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

AFAIK even Eagle Dynamics is working on a "GARMIN" navigation system which will be added as an option to most modules. Hell, Im pretty sure that today a real pilot could probably use google maps and the GPS in his mobile phone to figure out where he is.

If Blue Flag is about simulating warfare during a certain era, when satelite navigation wasn't cheap or easy, or even existant, then turning off map icons in the F10 map makes a lot of sense.

If I recall correctly the full story was that the FC aircrafts can't use nav systems unless the flight plan has been created in mission editor.

For all others it shouldn't be an issue.

Indeed, which just confirmes that what OnlyforDCS said is not entirely true, because if all players would know the map so well then this wouldn't be an issue. Besides that, the F-5, the MiG-21 and the Huey don't even have nav systems, so I don't see why it should be that much of an issue if FC3 pilots don't have it as well.

Anyways, this is leading too far away (unless we want to revive the F10 map symbols discussion, which I would welcome) from the original matter: FC3 fighters need to refuel

1) - to simulate the time it would actually take to get them airborne and take away there unrealistic advantage compared to the high fidelity modules,

2) - to avoid fighter spam when an airbase gets attacked and the defenders are back in the air only a minute after they got shot down, which was a problem in the first BlueFlag rounds and lead to the introduction of the live system.

AFAIK even Eagle Dynamics is working on a "GARMIN" navigation system which will be added as an option to most modules. Hell, Im pretty sure that today a real pilot could probably use google maps and the GPS in his mobile phone to figure out where he is.

 

If Blue Flag is about simulating warfare during a certain era, when satelite navigation wasn't cheap or easy, or even existant, then turning off map icons in the F10 map makes a lot of sense.

I guess it will be possible for MP admins to diable the use of the GARMIN. At least I hope so.

And yes, it would indeed make a lot of sense to deactivate F10 icons for a 80s BlueFlag (even for a modern one, because you have onbboard devices like the A-10Cs TAD or the GARMIN in the future).

 

Anyways, this is leading too far away (unless we want to revive the F10 map symbols discussion, which I would welcome) from the original matter: FC3 fighters need to refuel

1) - to simulate the time it would actually take to get them airborne and take away there unrealistic advantage compared to the high fidelity modules,

2) - to avoid fighter spam when an airbase gets attacked and the defenders are back in

Not this again. The Mirage is the only direct competitor to the FC fighters. A high percentage of Mirage pilots don't bother aligning because in an A2A role directed by GCI there is little to no need, they are airbourne within 2 mins of getting in the cockpit.

Why fix punish FC pilots to simulate aligning systems they can't even plot with, its not like it was the reason the refuel was added anyway.

With the Mirage, it takes about as long for the radar to warm up as the alignment. You can fly without alignment (that you can align in air, while flailing about in the skies has to be a bug), just like you can fly without radar, but both states offer additional challenges.

I don't see a problem currently with the Mirage other than it starting fully fueled. It should start at 0%, just like the F-15C and Su-27. I would further argue that the Su-27 should start with 20-30% fuel, because with the other two, you can slap on an external and not worry about filling the internal tank until liftoff.

Not this again. The Mirage is the only direct competitor to the FC fighters. A high percentage of Mirage pilots don't bother aligning because in an A2A role directed by GCI there is little to no need, they are airbourne within 2 mins of getting in the cockpit.

 

Why fix punish FC pilots to simulate aligning systems they can't even plot with, its not like it was the reason the refuel was added anyway.

Set up the M2k with 0% fuel. Problem solved.

Whatever you do, don't hurt scramble capability of F-5 and MiG-21. I really like that those fighters can get up in a hurry to go save a base. In fact, if they could start hot, I'd like that. I have seen more Red players in the MiG-21 lately, and they are beasts with GCI support (shot me down in the F-15 more than a few times). I really want to see more reasons to use F-5s and MiG-21s in Blue Flag.

Set up the M2k with 0% fuel. Problem solved.

If refuelling is here to stay this is a must.

The Mirage can refuel, start up and align all at the sametime, it will still be airbourne in under 5 mins or longer to fully align.

If refuelling is here to stay this is a must.

The Mirage can refuel, start up and align all at the sametime, it will still be airbourne in under 5 mins or longer to fully align.

I would venture to say that even with refueling the mirage will get up significantly faster than the FC3 planes.

With the Mirage, it takes about as long for the radar to warm up as the alignment. You can fly without alignment (that you can align in air, while flailing about in the skies has to be a bug), just like you can fly without radar, but both states offer additional challenges.

 

I don't see a problem currently with the Mirage other than it starting fully fueled. It should start at 0%, just like the F-15C and Su-27. I would further argue that the Su-27 should start with 20-30% fuel, because with the other two, you can slap on an external and not worry about filling the internal tank until liftoff.

+1

JD

AKA_MattE

Delete

How about Gen4 fighters with minimum 5mins of full afterburner time ramp ready (gen3 interceptors fuel max as before)?

That means same minimum flight time available without fuel loading on ramp because different planes have different consumption rates so this would be even for booth.

1980-ish time lock is fine by me and core of BF scenario.

And what I would really like to see is strict Cold War East vs West airframes and same gen plane numbers equal on both sides. Meaning Mirage strictly blue but equal numbers of mig29s (with either ETs/ERs of R77) on red, no A10s and Hueys on red and no Mi8 and su25T on blue. That means no visual recognition mistakes and less IFF errors.

Eagle numbers qual to Flanker numbers, Mirages equal to Fulcrums, Tigers equal to Fishbeds, Warthogs equal to Frogfoots Su25Ts, Viggen equal to Su25s or another set of different skinned Fishbeds, Gazelles equal to black Sharks, Hueys equal to Mighty 8s etc. Recon flights with few defense-able Sabres vs Mig15s, Transport booth with TF51s and I think everybody would be cool with that. No technology handicaps except missile production time set to 1982-83 restriction prior to 120s(1982) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM).

Since Matra 53D is introduced in 1988 this balancing would be done by alowing R77(1982) on Mig29 or even ETs or ERs for compensating efectiveness and range of Matras.

Next, by my personal obsevation, bomber calls are to effective even with reduced numbers of bombs droped so I sugest using Sabres and Mig15s that would need to land on nearest friendly airport to deliver captured intel. If on same airport as bomber start point one could see bomber on ramp taking of for its run and even folow it with egg. mig21 or F5. Bomb number should actually be full bomber capability but this way bomb run should be a little trickier because recon flight would become target of interest upon return to friendly base as man hunt would start at that point.

Next, airfields have to weak defences and should have inner rings of defences like more IR sams and AAAs. But again West vs East side types egg. Vulcan vs Shilka, BUK vs Thor etc.. Its too easy to deplete LR SAM missiles because they shoot on anything. Also ground eclosed AA guns would be cool to.

EWR system is looking good for DL and I hope for all GCIs.

:pilotfly:

If refuelling is here to stay this is a must.

The Mirage can refuel, start up and align all at the sametime, it will still be airbourne in under 5 mins or longer to fully align.

Yeah maybe with the A/A-only alignment mode? Doesn't the full one still take 8 minutes?

Pretty sure those "unaligned" Mirages are just Mirages with the alignment requirement disabled, as mentioned above. IIRC, some were doing that to simulate the stored/memory alignment option you'd have IRL. Wouldn't doubt that many just do it for gamey reasons however.

Since Matra 53D is introduced in 1988 this balancing would be done by alowing R77(1982) on Mig29 or even ETs or ERs for compensating efectiveness and range of Matras.

Did I just read "R-77s in 1982"? Edit: And 120s? It took about 10 years for the 120 to go from that (82 was developmental test I think?) to service.

It's just a bit of cognitive dissonance, don't mind it. :D

After all, in 82:

There were no Su-27's in the VVS, they were received in '85 and entered service officially in '90.

There were no R-27's in the VVS

9.12's entered service in '83.

R-77 was made available in '94 though Russia didn't seem to bother using them at all (about the same time as AIM-120B, though the 77 is at best a 120A equivalent according to the devs).

Here's what balances the 530: The mirage can only carry two.

Even they are two Matras they are very effective (PO some would say) but Es could be fired from longer distance and they are very countermeasures hungry so still there's advantage to the mirage also they booth can carry two LR missiles. Anyway I would put something more effective under Mig29S to counter blue exclusive Mirage scenario. Agree?

PS: But when looking at countermeasures ratio R77 is right balance tool for M2K vs Mig29 combat as mirage can carry more countermeasures (32flares/130chaffs vs 30flares/30chaffs).

I vote for R77 in this case.

R77 doesn't fit. Four 77 and two 73 would make the MiG far and away superior to anything.

Yes the 29 is in a bad place having a small payload with the weakest SARH missile poor mans eos and no dl, other than giving it ER I don't know what could be done, perhaps just ET.

Too much countermeasures(m2k) on countermeasure hungry missiles(r27s). Mirage's 530D was introduced later than 1983 time stop in 1988 so its over the time limit. Mirage is also fast so it can outran and outdecoy R77 and its radar has anomaly of locking targets thru pilot butt so this usage is justified until Mirage is fixed properly. ETs on the other hand would hit too much blue without knowing that they are attacked. R77 would give them a chance to evade.

Realism in Blue Flag? Get out of here, that thing is not balanced.

If M2k only on Blue side, then I vote for giving the MiG29s the ET. No ERs, no R77s. It's not a one-to-one equivalence, but it gives the MiG a strength the Mirage does not have, and gives the Mirage a (many) strength(s) the MiG does not have. Also, I think Mirage should start at 0% fuel while the MiG29 should start with at least 50% fuel (maybe higher).

My ideal start cases would be the following (cold start unless otherwise noted):

F-15C: 0% fuel, no stores loaded

M2000: 0% fuel, no stores loaded

Su-27: 30% fuel, no stores loaded

MiG-29: 50% fuel, no stores loaded

F-5: 100% fuel, Parking hot start, no stores loaded

MiG-21: 100% fuel, Parking hot start, no stores loaded

Viggen: 100% fuel, no stores loaded

Su-25T: 100% fuel, no stores loaded

A-10C: 100% fuel, no stores loaded

Helos at airbases: Parking hot start, no stores loaded

Helos at FARPs: Cold start, no stores loaded

You guys are going hard on the "mirroring is balance" thing again.

A 2 minute difference between an F-15 and Su27 refueling isn't going to sway the map color. It also directly contradicts the arguments I've seen here that Mirage starting with no fuel does nothing...it does nothing until it's comparing the F-15 and Su27 fuel times??

Nothing should get fuel. Nothing. You die, you get punished. End of story. Think of it as a respawn timer. Take it as an opportunity to go have a smoke break or rub one out between sorties.

Red would get hammered in the air. First, how many migs would make that long flight? I dont think many would. If m2000s would only go blue red would need ETs and ERs then. I would like m2000s to go completely.

Also with blue not pushing the front. Its so much easier for them to spam m2000s. Maybe limit them to 2 slots. They are airborn faster than red choppers. Its also very fast to hot rearm/refuel them.

Red has huge fuel issues. Again blue not pushing front is requiring red to fly so far and refuel right away. This is the reason I went to M2000. Its nice seeing guys fly the flankers again. They dont seem to be on the front for long though.

Totally agree with above. Red needs to fly a whole lot to get to their defense lines. It's not red's fault they keep raping blue when no players are around to defend (I don't remember blue winning since the changes started), thus causing them to fly half the map to get to new territory. At least give red some closer jets, and give them ET and ER's (besides already having DL back) and while your ad it, just remove blue's jets and replace all their cap with spitfires. Then red finally has a decent chance. Then things are finally evened out.

* dear red, please stop pulling the victim card every single post*

Red would get hammered in the air. First, how many migs would make that long flight? I dont think many would. If m2000s would only go blue red would need ETs and ERs then. I would like m2000s to go completely.

 

Also with blue not pushing the front. Its so much easier for them to spam m2000s. Maybe limit them to 2 slots. They are airborn faster than red choppers. Its also very fast to hot rearm/refuel them.

 

Red has huge fuel issues. Again blue not pushing front is requiring red to fly so far and refuel right away. This is the reason I went to M2000. Its nice seeing guys fly the flankers again. They dont seem to be on the front for long though.

You're describing intended gameplay on Blue Flag, not a balance issue...as you push the front you need to manage resources and prioritize capturing specific objectives to sustain the attack. This is what makes airfields valuable.

These same issues would be for Blue as well (if they got out of fighters and started playing the objectives).

One thing is apparent: People want to fly Mirage. If you remove it from the equation then people just go to a different server.

Totally agree with above. Red needs to fly a whole lot to get to their defense lines. It's not red's fault they keep raping blue when no players are around to defend (I don't remember blue winning since the changes started), thus causing them to fly half the map to get to new territory. At least give red some closer jets, and give them ET and ER's (besides already having DL back) and while your ad it, just remove blue's jets and replace all their cap with spitfires. Then red finally has a decent chance. Then things are finally evened out.

 

* dear red, please stop pulling the victim card every single post*

Are people not using the airfields they capture to refuel when they get into the area? Because they should be.

EDIT: Lolz, just read the rest of your post.

We'd pound blue with just guns. I just don't want to work that hard:)

You're describing intended gameplay on Blue Flag, not a balance issue...as you push the front you need to manage resources and prioritize capturing specific objectives to sustain the attack. This is what makes airfields valuable.

 

These same issues would be for Blue as well (if they got out of fighters and started playing the objectives).

 

One thing is apparent: People want to fly Mirage. If you remove it from the equation then people just go to a different server.

Yes it's intended game play, I agree with that. However, I think people are mistaking a partially completed map for how Blue Flag will be.

Why don't we wait to see what the map looks like and what flight times actually are before we make assessments on what is needed in the server.

Don't get me wrong, smokey, I'd like to see ERs, but it's hard to determine flight times when. I dont think the airfields are done with slots.

If they are, I take back what I said.

Yes it's intended game play, I agree with that. However, I think people are mistaking a partially completed map for how Blue Flag will be.

 

Why don't we wait to see what the map looks like and what flight times actually are before we make assessments on what is needed in the server.

 

Don't get me wrong, smokey, I'd like to see ERs, but it's hard to determine flight times when. I dont think the airfields are done with slots.

 

If they are, I take back what I said.

It's the classic "pushing gets more difficult as you push" gameplay doctrine that's alive and well in a lot of games today. How is this a problem that should be fixed?

It's the classic "pushing gets more difficult as you push" gameplay doctrine that's alive and well in a lot of games today. How is this a problem that should be fixed?

I was agreeing with you... All I was saying was I didnt think all the airfield were setup yet. So red, having been used to being able to use maykop and beslan in the past has not been able to yet. That's all.