic, not dependant on altitude etc. however as longs as same applies to the other side weapon its ok. Apparently it’s not. Modding started )
from what ive heard, Aircraft are less stupid if you disband their formations. I haven't tried that myself. I just don't play scenarios that involves air to air combat
I felt like the F4s in this mission were almost useless. The missiles they carry were highly ineffective. I noticed that the Aim 9L that is carried by the Harriers in a later mission is much better.
Air combat is weird anyway. But with missiles from the Vietnam era, they were crappy in reality as well. These factor together produce serious issues. We should be able to arm aircraft and have both units and weapons available at that certain date. I can't make decent early red missions because of SM1 and Harpoon and CIWS everywhere.
vietnam era missiles are kinda screwy, theyre not as advanced as people think they are, even if theyre bleeding edge. Not A Pound For Air To Ground explains a lot of this quite well
I love watching you playing this game. It's my favourite dinnertime activity. However, the A.I. must drive you crazy at times. Those Phantoms should have feasted on those bombers. The poor overworked devs still have plenty to do. 😊😊❤❤❤❤😊😊
The Pk (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was less than 10%; US fighter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] aircraft out of the 612 Sparrows fired.[12] Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range.[13] from wiki
I think the main issue with the F-4s here, other than the sheer stupidity of the AI, was that the MiG-25s were so fast that the AIM-9Js couldn't really catch up. With how fast they were going, they would probably need to be fired within like 1-2 miles for the 9Js of the F-4s to catch up, due to their poor energy retention. You could probably see that the AIM-9Ls from the harriers didnt lose speed as fast, since they are newer missiles. Basically, the MiG-25s were outrunning the F-4s, and the F-4s didnt bother to "shoot until it's dead".
The aircraft are nerfed in this game to be sure. I recently lost 3 F-14s to 1 helo. Every missile missed and when I told them to use 20mm they just crashed into the sea. And yes, they don't continue to attack a target. You have to tell them each and every time.
Something else I'm hoping gets added to the game is depth bombs for ASW aircraft. If you can get a solid fix on the sub, they're potentially a potent alternative to torpedoes, particularly in shallow/confined waters.
the problem with your planes is that you give them new commands every 5seconds then fire all your missiles out of range while the target is moving away from you at high speed
I noticed lately, that you usually turn on weapons free, but don't activate the planes search radar. You can only do so much from relayed data from a plane that isn't the area, and is actively hunting something else.
So some thing I noticed you were struggling with with the F4. You would set them to weapons free and then Wood assigned them at target. I noticed that as soon as you did that they went back to weapons tight, so you were essentially undoing what you just did. Also, there were constant messages about your sparrows being jammed by defensive jamming, which is probably why they seem to keep missing. Not sure what the solution would have been other than try to get the phantoms right behind the MIGs for a sidewinder shot that was close enough that the missile wouldn’t run out of power before getting to the target. I think that’s the problem. Your sidewinders had: not that they were getting spoofed, but because of the speed of the fox bats, they would run out of juice before they could catch the plane.
I wonder if this game models ballistics to such an accurate degree that you need to be closer when shooting from the rear vs from the front with missiles, since the missile needs to sprint for longer to catch up from behind. And I wonder, if that is the case, then also if the interceptors have been programmed with this in mind 😆 because I'm wondering if those F-4s were failing so miserably because they were out of *effective* range shooting from behind, but the game didn't realize
Sorry for being OFF, but where to report bugs and errors? Since EA came out I did collect a lot, but did not have time to report.. (and some were corrected lately, 0.1.1.1)
The Moskva hull asset seems to be standing in for a real ship, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary _Argus,_ which functioned as a helicopter carrier/hospital ship during the Falklands War and Gulf War. The hull form probably doesn't exist in Sea Power--limitations of the game.
something i have noticed with your air units not all have radar on often times you shoot with leader radar on but when you switch to others in flight they are still emcon and shooting radar missles?
Now you probably know why the British navy suffered so heavily against the Argentine air assets - they only had Harriers from the Invincible and the Type 21 was...not good at air defence.
The navy suffered due to the incoming aircraft being at low level, them being radar blind in the bay to them incoming. The harriers had 21 kills to no air to air losses. They lost 2 to ground fire. The seacat close in missiles for anti aircraft needed to see the aircraft incoming as they flew at mach 0.8 and only for 5km. By the time the saw them there was no time for the missile to catch up with the target aircraft.
I don't know what versions of the AIM-7 and AIM-9 your aircraft were using but the data files show that the early versions are ridiculously easy to jam/spoof. I assume the targeted aircraft (if it has jammers, not all do) gets a chance to jam first, then spoof. Math indicates that your missiles only have about a 25% chance of getting through. Also, for some reason IR missiles all have a 20% chance to be jammed. I don't know how that works... and, as usual, WP equipment is generally better than NATO equipment. For example, the M1 (tank) only has straight optical sensors, whereas the T-55 and T-72 both have optical, advanced optical and IR sensors. Is Seapower a simulation or just a fancy arcade game?
Yeah I love this game and it’s surface warfare but I absolutely hate the air aspect, which is something I was really looking forward to as someone coming from warthunder D: The ai for planes can be absolutely horrible sometimes
Air combat has been so frustrating of late. I think they toned down weapons free a bit too much. Also they break away when in a perfect 6 oclock firing position. Also AA missiles seem to be fooled way too easy. Not sure what they changed but it does feel like its a 50-75% chance of being spoofed
Yes, the AI aircraft need an overhaul. But.. Aim 7 sparrows have a horrible combat record. Around 30 % hit rate. Aim 54 phoenixes not much better .All early SARH and self guided missles were easily jammed. The Aim 120 amramm and Aim 9 m and x changed things
The fighter/bomber AI needs _so_ much work. I've seen better from decade-old console games like Air Conflicts: Vietnam--there's missiles, so apples to apples, and that was considered a bad game. This is ridiculous.
The AIM-7 wasn't good, but it was intended to be launched at large strategic bombers in a WWIII scenario. Instead, it was mostly launched at NVAF MiGs.
This vid is a great example of why Ill never pay or play this 'game'. Its all RNG and complete BS on some of the misses vs how enemies dont seem to have the same issues.
All the misses from the air to air does not seem realistic. This isn't Vietnam war where the missiles- particularly the sparrows- had a poor reputation. Yet even then ripple fire two and one would hit. Right now as it stands the game sucks.
Aim 7 eating chaff is bs, it hasn’t its own guidance. Total bs ( I finally got the game, amazing, but really will try to avoid any missions with extensive airwar. It’s total bs for now. I remember videos from beta, it was WAY better, the totally screwed it. Is there a mod to fix missiles?
Its not entirely BS. A radar guided missile will target the centroid of a radar return. Chaff works by dragging the centroid out behind the aircraft. That being said, since no missile will ever strike the perfect center of the return (there's always some amount of inaccuracy) and the aspect of the missile plays a role, this 100% defeat rate of chaff is BS.
@ most infuriating is seeing dumb bombs, unguided artillery and such has amazing precision yet guided weapons totally suck. However I dug just now into game files, found all the models, very easy to fix. Also apparently in many scenarios crew proficiency is set to trained, barely out of the naval school. And then some Vietnamese or Cuban crews have same proficiency as battle hardened us crews? Laughable but very easy to fix. Ps only played for 2 hours and already modding ))
@@raa729 I didn't realise 'crew proficiency' was even a thing in Sea Power, presumably a future mechanic for the campaign since afaik you can't fiddle with it when making scenarios. How does it work?
Evades 20 missles just to be hit by 4.5 on final approach XD
VT shells are quite vicious
" ..Thank the Navy for the emergency blow .."
4.5 inch weapons crew painting 'guided weapons are overrated' on their turret after the battle
the moment you give a attack order for a specific target, your planes automaticly go to "weapons tight" again. Thats why they stop engaging, you need to set them free afterwards again. You kept overwriting your "weapons free" orders with every click at the enemy
It's been driving me insane watching Stealth do this every time. He has the new Weapons Free menu option that was recently added enabled, which explicitly states it will go back to "Hold" upon a command and yet he keeps doing it! Ahhhhhhh 😂
Yes, the system is far from perfect but most of his Problems could be avoided if he knew how the system works @@havoc1482
That 4.5 inch operateor aparently got his bullseye on the MiG.
HMAS Argus looks a lot like a Moskva. Really wish that extra ship/aircraft models could be introduced.
I believe that's being worked on/is actually possible now, I've seen discussion of a new model being made for a Nimrod (ASW patrol aircraft) mod on BM's discord server.
You’re right, it’s actually a Moskva-class helicopter carrier.
"Spoofing an infrared missile" is just a standard flare, and virtually all combat aircraft carry them, and then the chaff is for radar-guided (Fox 1 and Fox 3 missiles).
The overall air combat and AI in Sea Power are likely the weakest aspects of the game overall. The thing is, those Mig's within Sea Power have a really high speed, and the way the US jets are modeled, you need to really get your intercept angles down, as sometimes even full afterburner plus the initial high speed of the missile you launch (while the rocket motor burns) isn't enough to catch up to them.
The larger issue, of course, is modeling of the chaff/flares. Real-world aircraft generally carry about 20-60 total countermeasures without any delay in releasing them, and overall they aren't overly effective (at least modern countermeasures aren't overly effective, but I don't know about 1980's era effectiveness). The way the Sea Power developers decided to program the aircraft defenses is flawed. They're treating the chaff/flares just like chaff on the ships by providing a cooldown timer between each countermeasure deployment and then making each deployment extremely effective, while the AI aircraft magically know precisely the perfect time to deploy countermeasures.
It would be more accurate for the aircraft to deploy chaff/flares when they feel threatened and not specifically as a missile approaches. Especially for the infrared/heat-seaking Fox 2 missiles, jets typically don't have an advanced warning of an incoming missile, as most aircraft have a radar warning receiver for an incoming radar-guided missile.
The net result is Sea Power AI aircraft that are really fast and able to outrun most missiles fired more than about 1 to 2 NM behind them, and they magically know exactly when to launch chaff/flares regardless of the incoming missile type.
I know this message is a bit unorganized. Ultimately, I'm agreeing with you and your frustration. The aircraft AI needs a complete overhaul.
Trying to hit low-altitude aircraft with missiles is the worst, I had 2 planes waste 6 missiles each on a friggin helicopter and still not take it down. It gotta be some kind of bug.
AI awareness is the bane of every simulator with missiles... but having it be 'realistic' might not be much fun either. The only way you're going to kill a Foxbat with a fighter in this instance is to get in close to it and shove a surprise Sidewider up it's butt from close range. Otherwise the combat is going to play out much as it did here... they turn tail, light fires, and outrun anything you chuck at them. 2nd generation IR gives you a much higher opportunity to take that first shot, but again, you do have to get into that bubble. I don't think there was anything NATO had at the time. that could both fly a long distance and had passive tracking.
@@kurohone TBF, the Migs wouldn't have been able to do that IRL- they wouldn't have been able to make it home if they did.
@@jamison884 I will try to mod missiles to be less receptive to flares and chaff - I don’t believe there are any parameters for chaff or flares. Same as rcs: very small, small, etc )
@@TheLastPhoen1x it’s sorta realistic for radar guided missiles: low altitude especially slow helos have low radar contrast on top of water or ground, slow helos are barely visible on Doppler radar which measures Doppler effect of returns. Fox 2 and guns for helos. Ship launched semi active missiles work better because radar is low on mast and looks from the side not from above
Please Stealth, make sure that all the radars of your airplanes are on. This is extremely important for missiles like the AIM-7. If you do not do this, the plane cannot guide the missile and it will be trashed the moment it separates from the plane.
I thought they did this automatically when needed. I've seen Tomcats do it themselves.
Also stop turning away once you have fired a sparrow, They rely on the planes radar to guide them all the way in.
Trying to shoot down a MiG-25 in a tailchase is a sucker's game, esp with 80s tech. The missile's are barely twice as fast, so their effective range is less than halved, with no ability to maneuver.
And as others have said below, thicker air, energy retention, etc. It's not just 'anything in this bubble defined by the stats of the weapons dies'. Angles and velocity matter here. The sensors matter here.
I noticed how the F-4s were surprisingly lacklustre despite their capabilities and I observed that:
The aircraft combat looks like it needs an overhaul, although the AIM-7Es needs the launching aircraft’s radar to acquire the enemy craft before firing or have a ‘buddy’ acquire for them, otherwise they lose lock and miss as they are semi active radar homing missiles.
Some of the Brujo F-4s were going in with EMCON, meaning as soon as some of the AIM-7Es left their rails, with few aircraft within vicinity with radars on, they lost lock and missed.
With the AIM-9L, some of the angles of launch reduced their effective range from their max range. Ideally AIM-9Ls are best launched from behind the enemy craft before firing where the engine provides the IR lock.
dont all aspect IR missiles only lose launch range? why would max missile range be reduced from a bad launch angle and not the range from where they can be launched/acquire lock
That's exactly what an SARH needs, the launching aircraft to acquire and track the target through the intercept. Just because of how the game works its hard to tell if Stealth has figured that out yet?
Something I noticed around 20:50 is that the F-4 switched on its sensors when Stealth ordered it to launch a Sparrow. At 20:47 it's at EMCON; at 20:51 he tells it to fire a Sparrow and it instantly switches to "Radio Routine," meaning the Air/Surface Search is spinning. I can't tell if all the Phantoms did that, but if they did, then it's not an EMCON thing. EMCON isn't exactly great (and arguably shouldn't be the default emissions state, feel free to tell me why I'm wrong about that), but it isn't the root of _all_ evil, just quite a bit of it.
Definitely you got the point. The guys of the other comments got a good discussion of how the SARH acts. I only add to this that the Foxbats here are of the MiG-25RB version, the bomber one, which was notorious for the self-protection suit it had, one of the most effective and powerful. High capacity of flares, pwerful jammers and other such stuff with 360 degrees cover... Those birds were able to evade even the F-14s Sparrows. Add to this the relatively low reliability of the AIM-7 and you have the mix.
@@headshothunt3r414 Turns bleed kinetic energy. You want the be as close to in line with your target's flight path as possible.
Same with the ship at 22:38, you gave it weapons free and instantly changed it back to "tight" by giving a manuel course order
With air-to-air, at least for the initial merge, I've had more luck vectoring my figters within missile range, turning radars on and going weapons free but not assigning specific targets. The AI seems to handle the first engagement OK. It all goes to hell after that as usual.
Disbanding my groups and having the CAP run around as individual units on weapons free has helped mitigate the need for pulling out my hair with air micro.
Part of the problem with the MiG-25s is that they're one of the fastest combat aircraft ever developed - the AIM-7 and AIM-9 look like they don't have powerful enough rocket motors to keep up with them in a sustained tailchase reliably especially at low altitude in thicker air - the effective range will be far, far shorter than the "listed" range. The missiles lose speed over time after their booster burns out and need to glide to target, while the MiGs still have their engines running the entire time. Still partly the AI to blame, though.
Also, the bomber Foxbat is the recon version, which had much better ECM than the interceptor version.
@@malusignatius Yes exactly and it has no radar, in return.
Yeah, but that would be the pilot's job to compensate for. IRL, a pilot is going to handle issues with the missile's dynamic launch zone. In game, the programming seems to be: if range_to_target < missile_range, then fire = true.
A tactical commander shouldn't need to babysit his pilots.
@@ryanpayne7707 The issue there is that the F-4 can't get closer to the MiG-25 at all (is slower) and so would never attack
@UndatedAbyss I think the models are not very sophisticated even compared to dcs, I looked at aim7 sparrow model, it set to lose omyly 20% of speed at the max range, not realistic, not dependant on altitude etc. however as longs as same applies to the other side weapon its ok. Apparently it’s not. Modding started )
from what ive heard, Aircraft are less stupid if you disband their formations. I haven't tried that myself. I just don't play scenarios that involves air to air combat
I felt like the F4s in this mission were almost useless. The missiles they carry were highly ineffective. I noticed that the Aim 9L that is carried by the Harriers in a later mission is much better.
Air combat is weird anyway. But with missiles from the Vietnam era, they were crappy in reality as well. These factor together produce serious issues. We should be able to arm aircraft and have both units and weapons available at that certain date. I can't make decent early red missions because of SM1 and Harpoon and CIWS everywhere.
vietnam era missiles are kinda screwy, theyre not as advanced as people think they are, even if theyre bleeding edge.
Not A Pound For Air To Ground explains a lot of this quite well
i think setting the aircraft to take follow up shots at the target if they miss is a much needed improvement
The mig fight was so painful to watch due to the AI, really hope that this will be fixed pronto
Yeah it was very frustrating to play too. I recorded the next mission but scrapped it in revulsion as something similar happened
I don't think you can call it a fight.
I love watching you playing this game. It's my favourite dinnertime activity.
However, the A.I. must drive you crazy at times. Those Phantoms should have feasted on those bombers. The poor overworked devs still have plenty to do.
😊😊❤❤❤❤😊😊
the problem is the phoniex a-7 are radar guided and your planes where all emcon
The Pk (kill probability) of the AIM-7E was less than 10%; US fighter pilots shot down 59[Note 1] aircraft out of the 612 Sparrows fired.[12] Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range.[13]
from wiki
Harriers did a lot better in the Falklands with the sidewinder...
I think the main issue with the F-4s here, other than the sheer stupidity of the AI, was that the MiG-25s were so fast that the AIM-9Js couldn't really catch up. With how fast they were going, they would probably need to be fired within like 1-2 miles for the 9Js of the F-4s to catch up, due to their poor energy retention. You could probably see that the AIM-9Ls from the harriers didnt lose speed as fast, since they are newer missiles. Basically, the MiG-25s were outrunning the F-4s, and the F-4s didnt bother to "shoot until it's dead".
Missiles and air combat are a huge issue, and the devs know and will fix asap after they get back from holiday
The aircraft are nerfed in this game to be sure. I recently lost 3 F-14s to 1 helo. Every missile missed and when I told them to use 20mm they just crashed into the sea. And yes, they don't continue to attack a target. You have to tell them each and every time.
Something else I'm hoping gets added to the game is depth bombs for ASW aircraft. If you can get a solid fix on the sub, they're potentially a potent alternative to torpedoes, particularly in shallow/confined waters.
"Man, the manufacturer said the missile would be *all of warfare* in the future. they wouldnt overpromise statistics for profit, would they?"
the problem with your planes is that you give them new commands every 5seconds then fire all your missiles out of range while the target is moving away from you at high speed
Wahey its my Argus mod, can't wait for the next mission, the big boy's come out
I noticed lately, that you usually turn on weapons free, but don't activate the planes search radar. You can only do so much from relayed data from a plane that isn't the area, and is actively hunting something else.
So some thing I noticed you were struggling with with the F4. You would set them to weapons free and then Wood assigned them at target. I noticed that as soon as you did that they went back to weapons tight, so you were essentially undoing what you just did.
Also, there were constant messages about your sparrows being jammed by defensive jamming, which is probably why they seem to keep missing. Not sure what the solution would have been other than try to get the phantoms right behind the MIGs for a sidewinder shot that was close enough that the missile wouldn’t run out of power before getting to the target. I think that’s the problem. Your sidewinders had: not that they were getting spoofed, but because of the speed of the fox bats, they would run out of juice before they could catch the plane.
Yeah, no jamming is THAT effective. I could understand a few, but 10-15?
CAP needs to be BETWEEN the incoming planes and the protected target.
I wonder if this game models ballistics to such an accurate degree that you need to be closer when shooting from the rear vs from the front with missiles, since the missile needs to sprint for longer to catch up from behind. And I wonder, if that is the case, then also if the interceptors have been programmed with this in mind 😆 because I'm wondering if those F-4s were failing so miserably because they were out of *effective* range shooting from behind, but the game didn't realize
Also, your fighters didn't have their radar turned on... maybe that's why they weren't letting loose with the missiles?
Sorry for being OFF, but where to report bugs and errors? Since EA came out I did collect a lot, but did not have time to report.. (and some were corrected lately, 0.1.1.1)
My brother in law served on the Perth for many years!
For a second there, you had me wonder where the hell the British got a Moskva!
The Moskva hull asset seems to be standing in for a real ship, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary _Argus,_ which functioned as a helicopter carrier/hospital ship during the Falklands War and Gulf War. The hull form probably doesn't exist in Sea Power--limitations of the game.
13:40 im not convinced a Phantom could catch a Foxbat and gun him down lol
Depends how slow the foxbat is going... it could only go at mach 2.3 above 40,000 ft. Low down much slower...
something i have noticed with your air units not all have radar on often times you shoot with leader radar on but when you switch to others in flight they are still emcon and shooting radar missles?
Bad AI or a lack of understanding of game mechanics and the limitations of the equipment in the sim?
Now you probably know why the British navy suffered so heavily against the Argentine air assets - they only had Harriers from the Invincible and the Type 21 was...not good at air defence.
The navy suffered due to the incoming aircraft being at low level, them being radar blind in the bay to them incoming. The harriers had 21 kills to no air to air losses. They lost 2 to ground fire. The seacat close in missiles for anti aircraft needed to see the aircraft incoming as they flew at mach 0.8 and only for 5km. By the time the saw them there was no time for the missile to catch up with the target aircraft.
Your planes are on EMCON so the radar missiles aren't working.
I don't know what versions of the AIM-7 and AIM-9 your aircraft were using but the data files show that the early versions are ridiculously easy to jam/spoof. I assume the targeted aircraft (if it has jammers, not all do) gets a chance to jam first, then spoof. Math indicates that your missiles only have about a 25% chance of getting through. Also, for some reason IR missiles all have a 20% chance to be jammed. I don't know how that works... and, as usual, WP equipment is generally better than NATO equipment. For example, the M1 (tank) only has straight optical sensors, whereas the T-55 and T-72 both have optical, advanced optical and IR sensors. Is Seapower a simulation or just a fancy arcade game?
Is there possibility that your AIM-7 not tracking because F-4 is always EMCON? Those are Fox 1, so they need your radar active to guide them.
Nobody expects the Spanish --Inqu-- Airwing
Correct me if im wrong, you need your Air Search radar on to use your missiles properly in this era
Depends on the missile, for semi-active radar homing SAMs/AAMs then yes but for infrared homing SAMs/AAMs then no
Yeah I love this game and it’s surface warfare but I absolutely hate the air aspect, which is something I was really looking forward to as someone coming from warthunder D: The ai for planes can be absolutely horrible sometimes
Brujo is Spanish for sorcerer. Pronounced as Brew Hoe. Bruja is Spanish for Witch = Brew ha Today's Spanish lesson. : )
Cool thanks
I really wish these UA-camrs would keep in mind thismis an ALPHA RELEASE. They act like its a completed game.
I remind people about that every second video I make.
Air combat has been so frustrating of late. I think they toned down weapons free a bit too much. Also they break away when in a perfect 6 oclock firing position. Also AA missiles seem to be fooled way too easy. Not sure what they changed but it does feel like its a 50-75% chance of being spoofed
The Spanish F-4’s must be from another mod you have (I think 😅). Yeah those AIM-7’s are dreadful 😂
The sting ray has a passive/active combo seeker, the active seeker range is a lot less :)
Also the subs in this mission are semi-random just to make things interesting 😇
wow
Yes, the AI aircraft need an overhaul. But.. Aim 7 sparrows have a horrible combat record. Around 30 % hit rate. Aim 54 phoenixes not much better .All early SARH and self guided missles were easily jammed. The Aim 120 amramm and Aim 9 m and x changed things
Air combat in this game is not only bad, it's actually embarrassing.
Great to see the Aussies defending the yanks.
They're Sparrows not Amraams....
All the plane activities basically suck in Sea Power, it's not a great use of time to watch. The ship activity is much bettter! Thanks
Yes I'm sorry about watch time. Hope the devs fix it soon.
Australia once had a Russian helicopter cruiser?! I'm confused
Current mods are only able to do kitbashing at the moment, so the closest model is Russian
The fighter/bomber AI needs _so_ much work. I've seen better from decade-old console games like Air Conflicts: Vietnam--there's missiles, so apples to apples, and that was considered a bad game. This is ridiculous.
Didn't you lose the last scenario? Should you not replay it to win? lol
There are so many scenarios to show that resplaying it is doing a disservice to other scenarios.
@Stealth17Gaming fair enough
sparrows def being historically accurate, worst missile ever made by the united states, its a shame that you had a bunch of aim 7 moments
The AIM-7 wasn't good, but it was intended to be launched at large strategic bombers in a WWIII scenario. Instead, it was mostly launched at NVAF MiGs.
@ryanpayne7707 so, why are you telling me this? Just sounds like your saying what I'm saying again
This vid is a great example of why Ill never pay or play this 'game'. Its all RNG and complete BS on some of the misses vs how enemies dont seem to have the same issues.
All the misses from the air to air does not seem realistic. This isn't Vietnam war where the missiles- particularly the sparrows- had a poor reputation. Yet even then ripple fire two and one would hit. Right now as it stands the game sucks.
Aim 7 eating chaff is bs, it hasn’t its own guidance. Total bs ( I finally got the game, amazing, but really will try to avoid any missions with extensive airwar. It’s total bs for now. I remember videos from beta, it was WAY better, the totally screwed it. Is there a mod to fix missiles?
Its not entirely BS. A radar guided missile will target the centroid of a radar return. Chaff works by dragging the centroid out behind the aircraft. That being said, since no missile will ever strike the perfect center of the return (there's always some amount of inaccuracy) and the aspect of the missile plays a role, this 100% defeat rate of chaff is BS.
@ most infuriating is seeing dumb bombs, unguided artillery and such has amazing precision yet guided weapons totally suck. However I dug just now into game files, found all the models, very easy to fix. Also apparently in many scenarios crew proficiency is set to trained, barely out of the naval school. And then some Vietnamese or Cuban crews have same proficiency as battle hardened us crews? Laughable but very easy to fix. Ps only played for 2 hours and already modding ))
@@raa729 I didn't realise 'crew proficiency' was even a thing in Sea Power, presumably a future mechanic for the campaign since afaik you can't fiddle with it when making scenarios. How does it work?
@ you can, even edit it in standard missions
This game is stupid. The fact that you have to micro every little action for aircraft is absolutely frustrating. I'm not buying it.