V19 SC2: are Foxtrots now totally useless?

[Dranak]

Maybe as well as buffing torp damage and large UFO HP, we should also buff the foxtrot speed and the corsair speed. That way, if you try flying with condors you're kinda stuck going rather slowly, but if you've upgraded to corsairs you can go really fast.

If you're going Condor heavy, their speed is largely irrelevant as long as they're still fast enough to outfly alien heavy ships. Especially if you're using guns to kill alien fighters, which limits you to one sortie per wave anyway.

[Isu]

Double the damage of the torps, and double the HP of the larger ships. Simple fix.

This way the foxtrot is significantly better at destroying the larger ships than the dogfighters without nerfing anything.

Personally, I'd rather see the Foxtrot become more generally useful, rather than just see the Condor be (effectively) nerfed. What would you think about Foxtrots with an extra pair of light missile points? That way, they could be used as 'standoff' interceptors against light ships and gain a modest damage boost against large ones.

Note that I've only been playing since v19, so I have no idea what they were like previously.

[OhNoItsNot]

I don't know if it would make them too powerful but foxtrots with two light missiles that have to be light and two torps that have to be torps would seem like a good solution. Or if that's too good maybe just three missile hardpoints? Not sure if that would make them too strong against heavier ships though.

[drohne1673]

beside of the numbers. Why on earth would you build a fighter without a mounted gun? The basic air combat if you are not actively try to get lucky with your 2 rockets/torpedos the gun is the most effective weapon, isnt it? Why cant we give the foxtrott a high cal mounted gun, or remove it from the early game as it already was suggested.

I could not find many hints that there are samples in the real world where fighters did not have guns, especially in the time this game is playing (1970+). Correct me if i am wrong please.

[Elydo]

Actually the Americans tried removing guns from fighters after missile technology progressed to the point that the prevailing school of thought was that aerial combat would be accomplished at long range, making guns superfluous.

It didn't work out that way. Generally most attempts to assume how war will manifest due to advances in weapons technology are wrong. On the other hand, the trait of 'preparing to fight the last war' will also end up screwing you.

[Max_Caine]

This wiki article on dogfighting makes for useful reading.

[rynait]

hello,

per drohne

I could not find many hints that there are samples in the real world where fighters did not have guns, especially in the time this game is playing (1970+). Correct me if i am wrong please.

remember in the game xenopedia, Mig 31 'foxtrot' is an interceptor, not fighter.

with RL facts;

Those 1970's interceptors was designed without guns and were rushed into production because of era shift introducing Jet-strato type bombers and ICBM. also interceptors was designed to carry 400 kg plus missles.

and at same time fighters still use guns-cannon until Mid 1980. Those aging fighters went through modernization-upgrade had their guns replaced with big radar and weighted ballast.

R

[mikokami]

Hi!

I also think that the aircombat minigame needs some further love! Here are my thoughts:

I expect the Avalanche torpedos to be modified Harpoon missles. So they should be way more devastating than a simple Sidewinder against light alien vessels, also the larger UFOs should have way stronger armor, reducing incoming missle damage by 90%. This is because bigger UFOs tend to be more like flying ships fittet for space flight and atmospheric entry, rather than agile dogfighting aircraft. So you need a anti-ship missle and not a anti-aircraft missle, they cant do the job with their little warheads. In return hitting a dogfighter alien vessel with a Avalanche torpedo is as hard as hitting a thermal exhaust port on a deathstar.

Also here some facts ...

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Speed : 1.470 km/h (400 m/s)

Range : 4.220 km

Hardpoints : M61 Vulcan rotary autocannon, six AIM-9 Sidewinder* or two AIM-9 Sidewinder* and two Harpoon** missles

F-17 Condor modified against alien vessels

Speed : 1.500 km/h (415 m/s)

Range : 15.000 km

Hardpoints : XCOM autocannon, two XCOM Sidewinder*

MiG-31 Foxhound

Speed : 2.870 km/h (800 m/s)

Range : 3.800 km

Hardpoints : GSh-6-23 rotary autocannon, four Vympel R-33***

MiG-32 Foxtrot modified against alien vessels

Speed : 2.500 km/h (700 m/s)

Range : 20.000 km

Hardpoints : Two XCOM Avalanche** torpedos

*AIM-9 Sidewinder

Warhead weight : 9,4 kg

Speed : 3.000 km/h (833 m/s)

XCOM Sidewinder

Damage : 100

Speed : 3000 km/h (833 m/s)

Turnrate : 30 deg/s

Fire Range & Lockon : 3.000 m, 2s Radiationseeking

Modified XCOM Sidewinder

Damage against light armor : 100

Damage against heavy armor : 10

Speed : 3000 km/h (833 m/s)

Turnrate : 30 deg/s

Fire Range & Lockon : 3.000 m, 2s Radiationseeking

** Harpoon missle

Warhead weight : 221 kg

Speed : 860 km/h (240 m/s)

XCOM Avalanche torpedo

Damage : 200

Speed 8.000 km/h (2220 m/s)

Turnrate : 5 deg/s

Fire Range & Lockon : 7.000 m, 2s Active Radar

Modified XCOM Avalanche Torpedo

Damage against light armor : 2.000

Damage against heavy armor : 200

Speed : 1.460 km/h (400 m/s)

Turnrate : 5 deg/s

Fire Range & Lockon : 10.000 m, 2s Active Radar

*** Vympel R-33

Warhead weight : 47,5 kg

Speed : 5.500 km/h (1.500 m/s)

Advanced new XCOM Missle based on Vympel R-33

Damage against light armor : 400

Damage against heavy armor : 40

Speed : 5.500 km/h (1.500 m/s)

Turnrate : 15 deg/s

Fire Range & Lockon : 7.500 m, 2s Halfactive Radar

[rynait]

Hello

but surface/ship moves slowly compared to propreller aircrafts, and big "alien" ships that you point out to, is faster than that.

now xenopedia states avalanche torps is derived from AIM 54 Phoenix, thus Vympel R-33 is nearest comparable prior to 1979. I also tossing in the AIM 7 'Sparrow' and AGM 88 'Harm' to prove differences.

here your RL missle specs.

year model-mfg warhead kg speed--range [km]--weight [kg] homing

1959 AIM-7 Sparrow 20 kg abf mach 2.5 --10 --230 kg sarh

1976 AIM-7F 39 kg abf mach 4-- 70-- 231 kg sarh

1974-2004 AIM-54 Phoenix usa 61 kg HE mach 5 -- 212-- 462 kg SARH & AR

1972 AIM-54b [failures] =without homing coolants

1977 AIM-54c =digitial SARH capable of shooting down missle-rockets

1979 Vympel R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') 47.5 kg HE frag mach 4.5 -- 228 -- 490 kg AR

1979 AGM 84 'Harpoon' 211 kg HE Shpe mach .8 -- 185 -- 551 kg AR [sea 'skipping' altutitude = 910 m]

1963 AGM 45 'Shrike' 67.5 BF mach 1.5 -- 25 -- 117.06 PAR [Lofted altitude]

1985 AGM 88 'Harm' 66 kg BF mach 2.7 -- 106 -- 355 kg PAR/AR [Lofted altitude]

[AGM 84 harpoon's ranges is reliant on aircraft's altitutde, max possible range with B-52 bomber shown]

This chart proves few things;

A) the AGM missles are slow.

B) AGM is gravity dependent, can not climb nor maintain level altitude.

C) AGM ratio weight-explosive-range is heavy. AIM-7 'sparrow' is heaviest ratio, dismal kills rate.

D) AGM had short ranges vs AIM or vympel.

E) from AGM sources, launch has to be +/- 3 degree on target. [ie must have aircraft lined up prior to launch]

draw your own conclusion.

R

xenopedia did not say what differed between avalanche and phoenix, I assume is the homing replacement as indicated with the xeno-sidewinder

Edited September 16, 2013 by rynait
note xenopedia....

[StellarRat]

You all forgot the most important missile: AIM-120 AMRAAM. Not in the right time frame though. The AIM-7 was an unreliable POS. AIM-54 basically has no combat record. The once or twice it was used in combat it missed. The only ones on the list that were proven in combat were the Sidewinders and the AGM series and maybe the AA-9.

Edited September 16, 2013 by StellarRat

[rynait]

Hello

per StellarRat,

lack of reported kills is because F14 is only aircraft capable to use 54 {this is naval interceptor and reconnaise}. [btw there is reported kills with 54 during Iran and Iraq war, but information is not given]. F18A/B did not have the specialized 54 support electronics.

When AIM120 AMRAAM is introduced, F18 C/D can use because of existing IFF electronics {required to support BVR capability} [little sidenote, the IFF was introduced with F111 and YF-12 which is cancelled anyway], Later NATO aircrafts got their upgrades with IFF electronics. Maybe F14 was somewhat capable of carrying 120 without upgrade.

here amraam RL specs...

1991 AIM-120 AMRAAM usa [nato] 23/18 kg mach 4 -- 70/105 -- 345kg BVR AR

Well whole lot different beast (looking at heavy ratio, 120 is lighter than 54).

R

Edited September 16, 2013 by rynait
correction to which aircrafts...

[StellarRat]

The AMRAAM would be the perfect weapon for the Condor (and maybe even the Fox), but it's not in the right time range. One thing that is not listed in your specs is the type of warhead. The AMRAAM has a annular blast warhead that is more effective than the previous types. The AIM-54 was not designed to attack nimble aircraft, it was a very large missile made to destroy large Soviet anti-ship bombers before they got into range to launch their anti-ship missiles. Since there is no combat record to speak of, it's hard to say how well it would have worked. However, if it was a good design it would definitely be the best weapon against large alien ships (given that there are not other choices.)

[Elydo]

Rather than trying to use air-to-air missiles of any yield, it would probably make more sense to adapt anti-ship missiles like the Penguin or Exocet for capital ship targets.

[Ishantil]

I disagree, the anti-ship weapons are designed to hit slow moving targets, whereas the AIM-54 was designed to at least hit aircraft. I think it's the right platform. Given the altered timeline, the bugs in the system would be rapidly worked out of the system if it failed in combat. Especially on a small scale.

[rynait]

Hello,

Stellar is correct, AIM-120 is ABF, sorry I did not include that info.

Little correction for Stellar, AIM-54 was designed against all kind of bombers and ICBM, not "anti-ship" only. Because of USA's rule of enagement with AIM-54 for nuclear-launch deterrent. Soviet did not launch their nukes against USA, therefore no reported kills.

Iraq-Iran had their version rule of enagement [different], thus did report their kills with 54 [unknown how many was launched].

If we disregard the "starting year" in the game, My selection would be to replace all warheads in Vympel R-37, Novator KS-172, 'modernized' hybrid AIM 47 and AIM 54/120 (aim 54/120 had best electronics and 47 had best weight ratio), and hybrid AIM 9 [not decide what based on].

With atmospheric entry causes surface mass to reach hot plasma state, and our space program had to use fragile ceramics or ablative shield. Looking at xenonaut's crashed ships looked like "bare" skin; thus imagining heat and melt resistant alloy. HE warhead depends on molten metal flinging... thus I would remove those warhead and replace with varants of HE shpe, ABF and BF warheads.

R

[Ishantil]

The blast fragmentation warheads of the time probably wouldn't work very well against the UFOs. I think that a shaped charge would probably work best.

[StellarRat]

You might be right Ish.

What I can't understand is how the AtA missiles can down a UFO, but none of the Xenonaut land weapons can damage one (except at the hatch of course.) That makes zero sense to me. Even tiny Sidewinder warhead can down a UFO, but our tanks with laser cannons, missiles and whatever else are ineffective? Makes NO sense to me. In the OG, the demo charge and quite a few of the weapons could breach a UFO ANYWHERE.

[rynait]

Hello,

Stellar are you talking about shoulder launched rockets and Hunter rockets?

R

[StellarRat]

Hello,

Stellar are you talking about shoulder launched rockets and Hunter rockets?

R

And the Hunter Laser Cannon...I don't think UFO's can be penetrated anywhere but the hatches by ground weapons of any type.

[Ishantil]

I believe that's actually a limitation in how the implemented the graphics for the UFOs. They aren't tiles like they are in X-COM, but an actual whole graphic.

In the original X-COM game, if memory serves, the only way you could use unmodified weapons to damage the outer casing of a UFO was to hit it with a blaster launcher.

[StellarRat]

I believe that's actually a limitation in how the implemented the graphics for the UFOs. They aren't tiles like they are in X-COM, but an actual whole graphic.

In the original X-COM game, if memory serves, the only way you could use unmodified weapons to damage the outer casing of a UFO was to hit it with a blaster launcher.

I think the plasma cannon and demo charges could also open a hole in the hull, but it took more hits.

[Ishantil]

I've always wanted to make my own door in a UFO in Xenonauts.

[MrPyro]

I think the plasma cannon and demo charges could also open a hole in the hull, but it took more hits.

I don't remember ever piercing the outer hull with anything other than a blaster bomb; internal walls were definitely vulnerable to plasma fire.

I've always assumed that the aircraft weapons didn't do much to the primary hull, but did enough damage to control surfaces etc. that the UFO was unable to maintain stable flight and so crashed; the majority of the damage to the aircraft being from impact with the ground.

[rynait]

Hello,

well, cant say much about the disprenancy.

R