Discussion of use of hardpoints; "We have too few missiles" -Realism

[GizmoGomez]

So, realism nags us, and tells us that there are more than two hardpoints on an F-16. I agree that we need a good explanation as to why things are the way they are. (ie, why only two missiles?)

First, we have the Condor:

F-16s have three hardpoints under each wing (six total), one on each wing tip (2 total), and three under the belly.

We can say that the three hardpoints under the belly were removed/replaced in favor of adding a permanent expanded fuel system (seems simple enough to me; plus it echos what happened to the Foxtrot).

The wingtips are easy; these carry Air-to-Air Missiles (like the game currently has).

In the Xenopedia photos it shows the Condor with two AAMs on the wingtips, and two other objects under the wings. I propose these objects are Xenonaut Sensor Pods, something I just invented to explain why these aircraft can detect UFOs and Alien Bases so well.

This leaves the other four hardpoints under the wings unaccounted for, both realism wise and in the photo the Xenopedia shows.

I'd assume that they either: a) removed these hardpoints to decrease weight and drag, and to increase fuel efficiency and speed, or b) they could simply carry external fuel tanks all the time, to help the Condor have it's incredible range (considering the relatively short ranged F-16). Or a combination of the two (removed two hardpoints, used the other two for fuel tanks).

On to the Foxtrot:

So, the MiG-31 could carry four heavy missiles under the belly, and various missiles under the wings. Initially the Foxtrot had four heavy missile slots, actually.

However, having four missiles made it overpowered in gameplay, so it's payload was reduced to two missiles/torpedoes.

Why would this be, realism wise?

Well, we can simply explain that the four missile hardpoints under the belly were removed/replaced to increase fuel capacity through permanent external tank additions to the underbelly, just like the Condor.

For the hardpoints under the wings, two are used for the heavy torpedoes, and the rest were either removed to reduce drag and increase fuel efficiency and speed (every bit counts when you're chasing UFOs) or used for external drop tanks, same reasoning as the Condor.

Now, many of you know that the MiG-31 had a built in cannon. As far as the gun goes, we can say that they removed it because the space was needed for a better sensors package (basically they put the Xenonaut Sensor Pod inside the aircraft, to reduce drag on the outside to enable higher speeds for intercepting faster UFOs).

Sound decent? Not too unrealistic, I hope.

[Lorebot]

I agree with most of what you've said.

The Xenopedia mentions the Condor being specially modified for intercepting UFOs. Extra fuel tanks, better sensors, and a reinforced frame and armor all add weight to the craft. Sacrificing most of the payload for range, speed, and survivability is a viable trade if it's the only way you'll ever get to actually engage your targets reliably. As long as you can bring enough munitions to do some damage that's enough initially.

The Foxtrot is another issue for me. It's researched and designed AFTER you've downed some alien craft and gotten a hold of some of their tech. You know what you need to fight them, and the Foxtrot is built to fill that role knowing that larger ships are on the way. So it's even faster than the Condor and it's more durable with a longer range, but it's also much larger and it's less maneuverable (ie. no dodge). It's given the ability to carry heavier and more damaging munitions, but it loses the cannon and survivability in the trade. With 4 heavy hardpoints it was pretty overpowering so I understand the nerf, but not only is it a bad move for game balance it's also somewhat unrealistic. The designers know what it takes to at least down an alien light scout and probably know what it takes to down a regular scout too, they wouldn't design a ship with such limited damage dealing capability and the pilots certainly wouldn't want to go up to fight with such a limited armament knowing that it takes 2 shots to deal with an alien craft that can dodge your fire and that it takes more than 2 shots to deal with something that can't. The Condor may only have 2 missiles, but after you've used those to kill your target you've got that cannon to help your wingman deal with things if they go badly. The Foxtrot doesn't have that option, and with such a limited flight team there's no way such a craft would get approved.

The Foxtrot should have a cannon or 2 normal missile mounts to compliment the 2 heavy mounts. Having 4 heavy mounts is unbalancing to the game, but striping them down to only 2 mounts is simply not acceptable nor is it realistic. It's still a fighter, not a bomber, it needs to at least be able to try to protect its wingman in a fight once it's delivered the torps to their target.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Lorebot

[GizmoGomez]

I could support having two heavy and two light missile slots. Having a cannon is out of the question; that's firmly dogfighter territory. This is a missile truck; no guns, unfortunately.

[Lorebot]

I could support having two heavy and two light missile slots. Having a cannon is out of the question; that's firmly dogfighter territory. This is a missile truck; no guns, unfortunately.

Agreed. Having a cannon without the ability to dodge would just turn the craft into a sitting duck as it made it's approach anyhow.

[Ishantil]

Personally, I think I should be the one to determine what to do with my own craft, just like I can with my soldiers. The original X-COM simply had two slots (one on the Lightning), the player took a look at what was available and made a choice. While I know this not X-COM, I don't agree that the forced conformity is better. It's against the spirit of the original intent which was the freedom to solve problems how you wanted to. That's one of the things that made X-COM so good. And I think taking that away is a real shame.

What would be better is if you could actually choose your loadout yourself. With drop tanks or more weapons, no gun in exchange for a better combat computer (better guided missiles or longer range). If you want an agile interceptor, use a Condor. If you prefer a faster longer ranged plane, you sacrifice maneuverability with the Foxtrot. Start us with one of each, and make us build the other two like you currently do with the Foxtrot.

----

To get back to the topic of this conversation, I think that adding two light missile slots to both aircraft would improve things.

[WalrusJones]

I would like to replace a heavy missile slot on the condor with four missiles, personally.

This would make it a more interesting plane to use... (Missiles are pathetic in comparison to torpedoes, but four leaves it roughly even in power, just power in smaller buckets.)

[GizmoGomez]

Condors can't carry heavy missiles; they've only two light hardpoints.

Also, keep in mind (mainly directed at Ishantil) that I'm just coming up with lore reasons as to why a "realistic" F-16 variant (the Condor) would carry only two missiles when a "standard" F-16 can carry up to six sidewinders, not only two. So, all of my stuff being said, the gameplay wouldn't change. We wouldn't be "forced" to use drop tanks or XenoSensorPods or anything because they don't actually exist. They're just realism strands that I wove around the gameplay balance-centric core of the aircraft.

The only reason I brought it up at all was because some were complaining about the realism being off with there being only two sidewinders available. What's important to note is that this isn't due to a realism take, it's due to game balance. Once you have the game balanced, you weave the realism around it; not the other way around. At least, not in this game.

[WalrusJones]

Bleh Foxtrot. I am used to typos at this point.

[thothkins]

It could be worse. In UFO (on which EU1994 was strongly based)...

[video=youtube;LE-aBcfs854]

One missile! One! Count yourselves lucky Xenonauts

[StellarRat]

It could be worse. In UFO (on which EU1994 was strongly based)...

[video=youtube;LE-aBcfs854]

One missile! One! Count yourselves lucky Xenonauts

Yes, but it was a big ass missile. Not these wimpy missiles our Condors and Foxtrots carry. Also, operating in space it much different. Those missiles had proxmity fuses and didn't need a direct hit. The UFO's were pretty much stuck on a set trajectory when approaching Earth so that made things easier on SHADO. We can only dream of space based operations.

[Queamin]

It could be worse. In UFO (on which EU1994 was strongly based)...

[video=youtube;LE-aBcfs854]

One missile! One! Count yourselves lucky Xenonauts

I am showing how old I am I loved the show when it first aired in the UK, but thothkins look how big it is, size does matter as some females say

[thothkins]

they did miss a fair bit. Any time the episode required a ground mission, for a start. Once you've missed that's it.

Well, there was Skyranger...

[Queamin]

Skydiver not xcom skyranger

[thothkins]

Oh dear. must not rush posts. must not rush posts

Uncannily alike, though

[a_beorning]

My propositions:

1. No "sure hits" and no "sure miss":

1.1. Every plane and ufo can do simple avoidance maneuvre (and pilots do it automatically, no button needed). So any missile have at least 1% chance of miss - much more for agile fighters.

1.2. Every fighter plane can do hard avoidance maneuvre (now - "roll"), but heavy fighters have more recuperation time and lesser avoidance bonus (total up to 95% for Condors, about 70% for Foxtrots)

1.3. When you do "roll", your onboard radar can lose aim of targets. Not 100%, too.

1.4. Heavily damaged plane or ufo has lowered maneuvrability (and missile avoiding chances) and cannot roll (G-stress will kill it as sure as missile)

1.5. Heavy UFOs cannot roll (as cannot roll B-52 with his 16 heavy missiles - if we have it ) but still have chances - see 1.1

2. Fighter without gun at all - is a total nonsence since Korean war. Even our Nikita "Bald Fool" Khrushchev learned this lesson. If a plane with no gun is involved in direct air combat, it is dead for sure.

3. Missed missile is not totally harmless: when it's fuel burned, missile self-destructs. If there is a plane or ufo nearby - sorry, bad luck.

4. Heavy hardpoint can accomodate single heavy missile (as now) OR container with 2-3 light missiles

5. More versatility of heavy missiles. Heavy missile can be (with no dependence of tier):

5a. Powerfull but slow, dumb and easy-to-avoid (more or less as it is now)

5b. Not so powerfull (equal to light missile), but quick (as light missile) and with extra range (more than any normal missile)

5c. Not so powerfull (equal to light missile), but "smart" (lesser chance for enemy to avoid it)

It's up to player which missiles he want to load - powerfull, or LR, or smart, or smal but twice in number.

Edited July 29, 2013 by a_beorning
damned misspellings!

[StellarRat]

I am showing how old I am I loved the show when it first aired in the UK, but thothkins look how big it is, size does matter as some females say

It did some very good prognostication about the future and was ahead of it's time. Now that I'm older I'm quite amazed by some of the things they predicted: Widespread use of computers, electric cars, women in the military in command positions, etc...

[Mordobb]

a-beornings.. i aggree with you.

Can someone tell me why in the current version the pitifull foxbloat can carry only 2 missiles ?

[EchoFourDelta]

I think the two heavy and two light is a brilliant idea; I strung together a quick little edit in the aircrafts file, replicating two torpedoes/missiles in each slot, and changing up the fire rate. It works brilliantly, and it's not exactly overpowered, but it *does* give it a bit more of a "derringer" to draw and fire when its main payload of torpedoes is away. Good idea, OP.

[Lorebot]

Not exactly the OP's idea there, but thanks

[rynait]

Hello,

would like to point a few things in terms of balance-hardpoints.

someone in v16 modded in 4 cannons for foxtrot... thats right, man, four vulcan autocannons. modder tested (in version 16) proves 4x cannons extremely unbalanced (favoring player).

However v16 does not have quite good AI logistics until thier corvettes so going to be difficult to compare this with v19.5.

Been thinking that 4x heavy missle is unfair. HOwever back then with v16 discussions, I looked up real life aircrafts and missles. I noted few things

* Sidewinders [aim 9] are 86 kg [9.4 kg warhead].

* Sparrows [aim 7] and depending on mk is between 197 to 230 kg [39 kg warhead].

* Phoenix [aim 54] is over 400 kg [60 kg warhead].

sensible to add in mid weight missles... like sparrow, vympel R-23 "Nato codenamed Apex", or Magic Super 530.

in v19, sidewinder is 100 and avalanche is 200 and list it ehh... [making up] 130 damage. and put midweights on foxtrots and newer aircrafts (that is 2 heavy and 2 midweight).

bit of interesting fact, aim 4 [falcon] is lighter [54 kg] than aim 9 [sidewinder]. But aim 4 is faster, but had lowest kill rate, and carries piggly big warhead (Falcon's 1/3 weight is warhead, sidewinder had 1/10 and phoenix is 1/8).

R

[EchoFourDelta]

Derp >_>

Don't shoot me, they didn't train me to read.