Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 9

I'd be all for this.

Aim-9x in a 80s scenario you say?

I dunno the AIM54 has no counterpart so I guess its just not going to be a thing and except a few hardcore asymetric balance advocates its not going to generate much buzz.

 

 

 

Possibly also the "f14 is designed around aim54" thingy. Which is arguably true but arguably the F14 is fleet defence and we dont really do that here.

 

 

 

 

 

The aim9x debate is going to be heated because it will probably outclass the r73 and is going to be strong, even if people overhype it, so people are going to say F18 cant have it because so stronk. Then The f18 people are going to counter but the su27 has the r73 which is not that much worse. Then we will have a discussion again that the Su27 is kinda between a rock and a hard place in terms of equipment and its performance and this setup.

 

Then we have the f18 beeing outperformed flight regime, but the su27 not having its peer to peer link, which the f18 is going to have.

 

 

 

So there is a lot more explosive mass with that discussion then with the AIM54 one.

 

 

 

Gotta bookmark my post so I can pull it out on every occurance of said things in the future and brag how right I was. :megalol:

Just because a module is released doesn't mean it needs to be in BF :-).

Instead of limiting and removing all options to even them out, and castrating aircraft, how about just giving them all their toys and let them fly as intended? But make them "more expensive" to use when they pack more punch.

 

So decrease fighter lives from 3 to 2. But give them all-weapons and systems they are supposed to have. So ET, ER and Spamraam galore. Just limit them to main bases so they got to fly a bit. But let them re-arm and refuel their toys anywhere.

 

And move the Mirage from fighters, to interceptors, so grouped with the F-5 and Mig-21 (and all QRA ready, fueled and aligned on front-lines).

 

And when the F-14 hits, just give him his AIM54. And based on how it performs, decide how many lives it gets and how far the carrier is stuck. This also levels out the F-18, since the flankers got their ET's to counter the Aim9x.

And the hotly anticipated AIM-54 debate.

It's not what you say, but how you say it.

 

EDIT: Cant wait for the aim9x debate guys.

Can we keep this on topic to how we improve this round? We still have "two weeks" for this discussion.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having specialized ordnance airfields that you cannot spawn at but have to fly to is a great idea.

 

Would it be on the frontline or protected deep in your own territory? If it's on the frontline and heavily contested it has potential to cause a snowball effect for whoever gets it and allow them to steamroll the whole map. If it's in deep in each team's own territory it could present a strategic target for the opposing team, but would lengthen the time people could get back to the combat area because they'll want to get that ordnance if they get shot down...oh my god you just solved the fighter spam refueling time issue.

Well. I wasn't necessarily talking about having them spawn deep into own territory and fly half the map (empty or with small arms), to load up their toys at another base.

 

What I meant was. Move the flankers/F-15/Mig to airfields deep inside friendly territory (e.g. Anapa+Minvody and Kobuletti + Tblisi) , and allow them to load up everything they need there. But also allow them to rearm-refuel them on any of the forward bases. And have those bases populated with interceptors/strikers/helicopters.

 

Although having a "super-re-arm" base might be a good idea. It means they would have to fly a ton without refueling if the action is on the other side of the map. Because you will lose any weapons not in the airfields inventory, if you re-arm. (if i'm not mistaken, this is what was going on a while ago when red could grab ET's from the carriers, and they had to fly without refueling to Beslan to use them there. As long as they have to fly longer to compensate for having more punch. I don't mind them being able to re-arm on the frontlines. See it as a "thanks for not dying, so no more long flying" reward.

I think you guys are on to something and I like where this is going.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok...180 seconds = 2 minutes. Point still stands

You may want to use a calculator.

It's not the price to be paid. Lives are the price to be paid.

 

Modify how lives and fuel work and you will stop airquake.

 

We don't need to punish all players.

 

TJ

You're coming at it from a goal of wanting a player to reach 0 lives as the punishment for losing. That's treating the symptom...treat the cause and insist that the player not want to lose any lives and you'll see a more rewarding tactical type of gameplay from both winning and losing sides of the engagement.

You may want to use a calculator.

Oops.

I don't even understand why the red has Huey... can we take it away?

 

TJ

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No way man, advocate giving Ka-50 to Bluefor, and Gazelle to Redfor. Bluefor had Mi-8, so if removed pass it over too.

No way man, advocate giving Ka-50 to Bluefor, and Gazelle to Redfor. Bluefor had Mi-8, so if removed pass it over too.

I completely don't understand this post.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take huey away from red? Why? Last time red didn't have the huey they had no chopper pilots. Alot of red heli piots only have the huey. Don't make more guys go blue. Not sure why you would want to take the huey away from red.

Also giving Gazelle troops wouldlnt be good either. Last time blue had that, thats all they flew. Low signature and rwr to get your troops to farps maybe? Maybe that's why you want to put red into mi8s only. Should just take the L out completely and replace with more hueys. How many troop carriers did blue need today? Two wasn't enough? Hell blue had 3:1 numbers.

I completely don't understand this post.

 

TJ

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I'm advocating is to share CAS/ROFLCOPTERS. It's so close to being complete already.

Take huey away from red? Why? Last time red didn't have the huey they had no chopper pilots. Alot of red heli piots only have the huey. Don't make more guys go blue. Not sure why you would want to take the huey away from red.

The Huey is the only thing I can fly on red. If that was removed, i'd stay Blue which would make your point. I was just trying to bring light the 2 troops ship options Red has vs the 1 blue has.

The thing that I don't enjoy is, while flying a chopper, having to ID an AC based on skin vs silhouette. We have no IFF. It usually means giving up our advantage to check. My Mistral killed 2 Mi-8s today at long range. It was easy because only Red has them, same with the KA-50s. I don't believe I've killed any friendly A-10s, M2Ks, or UH-1's but I also know I haven't shot at some enemies because I couldn't tell.

Also giving Gazelle troops wouldlnt be good either. Last time blue had that, thats all they flew.

Because they could call bombers... You could solo a farp in them.

I don't get the fuzz over giving the gazelle-L troops, seeing they already lost the bomber function. And even when they had the function in the past, it was still a weighing of pro-cons every time I (and others) hopped into one. Seeing as it only does about 90kts. And the Huey with overheating currently not modeled, easily does 140. So if there was any CAS available, I would just grab the Huey as it would be way faster then spending 1.5 times the amount of time flying over to a farp, and then calling in the bomber and waiting even more. (a solo cleanup of MM59 from the MM05 Farp took a little over an hour that way), coordinated with Raptor spooling in a A-10 from Tbilisi and me spooling a Huey at the same time, we could fly over to, clean out, and capture it in 20 minutes...

Having the Gazelle-L solely serve the same role the P51 has, doesn't make any sense. No one will fly it. And having one type of helicopter for troops also limits the amount of people able to move them around.

For those who don't own the gazelle and don't know what the different models have/can do:

Gazelle M: Military version, Can fire 4 guided HOT3 Antitank missiles, controlled by a (IR) Camera system with laser.

Gazelle L: Militarized civilian version, weaker engine then the M. Can fire 8 unguided rockets + 240, 20mm rounds

Gazelle Mistral: Militarized civilian version, can fire 4 air-to-air missiles (fox-2)

All three versions don't share any weapons between them (except for a sand-filter and IR filter for the exhaust), and the M has a different panel layout in the cockpit, from the other 2 models. The L and Mistral also don't have the IR camera, but a weaker "useless" camera with more limited range. And no laser.

So having the L being a dedicated box-mover without troops, doesn't make sense. Because no-one is going to use it just for it's 8 unguided lawndarts and 240 bullets..

I completely don't understand this post.

 

TJ

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because they could call bombers... You could solo a farp in them.

 

I don't get the fuzz over giving the gazelle-L troops, seeing they already lost the bomber function. And even when they had the function in the past, it was still a weighing of pro-cons every time I (and others) hopped into one. Seeing as it only does about 90kts. And the Huey with overheating currently not modeled, easily does 140. So if there was any CAS available, I would just grab the Huey as it would be way faster then spending 1.5 times the amount of time flying over to a farp, and then calling in the bomber and waiting even more. (a solo cleanup of MM59 from the MM05 Farp took a little over an hour that way), coordinated with Raptor spooling in a A-10 from Tbilisi and me spooling a Huey at the same time, we could fly over to, clean out, and capture it in 20 minutes...

 

Having the Gazelle-L solely serve the same role the P51 has, doesn't make any sense. No one will fly it. And having one type of helicopter for troops also limits the amount of people able to move them around.

I'd go:

Mistral = bomber / crate / no troops

L = no bomber / crate / troops

M = bomber / crate / no troops

(This seems gamey. Have you looked in the back seat of and L? it's all ammo. The Mistral and M back seats are empty)

As I've said before, i'd prefer any/all choppers to call in bombers, but it's not up to me.

I'm starting to want all choppers to have bomber call capability. More choppers means more reasons to fly an F5 :)

Take huey away from red? Why? Last time red didn't have the huey they had no chopper pilots. Alot of red heli piots only have the huey. Don't make more guys go blue. Not sure why you would want to take the huey away from red.

 

Also giving Gazelle troops wouldlnt be good either. Last time blue had that, thats all they flew. Low signature and rwr to get your troops to farps maybe? Maybe that's why you want to put red into mi8s only. Should just take the L out completely and replace with more hueys. How many troop carriers did blue need today? Two wasn't enough? Hell blue had 3:1 numbers.

I think blue needs all the help they can get. The regulars play red... and I just watched RVE and AXE steam roll four air bases in the south in less than two hours. It was pretty impressive if you like 11 v 2 odds.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd go:

Mistral = bomber / crate / no troops

L = no bomber / crate / troops

M = bomber / crate / no troops

(This seems gamey. Have you looked in the back seat of and L? it's all ammo. The Mistral and M back seats are empty)

 

As I've said before, i'd prefer any/all choppers to call in bombers, but it's not up to me.

The Mistral is the only one with a back seat. So from a realism point of view it should carry troops, however you cant have that and bomber calls.

I think blue needs all the help they can get. The regulars play red... and I just watched RVE and AXE steam roll four air bases in the south in less than two hours. It was pretty impressive if you like 11 v 2 odds.

 

TJ

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't that bad for most of the work, but we did manage to whittle you guys down after a while. Drachen sure gave us a lot of trouble... until we bombed him ;)

The Mistral is the only one with a back seat. So from a realism point of view it should carry troops, however you cant have that and bomber calls.

Well, if you want to look at actual back-seats, The -M has one of those too :D

I'd be all for giving M + Mistral troops, and the -L bombers. If backseat is a requirement :D

Can someone please post up a list of Aircraft available for both sides? A buddy and me are planning on jumping in on round 10 and we want to start practicing on units we will actually be using.

Can someone please post up a list of Aircraft available for both sides? A buddy and me are planning on jumping in on round 10 and we want to start practicing on units we will actually be using.

Look on the live map - you can click on the base on the map and see what's available.

Needs work but functional :)

New feature, didn't mention here.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Can someone please post up a list of Aircraft available for both sides? A buddy and me are planning on jumping in on round 10 and we want to start practicing on units we will actually be using.

Amount of lives per 6 hours next to airframe types.

Red = Red team

Blue = Blue team

Yellow= Both teams

STANDARD - 3: F-15, Su27, Su33, Mig29, Mirage 2000

GROUND-ATTACK - 4: A-10C, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, AJS37, Ka-50

RECON - 6: L-39C, L-39ZA, Hawk (<---I don't know about these) TF-51D

TRANSPORT - 6: UH-1H, Mi-8MT, SA342Mistral, SA342L, SA342M

INTERCEPT - 4: F-5E-3, MiG-21Bis

Amount of lives per 6 hours next to airframe types.

 

Red = Red team

Blue = Blue team

Yellow= Both teams

 

STANDARD - 3: F-15, Su27, Su33, Mig29, Mirage 2000

GROUND-ATTACK - 4: A-10C, A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, AJS37, Ka-50

RECON - 6: L-39C, L-39ZA, Hawk (<---I don't know about these) TF-51D

TRANSPORT - 6: UH-1H, Mi-8MT, SA342Mistral, SA342L, SA342M

INTERCEPT - 4: F-5E-3, MiG-21Bis

Mig-21 and MI-8 are Red, blue doesn't have them.

Had some more thinking about the Full-weapons concept.

Wouldn't it be a idea if Anapa & Batumi would become BVR bases. With Flankers and F-15's, sitting cold, with 100% fuel and the option to load up any weapon they want (including 120c's and ER/ET). And them having the option to re-arm those weapons on any of the bases the coalition owns on mission start (so everything north of the mountains for red, south for blue). But limit the weapons at captured bases to the current 80s loadouts. So people can fly them when they want, with all weapons. But when pushing deep, they have to fly back a bit to get the weapons again, or they can re-arm close-by on captured Airbases, but would have to settle with the weapons we currently have in BF. And decrease the lives to 2 (or keep them on 3. depending on how it would play out).

Then move the M2000C to the interceptor group and increase the lives to 4. And have all the interceptors fueled and armed, sitting on the apron (cold, but aligned) at every base.

If you look at a map with 150nm circles from those bases. You can see they cover most of the area for defense. And everyone has to fly a bit to push forward. It's just the stuff in the east that falls out. Perhaps 2 BVR slots at Minvody/Vaziani?

This avoids all the removing of aircraft features there is currently. And doesn't leave the option to pump fuel from bags for faster fueling times, or raising your gear to do so.. etc. Everyone has to fly. And the deeper a team is pushing, the closer defending BVR cap is. Making it harder to clean-out the entire map, yet giving plenty of stuff to do in the middle. And is also a bit more futureproof for when more airframes start to land. Having F-14's and F-18's fly arround using just Aim-9's seems strange. This way people who want to fly BVR can do so, at the cost of spending extra time in the air. If their pushing, they have to RTB to the homefront to get their BVR weapons again, if they stay and re-arm locally, they get the same type of weapons the interceptors have.

I think this would be a pretty reasonable compromise for BVR aircraft. I would limit the BVR missiles to just a base or two per side and far away from the front lines. So you can get the really dangerous weapons but they come at a cost and those bases can then become valuable strike targets, maybe their fuel bunkers can be a bit more visible than the others, its very difficult to find some of them (thanks DCS).

I think this would be a pretty reasonable compromise for BVR aircraft. I would limit the BVR missiles to just a base or two per side and far away from the front lines. So you can get the really dangerous weapons but they come at a cost and those bases can then become valuable strike targets, maybe their fuel bunkers can be a bit more visible than the others, its very difficult to find some of them (thanks DCS).

Yeah this...allowing BVR weapons should be very surgical and deliberate and above all, limited. One or two bases in the back as an option to land at for BVR stuff and an option for enemies to attack is just enough.

Allowing BVR at potentially any base with a ferry flight is dangerous gameplay territory.

First thing: BVR does not mean active radar homing (ARH), it means beyond visual range. Sparrows are BVR missile just like AMRAAMs. But I guess you knew that. ;)

I could live with ARH missiles beeing available at Batumi and Anapa, as a last resort for defenders, but I dislike the idea to make them available at the front line.

Your concept would also make the current Interceptors completly useless with ARH missiles in the air and the M2000 beeing available everywhere.

So no, I don't like this idea.