AA units, and why we hate them.

[Guest]

I think i agree with paladin. I come to Arma 2 because it supposed to be the most accurate milsim available. I am horribly let down.

I get given a game covered in tinselly graphics, with all these "balances". It's not battlefield 2, if the A-10 is almost unhittable in real life replicate it in the game! If the M1A1 is far superior to any other tank, replicate it in the game! All these things get "balanced" and it ends up that the a-10 can easily be taken down, and the M1A1 is pushed to its limits in a one on one against a shabby T72,

The more i play arma 2, the more i get frustrated at all the potential which is not being realised. Please BIS, don't get sucked into the "bigger audience" way of marketing, keep it real!

[-Paladin- 10]

You do have to balance them though. There is no way you are going to be able to make it so that it is 100% the way it works in real life. If you did that you would have to model every [known] law of physics.

You can't just make it so that the counter measures work 100% of the time or that the missile hits 100% of the time. You have to balance it some how. You pretty much have to make it so that it works a certain percentage of the time and if you make either one of those 100% then the game sucks because you either can't fly or you are entirely defenseless against aircraft.

Now ideally you would have other factors like velocity of the aircraft and things like that in there but at some point the engine can't model all the details required so you have to balance it somehow.

its not dependent from the engin. just pure math, "the engine has only do show the endresult in a picture" and ther is alrady this SQF,SQS just a littel number crouching and we go, and let your cpu count 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 is not world, i dont await a accurate number to 0,00000000000000001 but there is not even a atemp to do it right. And if the 21 is 100% Hit then it is a 100% Hit NO discussions no Blanacing end of the story, you are dead do it nextime better. Fun is to get the percentage of failer to a LvL where you can Handel it and not balancing it to a LvL that it never reaches 100% or 50% because its to hard for some PPL.

PPL have to learn that they are no super DUPER UBER soldier that can do every thing and that you have to pull out when it get to hot an not berserk in areas where they dont belong and this is what Blacing will do create UBER duber soilders Berseking around.

NO BALANICING NEVER, the new balance is No balance.

Take the magic Radar away give warnings flares give us a simulation that was seld and promised.

NO BALANICING NEVER, the new balance is No balance.

[Defunkt 431]

I think i agree with paladin. I come to Arma 2 because it supposed to be the most accurate milsim available. I am horribly let down.

Gee, you guys should go play that other, more accurate, milsim, you know the one that renders absolutely everything on the battlefield 100% accurately all the time. Can't quite think of the name but it must exist given how easy you clearly believe that is to do.

[TangoRomeo 10]

If anything, ArmA 2 is a tactical shooter, not a simulation. If there ever have been simulation aspects to the OFP / ArmA franchise, then it has to be attributed to 3rd party content. A simulation entails reproducing RL systems and sequences required to operate a vehicle / weapon. This can only be done if the appropriate functions are actually implemented. In OFP/ArmA anyone can just hop in a vehicle and have fun, w/o a steep learning curve associated with simulations. That's the idea.

To illustrate my point on system depth and simulation, here's a typical engagement sequence for a FIM-92 gunner.

1. Once alerted to a target the gunner shoulders the system, inserts the BCU into its grip-stock receptacle and unfolds the IFF antenna.
   
2. Removal of the front protective cover of the launcher tube to reveal the IR or IR/UV transparent frangible disc.
   
3. Raising of the open sight assembly and connection of the beltpack IFF interrogator unit via a cable to the grip-stock. The gunner is now ready to
   acquire the target visually. This is done by using the sight and estimating its range with the estimation facility of the system.
   
4. If required, the target can now be interrogated via the AN/PPX-1 system. This can be done w/o having to activate the weapon. The azimuth coverage of the 10 km range IFF system is essentially the same as that of the optical sight, enabling the gunner to associate responses with the particular aircraft that is in view. An audio signal 0.7 second after the IFF challenge switch is depressed provides the gunner with the cue as to whether the target is friendly or an unknown for possible engagement.
   
5. If the gunner decides that it is unfriendly, the A/C is tracked and the weapon system activated by depressing the impulse generator switch. This causes the impulse generator to energise the BCU, which then releases pressurised argon gas coolant to the IR detector and generates a dual-polarity DC output for > 45 seconds. The cooling takes 3-5 seconds. It provides all the prelaunch electrical power required for the seeker coolant system, gyro spin-up, launcher acquisition electronics, guidance electronics, activation of the missile's onboard thermal battery and ignition of the ejector motor. The seeker is allowed to look at the target through the IR or IR/UV transparent front launcher disc,and when sufficient energy is received by the detector for acquisition to have occurred, an audio signal is sent to the gunner. Total time required for tracking and missile activation is about 6 seconds.
   
6. The gunner is then required to depress the seeker uncage bar and, using the open sight, insert the superelevation and lead data (newer versions of the Stinger (Block 1 and Block 2) preclude the need to superelevate the missile). Once this is accomplished, the gunner depresses the firing trigger which activates the missile battery. This powers all the missile functions after launch and operates for around 19 seconds until the DC output drops below the required minimum for use. A brief time delay operates, following which the umbilical connector to the gripstock is retracted and a pulse is sent to ignite the ejector motor. Total time to motor ignition from depression of the firing trigger is ~ 1.7 seconds. Upon ignition, the initial thrust generated imparts roll to the missile airframe and starts the fuze timer system. The missile and its exhaust then break through the frangible discs at either end of the launcher tube.
   

That's it in a nutshell, compared to vehicles, a fairly simple system. US Army training needs indicate that 136 h of instruction are required on this system, before weapon qualification is given. Compare it to what is provided in ArmA. The similarities basically end with the 3D model. :/

This is not a rant. I accept the franchise for what it is, and i plan on having fun with the game, that is as soon as proper QM allows for it - Question is, can you?

Edited August 11, 2009 by TangoRomeo

[jakerod 254]

I think i agree with paladin. I come to Arma 2 because it supposed to be the most accurate milsim available. I am horribly let down.

um... name one better?

I'll give you that flight sims are more realistic but they also don't have to accomodate command and control, infantry, tanks, wheeled vehicles, etc.

So I will revise my previous statement. Name one better that implements Command, Infantry, Tanks, Wheeled Vehicles, Civilians, Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Bonus if it has realistic tides, skies and weather and also if it is still fun to play.

[Guest]

If anything, ArmA 2 is a tactical shooter, not a simulation. If there ever have been simulation aspects to the OFP / ArmA franchise, then it has to be attributed to 3rd party content. A simulation entails reproducing RL systems and sequences required to operate a vehicle / weapon. This can only be done if the appropriate functions are actually implemented. In OFP/ArmA anyone can just hop in a vehicle and have fun, w/o a steep learning curve associated with simulations. That's the idea.

To illustrate my point on system depth and simulation, here's a typical engagement sequence for a FIM-92 gunner.

1. Once alerted to a target the gunner shoulders the system, inserts the BCU into its grip-stock receptacle and unfolds the IFF antenna.
   
2. Removal of the front protective cover of the launcher tube to reveal the IR or IR/UV transparent frangible disc.
   
3. Raising of the open sight assembly and connection of the beltpack IFF interrogator unit via a cable to the grip-stock. The gunner is now ready to
   acquire the target visually. This is done by using the sight and estimating its range with the estimation facility of the system.
   
4. If required, the target can now be interrogated via the AN/PPX-1 system. This can be done w/o having to activate the weapon. The azimuth coverage of the 10 km range IFF system is essentially the same as that of the optical sight, enabling the gunner to associate responses with the particular aircraft that is in view. An audio signal 0.7 second after the IFF challenge switch is depressed provides the gunner with the cue as to whether the target is friendly or an unknown for possible engagement.
   
5. If the gunner decides that it is unfriendly, the A/C is tracked and the weapon system activated by depressing the impulse generator switch. This causes the impulse generator to energise the BCU, which then releases pressurised argon gas coolant to the IR detector and generates a dual-polarity DC output for > 45 seconds. The cooling takes 3-5 seconds. It provides all the prelaunch electrical power required for the seeker coolant system, gyro spin-up, launcher acquisition electronics, guidance electronics, activation of the missile's onboard thermal battery and ignition of the ejector motor. The seeker is allowed to look at the target through the IR or IR/UV transparent front launcher disc,and when sufficient energy is received by the detector for acquisition to have occurred, an audio signal is sent to the gunner. Total time required for tracking and missile activation is about 6 seconds.
   
6. The gunner is then required to depress the seeker uncage bar and, using the open sight, insert the superelevation and lead data (newer versions of the Stinger (Block 1 and Block 2) preclude the need to superelevate the missile). Once this is accomplished, the gunner depresses the firing trigger which activates the missile battery. This powers all the missile functions after launch and operates for around 19 seconds until the DC output drops below the required minimum for use. A brief time delay operates, following which the umbilical connector to the gripstock is retracted and a pulse is sent to ignite the ejector motor. Total time to motor ignition from depression of the firing trigger is ~ 1.7 seconds. Upon ignition, the initial thrust generated imparts roll to the missile airframe and starts the fuze timer system. The missile and its exhaust then break through the frangible discs at either end of the launcher tube.
   

That's it in a nutshell, compared to vehicles, a fairly simple system. US Army training needs indicate that 136 h of instruction are required on this system, before weapon qualification is given. Compare it to what is provided in ArmA. The similarities basically end with the 3D model. :/

This is not a rant. I accept the franchise for what it is, and i plan on having fun with the game, that is as soon as proper QM allows for it - Question is, can you?

I thought about what i posted previously, and i completely agree with your post. Arma 2 is in fact not a simulation, but an acurate infantry tactical shooter.

But that doesn't mean i don't want it to be a simulation. I guess the Arma series is always going be run by mods such as ACE, all BIS do is give us a base to work on :(

[TangoRomeo 10]

Providing a stable and opimized base for the community to work from, that's all they need to do.

[Guest]

Providing a stable and opimized base for the community to work from, that's all they need to do.

Yes that is true. I have to give them their due, they have provided the best platform you could possibly ask for. I mean, even the default content they provide is great!

I just wish they went that little bit further, i don't get the sense that they have any passion anymore, at least nowhere near as much as cold war crisis.

[Apocal 10]

um... name one better?

Infiltration, years ago. For infantry, more realistic grenade system, parallax-free reflex sights, better shotgun modelling, better modelling of scopes, functional M203 sights, better ballistics, etc. Everything related to individual weapons and movement, Infiltration did better as far back as 2004.

I'll give you that flight sims are more realistic but they also don't have to accomodate command and control, infantry, tanks, wheeled vehicles, etc.

Which is kinda the point... they dumbed down every aspect to get everything together on one combined arms battlefield.

So I will revise my previous statement. Name one better that implements Command, Infantry, Tanks, Wheeled Vehicles, Civilians, Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Bonus if it has realistic tides, skies and weather and also if it is still fun to play.

Combined arms, ArmA2.

[maturin 12]

I thought about what i posted previously, and i completely agree with your post. Arma 2 is in fact not a simulation, but an acurate infantry tactical shooter.

But that doesn't mean i don't want it to be a simulation. I guess the Arma series is always going be run by mods such as ACE, all BIS do is give us a base to work on :(

Is it a simulator in a literal sense? No. Is it a simulator as the term is applied to video games? (Sailing simulator, life simulator, battle simulator) Certainly.

[Windexglow 10]

Is it a simulator in a literal sense? No. Is it a simulator as the term is applied to video games? (Sailing simulator, life simulator, battle simulator) Certainly.

Arma2 is a lot more arcade-like compared to a true infantry simulator (but arma2 is one of the closest games to it)

Main reason is the blatant inaccuracies with weapons, over simplification and so on.

[jakerod 254]

Infiltration, years ago. For infantry, more realistic grenade system, parallax-free reflex sights, better shotgun modelling, better modelling of scopes, functional M203 sights, better ballistics, etc. Everything related to individual weapons and movement, Infiltration did better as far back as 2004.

Which is kinda the point... they dumbed down every aspect to get everything together on one combined arms battlefield.

Combined arms, ArmA2.

I never heard of Infiltration and as you said its one specific field.

[Binkowski 26]

I can't stand the no flare thing, if a SAM fires at you, you're pretty well dead. Once we get those fixed it'll be nice.

[Thirdup 0]

You can't just make it so that the counter measures work 100% of the time or that the missile hits 100% of the time. You have to balance it some how. You pretty much have to make it so that it works a certain percentage of the time and if you make either one of those 100% then the game sucks because you either can't fly or you are entirely defenseless against aircraft.

The F-16 Falcon mod has a working countermeasures and warning system. It's very well "balanced" in that it's far from 100% effective. You have to react and maneuver and you still stand a very good chance of being hit (the

was filmed from a dozen sorties and I took hits on every flight). Plus, you're limited on the number of flares onboard per sortie. So, it could be implemented in a realistic fashion.

Most missiles in game are passive seekers and will not generate warnings on most modern aircrafts, I'm really not sure the most modern launch detection devices (which are the only one able to alert for a IR seeking missile incoming) are currently serviced on the choppers and planes depicted in ArmA2

The only vehicles which should generate a warning (in fact, 2 warnings, a research radar one, and a lock/guidance radar one) are Shilka and Tungunska if I'm not mistaken

As far as there being no launch detection or effective counter measures against IR or MANPADS, there are some interesting articles out there:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAAR-57-CMWS_a001337001.aspx

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasures

[sakura_chan 9]

Yeah the ofp\arma series has, arguably, the worst missile\targeting system ever conceived by man. Instant lock, instant hit (unless its the player doing the shooting, cheating ai) engaging the wrong units (aa will target tanks wtf?), and all missiles act exactly the same. We need a fully integrated mando missiles script asap.

[Apocal 10]

I never heard of Infiltration and as you said its one specific field.

Most people haven't, it was never terribly popular even in it's heyday (2004-2006). There were a lot of reasons for that, but the biggest was, despite what people on this forum claim, very few people want it as real as it gets. The sides are more or less balanced against each other for gameplay purposes in ArmA and the engine can't (as far as I know) model the subtle differences when you're talking PSO vs ACOG, reflex vs iron sight, shorter length vs longer, etc. Or even really basic stuff like why you can't use iron sights with night vision goggles. And that's OK, because ultimately all that stuff is a secondary (at best) consideration when you have full combined arms battlefield around you.

[Defunkt 431]

I never played Infiltration but I have a mate who raves about its realism. Dslyecxi has a thorough (rave) review of it HERE written post-hey day for anyone who's interested.

[Rhodesy77 11]

you know wat id like to see, is being able to use a wild weasel tactic, somewhat realisticly.

so youd have a pair of planes (can be more) one flys ahead of the other/s trying to draw AA fire (not 100% sure of thise but i think this plan is also equiped with jamming gear) while the other plane/s hang back waiting for a launch, so they can attack, once the enemy locks onto the first plane (up untill this point the old thging of just "tab'ing" for the enemy wouldnt work, as youd need the enemy to fire or atleast lock onto a plane) the other planes wil beable to lock onto the target and take it out, risky yet, but was proved very successful in vietnam.

[-Paladin- 10]

um... name one better?

I'll give you that flight sims are more realistic but they also don't have to accomodate command and control, infantry, tanks, wheeled vehicles, etc.

So I will revise my previous statement. Name one better that implements Command, Infantry, Tanks, Wheeled Vehicles, Civilians, Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Bonus if it has realistic tides, skies and weather and also if it is still fun to play.

And the game that has all the criteria that you mention is OFP 1.96 with SLX and all the other mods that ARMA shod implement as standard and go much further with the material.

Try CM:SF if its abel to get closer to realty in ground combat thats it.

At first Arma 2 aren´t it, not as close at it should be, in ARMA 2 there are not even the MINUMUM BASICS!!!!!!!!!! of realism NOT THE MINUMUM

and as the tip of the spear Bohemia are clamming its the "ULTIMATE MILITERE SIMULATION" its standing on the cover!!! of every ARMA2 copy!!

EVRY! COPY!

And the reason why PPL are writing:

Why is my FULL combat eqwipt soldier with m 240 stage 3/4 Combat west with battelboots ABEL TO SWIMM?!?!

Why is the 1.90 tall guy full combat loudet with javelin fitting in the T-72?

Why my A-10 dont have a DASS(or what ever) no flears?

Why I cant Cary two tubes AT-4 and WHY I AM ABEL to relode a AT4?

Why I cant slide the aimer on my AK-74/M-16 A2 and adjust the ranges?

Why a T-72 have Gyrostabilced MainGun and is Abel to shoot like a M1A1 on the move?:confused:

Why is my M1A1 every time catastrophic exploding? and killing me when i am hit form behind in the turret?

Why are the marines that have a difrent structure that the Russians/NAPA/CDF all moving the same in towns, the same in the woods?

Why are the marines dont moving in fier teams like they should?

This are the absolute minimum basic stuff above! that dont exist in ARMA 2.

Only Crap

what you dont want to understand or you cant understand for some circumstances that are mistirius:

When you go and buy in a supermarket 5 pound peas and you know how peas look like, taste, smell ,fell, you have to get pissed if the seller is giving you 1 pound potatoes but you paid for 5 pound peas. is this ok?

second their is no REALSITIC weather in ARMA 2 !!!NO!!!

Realistic weather would effect you and your gear but it does NOTHINK!

its useles like the rest of this pice of code.Not even the gear is effecting you.(LOOOOL)

The tide is a useles joke nothing more.

Your tanks dont get stuck in mud, there is no mud.

And again this is clamming it is "THE ULTIMATE MILTERISIMULATION" and thats what you should do every time you want to post something like,

its because balance

its because magic

olololo I post something just to have to have posted something

so I and many MANY other PPL expecting that the minimum of work is done by the dev.´s and NOT BY THE COM.

WE dont payd Bohemia

A) FOR A TACTICAL SHOOTER

B) FOR A COMUNITY MOD PLATFORM

B) FOR A ARCADE SHOOTER

WE HAVE PAYED THEM FOR THE "Ultimate MILITARYSIMULATION"

The dev.´s have promised AFTER THE DESASTER OF ARMA 1 that they WILL!!! do it in ARMA 2 better

they have done NOTHINK!!!!!! absolute NOTHINK!!!!!!

And again its not the job of com to do it, its bohemias Job.

Its that for what they get !paid!

FLEARS and warning systems, beeps that belong to this are bohemias job, the com can it if it has the will or time make it more advance make some sounds or get more planes, maps in the game BUT NOT DOING THE JOB OF BOHEMIA.

Not Killing bugs searching for them!!!

Not ADDING STUFF that should be form the beginning inside(flears)

BOHEMIA WAKE UP!!!!

I am not interested in ARACADE stuff, I play on maximum hard lvl and the only thing i get is bullshit not even close to realty but miles away i get ARCADE! lol wtf?!. Ultimate Miltarysim?!!?wher?

Dont belend and Lie would stand on the cover Point A/B/C I woudnt even look at it and go away,many woud did this and ther woudent be even this kind of post in the forum or discusions.

A beep sound when a missel is inc realy thats minimum

The ai shouting INC !minimum!

not implermnting this after more than 10 years, :butbut:

wher is the stuff?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Nothink!

[maturin 12]

Bare minimum?

Go buy Virtual Battle Space.

[TangoRomeo 10]

@ Paladin.

Not as bad as you make it to be, and if you'd be honest to yourself, the franchise has never been arcade. It`s still the best military Combined Arms Tactical Shooter out there, because it's the only one of it's kind atm. At least in proportion. Personally i suspect DR not to be close to a simulation either, eventually not even if broken down into single aspects. But that doesn't matter. It's all about the "P" word, possibilities (problems), the quality and quntity of the community that evolves around it, and the resulting longvity.

[nomdeplume 0]

Returning to the topic... yes I really agree that AA are too effective. While I understand the game is trying to simulate the effect each unit has on the battlefield, rather than trying to simulate the actual unit, I think the MANPADS are way overpowered and their effect is to prevent aircraft from being able to fly in an area at all.

Various places say the estimated probability of kill for the Igla against an unprotected fighter is 30-48%, which is a far cry from what we see in-game. Most importantly, the AI has absolutely no idea how to fly evasively. If a human player knows there's AA in the area they can prevent being hit quite effectively, albeit by drastically lowering their own combat effectiveness; which is reasonably realistic in an "effect on the battlefield" sense. AI players take no action and are easy meat, meaning if you want to have a mission with AI-provided air support you have to zero air defence.

What I'd really like is for the IR missiles to be made slightly less effective, but more importantly for flares to be added. Flares should be dispensed pre-emptively during a run-in to a hostile area and continously dispensed until they've cleared the area. This should be quite feasible to implement for the AI: if an AI aircraft knowsAbout a hostile AA unit of some kind, they activate flares when they're within the AA's engagement radius.

This would allow aircraft to be usable in areas with realistic amounts of air defence, but only for a few passes before they expend all their flares. Flares wouldn't provide a 100% defence but it should be very unlikely to be shot down if you have flares dispensing.

Flares should also be somewhat effective if employed after a missile is launched, but the probability of being hit should be much higher than if you had them dispensing prior to the launch. It might be good to model it so that units have a hard time locking aircraft that are dispensing flares, so the missile cannot be launched at all (or rather, can't be launched in a locked-on state).

I think this would result in a good rock-paper-scissors dynamic. At the moment, AA units have the effect of preventing aircraft from operating in an area (esp. AI aircraft). Flares add a counter to that: it becomes unwise for AA units to expend missiles on aircraft that are dispensing flares since they'll probably miss. However, the aircraft's countermeasures only last for a limited time, after which they become quite vulnerable to AA. Plus the aircraft have to decide when to use flares, rather than just using them in response to incoming missiles. Human players in particular may be prone to wasting flares against threatening-looking patches of forest, leaving themselves vulnerable when they do actually encounter a threat.

[Commando84 0]

The AA system in ofpa and Arma rox the sox :D

Its one of the areas where I think makes gameplay much more intresting than in BF 2 where all AA weapons are on aircrafts or static positions on the map and can almost always be destroyed easily by the flying around in jets all days dudes..

So its impossible to nail them sometimes cause they keep destroying the static aa defenses..

I really love the more mobile anti air weapons that are in Arma :)

Maybe They could add a audio warning and a button you could press to deploy flares but imo there should be a limit on the flares and they shouldn't be 100% scratch free either.

[bogdanm 0]

@Paladin

Do you even know what "Ultimate" means? It doesn't mean that it has to have all the features you mentioned, it only needs to be better that anything similar on the market. Which it is... So until something better hits the stores, BI has the right to name their game the Ultimate Military Simulation.

What are you asking is a game the combines a tank sim, aircraft sim, acurate military tactics sim, plus a lot other things that were never developed for a game. Your dream game will worth at least 300+ dollars, a completly new engine and 5+ years of development. I'd say you get quite a lot for a 50$ game, not to mention all the features and improvements you get from the community for free.