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

I don't see a problem with moving the Mirage to Red only, along with the Viggen (as the harrier fulfills a similar role.) The sides may resemble America v. Europe, but that might be a welcomed change from Russia v. World.

I hadn't considered the Viggen moving over, but now that you mention it, that's kind of interesting.

Blufor:

F-18C

F-15C

F-14B

F-5E

A-4E

AV-8B

A-10C

A-10A

UH-1H

TF-51 (Recce/Transport)

Gazelle

Redfor:

JF-17 Block II

F-14A

SU-27

SU-33

MiG-29

AJS-37

Mirage 2000C

MiG-21Bis

SU-25

SU-25T

KA-50

L-39C (Recce Transport)

Mi-8

Almost an even list, and the SU-33 and SU-27 are near enough the same aircraft that Redfor being up two doesn't matter much, though Bluefor would have 9 full fidelity modules vs Redfor's 8.

I hadn't considered the Viggen moving over, but now that you mention it, that's kind of interesting.

 

Blufor:

F-18C

F-15C

F-14B

F-5E

A-4E

AV-8B

A-10C

A-10A

UH-1H

TF-51 (Recce/Transport)

Gazelle

 

Redfor:

JF-17 Block II

F-14A

SU-27

SU-33

MiG-29

AJS-37

Mirage 2000C

MiG-21Bis

SU-25

SU-25T

KA-50

L-39C (Recce Transport)

Mi-8

 

Almost an even list, and the SU-33 and SU-27 are near enough the same aircraft that Redfor being up two doesn't matter much, though Bluefor would have 9 full fidelity modules vs Redfor's 8.

Seems ok. Apart from the fact that a good bunch of the modules dont exist yet and probably wont be released too soon.

I think the recent matchup with A10 and 25T on both sides was a good compromise for everyone. Mirage on both sides was fine too (ok it was a bit annoying if you couldnt distinguish if enemy or friendly spike but in most cases you would figure that out very quick..... missile warning sound ;D). I understand there might be iff problems for the older planes but if you comunicate with your team (SR/TS) you will figure it out, different paintjobs should also solve the problem.

TF51 is a free aircraft and everyone can fly it. L39 has to be purchased and from my expierience only a few people own it. If AI fligths will be disabled (hope so) it will put one side on a bit of an advantage since theres a bigger pool of people that could fulfill the role (and i want to fly TF-51 too but not on blue ;P)

I would put Hawk/TF-51 Blue and L39C/TF-51 red.

Blue flag set up is the Mirages ideal set up, facing much weaker radar missiles they're able to control the fight. On the face of it picking the Mirage is not only because of fuel and the more enjoyment you get against FC aircraft in this scenario but mainly because it is full fidelity which adds ten fold the enjoyment. It's ticking all the boxes. Fuel balance and adding datalink may sway some but in the scheme of simming, flying full fidelity trumps all.

Maybe for you.

When I look at time to AO. Time left in server. I jump in M2000. Its not that different from FC3 planes when in a fight. Of course the better missiles helps people choose it. For Me, the full fuel is a huge advantage. If anything, it should start with no fuel and other planes have full fuel imho

Seems ok. Apart from the fact that a good bunch of the modules dont exist yet and probably wont be released too soon.

 

TF51 is a free aircraft and everyone can fly it. L39 has to be purchased and from my expierience only a few people own it. If AI fligths will be disabled (hope so) it will put one side on a bit of an advantage since theres a bigger pool of people that could fulfill the role (and i want to fly TF-51 too but not on blue ;P)

I would put Hawk/TF-51 Blue and L39C/TF-51 red.

Oh for sure this is a pie in the sky list no doubt of that. The JF-17 isn't even a recognized 3rd party, however It's my view of how I think the game would end up matching up.

I wanted to move away from any kind of mirror matchup, which is why I had separate recce/supply aircraft. In the future, I imagine a C-130 style aircraft will be created and will replace the fill in transports we have now, but that's so far in the future I didn't think it'd be worth including. You make a good point about the TF-51, though I would shy away from the Hawk being the Blufor equivalent of the L39. The Sabre might be a better choice for the Recce role in that case.

Oh for sure this is a pie in the sky list no doubt of that. The JF-17 isn't even a recognized 3rd party, however It's my view of how I think the game would end up matching up.

 

I wanted to move away from any kind of mirror matchup, which is why I had separate recce/supply aircraft. In the future, I imagine a C-130 style aircraft will be created and will replace the fill in transports we have now, but that's so far in the future I didn't think it'd be worth including. You make a good point about the TF-51, though I would shy away from the Hawk being the Blufor equivalent of the L39. The Sabre might be a better choice for the Recce role in that case.

DCS could be so awesome if only you could wish for modules and they would suddenly appear ;D

I like that idea. But if a Free to Play airplane gets an important role it should be available for both sides. Also 25T should be on both sides. You can argue about the A10C but in the current matchup of planes it should be placed on both sides. It is a very common module and in my opinion a way better ground attack aircraft than the 25T. In some cases even a better sead plane^^

DCS could be so awesome if only you could wish for modules and they would suddenly appear ;D

 

I like that idea. But if a Free to Play airplane gets an important role it should be available for both sides. Also 25T should be on both sides. You can argue about the A10C but in the current matchup of planes it should be placed on both sides. It is a very common module and in my opinion a way better ground attack aircraft than the 25T. In some cases even a better sead plane^^

I'm strongly against the 25T being included on Blufor. While yes it is a common module as it's free, its inclusion on Blufor is solely due to it being the only SEAD aircraft. When the Hornet comes out, that role will be taken over by the F-18, and the A-10A and A-10C can fill the precision ground attack role. The Community A-4E will also be a free module and can fill the ground strike role as the free Striker.

@Tirak,

The list you provided for a US Vs Euro conflict is indeed the best short term fix for Blueflags if Blue gets the 14/18/AV8.

The AJS37 does provide the only true anti ship ability in game and when the hornet is in it will also have that ability. Until the JF17,JH7 or Tu22m3 come on line "If ever".

I am all for it, I hope by the time we get that full line up, Blue flags can have a scenario where Blue starts as a naval task force with zero ground bases and have to invade coastal airbases. That will be an amazing version of blue flags a mix between anti ship missiles naval cap, and LHD based insertions.

@mia389

Its not the m2000 issue that it has fuel, But the FC3 aircraft do not, I think that system is obsolete now which the idea was to balance it with CAS, It does not work any more to fix its intended reason and thats to stop aircraft from spawning and taking off, simply the f15 can take tanks and the su27 has fuel already at 30%.

With the limitations of life pools now on standard aircraft's, I think FC3 getting full tanks or even 70%~80% tanks will simply reduce the down time of the game aspect, which is a good thing. I want to fight more people in the sky, Having people on the ground alt tabbed for 10min to fly for another 10min is Really a bad overall effect on a server with limited slots, and limited time, and limited lives.

@mia389

 

Its not the m2000 issue that it has fuel, But the FC3 aircraft do not, I think that system is obsolete now which the idea was to balance it with CAS, It does not work any more to fix its intended reason and thats to stop aircraft from spawning and taking off, simply the f15 can take tanks and the su27 has fuel already at 30%.

 

With the limitations of life pools now on standard aircraft's, I think FC3 getting full tanks or even 70%~80% tanks will simply reduce the down time of the game aspect, which is a good thing. I want to fight more people in the sky, Having people on the ground alt tabbed for 10min to fly for another 10min is Really a bad overall effect on a server with limited slots, and limited time, and limited lives.

Agreed. And now it's just Mirage v Mirage because people are so tired of waiting for fuel. The notion that putting empty tanks and making people wait seven mins to refuel would keep people from respawning quickly went out the door the minute the Mirage was given full fuel. Now we just have majority of all air superiority as Mirage v Mirage.

Would it honestly hurt BlueFlag to try fc3 with full fuel? Or at the least to half the fuel time and make the Mirage refuel too? Could we give this a try?

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I love the idea of Europe v America. And America starting on ships and having to fight their way inland. I just think we are still two weeks* from that being a reality.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah the starting on ships idea seems like a very interesting scenario.

Can already think of things like helos setting up farps IF they can reach land.

Mirage/Vigen going to red I'd be fine with. As for the current situation all I care about is it should take all the fighters roughly the same time to get airborne. If that means one empty, full, or half so be it.

I dont fly fighters much but when I've been bored and wanted to I almost fell asleep waiting for my 15 to fuel up. Didn't know about the fuel tanks trick.

 

Would it honestly hurt BlueFlag to try fc3 with full fuel? Or at the least to half the fuel time and make the Mirage refuel too? Could we give this a try?

 

TJ

 

I am pretty sure, and we talked about it with in RVE. that Fuel for FC3 aircraft will have a very negligible effect.

Taking an Air Base is a large task, and spawning under CAS and CAP pretty much means you will 90% get killed and IF you somehow make it and stop the assault Then you deserve the win. Its really only a limitation to that scenario and that scenario alone. Now take that scenario and putting people to sleep for refueling for 98% of the game play. Yeah its not worth using it any more as i Said 80% Fuel or 80% will put them on par with DCS grade aircraft. And thats all that is needed.

And now closing an air base is easy, targets are limited. So that always needs to be the goal. and closing an Airbase is the true effective mean of stopping spawn take offs. Along with limited lives if people want to waste the limited lives on spawning under fire then thats their option.

I am pretty sure, and we talked about it with in RVE. that Fuel for FC3 aircraft will have a very negligible effect.

Sure wouldn't hurt! Why give the plane with a the best missiles in this setup no re spawn time? Either make it refuel like every other plane or give the other birds fuel.

Sure wouldn't hurt! Why give the plane with a the best missiles in this setup no re spawn time? Either make it refuel like every other plane or give the other birds fuel.

It does not have the best missile, The R27 and AIm7m both should in theory outperform it, the Issue is that the FM of most "standard" DCS missiles is quite horrible and has been discussed in length. ED dis state that missile FM will be looked at again when they fix the explosion effects at around DCS 2.5. "Overall the entire weapon and damage modeling in DCS is showing its age, Even the Super can not escape those issues"

Also the M2k has some significant issues with its radar, which wont be fixed till thew radar code base is in DCS, it can easily lose lock on targets that are under 3-4 miles. And the MagicII is simply out classed by the Aim9M in range and CM resistance and the R73 in range and maneuverability.

I agree that FC3 should not have to fuel from zero, and as i said 90 to 80% will be just perfect.

It does not have the best missile, The R27 and AIm7m both should in theory outperform it, the Issue is that the FM of most "standard" DCS missiles is quite horrible and has been discussed in length. ED dis state that missile FM will be looked at again when they fix the explosion effects at around DCS 2.5. "Overall the entire weapon and damage modeling in DCS is showing its age, Even the Super can not escape those issues"

 

It is not just the guidance issues and cm rejection which make the FC missiles weaker but the speed of the 530D which is much faster than the R-27R and AIM-7M, Mach 4.5 vs Mach3. And besides I think guidance problems affect all missiles.

When you close an objective, it spawns troops that you must kill before your troops can capture. Thy are VERY hard to find and it adds some enjoyment as they've been known to take out some Helos with their small arms fire.

 

Also, make sure you are taking standard troops. Mortars and the antitank can no longer capture objectives.

 

TJ

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, used standard troops. We laid waste to EVERYTHING at the fuel base...vehicles, troops, buildings/antennas. It said "closed" twice over the hour we had been trying.

Not like its a big deal but why can't anti-tank troops take a base? I get mortar troops being excluded.

Maybe I'm looking at it because I secretly wish when a base was closed a few jeeps and troops spawned as base security in a last ditch effort on the points part. Then anti-tank would be useful.

It is not just the guidance issues and cm rejection which make the FC missiles weaker but the speed of the 530D which is much faster than the R-27R and AIM-7M, Mach 4.5 vs Mach3. And besides I think guidance problems affect all missiles.

Yep, though I know that the Aim7M us a Mach4 missile, and IIRC the R27 as well. The FM of standard missiles in DCS, and In general weapons in DCS is showing its age, There are so many other eliminates that are missing aside from a proper FM, but G tolerance, drag, ground clutter effects and much more. The Super When it was first introduced used the same method as the standard DCS missiles and it was basically between broken and useless. The Devs tuned the missile to fit its RL envelope.

I am pretty sure, and we talked about it with in RVE. that Fuel for FC3 aircraft will have a very negligible effect.

 

 

 

Taking an Air Base is a large task, and spawning under CAS and CAP pretty much means you will 90% get killed and IF you somehow make it and stop the assault Then you deserve the win. Its really only a limitation to that scenario and that scenario alone. Now take that scenario and putting people to sleep for refueling for 98% of the game play. Yeah its not worth using it any more as i Said 80% Fuel or 80% will put them on par with DCS grade aircraft. And thats all that is needed.

 

 

 

Agreed!

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we please turn off the all seeing eye F10 map setting when dead? It's destroying all gameplay.

I fear that all these changes and unintended behaviors are going to turn a lot of people away.

Yea... As soon as you die, all you have to do is press F10 and it shows ALL enemy/friendly units... And I know for a fact that it is being used by EVERYONE, all you have to do is use it yourself and notice everyone homing in on enemy units with pin point precision. It is entirely ruining the game play on blueflag and pretty much all my group is in accord that there is no point to play on the server with that nonsense enabled. This needs to be fixed ASAP.

putting people to sleep for refueling for 98% of the game play.

It takes what, 5 minutes to refuel? If 5 minutes is 98% of anyone's game time (5 minutes and 6 seconds total game time) then I'm not sure DCS, let alone Blue Flag, is the type of game they should be playing.

It takes what, 5 minutes to refuel? If 5 minutes is 98% of anyone's game time (5 minutes and 6 seconds total game time) then I'm not sure DCS, let alone Blue Flag, is the type of game they should be playing.

I dont run an egg timer when I refuel but it sure seems like more than 5 minutes when I do it. Think I've actually played through a couple of songs while refueling in a 15.

It takes what, 5 minutes to refuel? If 5 minutes is 98% of anyone's game time (5 minutes and 6 seconds total game time) then I'm not sure DCS, let alone Blue Flag, is the type of game they should be playing.

Sorry my English failed me there "3rd language", What i mean by that is refueling only effects very rare situations "2%", for the rest of the game play refueling is just a mundane task. More so that "FC3 and standard aircraft's" start from the back and refueling has a place when taking on fuel at forward locations.

Makes sense?

Sorry my English failed me there "3rd language", What i mean by that is refueling only effects very rare situations "2%", for the rest of the game play refueling is just a mundane task. More so that "FC3 and standard aircraft's" start from the back and refueling has a place when taking on fuel at forward locations.

 

Makes sense?

Traveling 130nm to get to something to shoot down is such a mundane task, too. Let's move all the opposing bases closer together so we can just get right back to spamming missiles at each other after we get shot down, because **** penalties for being bested by another player, I want my action. Right?

Full fuel and fourth gen aircraft pushed right out to the outskirts of the map is what i'd like to see. Transitioning from one base to a more forward one gives justification to refuelling and just feels right, less airquake and more mission planning. Therefore instant action happens in the MiG21 and F5, it's win, win in my book.

Blue flag shouldn't be about 4th gen vs 4th gen there are other servers for that. If you can't handle a bit of transit then you're in the wrong server. This is the sort of mission style that has been lost and replaced with quick action gaming, people just can't wait to get shotdown rather than concentrate on mission specifics such as CAP and escort they choose to go all out 1 v many.