Anti-Air Vehicle Ranges and Effectiveness

[HigherDimension 3]

Talking only of standard, base game vehicles and radar mechanics, Anti-Air SPAAG vehicles are completely useless against a competent attack helicopter crew. Tactics and integrated air defense networks aside, the standard AA vehicle is entirely unable to effectively accomplish its role of protecting armored assets from air targets reliably. Due to the fact that I predominantly play KOTH I know I'm probably going to get a bunch of people in here telling me to play a real game mode but my point is about the BASE VEHICLES, not the gamemode in which they are used, and I'd like the responses to be limited to that context as well.

 

Arma is a game that prides itself on its realism of combat systems. However the AA problem is a glaring deficiency in what I consider to be an otherwise outstanding game. My main points of contention come from a few simple facts about the imbalances between ground AA and air assets with guided missiles and radar. They are:

 

1) Radar and spotting ground vs air

 

It is significantly easier to spot ground targets from the air with radar vs spotting air targets from ground radar. This is simply because the radar mechanics in arma are on a 2D plane with only flat distance information given. In a helicopter this is perfectly fine as the ground is also a flat plane, you simply look along that plane at the specific distance and heading and find your target immediately. On the ground, it is a different story. The helicopter could be 4KM away and 4km up, or flying nap of the earth, or anywhere in between. Finding the altitude of a helicopter at max distance is a process that takes time that an AA vehicle doesn't have to spare, while the helo, given that it is finding targets on a 2D plane instead of a 3D space, doesn't have to deal with it. It is mathematically easier, and when trying to contest good helicopter pilots it is a significant disadvantage when seconds count.

 

2) Countermeasure systems

 

Helicopter countermeasures are extremely effective at range. I don't know the exact percentages but firing all 4 titan missiles at a helicopter and not hitting a single one is not an uncommon occurrence (and yes I've tried a bunch of different strategies for shooting missiles at helicopters). Flares do not impede the helicopter from continuing active fire, do not have an activation cooldown between uses, do not have as limited number of uses vs smoke, nor do they require an extra player in the vehicle to activate. Smoke denies the ground vehicle the ability to continue return fire, limits its location to within the smoke preventing relocation, has a cooldown between uses, has a much more limited number of uses, and requires an extra player in the vehicle besides the driver/gunner. While none of this is directly related to the primary issue of helicopters vs AA vehicles, I figured it was worth showing another series of inequalities in defensive options.

 

3) Ranges and and weapon systems

 

Now for the meat of the argument. The AA vehicles cannot contest helicopters with their weapons unless the pilot makes a mistake (read: is a noob). I know the counterargument for some of this is going to be 'ITS JUST A GAME' but if we are striving for a realistic environment it needs to be said. AA vehicle-based weaponry should outrange helicopter weapons, period end of story. The fact that the most common (and effective) tactic is to fly at max altitude and rain ATGMs on anything with a radar signature is ridiculous for a helicopter to be able to do in a radar-based ADN environment. IRL if you were in a helicopter doing that in the vicinity of a dedicated radar AA platform you would be obliterated in the time it takes to fire the missile. Right now the primary target of AA vehicles (THE HELICOPTER) outmatches it so completely, it is never worth it to buy an AA vehicle to shoot it out of the sky. Guns are not auto tracked (like we have now irl, let alone 25 years in the future) but manually aimed, they give you heading information but do not auto-range, and the damage they deal is incremental over time based on how often you score a hit (which if the helicopter is maneuvering at max range and altitude is hard to do consistently, call me a noob all you want but it is a hell of a lot easier to hit a slow moving tracked vehicle once than to hit a maneuvering helicopter multiple times).

 

Meanwhile the ATGM system on the helicopter needs to hit once (or in the case of DAGRs about 4 times but when fired in quick succession it functions the same) and you are instantly dead. You can pop smoke to avoid the auto targetting feature on the chopper but you don't have enough smoke on the vehicle to actually survive continued contact from even a single helicopter's payload outside of getting rearmed, and I have already described the deficiencies of the smoke defense in the above point. Titan missiles are not consistent with the countermeasure system and that is assuming you are alive for long enough when facing off against a helicopter to actually get a lock and use them all before needing to pop smoke and ruin your ability to fire effectively.

 

Damage, weapon systems, countermeasure systems and target tracking on ground based AA vehicles are all objectively worse than attack helicopters for the base vehicles. Yes, you can disable some of these features. Yes, you can mod them. But the fact remains that there is a vehicle in the game that is incapable of fulfilling its primary role (again, unless the pilot does something stupid but you can't plan for that) due to the mechanics of the game if all features are enabled.

 

In a vacuum, an AA vehicle in the open should be able to beat an attack helicopter in the open. The opposite is true as the game is now. There are a few fixes that could be implemented that could help address this issue:

 

1) Autotracking guns

 

We have them now, today. No AA piece is manually fired anymore unless you are subjected to HARM SEAD sorties which is not the case in the game for most multiplayer situations. Immediately getting a firing solution and gun lock on a helicopter would go a long way in terms of being able to instantly suppress the gunner and bring down a helicopter in the open.

 

2) Longer range locking missile

 

The primary weapon for most ground based AA vehicles that take on modern attack helicopters is a missile/radar system combo that outranges the ATGMs that helicopters bring. THATS WHY YOU TAKE THEM ON THE VEHICLE. They are big and accurate and can't be carried by people. Right now we have MANPADS strapped to the sides of this thing that are literally the same thing infantry carry and no better. The gun is worse and the missiles are too short range to effectively face off against a helicopter due to the countermeasures issue discussed earlier. If there was a missile that had a longer lock on range vs the attack helicopter ATGMs that would not only balance the gameplay against high-flying attack helicopters but also actually be realistic.

 

3) Missile less likely to be spoofed by countermeasures

 

Again, looking at what we have now in the military with combination IR/UV seeker heads, flare-based countermeasures should be way less effective than what they are now. If after all of the things I described in the engagements earlier don't come to pass and you actually do manage to get a lock and fire your weapons at a careless pilot, they probably won't hit if the enemy knows how to evade missiles. AA missiles (especially vehicle based variants!) should be a way bigger threat to helicopters if one gets launched at it and right now they aren't.

 

This lack of threat leads to specifically the gameplay strategy of staying at max altitude over the AO and being uncontested except by other helicopters, almost never by ground-based AA vehicles which SHOULD be the primary threat and concern for helicopter pilots. Instead, nap of the earth flight with limited radar visibility should be the norm as that would actually require a level of sneakiness and vulnerability that would be open to a lot more opportunities for engaging helicopters with other weapons, and also because that's how helicopters have to operate to stay alive in a contested AA zone.

 

TLDR: Please fix AA vehicles.

 

Also is this actually the right place to post this? If not let me know where it goes.

[stanhope 409]

11 hours ago, HigherDimension said:

Helicopter countermeasures are extremely effective at range.

I hear on a near daily bases from several people that counter measures are useless.  I guess it really depends on the pilots skill.

One possible reason the tigris (and cheetah) are only effective at shorter ranges is probably because they resemble a ZSU-23-4 Shilka with stingers or igla's strapped to the side of the turret.  AFAIK they were never intended to be long range AA, more short to medium range.  

 

11 hours ago, HigherDimension said:

3) Ranges and and weapon systems

 

Now for the meat of the argument. The AA vehicles cannot contest helicopters with their weapons unless the pilot makes a mistake (read: is a noob). I know the counterargument for some of this is going to be 'ITS JUST A GAME' but if we are striving for a realistic environment it needs to be said. AA vehicle-based weaponry should outrange helicopter weapons, period end of story. The fact that the most common (and effective) tactic is to fly at max altitude and rain ATGMs on anything with a radar signature is ridiculous for a helicopter to be able to do in a radar-based ADN environment. IRL if you were in a helicopter doing that in the vicinity of a dedicated radar AA platform you would be obliterated in the time it takes to fire the missile. Right now the primary target of AA vehicles (THE HELICOPTER) outmatches it so completely, it is never worth it to buy an AA vehicle to shoot it out of the sky. Guns are not auto tracked (like we have now irl, let alone 25 years in the future) but manually aimed, they give you heading information but do not auto-range, and the damage they deal is incremental over time based on how often you score a hit (which if the helicopter is maneuvering at max range and altitude is hard to do consistently, call me a noob all you want but it is a hell of a lot easier to hit a slow moving tracked vehicle once than to hit a maneuvering helicopter multiple times).

Let me tell you about a mission I made (well, technically tweaked from an older mission). 

It's a mission in which players need to take out a AA site.  The site consists of 1 tigris (for medium range AA & AAA), 1 Praetorian 1C (for close range AAA) and 1 Mk21 Centurion (for long range AA).  All of these are fighting for OPFOR.

I have a little script running that reveals any BLUFOR air contact that is within 4km to this AA site (as long as a nearby radar building is alive).  And one that rearms them automatically (there is an ammo truck nearby).
I often encounter that without the help of any scripts the Centurion will engage targets 8-16km away.  And seeing how 8 missiles are fired at you in very rapid succession you'd have to be mashing your counter measures key to not get hit.  So high and far is out of the question.  (The AA site does not produce ANY thermal signature and their radars are turned off).  I often see people try to do low and fast attacks.  I really feel sorry for them, because as soon as they poke their head above the horizon both the tigris and praetorian start eating them alive.

I've not seen anyone attack this AA site effectively in the 1+ years it's been on a server with an average population of 40.

 

Yes a lone tigris or cheetah, controlled by a player is pretty useless against long range attacks from helis/planes.  But I don't think they were ever designed to do just that.

 

11 hours ago, HigherDimension said:

3) Missile less likely to be spoofed by countermeasures

 

Again, looking at what we have now in the military with combination IR/UV seeker heads, flare-based countermeasures should be way less effective than what they are now. If after all of the things I described in the engagements earlier don't come to pass and you actually do manage to get a lock and fire your weapons at a careless pilot, they probably won't hit if the enemy knows how to evade missiles. AA missiles (especially vehicle based variants!) should be a way bigger threat to helicopters if one gets launched at it and right now they aren't.

How about you don't lock your missile on to the target and just fire it in the general direction of the target?  Because of the LOAL capability of the missiles and the engine restrictions of arma the pilot will not get an incoming missile warning.  It's what I've been doing to AI ever since we got that LOAL capability. 

 

11 hours ago, HigherDimension said:

TLDR: Please fix AA vehicles.

In my very personal opinion there is nothing to fix.  I personally think everything is working as intended.  You just have to use the right tool for the job.

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

7 hours ago, stanhope said:

In my very personal opinion there is nothing to fix.  I personally think everything is working as intended.  You just have to use the right tool for the job

 

Maybe the 35mm AA guns could do a bit more damage. Or even all guns used against planes (especially the 35mm AAA and the two fixed cannons of the jets DLC planes). 

Since even when hitting a plane, which is quite hard for 35mm AAA if it is relatively fast, you need a really large number of hits to actually destroy it.

[HigherDimension 3]

9 hours ago, stanhope said:

How about you don't lock your missile on to the target and just fire it in the general direction of the target?  Because of the LOAL capability of the missiles and the engine restrictions of arma the pilot will not get an incoming missile warning.  It's what I've been doing to AI ever since we got that LOAL capability. 

 

Are we playing the same game? TITANS can't launch with out a lock.

 

From the wiki: "Likewise, the Titan cannot utilise SACLOS guidance and must always acquire a lock-on before the missile can track a target".

 

And I understand that the AA vehicles we have in game now were modeled after early cold war gun systems but the entire point of my post was that I think its ridiculous how outdated those systems are even by today's "short range" AA standards, let alone supposedly 25 years in the future.

 

Again from wikipedia on SPAAG systems: "Today, missiles (generally mounted on similar turrets) have largely supplanted anti-aircraft guns." You think 25 years in the future they will regress to using only gun systems with MANPADS strapped to the sides?

 

"Short range" systems now, today, have ranges of at least 10KM, and are instead usually 16 to 20 to actually outrange the helicopters they are designed to deter. It makes literally no sense to have an AA vehicle system that can be outranged and destroyed consistently by the things they were specifically designed to zone out or kill, because that makes the vehicle useless at its primary role.

 

9 hours ago, stanhope said:

Yes a lone tigris or cheetah, controlled by a player is pretty useless against long range attacks from helis/planes.  But I don't think they were ever designed to do just that.

 

You don't think that is a problem? An AA vehicle that can't actually face off against helicopter air threats reliably? What is the point of it then? Militaries today absolutely design single systems to do exactly that, at longer ranges than the helicopters. That is the entire point of their existence. And they are mobile like the cheetah or tigris. Look at the pantsir, or TOR, or tunguska as examples of systems modern militaries use today. Nobody has used radar guns with MANPADS as their primary short range anti-air system since the cold war. I think the game should reflect that.

[SuicideKing 233]

Oh hey look, it's the guy who was ranting about this for a couple of hours on discord about this.

 

On 9/5/2018 at 7:30 PM, HigherDimension said:

You don't think that is a problem? An AA vehicle that can't actually face off against helicopter air threats reliably?

 

1. No, it's not a problem. AA vehicles are never used alone. You always use a multi-layered AA net. Unicorns don't win wars.

2. Use the long rage radar SAMs systems if you want to outrange helicopters.

3. Titans mounted on the SPAAGs have a range of about 4.5km, but iirc this gets multiplied by the helicopter's IRTargetSize, which for e.g. a Kajman would end up being around 5.2km Scalpels can lock on to a hot target at 6km, can't lock on to a cold target. DAGRs have a range of 5km on a hot target. Even with a warm target, additional noise/stealth multipliers apply to the vehicle. So as people have explained to you multiple times, if you keep your engine off and stay hidden, you can likely engage a helo before it sees you.

4. Play the Gunships showcase, if you're not careful then you'll probably be shot down way before the SPAAG will be in sensor lock range of your missiles.

5. It's a game. Assets are balanced accordingly.

6. Following from 5, the whole island of Altis is some 27km across between its farthest points. Of course you don't have short range missiles covering the whole map.

7. Go play DCS if you want realistic ranges etc. In Arma it's scaled to fit Arma's size, and to make things interesting.

8. Optionally, use mods.

9. See point 1.

[Varis 34]

Great discussion too bad about the attitudes. I guess the problems in ARMA3 would be because of A) missiles B) radar systems and C) because missiles never score proximity hits, for some weird reason or just limits of the simulation. As an air/AA player C) feels a bit strange - proximity hits were quite a bit thing in the 20th century and feature in iconic games, primarily Air Superiority and Flight Commander. Anybody have an idea how they work in DCS? Anyway more proximity hits would be a much welcome solution as it makes the effects less rigid and flexible - pilots could gamble the system by flying back for repairs or making that one last attack and risking another hit.

 

My impression of ARMA's modelling and realism is really favourable - for sure it's way above say Battlefield, but quite understandably behind DCS. However scoring hits with guided munitions seems a bit too deterministic, effective and the kills are often hard kills, would probably expect more mission kills or semi-crippling hits, especially on aircraft (ground vehicles do get these fairly often, so at least BI can claim they have done their job there).  In Flight Commander I kind of got used to the idea that my missiles are defeated by evasive maneuvering, countermeasures, jamming, ground clutter, cloud layers or just steer off course just because they feel like it and in any say 5v5 confrontation the last exchanges are with autocannons 1950's style even though it's the expensive 1980's top-tier BVR fighter jets we're talking, before it's time to turn tail and evacuate your few surviving aircraft to an emergency forward base due to fuel leaks and whatnot. 

 

I find it a bit sad that combined arms games like ARMA and Battlefield are a bit drawn to the long-range ATGM troll meta with attack helicopters. Would like the action to be more based on nap of the earth flying, helis making pop-up and bob-sideways attacks and so. This I think works to some extent, when there are big hills it does block AA defenses. However when you poke your nose out there's fire coming your way in often just a few seconds. Radar lock-ons may be too effective, you'd think there's at least some countermeasures used against various radar - at least jettisoning chaff should have a chance of breaking lock-ons. Also flying in game modes like Zerty's mod BECTI can be annoying, since long-range / AA vehicle radars seem a bit too good and as soon as you go above 10m, there's the beeping again. Pretty hard to fly around the island (as in, to exit your base) when the terrain is predominantly flat. A bit of a l2p I guess, use the terrain what you have. Or just spam ATGM at max range 

 

Tiering ATGM missiles and helicopters based on range, sophistication of the platform, etc could be an idea. Mission designers and BI take note.

 

It seems fixing these kind of issues usually involves switching your preferred game mode. In KotH I used to be able to shoot pawnees, even low-flying CAS planes etc down with the shoulder launched missiles. I'm not sure what changed but now it seems almost impossible and that equipment is pretty much useless. I think flares > missiles in KotH - my pawnees have surprisingly good survivability nowadays. I haven't heard of AA vehicles being bad though, especially not being dominated by kajmans and such, the problems in KotH seem to lie elsewhere. Are you sure KotH doesn't mod its vehicles?

 

On 9/4/2018 at 11:37 PM, HigherDimension said:

2) Longer range locking missile

 

The primary weapon for most ground based AA vehicles that take on modern attack helicopters is a missile/radar system combo that outranges the ATGMs that helicopters bring. THATS WHY YOU TAKE THEM ON THE VEHICLE. They are big and accurate and can't be carried by people. Right now we have MANPADS strapped to the sides of this thing that are literally the same thing infantry carry and no better. The gun is worse and the missiles are too short range to effectively face off against a helicopter due to the countermeasures issue discussed earlier. If there was a missile that had a longer lock on range vs the attack helicopter ATGMs that would not only balance the gameplay against high-flying attack helicopters but also actually be realistic.

 

Yeah I guess the "short range AA vehicle" argument applies. Consider what kind of a system the tigris/cheetah is: it's a dual weapons platform, not a highly specialized one trick pony designed to outrange attack helis. It's very common for tigris users to also shell soft ground targets with the cannons. (Ie. you can't play hard counter type arguments.) But guess that could be debatable as well, in WarGame the "short range" cannon based AA are specialized heli killers, in HIND the scene was like all kinds of IFV based autocannons are firing at you all the time and there's few really dangerous AA threats around, in Battlefield 2 even jeep-mounted HMGs (practically hopeless in ARMA3) were enough to make short work of helis in competent hands etc. BTW much of the equipment in ARMA is not hot out the oven in 2035 but often has a long lifecycle already behind it - take the Kuma or Mora, think both had already served well when the AAF bought them refurbished from some European nation, and who knows how long they've yet served after that. A lot of the systems are more like modern day in the game.

 

But take a look at Zerty's mod of BECTI (Jammy Warfare server) - technically it's not even a mod as you don't need to install anything to play. They gave the longer range (SAAMI) missiles to the cheetah and tigris. Result: nowadays helis are considered "flying coffins" and few people fly them, or they're just used very occasionally - we had just one good run when the enemy for some reason didn't seem to bring any AA, things changed quickly though. I gather this missile is the same that is used by the standard AA Nyx - maybe you should try that as it's available in KotH? It's a bit sad the titan seems almost useless in comparison, while the SAAMI is overly good, but as I said there's at least some ways around this in the game.

 

It's a bit artificial to discuss the issue with no connection to game modes, as the context strongly affects the player experience. KotH doesn't even have the real long-range SAM systems because they don't fit well to the idea of the game mode. You've been at the receiving end of this game design.

 

Now that the big beef is handled, some miscellaneous observations:

 

Have you tried flying the helicopters? Good to know the alley from both ends and I just love how in ARMA these things don't seem to be just plain "me rock, u scissors" considerations, just like in about any good game really worth its salt. And that's why it's good to have these discussions, the points come out. I'm just starting to work on things closely related to the subject and potentially could solve something, at least for me and a part of the community, so it's good to understand all the fine points that affect things. BTW have you considered using terrain to your advantage - I know also tank drivers tend to do a bit of "peeking" as well so maybe AA vehicles should learn it too?

 

I fathom "aimbot for AA vehicles" might not be in for gameplay purposes - a tigris makes very short work of light helicopters if the gunner is any good and the pilot doesn't take precautions not to be exposed for anything but a very short and violent period.

 

Anybody have experiences of the new anti-radiation missiles? Are they very effective against competent AA vehicles? (Think you'd be supposed to turn the radar off until action picks up, I've started doing that but the ARMs don't seem to be in the meta yet.)

 

Yeah I might have put the discussion to General since it's not about the dev branch.

 

Anyway, couldn't agree much more with your passage:

 

This lack of threat leads to specifically the gameplay strategy of staying at max altitude over the AO and being uncontested except by other helicopters, almost never by ground-based AA vehicles which SHOULD be the primary threat and concern for helicopter pilots. Instead, nap of the earth flight with limited radar visibility should be the norm as that would actually require a level of sneakiness and vulnerability that would be open to a lot more opportunities for engaging helicopters with other weapons, and also because that's how helicopters have to operate to stay alive in a contested AA zone.

 

Just the solutions and even the problems (Xian *cough*) are a bit different and more involved than may be apparent at first.

[Grumpy Old Man 3540]

On 9/5/2018 at 7:30 PM, HigherDimension said:

Are we playing the same game? TITANS can't launch with out a lock.

Titan AA from Cheetah?

Sure they can. Left mouse button.

 

Cheers

[lex__1 422]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Titan AA from Cheetah?

Sure they can. Left mouse button.

Long ago this question was on a feedback.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126339

The Gepard (or similar) is equipped with the radar, can't hook on a rocket on an air target, on a signal from the radar. Only the accurate visual contact is necessary for him, in this condition the rocket will be hooked for an air target.

This is a very strange combination - Active radar + IR rockets, for a year 2035.

On systems with a radar there must be missiles blocking the target on the radar, without visual contact with the target.

 

But for a year 1970 there was such modification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

Quote

To combine this capacity in a single unit, a missile system upgrade that mounts the NATO ManPad Stinger surface-to-air missile (in twin packs) to the autocannons was developed.

 

[dragon01 902]

This is actually a cheap and effective way to add missiles to something that was originally a gun-only system. IR missiles don't require much integration with the rest of the vehicle (you basically hang the launcher off the side of the turret), so it's a matter of adding a launch button and some sort of lock indicator. Radar-guided missiles are complex and need to interact with the vehicle's radar, which is something that the radar system needs to be designed for, which it's usually not unless the vehicle has radar-guided missiles from the start (in which case it probably doesn't have a gun). Search and gunlaying radars are different beasts from missile guidance radars (so different, in fact, that an aircraft's RWR can usually tell between the three of them).

[SuicideKing 233]

On 9/9/2018 at 5:32 PM, lex__1 said:

The Gepard (or similar) is equipped with the radar, can't hook on a rocket on an air target, on a signal from the radar. Only the accurate visual contact is necessary for him, in this condition the rocket will be hooked for an air target.

Because the radar would be for the gun. I can't remember if radar lock is necessary for the target lead indicator to work in the game, but IRL something like a Tungushka would have a similar combination.

 

On 9/9/2018 at 2:56 AM, Varis said:

I guess the problems in ARMA3 would be because of A) missiles B) radar systems and C) because missiles never score proximity hits, for some weird reason or just limits of the simulation.

(C) is not true, at least SAMs have proximity fuses in the game.

[lex__1 422]

On 11.09.2018 at 3:46 AM, SuicideKing said:

On 09.09.2018 at 6:32 PM, lex__1 said:

The Gepard (or similar) is equipped with the radar, can't hook on a rocket on an air target, on a signal from the radar. Only the accurate visual contact is necessary for him, in this condition the rocket will be hooked for an air target.

Because the radar would be for the gun. I can't remember if radar lock is necessary for the target lead indicator to work in the game, but IRL something like a Tungushka would have a similar combination.

Blocking for lead is necessary, it will show the provision of a sight for a shot on advancing. But if you put the shooter of AI, he won't shoot at all purposes which are on the radar. AI shoots at the purposes in range up to 2-2.5 km, not further. It is reproduced even if the purpose is visible, visually or in the thermal imager.
If you take the shooter's position, you will be able to block the purpose for lead at distance of 3 km and to receive the provision of a sight for a shot. It is reproduced even if the purpose isn't visible, visually or in the thermal imager.
But blocking of the purpose by the radar is actually not possible and isn't provided in a game. It is similar to repeated attempts to hook on the purpose in clouds. You have no good representation on the radar which can help to choose the necessary purpose without mistake or repeated attempts.

According to the reference  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

documentary range of lead effective range of 5,500 m:

Quote

The guns are 90 calibres (3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)) long, with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) (FAPDS—Frangible Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds), giving an effective range of 5,500 m.

 

On the screen of the radar there is no vector, for search of the purpose which has to help search and capture of the purpose.

[SuicideKing 233]

14 hours ago, lex__1 said:

AI shoots at the purposes in range up to 2-2.5 km, not further.

I'm pretty sure that's intentional. Having a 5.5km gun range on a 27km or smaller map is too much. I've also seen the AI shoot without a radar lock.

[HigherDimension 3]

Why is having a radar assisted, manually aimed gun with a 5.5km range on a 27km or smaller map """too much""", but a radar assisted, high damage computer guided missile with an even longer range somehow acceptable? Can you not see how inconsistent that is?