Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

ECM has well-defined and unavoidable qualities

I mostly agree with Wikipedia's definition of ECM
An electronic countermeasure (ECM) is an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. It may be used both offensively and defensively to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly.
there are many ways to do that

Or, propose a revision that fixes our aircraft problems in other ways.

I proposed two revisions that help airforce. Three if you count an attempt to make Phoenixes cheaper.

I prefer to spend that unit experience token because... well read two posts above.

[Madman198237]

ECM has well-defined and unavoidable qualities

I mostly agree with Wikipedia's definition of ECM
An electronic countermeasure (ECM) is an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. It may be used both offensively and defensively to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly.
there are many ways to do that

Why yes, yes there are. You create some form of "noise" in the spectrum being used to target you (On your aircraft if the tracker is active, off of it if it's passive), which will confuse (Active) or distract (Passive) tracking systems. If they're using something that DOESN'T just create a lot of noise, such as the alternatives you suggested, please see list of "that means we've already lost" for alternatives.

Wikipedia defines things (usually) accurately, but the definition is not the method in this case---ECM DOES scramble trackers, and can produce those EMR waves however you like, but the effects it has are both highly important and very limited.

[Strongpoint]

I consider "that means we've already lost" to be little too pessimistic.
I agree, that most likely, there will be some positive effect from HARM. I am slightly worried about the chance of it not giving effect because ECM method chosen by them may counter that by design.

In any case there are many reasons why I dislike Happerry's approach

1) It doesn't use tokens. I want revision that uses at least one (including "using" experience gained from the failed project).
2) Our missiles have no enough penetration. I'll be absolutely fine with the current 1 in 6 hit ratio if they'll actually do something to their armored fighters.
3) Missiles compete with pods... And those pods are quite nice
4) Reinventing HARM gives no technology to use in future designs.In some way it is opposite to Armagedden design. It does too little. If it was revision does that, that and adds HARM option it would be far more feasible
5) I totally plan to offer a spam fighter design next turn. Fighter design that will have built in railgun as its main weapon with little or even no missiles.

[Happerry]

At the start our planes with missiles were basically winning before they did ECM, if this doesn't roll another 1 this should mean our missiles will be winning again. Railguns worked but they didn't work as well as missiles did, so I consider bypassing their ECM more then worth it. As for Tokens, while getting a better warhead or something would be useful, I want to focus on getting the HARM working, because our current missile warheads were, well, working when most of our missiles actually hit the other guy. If we still had a computer token I might have gone for alien based sensors but, well, we don't.

HARM Rockslide (1): Happerry
Send instructors to expand Inter Agency Cooperation (1): Strongpoint

[Strongpoint]

At the start our planes with missiles were basically winning before they did new fighter

Fixed the quote.

Railguns worked but they didn't work as well as missiles did, so I consider bypassing their ECM more then worth it.

Note that Skyrangers shot down the scout UFO without any issues. Railguns work well.

"Bypassing" is a wishful thinking. At best, you'll reduce effectiveness of their ECM not bypass it bringing back pre ECM performance of Avalanches.

Also, why not improve railguns instead?

________

Here are a list of all of our aerial battles

-1 Raven vs light UFO > total victory
-1 Raven vs light UFO > draw\marginal defeat
-2 Ravens vs 1 first generation fighter > total victory
-3 Ravens vs 2 light UFOs and their second generation fighter > Total defeat
-2 Ravens vs 2 second generation fighters > Defeat

We are losing to their second generation fighters not to ECM. Even if we'll magically turn off their ECM, this won't force them to start using less advanced UFOs.

[Madman198237]

I consider "that means we've already lost" to be little too pessimistic.

You can only say that because you haven't thought through the consequences of (Or don't know the science behind) invisibility to ANY part of the EM spectrum, or incredibly low visibility (incredibly small, mostly invisible, etc.).

[Strongpoint]

Where are you guys? I know that two 1\16 low rolls in a row are a bit depressing but we haven't lost yet.

Updated Raven electronics (1 Alien equipment token)
Raven's electronics got complete overhaul, they are updated using knowledge gained during TAV project and reinforced against possible enemy interference. Additionally, as a secondary project, X-COM engineers are tasked to develop a way to detect concentrations of Elerium and\or components of plasma weapons. Raven's missiles are updated, too. Their guidance is updated to be able to alternate\combine between heat, image recognition, HARM, radar or, possibly, elerium seeking guidance allowing pilot to choose guidance method before launch or even in flight

Hitting non-essential parts of enemy UFOs looks like our main problem.

I still prefer to improve our cooperation with special forces around the world. I want to have way to deploy enough forces should enemy do two missions. I see long term potential in it. I want to use that unit experience token and next turn bank equipment tokens on an aircraft. But if thread prefer to improve airforce, then, IMO, thing above is our best bet.

[Madman198237]

HARM Rockslide (2): Happerry, Madman
Send instructors to expand Inter Agency Cooperation (1): Strongpoint

[Strongpoint]

This kind of revision would make some sense last turn, when we had no Phoenixes and we would improve our missiles. Right now it is close to doing nothing unless you want to pretend that we never developed phoenexis and switch back to all missile ravens. Wishful thinking that tech from 1960s will negate their fighter is naive. At best it will make their ECM less useful. At worst it will do nothing.

Waiting for proposals from other players, chances are that I'll vote for it over that kind of revision. No matter what it will be. I hardly imagine anything I may dislike more unless someone will intentionally try to make a bad revision.

[Madman198237]

A HARM is a very, very useful thing to get right now. Our fighters STILL carry missiles, they just ALSO have railgun pods, and the fact that you gloss over this as if it's not important is ridiculously harmful to our side. Or would be, if you won every vote.

Voting for any other revision because this one would accomplish its stated goals (And its goals are worthy of a revision for sure) at an Easy difficulty is absurd. Who CARES if it's using an advanced version of tech from the 60s? It will get what we need, and serve well for at least one turn.

[Strongpoint]

A HARM is a very, very useful thing to get right now. Our fighters STILL carry missiles, they just ALSO have railgun pods, and the fact that you gloss over this as if it's not important is ridiculously harmful to our side. Or would be, if you won every vote.

Heh, I have an advantage of having of having zero of my designs\revisions voted so their harmful effects can't be proved. I am relatively sure that apart from two first turns, most of solutions I wanted were better options.

Problem of our fighters still using missiles is easily solvable. Make phoenix pods cheaper so there will be no missiles. Besides, while I do not think that upgrading missiles is optimal, I don't think that missile revision is a bad idea. This missile revision is. This doesn't. It is so shortsighted it hurts.

Also, very-very useful is debatable. Performance of Avalanche missiles is appalling. Two missiles hitting a scout UFO isn't enough to do a moderate damage to it. Fighter UFO straight ignored being hited by those

Voting for any other revision because this one would accomplish its stated goals (And its goals are worthy of a revision for sure) at an Easy difficulty is absurd. Who CARES if it's using an advanced version of tech from the 60s? It will get what we need, and serve well for at least one turn.

Voting for any other revision because this goes for a minor goal in a lazy way with no long term thinking, with no usage of available resources, no synergy with our existing tech, and going for a trivial difficulty because of gambler fallacy or some other illogical reason. The funniest part that in this case I won't even have a chance for I told you, because whatever minor effect will be, it will "worked as intended"

In any case... looks like thread is little to inactive to my tastes.

[Cnidaros]

I'm still watching, but I think we're pretty screwed barring the Ethereal side messing up. If next turn is like last turn, they'll probably win on the ground now, assuming they did the reasonable thing and went for a ground combat design.

Also, Madman, mind turning down the vitriol? It's making this thread rather off-putting to read.

HARM Rockslide (3): Happerry, Madman, Cnidaros
Send instructors to expand Inter Agency Cooperation (1): Strongpoint

[Madman198237]

That's not an advantage. I'd call it a problem, since none of your ideas have been accepted by enough people to get votes. But we don't WANT to replace missiles, they have longer range than the railguns. Having these missiles in our arsenal means they will basically have to get smarter about the ways they prevent us from hitting them---classic ECM won't work any more. Yes, Avalanche now needs an upgrade. Let's see how this turn shakes out and we can figure out what's most important.

Dude, it is not gambler's fallacy. You took what I said, and regurgitated it with added falsehoods. Honestly, Strongpoint. Synergy? Who cares? Trivial difficulty? Well, guess what, it still invalidates their ECM work as well as anything else. Better, most likely. As for it being funny, yes, it's hilarious that you're arguing against what is unequivocally the best way to accomplish the stated intentions---stopping their ECM from entirely blocking our missiles.

[Happerry]

First off, I don't understand how you think the Railguns are super effective, given...

Missiles depleted, the Ravens close in aggressively. The railgun pods underneath the wings fire, sending tungsten slugs tearing through the attacking UFO's. The UFO's shudder under the assault but remain in the air. The ravens are less lucky. Plasma fire engulfs the 2 planes, and they desintegrate as they crash down to the Earth.

...We shot the UFOs more then once with the things and they didn't take down the enemy Fighters.

As for 'Two Missiles Do Nothing' it seems to be a lot more variable then that, given this battle report...

Night is falling when our interception force finally nears the AO. Suddenly, verdiscant plasma fire bursts from the clouds. Our pilots change course immediately, only narrowly avoiding the massive plasma barrage. Up close, our pilots can see the rather noticeable design differences. This UFO appears to be far smaller, and clearly has far more weaponry. In addition, it has a weird resemblance to some Earth craft, having actual wings within it's circular shape. As it turns to chase one of our interceptors, the other gets behind it and manages to launch missiles.

Two explosions blossom in the night sky. One of them must have damaged a vital component, as the UFO suddenly drops from the sky, and tumbles down into the pacific.

Where two missiles did kill an enemy fighter. So it looks like it depends instead of 'One Missile Always Does the Same Amount of Damage'.

Bluntly, I don't see how you think that getting experience in targeting in an alien ECM environment is bad, because they aren't going to stop using ECm any time soon, I don't see why you think actually hitting the enemy with missiles is bad given that the second we do a 'bigger warhead' design we can just add 'and it has a HARM variety' to the design action and then have our bigger warheads still actually hit, and I also really really fail to see how 'makes our main anti-air weapon actually work' has 'no synergy with our existing tech', 'no usage of available resources' when its an upgrade for the only anti-air weapon we don't have to spend EP, and we're always low on EP, and 'no long term thinking' when it should be useable to some degree throughout the entire rest of the game unless they give up ECM altogether. And if they give up ECM all together in response to our revision, that's an action trade that well favors our side.

Missiles and railguns are a good combination, as missiles have long range, thereby giving our craft a basically guaranteed first attack and then the railguns can be used on any survivors with far more ease and chance of actually getting more then one attack run because the survivors will have already taken damage.

I'd say you're the one with no long term thinking given you seem to want to write off missiles altogether the second someone does an anti-missile design action. It's like giving up on railguns because the other side invented armor.

Wishful thinking that tech from 1960s will negate their fighter is naive. At best it will make their ECM less useful. At worst it will do nothing.

It'd also be nice if you could debate in better faith then claiming stuff being used and developed today is outdated because the first versions were put into production a few wars ago? It's about as accurate an argument as claiming that the railguns are useless because the first one was developed back in 1845.

[SaberToothTiger]

HARM Rockslide (3): Happerry, Madman, SaberToothTiger
Send instructors to expand Inter Agency Cooperation (1): Strongpoint