40 replies to this topic

[Allied General]

p.s they are best used for guerilla tactics against other more powerful navys which is what syria would sue them for

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty detailed, but double posts are frowned upon due to the edit button

it should be cheap but quick then, something which can get past the large minimum range of the capital navy.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, I am trying to wedge realism into an engine that doesn't want it!

Rather than allowing an SSBN to bang off all its ammo and then slink away, it will be limited to firing two missiles at a time before allowing it to prep any more. This will be done through limiting the ammo annd having it recharge (like the RA2 Dreadnought or V3). I do want to keep this sort of system to a minimum though.

Navalfreak's assessment is pretty good for a rough draft, and is fairly close to the list that I have . Iran is richer than Syria however, and does have a few more naval vessels than that, although they are limited in number and of venerable age.

One last comment; despite popular "knowledge", missiles will we devilishly hard to shoot down compared to planes, even by systems like the Patriot. This is because such systems are not in fact very good at shooting down missiles (rather, being designed to shoot down planes) - feel free to do some research if you don't believe me.

[8doczzz1]

There's a bit of a difference between ICBM's and other smaller types of missiles (anti-ship or whatever).

The patriot is capable destroying ICBMs, but the problem is one of speed. Some ICBM's can top out at around Mach 22. A patriot would have to explode early in midair and hopefully throw fragments in the path of the ICBM, thus destroying it. Patriots simply can't move fast enough, so it's mostly about luck.

Of course, the slower the ICBM, the better the odds.

The chaff/decoy and Phalanx type systems aren't useful at all against ICBM's, even though they are quite effective against smaller missiles.


That said, I would prefer to not have to build 600 AA's just to shoot down some missile.

[Allied General]

WTF?

Your telling me an patriot can shoot down an Inter Continential Ballistic Missile like the Peace Keeper?

I thought it was for use against smaller missiles like the SCUD variants.

[Az3r^]

i dunno man but ive got mine working again

Woot, back as a working beta tester now tank christ

dude, the navy are swines but i counter them with navy as well
seen as they make mince meat of aircraft (unless there in range of britains hero sniper dude) forgot his name ^.-

[Ash]

Said laser may still be in development stages, but yes, it does use an infrared beam to disrupt the guidance systems. I don't think it'd be 100% effective, and again you have to get the aircraft in range, which is difficult at missile speeds. Besides, I'd like to see it stop a MIRV.

But it's all well and good telling us about what exists IRL, but I doubt such a fighter could be implemented into RA2/YR somehow...


I would be dubious about making missiles too hard to destroy...it would just result in missile unit spam.
I await Gilbear's answer to that

[Major_Gilbear]

Hmm, I see several things that need clearing up here:

1) I'm talking about SCUD missile mostly, but other similarly large missiles will also have similar properties.

2) Actually, there is no hard evidence that the Patriots shot down even a single SCUD over Israel in the second Gulf War. After the event, various Israeli and US sources have made information available that suggests that the figures for the number of actual missiles downed could be as low as none. The Patriot was designed to shoot down planes, not missiles. It was employed in Israel to protect the populace in exchange for Israel not entering the war - has Israel done so, it was feared that other Arab nations would have joined in Saddam's favour as a result. To keep the populace convinced that they were being protected (and thus allowing those in office to stay out of the war and yet still remain politcally popular), the Patriots were set up. The reality was that most of Saddam's SCUDs did land, and did cause huge damage. There are many sources available, and as I've previously invited you to do, you are free to search for them and read up on the details yourselves.

3) SCUD missile launching units (and other similar missile units) are going to be pretty hard to get hold of in large numbers, especially if your opponent is even half-way decent. These weapons are not typically used by the Western countries, and will be an "Ace" that other countries can use to help tip the balance int heir favour. They will be reasonably powerful too, especially in light of SWs being largely removed (no more Nukes in other words). They will be able to take out most structures in a one or two shots, so if you see these heading towards your base, you should scramble your planes and send out your tanks to meet them!

4) For balance reasons, I do intend to allow Patriots and other similar defences to shoot at large missiles, but they will only have a modest effect. If you are dead set on shooting them down after they have been launched (istead of hitting the laucher ASAP), then you should make sure you have a solid wall of AA...

5) The ships have layered defences to take down different targets. Although in theory they can all be employed against a particular target, in practice, actually shooting at the things is often reserved as a last-ditch effort, and is more commonly used to take down planes (especially if they are launching the anti-ship missiles!).

6) The "Star Wars" program is not operational yet. It is highly doubtful if it ever will be effective even if it does get completed; so far it has proved to be a money pit that is more useful as a public support tool than as a military asset.
Also, TV shows like the "Discovery Channel" etc are frequently wrong and shoul dnot be treated as a reliable information source. They are out to make a great and entertaining show, not educate you with the cold truth (despite what they tell you). As a consequence the information they give is often... stretched, to fit their show.

7) A fighter that shoots down missiles with a laser is possible in Ra2YR as long as you make it a "baloon hover" type vehicle (like the Kirov Airship for example). I don't think such a unit will make Code Red though, being perhaps more suited to MO or RS?

[wilmet]

aren't ships better at taking out missiles than patriots are ?
I remember a story from the 1990 gulf war of an english destroyer shooting down an iraqi "silkworm" missile that had been aimed at the USS Missouri .

[DaEm0NuL]

Lol patriots can`t shoot down missile but iraqi peasants can shoot down us coppers (hope u remember)

[wilmet]

looked like a bunch of farmers that had been driven to the site to dance around in front of the cameras on an intact apache if I remember correctly...absolutely no damage visible

did the pilots who got rescued say what happened ?

I thought I had remembered correctly about that last second save thing lol

Edited by wilmet, 30 May 2005 - 07:30 AM.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, there will be two "types" of AA in the mod; SHORAD and long range anti air.

SHORAD will be effective against ground-assault planes (or indeed any planes in the mod that are designated that role) and choppers. Some SHORAD *may* be allowed to take pot-shots at high-level aircraft as well, but it is unlikely at the moment. SHORAD will typically be mobile in the game, with units like the Linebacker and the Shilka.

Long range anti air will be effective against higher-level bombers and will also be allowed to shoot at large missiles (like a SCUD or FROG). These are typically fixed AA defences like the Patriot.

Ships will have a peculiar role in terms of AA defence, as I intend to give them capabilities against the whole spectrum of airborne threats, but with a pretty modest range. Effectively, this allows ships to defend themselves and their battlegroup, but won't be a great AA asset to friendly ground troops.

[wilmet]

are there plans to make dedicated anti ship weapons (either land based or airborne) ? like an exocet launcher or something in those lines?

[Major_Gilbear]

The planes used in a ground assault/anti-tank role will prolly double up as anti-ship too. Not totally accurate in every case, I know, but it seems stupid to me to force players to build planes for naval defence instead of encouraging them to develop a naval force.

Aside from these planes, only other naval vessels will be anti-naval really. This is partly because:

1) I don't want to give ships a big ingame range, as it makes them too good.

2) Ships will have to come close to the shore to affect units and structures further inland. Also RA2 pathfinding often causes ships to skirt the coastlines.

3) I don't want tanks and infantry firing at/sinking ships. They would be able to do this if ships cames closer to the shore, and ships often do that for the reasons explained in (2). Also, it is highly unlikely that a T-55 could sink a carrier, even if the carrier was close to the coastline... Therefore none of the ground units will affect ships.

4) Ships are now fairly immune to most units as a result, but also have less effect on big inland battles. They are thus cheaper to build than before, making it more feasable for players to develop a navy a bit earlier than the late-game stage.

5) As ships can affect inland battles, some land-based anti-ship elements are needed. Planes will do this, and ships will have some AA to help counter that a bit. Determined and numerous air assaults should be able to see off a modest naval task force IMO. Similarly, a carrier group should be able to hold off a few planes with some careful micomanagement.

6) Capital ships are still very powerful weapons, and it is now worthwhile building a navy to get these or to defend from them!

7) *Some* Special Forces units might be allowed to mine ships, doing massive damage to them (rather like Tanya or the SEALs in Ra2YR). It is undecided if this will be added, and if so, which country/SF will get the ability.