Detection system overhaul

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Detection system overhaul

      What do you guys think about a overhaul to the way scouting and stealth works in this game? I personally find it very unusual and complicated. Some radar signatures (such as HIGH rotary wing and LOW Naval) are underutilized while units like the elite attack helicopter are undetectable and AIP subs are because of the way stealth works. I don’t know if this is intentional on the dev’s part, but it hurts my brain

      What if it was like this instead:

      Units can have one of three scouting attributes: Low, Med, High. These apply for land, air and sea independently.


      What these represent is the altitude or stealth of a unit. It would be like this.

      Air:
      High means very high altitude (50,000+ feet)
      Med means at average altitude (10,000ft)
      Low means flying low or NOE
      Silent means flying quietly

      Sea:
      High means a surface ship
      Med means submerged underwater
      Low means submerged deep underwater
      Silent means submerged and hidden

      Land:
      High means a large vehicle like MBT, TDS, MRLS etc
      Med means IFVs, SAMs, Mobile radar
      Low means infantry and small vehicles like CRV and Tank Destroyer
      Silent means hidden, such as special forces hiding in a forest

      A helicopter gunship, for example can be Low (Air)
      These attributes refer to the units altitude or depth relative to their environment. They are affected by the unit type and environment. A standard infantry unit can see Air (Low), Land (Low) and Sea (High), representing their ability to detect low flying helicopters, approaching armies, and distant surface ships. The values here fluctuate based on the units current actions. A attack sub will go from Low to Med when entering shallow water. An AIP sub will go from Silent to High when launching a cruise missile. Special forces will go from Low to Silent when stopping in a terrain such as Jungle.

      Certain stealth units will become harder to detect than others. SSF will expose themselves and be easy prey when attacking ground units (dropping from Med to Low, and suddenly being visible to all the infantry), while Stealth bombers will be a pain to find at all

      Or maybe, instead of an overhaul, we can add small fixes to change game balance.

      -AIP subs are completely invisible when not moving. They are exposed when launching cruise missile, engaging in combat with units or with espionage

      -Special forces can hide in certain terrains, making them immune to UAV spotting and allowing enemy armies to pass through them. Moving, attacking or being exposed by CRV or espionage will reveal them

      -Mobile radar and AWACS detect stealth heli


      Let me know if you think something like this could be viable, and if not what changes would you suggest, or do you think the current system is fine where it is?
      Yee Haw
    • I once suggested something similar, though only for air units:

      Bombers are late game units with an heavy focus on infantry damage, which is pretty pointless in late game. Late game units are mostly armored.
      Sure, they have a fucking huge range, but this makes them also extremely vulnerable to interception and drastically lowers 'attack frequency', giving them extremely kow damage per hour.


      As Opulon pointed out, the only thing good that remains is using them as CM hubs, but CMs are not that strong in late game, at least against well prepared player and even then I would probably only use stealth bombers for far remote actions.


      To make Bombers interesting and viable, I suspect a rework of air combat would be needed.

      Currently aircrafts and heavy aircrafts have different symbols but in regards of game play mechanics, they are interchangeable. So the distinction does not really make that much sense.
      As I once discussed with Opulon, a distinction between low, medium and high altitude aircrafts might help to make units like heavy aircrafts more interesting.
      Hear are some quick examples out of my mind, not sure how well balanced they are:


      Examples for Air units
      Choppers: are low altitude units, most ground units can defend quite well against them
      Air superiority: would be considered low altitude, while attacking ground units, but medium/high altitude while patroling/flying
      Strike fighters: are medium altitude units in regards of aircombat and ground combat
      Bombers: high altitude units, most ground units would not be able to defend against them
      Naval patrol: similar to Bombers, which would give it some usefullness back


      Examples for Anti-air units
      Anti-missile capabilities would remain the same.
      MAAV: strong vs low, weak vs med, useless vs high
      SAM: useless vs low, strong vs med, weak vs high
      TDS: useless vs low, weak vs med, weak vs high
      Frigate: useless vs low, strong vs med, strong vs high (or weak vs high, not sure)
      Cruiser: strong vs low, weak vs med, useless vs high


      Effect for Radar-units
      Radar: unable to see high altitude units
      AWACs: gets ability to swith between altitude: medium altitude, detects ground units, high alitude, does not detect ground units (or very low range)
    • Interesting suggestion

      Kalrakh wrote:

      I once suggested something similar, though only for air units:

      Bombers are late game units with an heavy focus on infantry damage, which is pretty pointless in late game. Late game units are mostly armored.
      Sure, they have a fucking huge range, but this makes them also extremely vulnerable to interception and drastically lowers 'attack frequency', giving them extremely kow damage per hour.


      As Opulon pointed out, the only thing good that remains is using them as CM hubs, but CMs are not that strong in late game, at least against well prepared player and even then I would probably only use stealth bombers for far remote actions.


      To make Bombers interesting and viable, I suspect a rework of air combat would be needed.

      Currently aircrafts and heavy aircrafts have different symbols but in regards of game play mechanics, they are interchangeable. So the distinction does not really make that much sense.
      As I once discussed with Opulon, a distinction between low, medium and high altitude aircrafts might help to make units like heavy aircrafts more interesting.
      Hear are some quick examples out of my mind, not sure how well balanced they are:


      Examples for Air units
      Choppers: are low altitude units, most ground units can defend quite well against them
      Air superiority: would be considered low altitude, while attacking ground units, but medium/high altitude while patroling/flying
      Strike fighters: are medium altitude units in regards of aircombat and ground combat

      I think they would both become low on attack, seeing how they need to dive down to their targets, especially early game models armed with bombs and rocket pods


      Bombers: high altitude units, most ground units would not be able to defend against them
      Naval patrol: similar to Bombers, which would give it some usefullness back

      This. These units are very, very high in the sky. There is no way infantry is going to deal damage back to them, even with MANPADS.


      Examples for Anti-air units
      Anti-missile capabilities would remain the same.
      MAAV: strong vs low, weak vs med, useless vs high


      SAM: useless vs low, strong vs med, weak vs high



      TDS: useless vs low, weak vs med, weak vs high

      This one I feel should be strong vs high. High flying targets is the bread and butter of these units. Especially when you consider the med units are usually fast moving fighters and the high ones are slow moving fortresses in comparison. It is the most logical option, and would prevent a situation of bombers suddenly becoming untouchable.


      Frigate: useless vs low, strong vs med, strong vs high (or weak vs high, not sure)

      I would make the frigate strong vs low and weak vs high. Remember that the frigate is in the ocean, and helicopters cannot hope to hide in this environment like they can in mountains. The frigate will see them. As for the high, I’m not sure, though I could see it starting useless vs high and getting better as it levels up


      Cruiser: strong vs low, weak vs med, useless vs high


      Effect for Radar-units
      Radar: unable to see high altitude units

      Don’t see the realism in this one. Altitude doesn’t have much of an effect on the effectiveness of radar unless they are very low. The Soviets starting observing U2s on radar in the early 1960s long before they could reach them. Instead here is what I would do. All high altitude aircraft are “stealth” but have a HIGH radar signal (unless they are actually stealth). This means that when they fly over your country you cannot see them, but if you have Mobile radar or other radar in your country you will see their ping overhead. This is realistic, as people on the ground cannot simply observe high altitude aircraft flying at 50,000+ feet.


      AWACs: gets ability to swith between altitude: medium altitude, detects ground units, high alitude, does not detect ground units (or very low range)
      I don’t think this one is necessary. I would see it fit much better on the UAV in game. It could switch between all 3 altitudes with different effects:
      Low- Reveals exact army composition in sight range, as well as province buildings and stealth units. Useful for aerial reconnaissance in combat to support troops, but extremely vulnerable to any anti air or fighters
      Medium- Observes armies in sight range, revealing their origin and type but not what they are or how many. Also reveals province buildings. Useful to scout territories for intel or in anticipation of a coming battle without being too vulnerable
      High- Only reveals province buildings. Safest and least effective mode for learning about potential enemies without risking war


      Overall, some tweaking of these systems could make them very viable. One way they could handle bombers specifically could be like this:
      Bombers in real life provide CAS to infantry with the help of other planes. It could be made so that they can only target province centers on their own, but need some sort of scout such as a CRV or AWACS to target units. This prevents people from obliterating units from 5000 distance away without any consequences. If someone is losing units to bomber squadrons, but they can’t reach those bombers yet, they know now to find the scout helping them and destroy it. As they upgrade their SAMs to target them, or research TDS it becomes less of a problem.


      I wonder how they would be organized though. The creation of a Heavy damage type should be enough, as the classes of Helicopters, Fighters and Heavies would be Low, Med, and High respectively
      Yee Haw
    • Frigate es are supposed to be weak against choppers by game balancing. I just did not change that fact. Also you can still fly deep over the sea. If waves are high that can hide you, like reflection radar somewhere else and make it hard to spot you. Also the guns of a frigate might not have the angle to shoot that low.

      The realism of altitude is the range. Altitude is also a range difference like the difference between A and B on the ground. Radars do not have endless range on the ground, so why should they have endless reach into the air? The bigger the distance the more likely the signals goes astray.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Frigate es are supposed to be weak against choppers by game balancing. I just did not change that fact.

      You got a point here.


      Also you can still fly deep over the sea. If waves are high that can hide you, like reflection radar somewhere else and make it hard to spot you.

      If the helicopter is flying so low that the waves are higher there is probably a significant chance a wave would hit the heli and sink it. The guns will also be elevated above the water making it easier to spot and shoot down. This would also have to count on the waves being that high in the first place, which would depend on the weather conditions and such


      Also the guns of a frigate might not have the angle to shoot that low.


      Possibly, but some frigates will be using SAM launchers as well

      The realism of altitude is the range. Altitude is also a range difference like the difference between A and B on the ground. Radars do not have endless range on the ground, so why should they have endless reach into the air? The bigger the distance the more likely the signals goes astray.


      Note that the reach of normal radars is limited by the curvature of the Earth. The Soviet P-40 radar system has a range of 230 miles. Assuming the radar radius looks like a bubble, you could say that is 230 miles horizontally and vertically of detection. But here is the problem: 230 miles upwards translate to 1,214,400 feet, while the highest a plane can fly is just above 70,000 feet. From the perspective of space, the atmosphere of the Earth looks very thin. This is also a crappy old Soviet radar I am talking about. No hope at all that a non-stealth plane could hide itself from the radar, especially AWACS flying at 30,000 feet. Theoretically, since the atmosphere ceiling is not far at all compared to the horizontal range, you could say that the radars can endlessly reach into the air.

      I am no radar expert, though. I know for certain the Soviets were tracking U2s (flying at 70,000 feet) since the mid 1960s with their radars, so I doubt height would be an issue in modern setting.
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Frigate es are supposed to be weak against choppers by game balancing. I just did not change that fact.

      You got a point here.


      Also you can still fly deep over the sea. If waves are high that can hide you, like reflection radar somewhere else and make it hard to spot you.

      If the helicopter is flying so low that the waves are higher there is probably a significant chance a wave would hit the heli and sink it. The guns will also be elevated above the water making it easier to spot and shoot down. This would also have to count on the waves being that high in the first place, which would depend on the weather conditions and such


      Also the guns of a frigate might not have the angle to shoot that low.


      Possibly, but some frigates will be using SAM launchers as well

      The realism of altitude is the range. Altitude is also a range difference like the difference between A and B on the ground. Radars do not have endless range on the ground, so why should they have endless reach into the air? The bigger the distance the more likely the signals goes astray.


      Note that the reach of normal radars is limited by the curvature of the Earth. The Soviet P-40 radar system has a range of 230 miles. Assuming the radar radius looks like a bubble, you could say that is 230 miles horizontally and vertically of detection. But here is the problem: 230 miles upwards translate to 1,214,400 feet, while the highest a plane can fly is just above 70,000 feet. From the perspective of space, the atmosphere of the Earth looks very thin. This is also a crappy old Soviet radar I am talking about. No hope at all that a non-stealth plane could hide itself from the radar, especially AWACS flying at 30,000 feet. Theoretically, since the atmosphere ceiling is not far at all compared to the horizontal range, you could say that the radars can endlessly reach into the air.

      I am no radar expert, though. I know for certain the Soviets were tracking U2s (flying at 70,000 feet) since the mid 1960s with their radars, so I doubt height would be an issue in modern setting.

      Chopper are still considered immune to anykind of missile weapons like SAMs offer them. ;)

      Yeah, maybe, I expected them to fly muchhigher. Honestly I'm not not so uptodate in this stuff.
      But we are still talking about CON as a game, so it is more about balancing and less about realism.
    • Generally if you want to avoid radar in the 21st century flying NOE (nap of earth) is your only chance. This includes sea: Radar is reflected of waves and can hide low flying aircraft.
      Modern air doctrines all focus on low altitude - this includes bombers. Just because we always see high flying aircraft in the news doesn't mean that's how they are used in spearheading an attack.
      Remember that for the last 50+ years the US always has had air superiority over the battlefield - that changes the picture.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I think first the navy must get units with low naval radar sign.
      In the moment without a naval unit with low radar sign and some units they can detect this signs the system is not complete.
      „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)