AI Air Defense

[Wdll]

1 x EF-35B Ferret SEAD EW=11
4 x F-35B Lightning II Fighter-Bomber EW=8
2 x F-35B Lightning II COIN EW=8

And you still failed? Weird. Perhaps just bad lack. Then again I don't trust F-35, in game or in real life. It feels like a black hole sucking money with doubtful usage against anyone with more than one Radar.

You don't call:
3 x MIM 23B HAWK
2 x Pantsy1-S1
6 x SA-6 Gainful
12 x Igla-1 MPAD
4 x Type 86/88 SPAA
2 x Cobra AA
overpowering?

What is????

I would probably not buy the Igla or the AA guns, but the rest are fine when it knows you will probably use your superior airforce. Don't forget that each point spent on that is a point not spent on land forces.

I totally agree ... and this is EXACTLY my point.

What is your point? That when the enemy has strong air defense and you can only send a couple of planes at a time, you have a good chance of failing? Doh!

Or that the AI simply uses so many points in air defense as to not let you do whatever you want over the skies? If yes, then basically it does the smart thing since anything less would let you(as the player) to do whatever you want.

Simple solution I mentioned earlier. Either use good stealth force or more planes. If you can't, then don't use them at all. It makes sense.

Use them when it makes sense. Just because you can use airforce it doesn't mean you should or that it will work.
I am quite good at using planes by now and 90% of the time I find myself in trouble is when I decide taking a risk, ie too few planes.
I have won battles and campaigns, against humans just using the airforce, and I have lost air fleets in a couple of turns due to bad choices. It's all part of the game/battle.

[Suhiir]

My point is that in most Player vs AI battles you are only given 2 to 4 sorties, 6 is very rare. Given the "average" AI air defense I totally agree there is zero sense to using aircraft if you're given less then 4, better 6, sorties. And even with that many sorties you can count on 50%+ losses.

No nation in the world would bother with an air force if they took 50% casualties per sortie, even if they didn't care about pilot losses the sheer cost of the aircraft would make it senseless.

While WinSPMBT is a game not a combat simulation it tends to do a pretty fair job as a simulation. This however is one area where I feel the simulation aspect fails.
If the answer is "it is as it is for game balance" that's fine and dandy.
BUT - if if there is any intent to be a "simulation" in this regard I think the issue needs to be addressed.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I have to agree with the last, I've seen more air sorties used against me by the AI THEN I've ever been able to purchase in air support myself on most occasions. It seems that the air support (sorties.) available is in direct portion to the size of your own land forces or other limiting factors within the game. I believe the most I've ever had was about 8 but the average is about 3. And it should be noted for the newer players you can end up using this number of sorties just on a single UAV on a one to one basis. But many good points have been brought up concerning arty prep, WW, SEAD of likely AA "sites" or I would add, using a couple of UAV's especially after the last patch fixed some long over due issues concerning their vulnerability to all types of AA. And now almost everyone has them including North Korea (Very recently apparently.) and many smaller countries on just about every continent now. I don't know how the AI uses them or not, as I think AI has used them against me less than a handful of times over the years. But not to worry the Level Bomber for some countries will become relevant in the game as many countries are equipping them with Litening and Sniper Pods or their equivalents in Russia and elsewhere, but more on that later, but think TI/GSR integrated into FCS and therefore weapons. The era of the "Dumb Bomb" in U.S. and even Russia (For contrast.) is about over, now that cheap but accurate guidance systems can be installed on the warheads, AFPKWS II is a prime example among others. I've never really thought of this game as a land only game (Older versions more so yes-not this.), this has always been more a combined arms game that's land "heavy" if you will. That's why I think it's the best of what's out and why I spend more time on "research" then playing it with the time I have available to me now. So for you air folks I think help is on the way equipment wise, for further evaluation and assessment I leave that to those of you with the know how to test and track those results using the games systems AND presenting that data to those that matter - I'm just an equipment guy and a witness to how these events have affected my interactions with the AI.

I've got a Daughter to walk down the aisle later this evening, so I hope you all have as good a weekend as we are!!!! And besides I better get ready before CINCLANTHOME gets in.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

If the XXX setting for air sorties doesn't work for you then by all means use the controls available in the game and SET THE NUMBER OF AIR SORTIES TO A NUMBER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. This is why there ARE preference controls to adjust.

The argument is getting old. If we had seen a huge imbalance we would have dealt with it. As other have noted they can and have use air effectively.

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Forgot all about that to be honest, I normally do play around with the settings to change things up. I like the "mystery" of not knowing when or how much of an air attack will come and enjoy the tactical challenge of prepping for my air attacks and putting the right units in place to protect my own forces from them. Combined arms against even a tank heavy environment I think is the most fun and tactically challenging way to play against the AI, but that's me.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Everybody's different that's why there is a preference screen. The "problem" is getting people to accept it's "OK" to change them.

We CANNOT be all things to all people. Given the suicide rate life itself is not all things to all people.


Don

[gila]

I find it odd though,nobody considers that in "real life" there are military spy satelites that can pick out a vehicle with missles and even ID them, and then deal with them accordantly,before an air strike is ever called,could be why there is less aircraft losses.

This is an land forces game most of all and air forces and naval are really just eye candy.

Playing PBEM exclusively i rarely waste pt.s on fixed wing air, expect for Helo's,
If my opponent does, a few manpads or mobile missles will deal with most and those that get thru are mostly ineffective imo.
But i don't play a battle after the mid '80's.

[Wdll]

In real life? If you are talking about losses of American aircraft against third world countries, yes. If you search for results from other countries, then the losses are quite high for both, if they have aircraft. Iraq vs Iran, and India vs Pakistan for one. Or even the wars with/against Israel. Air defenses work when they exist and are part of a proper network and the "defender" is willing to use them instead of saving them. (like what Serbia did)

The thing with USA battles is they are clever and they do not initiate fights with forces they know they are going to have problems with, ie loss of aircraft. Even Iran (if there is a war with Iran) is doubtful if they will manage to pose much problem since while they have a few good systems, they are too few for the land/installations they need to cover and they do not actually cover each other. They are deployed in the same moronic(?) way Iraq did. Too spread out with not enough radars and networking between installations and systems without backups. It's almost like the air defenses are part of a Feudal system, if that makes any sense. lol

When the defender has fewer top quality systems than 3 attacker planes have missiles for, then you know they are in trouble.

And that's what the AI tries to do (personal guess of course). You need to have a too large number of them or else it's like you have nothing.

[whdonnelly]

The last example was Libya, where the Libyan air defense network was pounded by Tomahawk missiles from subs before any bombing campaign was started. Apparently even less than modern networks are considered too great of a risk for aircraft alone to deal with. So perhaps the game is reflecting what could happen if a defender is waiting, as in the case of the VC ambushes of American air assaults....

[gila]

Originally Posted by Wdll

You need to have a too large number of them or else it's like you have nothing.

A good case for not bothering using fixed wing eh?

I mean if you spend the scads of points on them and they don't produce much for thier high cost, then you lost pt.s you could've spent on other assets.

Helo's are another matter,give me an Cobra or Apache with tows and i can garrante there be burning vehicles.