SAMS are a JOKE

[Ike]

Now im no missile expert but my understanding of an SA-10 is, its a pretty good surface to air missile.

I've been looking at some modern scenarios lately and noticed that SAMS seem not to work.

I set up a little test and had 12 B-52's bomb an airfield defended by 10 SA-10s. No B-52 shots down.

Bueno, I set up 500 SA-10s defending an airfield and had 12
F-15s attack. No F-15s shot down.

I know COW doesnt model air combat so great but this is ridiculous. :blab:

Can anyone else confirm this?

 

[nemo]

Short answer: SAMs don't work - check this thread for confirmation. I think there are also several other older threads dedicated to this topic and the conclusions if I remember correctly are always the same.

If you need the SAMs to work for a modern scenario you're making, the only practical solution so far is to use BioEd.

 

[JMS]

Now im no missile expert but my understanding of an SA-10 is, its a pretty good surface to air missile.

I've been looking at some modern scenarios lately and noticed that SAMS seem not to work.

I set up a little test and had 12 B-52's bomb an airfield defended by 10 SA-10s. No B-52 shots down.

Bueno, I set up 500 SA-10s defending an airfield and had 12
F-15s attack. No F-15s shot down.

I know COW doesnt model air combat so great but this is ridiculous. :blab:

Can anyone else confirm this?

Nemo is right. The problem is that the AA values in the database are way too low (in fact, the same as a heavy MG) so you need to BioEdit the .exe to increase the AA ratings until you get the attrition you deem correct. Unfortunately, there is no historical reference for good values, with losses to SAMs rating to below 2% to 75% depending on the system, EW systems, etc.

 

[larryfulkerson]

If You're going to edit the eqipment database ............

So um.....you guys can use BioEd to Edit the AA values if you want to but there is an easier tool available. Designer.exe (the name of the executable is subject to change for any or no reason) is found at www.the-strategist.net\~larry and it'll allow you to edit the equipment database and write the new executable for you with whatever name you wanna give it.

I've used it myself. I gave a porter squad a nuclear attack capability just for laughs.

Try it, you'll like it.

here's a screenshot :

 

[piero1971]

I think that all here should agree to make a new version of the TAOW, say call it 1.04a (a for AA) and add modify a little the AA values of SAM's - and perhaps a fww other things and make that the new "official" version.

my experience is also that SAM's were useless. very frustrating.

that is balanced oth that planes like B-2s etc. are often shot down by Mig-21's etc.!!

 

[JMS]

I think that all here should agree to make a new version of the TAOW, say call it 1.04a (a for AA) and add modify a little the AA values of SAM's - and perhaps a fww other things and make that the new "official" version.

my experience is also that SAM's were useless. very frustrating.

that is balanced oth that planes like B-2s etc. are often shot down by Mig-21's etc.!!

The problem is that high flying planes are invulnerable. If you want your B-2 to be also invulnerable you need to increase the defence value.

 

[Ike]

Im for that.

I'd DEFINATELY be for some sort of 1.04AA patch. I don't know exactly what the values should be but I think about anything could be better than what we got. Perhaps some people could come up with some numbers using Larry's program and make an installer and BANG! 1.04AA patch.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

"I've used it myself. I gave a porter squad a nuclear attack capability just for laughs."

This just gave me an idea. One could give Recon squads such limited nuclear capable capacity and use them in Special Forces to simulate SADMs (Suitcase Nukes). Or assign them to civilians (of you don't use them for anything else), in the classical spy/terrorist role.

 

[sstevens06]

"I've used it myself. I gave a porter squad a nuclear attack capability just for laughs."

This just gave me an idea. One could give Recon squads such limited nuclear capable capacity and use them in Special Forces to simulate SADMs (Suitcase Nukes). Or assign them to civilians (of you don't use them for anything else), in the classical spy/terrorist role.

Sorry for the OT...

Take a look at the "Berlin Crisis 1961" scenario I posted in the Download section. I used the BioEd utility to create the following Infantry equipment:

ADM (Atomic Demolition Munition) Team: 0.1kT W-7
TADM (Tactical ADM) Team: 0.5kT W-30


A limited number of these teams are in US Special Forces (10 SFG), LRRP, and Engineering units. When you attack with these units and nuclear release for the NATO side has been authorized (which is virtually certain to occur in this scenario) the Nuclear attack option will appear on the Attack pop-up menu. You can select that to deliver an ADM or TADM attack. Of course the attacking unit will be subject to casualties as the attacks can only be delivered against adjacent enemy units (unlike Nuclear attacks by nuclear-capable artillery, rockets, or aircraft).

I think this is realistic given the close-in nature of these weapons: they were the size of steam trunks and weighed upwards of 200kg. To reduce weight shielding was kept to a minimum and an armed ADM may have been quite capable of delivering a lethal dose of radiation to the delivery team! Talk about a suicide mission!

 

[sstevens06]

Btw, on topic, I also used BioEd to adjust the AA strength of the early SAMs that appear in Berlin Crisis 1961 to deal with this very problem. From the scenario briefing:

"V-75 Dvina (SA-2) SAM (Soviet Union – 1957): Increased AA value from 6 to 9
S-125 Neva (SA-3) SAM (Soviet Union – 1961): Increased AA value from 6 to 9
Bloodhound Mk 1 SAM (United Kingdom – 1958): Increased AA value from 5 to 7
MIM-24A Nike-Hercules SAM (United States - 1950's): Increased AA value from 6 to 9
MIM-23A HAWK SAM (United States - 1960's): Increased AA value from 8 to 11

AA values for the above SAMs were increased by approximately 50% to reflect their novelty and the lack of widespread countermeasures against them. In addition, anecdotal evidence indicates that ACoW may be understating the effectiveness of AA weapons in general."

 

[larryfulkerson]

SA-10 problemo..........

Um.......I changed the AA value(s) of the SA-10 unit(s) using my SDT thingie from 2 ( or whatever it was originally ) to 100 and saved the new executable with the change. Then I started up the new executable and designed a small scenario ( called test.sce ) where I had two SA-10 units ( one with just 2 SA-10's and one with 20 SA-10's ) and had a unit on the opposing force that had 10 F-15E Strike Eagles in it.

Then when I started the test.sce scenario I had the F-15's attack the unit that only had 2 SA-10's and the results of the attack were: one SA-10 was destroyed and one F-15 was disabled.

Then after a couple of turns ( so that the F-15 unit could build back to 10 planes total ) I had the F-15 unit attack the larger SA-10 unit and the result of the attack was no planes shot down but there were 2 SA-10's destroyed.

I'm thinking that an AA strength of 100 isn't quite high enough yet. Maybe the AA strength of the SA-10 unit needs to be boosted to say 500 or maybe even 1000 to properly reflect reality. What say you guys?

 

[JMS]

Um.......I changed the AA value(s) of the SA-10 unit(s) using my SDT thingie from 2 ( or whatever it was originally ) to 100 and saved the new executable with the change. Then I started up the new executable and designed a small scenario ( called test.sce ) where I had two SA-10 units ( one with just 2 SA-10's and one with 20 SA-10's ) and had a unit on the opposing force that had 10 F-15E Strike Eagles in it.

Then when I started the test.sce scenario I had the F-15's attack the unit that only had 2 SA-10's and the results of the attack were: one SA-10 was destroyed and one F-15 was disabled.

Then after a couple of turns ( so that the F-15 unit could build back to 10 planes total ) I had the F-15 unit attack the larger SA-10 unit and the result of the attack was no planes shot down but there were 2 SA-10's destroyed.

I'm thinking that an AA strength of 100 isn't quite high enough yet. Maybe the AA strength of the SA-10 unit needs to be boosted to say 500 or maybe even 1000 to properly reflect reality. What say you guys?

This is one of those oh, s***t! moments... I had the calculations made on the basis of the kill % in Harpoon Classic 2005 and adjusted for TOAW months ago, and you are right, the numbers need to go in the 1000s. I had the modded executable, and I´ll try to upload it tonight.

 

[piero1971]

I think we should bild a file with the new values of all SAMs and then make the modifications into a new -exe 1.04aa for all to use, and make that new .exe the offical "unofficial" new .exe

are all SAM's values way too down? portable SAM's etc. as well?

(in a recent scenario - Korean 2005 - once the north korean air force was out of the game - in over two months of bombing campaign (and over 2000 north korean SAM's blown away) not one single "allied" plane was shot down in interdiction....)

 

[JMS]

I think we should bild a file with the new values of all SAMs and then make the modifications into a new -exe 1.04aa for all to use, and make that new .exe the offical "unofficial" new .exe

are all SAM's values way too down? portable SAM's etc. as well?

(in a recent scenario - Korean 2005 - once the north korean air force was out of the game - in over two months of bombing campaign (and over 2000 north korean SAM's blown away) not one single "allied" plane was shot down in interdiction....)

Yep, all values are down, as are those for AAA, but in that case is less relevant, IMO. I have the modded exe done, but there are other changes too, mainly in aircraft ranges, though they shouldn't screw any scenario.

 

[piero1971]

olééééeee!

that's great news. if one with ALL sam's values adjusted (and some air ranges as well) I'll use it asap!

 

[Kraut]

I am strongly against a 'new alternative' TOAW exe, shipping one with a scenario to specifically only play it with that scenario.. ok, but what if scenario designer 1 designes his scenario with the original database, another one with the tweaked database, and players would play them with either TOAW... we could run into all kinds of playability issues here.

What if two players play a PBEM, one (original EXE) places his planes just out of reach of the enemy planes, but in reach of his combat troops to give CS, but the other player has the tweaked EXE and his fighters have enough range now to reach the airbases of his opponent to bomb them ?

Dont like it, dont like it at all

 

[viridomaros]

I am strongly against a 'new alternative' TOAW exe, shipping one with a scenario to specifically only play it with that scenario.. ok, but what if scenario designer 1 designes his scenario with the original database, another one with the tweaked database, and players would play them with either TOAW... we could run into all kinds of playability issues here.

What if two players play a PBEM, one (original EXE) places his planes just out of reach of the enemy planes, but in reach of his combat troops to give CS, but the other player has the tweaked EXE and his fighters have enough range now to reach the airbases of his opponent to bomb them ?

Dont like it, dont like it at all

well it's possible to put this new exe as THE OFFICIAL exe to play with
like to play with cow 1.4
it's basically the same

 

[Kraut]

well it's possible to put this new exe as THE OFFICIAL exe to play with
like to play with cow 1.4
it's basically the same

sure, as soon as you tell me how to reach each and every TOAW player out there to tell them that a new TOAW version is available... or would you consider this forum in any way official?

People soemwhere will dig out their TOAW after some time, download some new scenarios and start playing again, or one player knows this site and downloads the patch, his opponent doesnt know this side and continues to pay with the old one....

no, better only have one official 1.04

 

[viridomaros]

sure, as soon as you tell me how to reach each and every TOAW player out there to tell them that a new TOAW version is available... or would you consider this forum in any way official?

People soemwhere will dig out their TOAW after some time, download some new scenarios and start playing again, or one player knows this site and downloads the patch, his opponent doesnt know this side and continues to pay with the old one....

no, better only have one official 1.04

it's pretty easy to make sure that everyone can get it
one can upload this exe on the blitz and rugged defense website as well
may be the tdg can do the same
then if you find an opponent that wants to play toaw but never came accross those websites i'm wondering where you're going to find such opponents
one can even consider mailing the company (take 2 is it) about it
always worth a try

 

[Kraut]

and what to do if designer B thinks that his values are more 'correct' than yours and brings out another 'official 1.04' ? Or designer C corrects the unrealistic strong Sherman '76 to make WW2 scenarios more realistic... thereby making exactly those shermans to weak for the Korea scenario were they were used, too? And what if both tweakers havent heard of each other and we now have one version with tweaked tanks, and another with tweaked air force, and maybe a third compiled by somebody with both new values?

And who is going to check and update all existing scenarions on compatibility with the new TOAW (playability wise)?

Never touch a running system!