Air combat in ArmA2 [creators' input welcome]

[An-225 0]

AWACS and tankers would change it slightly in that there is more point to having long range missiles. Destroy the support airplane before you get close to it and its escort or destroy those enemy fighters before they destroy your support airplane.

But still, there is no need for AIM-120s or R-27s. The AA-11s and AIM-9s work perfectly in this small map.

[thaFunkster 0]

Exactly, and what would be the point of tankers when the aircraft would never fly far enough to need to refuel?

[Commando84 0]

air to air fighters are sometimes great fun to fly in quickly and knock down a enemy troop transport or ATG chopper in warefare mode online in Arma 1 and will probably be great fun and challenge in A2 due to new countermeasures and probably some updates in controls :)

[axure 10]

Yoma, Squint, I do know there are SAMs an Shilkas, but all these have limited capabilities. There are no medium range SAMs (PAC-3, S-300) for the same reason that there are no BVR AAMs. So while those short range weapons can be probably pretty threatening, a plane or helo should be able to take out tanks with a laser guided missile quite safely. (BTW, how is laser guidance done? Do planes have targeting pods, like LITENING or SNIPER-XR? I'm pretty sure I've seen an infantry-carried laser marker somewhere.)

Air combat is only important if it's made a focus of the mission.

Yeah, I'm sure there will be tons of missions with no aircraft at all. I was talking in generic terms, where you have a big battle of relatively similar forces, including infantry, armor and aircraft. In such a full-fledged conflict, air superiority should be decisive.

Rearmament is done however the mission maker sets it up to be done.

OK, but how is it done by default, if I don't want to write my own scripts? Also, how was it done in typical missions in ArmA1?

They attack each other.

Wow, you should be paid for your advice. I always thought they send flowers to each other.

They would fly around trying to lock on to each other, in the air.

Why around? And what happens when I do an Immelman? Do different planes have different aerodynamic parameters? 'Cause you know, in real life big Russian fighters bleed energy fast in tight turns and that puts them at a disadvantage if you just "fly around".

Well, surely the F35 can do VTOL fully loaded?

Not sure, as it uses a fan for vertical thrust.

It can supercruise,

Not really. You're thinking F-22.

However, as we will be mostly looking at things from the ground, I dont mind if there are no dogfights going on.

It's not about looking or about whether there's any "cool stuff" going on in the air. It's about three planes being able to take out a dozen of your tanks and APCs. Or in other words: three enemy players easily making your whole team (30 people, for instance) loose in a blink of an eye. Now, surely you'd want it to be hard for them to blow your stuff up from the air, and thus you'd want it to be hard to win air superiority.

What I'm worried about is that air combat is going to be so simplistic that you'll be able to game the system easily or that it will be a quick arcade game - with dire consequences for the very elaborate and complicated battle on the ground.

AWACS and tankers would change it slightly

Even more than slightly - but for that we'd need at least a 100x bigger game world. But that's off topic. Edited May 18, 2009 by axure

[thaFunkster 0]

axure - I understand, ur primarily talking about Multiplayer. I can see how this could have a big impact on the game.

As for laser targeting, depends on the aircraft. Some airfcraft have a laser pod as a optional external store (eg FA18 uses it this way), other aircraft (such as Australia's F111) have a laser designator permanantly fixed to the aircraft, so no need for infantry to lase the target. Most smaller fighter bombers need someone to light the target cause they dont want to waste limited space carrying a designator.

As for supercruise, I was under the impression that supercruise was one of the specific requirements that the US military demanded of the JSF project. I believe as long as only internal stores are carried then it can.

Didnt know that only a fan was used for takeoff, interesting, I thought it used engine thrust.

[An-225 0]

Axure, sadly that is what it is. But for good reason.

This is no flight simulator, make no mistake. LANTIRN, LITENING and SNIPER XR pods are not used, nor PAVE PENNY on the A-10. Paveways rely solely on an infantry issued designator.

You won't be panning through the sky with an APG-70 or N001 either.

Really, its a case of pressing TAB and having it lock onto a target. It is simply not possible, with the variety of aircraft available, to model the systems for each and every one of them.

[frederf 0]

IT's perfectly possible to have a symetric fight in ArmA or ArmA2.

To address the original post I must say the following: In Armed Assault (and ArmA2 will be not very different) an F-35 vs Su-27 fight would be a hilariously short and unrealstic affair. Human or AI controlled, both would fly around until the little red irLock=true square lit up on one of their radars (3000m radar range on 10,000m visibility), a heat seeking missile or two would be fired, and one or both planes would burst into flames. Due to the outrageous default missile maneuverability and easy launch parameters in default ArmA, maneuvering would be almost completely worthless. The simplistic flight model would not allow for a very engaging turning fight, not that one would be likely under more realistic conditions. WVR engagement is known as a "knife fight in a phone boot" for a reason.

For the most part I cannot envision purely air-to-air combat in ArmA2 to be very rewarding. The only relevent missiles that would be used would be AIM-9s (or Ru equivilent) which are carried on pretty much all aircraft, even helicopters like the AH-64/AH-1. Ground support jet airplanes would be more than sufficient to perform CAP duties. Fighting would be a rather quick, unpredictable, and violent affair at very close ranges determined mostly on who pressed Tab-Fire first (incl. AI).

[thaFunkster 0]

As long as it looks amusing from the ground...Lol.

[axure 10]

I understand, ur primarily talking about Multiplayer

Of course! Isn't ArmA series all about multiplayer?! I know there's also single, but I would rather consider that a training experience. ;)

I was under the impression that supercruise was one of the specific requirements that the US military demanded of the JSF project

Incorrect.

Didnt know that only a fan was used for takeoff

To be precise, it's a fan in the fore of the fuselage and a vectored jet nozzle at the aft. As opposed to a Harrier that uses small vectored jets in both places.

For the most part I cannot envision purely air-to-air combat in ArmA2 to be very rewarding.

As long as it looks amusing from the ground...Lol.

Again, my whole point is not about making it fun to fight in the air or making it amusing to look at from the ground. It's all about the fact that a petty combat in the air can have a huge impact on the ground. If gaining air superiority is basically an arcade game of who clicks first or of pure chance, then it's a great pity, because that means a very short duel of a handful of players can ruin the whole game for dozens on the ground. (How? Already explained: prevailing aircraft will probably be able to pulverize enemy forces with near impunity, especially armor.) Edited May 19, 2009 by axure

[EricM 0]

prevailing aircraft will probably be able to pulverize enemy forces with near impunity, especially armor

Well, Tungunskas, Shilkas, portable Stingers and AA pods don't make it that easy you know...

With so many hills and places to hide AA, Chernarus will probably be a viper's nest. It's not a huge flat desert where you can lock and shoot miles away...

Therefore unless it's laser spotted, you will have to look for the targets yourself at high speed, exposing yourself at each new run...

I reckon than most of the time, the only "huge impact on the ground" will be of our own plane crashing.

I played with the A10 and Harrier quite a bit in Arma, and while it's piece of cake to destroy targets with hellfires on south Sahrani in the open desert near Dolores, it's something else when you're on North Sahrani, with only the cannon left or laser bombs and the ennemy is behind cover, houses, in a tight valley with a shilka pounding your back...

Edited May 19, 2009 by EricM

[thaFunkster 0]

Yeh, I here you axure.

As someone else mentioned, one solution should be to introduce a level of complexity, so that it actually takes practice to master these aircraft, and a less skilled player will not be effective at operating them.

Regarding the supercruise, I read the link, and it looks as though you are right and I was wrong. I do definitely remember reading that though, it was back in early 2000s, perhaps the requirement changed, but I definitely remember that it was required to be supercruise capable without external stores. It looks as though that never eventuated....

Edited May 19, 2009 by thaFunkster

[frederf 0]

I do not know what type of play axure thinks Armed Assault is. You can have single player missions, you can have in-depth AI-filled coop missions, and you can have Evolution/Warfare/BF2-style missions with only respawning human players and tons of vehicles.

It's really hard to comment on the last style of play because I think it's very stupid and trying to apply realism and believable conflict to that kind of game is like trying to nail a fried egg to a post; difficult and not too useful if you succeed.

As for air superiority ruining the game, welcome to modern warfare. If you want to have a good conflict you have to leave the fighter-bomber jets in the hangar. ArmA cannot be made the appropriate scale to have jets play a role that is meaningful but not overpowering. The aircraft's sensors are too perfect, reloads are too fast and plentiful, air defense is a joke, all the weapons are guided and super maneuverable, etc.

In reality it would be a joke for an F-18 and a MiG-29 to be taking off from airfields only 10mi apart from each other. Why take off when you can simply shoot from one airfield to the other with a simple 155mm Howitzer?

The only way ArmA is going to have air support without it being ridiculous is if:

1. There's a punishment for leveling a civillian town

2. Transit times are at least 10 minutes

3. Air defenses are a threat

4. Rearm and refuel means requires at least 30 min busy work

5. Aircraft sensor are much less perfect

6. Loadouts are realistic

[walker 0]

Hi all

Ensuring good game play in ArmA is down to the mission maker, ensuring balance.

If a mission maker gives unlimited ammo and fuel to 20 air assets on one side, and one stinger to the other it will probably not be fun. Though I can think of a mission to make where it would be!

In reality an air asset's may be flying CAP and an air war may take many days before supremacy is resolved. Or Supremacy may exist only in a defined area. If your air supremacy is based off a ship; a simple WWII mine could take out an aircraft carrier, as can a suicide bomber in a speed boat, or a sea skimming missile launched from a flat bed truck, or a high tech Shkval style torpedo from an MTB or Fishing boat far away over the horizon. Suddenly your air supremacy is gone.

Air supremacy may be limited to high altitude by good air defenses.

Air defense is down to your air defense radar. If you have multiple airborn airdefense radars you have a good fairly safe air radar, which cost a bit to take down.

You can also improve air defense radar survivability on the ground. If you use separate transmitter from radar receiver; you can make 1000s of cheap disposable transmitters each one a 1000 times cheaper than a HARM missile. You can have the transmitters transmitting on switching wavelengths so the transmitters last longer. You can separate the dish from the receiving station. You can make disposable receivers too.Your receiver can be expensive and easy to hide.

Once you can spot them you can shoot them down with cheap missiles if they are flying low enough.

If they fly too high you limit them to satellite and laser guided weapons. Laser guided weapons can be spoofed, and their targets obscured. For satellite guidance, mobility can defeat it. A bomb may be able to hit a specific grid square to within 1/2 a metre but if your no longer in that grid square all it is doing is rearranging the land scape. Create fakes and spoofs, been done since the Trojan wars!

Back to ArmA

A radar unit with ability to transmit to AA weapon sytems the position of air assets and corodinate their firing in ArmA is a simple addon. We actualy built a balistic radar system for spotting shells in UA an air radar is a doddle to make in ArmA/ArmA II. Even a script will do it.

A mission designer can reduce the effect of air assets by reducing their loitre and transit time. In reality Air assets may be in the taxi rank 30 minutes from particular battlefields and may only have the fuel to be on station for 5 or 15 minutes.

Solutions

Reduce fuel

Only allow fixed wing once in a certain period.

Balance with oposing air or AA defenses.

Static Missile launchers.

A liberal supply of stinger missiles in crates

Engines OFF and disembark when waiting.

Make lots of ground clutter fakes by extra vehicles and objects to make it harder to air radar lock. Have players hop from vehicle to vehicle.

Simple Scripts:

Radar lock warning script

A script that breaks lock.

A script that spouts fake radar objects and thus acts like Window and active objects with fake names attached to fool radar lock.

I could go on.

Like any ArmA problem it is solvable.

Kind Regards walker

[frederf 0]

I remember fondly watching that CoC integrated air defense system video shot in OFP several times. Adding true radar to ArmA would be really cool. Right now all radar functions are lumped into "IR." Laser has its own category but lacks the ability to be coded apart from side (East, West, etc).

I figure that if the sensor/signature scheme gets expanded they should also change from a "has signature" boolean to a strength-based time-to-aquire model for both IR and radar (heck laser too) that can change during the mission. While they're at it they can add an IR texture layer so we can get some IR vision devices going as well. Might as well have the IR texture layer opacity be controlled via the game engine so a truck running will heat up and show its texture layer while a truck not running won't.

If you give radar defenses to the ground it's only fair that you have to model some RWRs in appropriate aircraft, chaff, and the occasional radarLock missile such as a HARM. I suppose a good briefing will just suggest that you stay away from certain danger areas. One thing I envision is that knowing where you are is going to be a big part of not ending up where you don't want to be while flying. In pea soup visibility in ArmA it'd be hard to avoid a known SAM area without some better map gauges and navigation instruments in cockpit.

Real air defense systems area layered and really tricky to defeat. The guys that operate them know all the tricks in the book about false targets, flickering, etc.

It would be amusing to see someone used to the old game point a SOFLAM at a T-80 only to have its LWR detect the laser, supress the general area the emission was detected in, pop smoke so the laser wouldn't work for bomb tracking, switch to IR to see through the smoke, and target the SF team in the woods.

I've always envisioned a mission where an SF team deploys at night to setup a portable counter battey radar (AN/TPQ-48) to find where a pesky mortar battery was shelling from.

[Commando84 0]

I've had plenty of great times flying aricraft and choppers in warefare mode in arma 1 and its really rewarding when you get to ambush enemy Mi17's as a Harrier with a couple of AA missiles or when you do a flanking move for 10 minutes to show up on the enemy players back yard blasting down their supply trucks , bases and fresh armor that are heading to the battle that on the map is situated far 30 min drive for them but ends when they start their engines in their base and show up on my radar and get to taste a couple of hellfires :D

Sure it can be frustrating when enemies suprise you with actual airdefenses like stationary AA pods with heat seeking missiles or the 2-3 shilkas shooting lead at your general direction but its all part of the great random epic tug of war that is warefare or CTi for the old school ofp folks :)

Its great to gather up a bunch of a.i troops in a blackhawk or mi17 and do a landing on a city and capture it and have 1-2 a.i's flying above you in the Mi17 clearing out some of the troops on the ground for you giving you that precious CAS.

Or the feeling when you sneaked in behind enemy lines to laser target buildings or a group of enemy soldiers and vehicles gathering their strenght and a buddy shows up with that LGB and drops it and clears out them 20-30 a.i's and player troops :D

Imo 3 out of 5 times im out doing a sortie with aircraft I end up crashing it or getting into so much heat from the enemy side that I get to bite the strela or stinger missile :D

Edited May 21, 2009 by Commando84

[wingtip 11]

Or the feeling when you sneaked in behind enemy lines to laser target buildings or a group of enemy soldiers and vehicles gathering their strenght and a buddy shows up with that LGB and drops it and clears out them 20-30 a.i's and player troops

you can do this in arma? paint a target for an incoming aircraft? this is gonna be such a great game..

[maddogx 13]

you can do this in arma? paint a target for an incoming aircraft?

Yup, but it's pretty hard to do properly with the AI. It's best to coordinate with a fellow player. If done right, the effect is pretty awesome. :)