SwingKid Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 ...and Vulcan, and Chaparral, and Israel... :weight_lift_2: -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colt40Five Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Since there's not going to be a flyable Su-33, I could care less what they do with the Kutz in BS... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellcat61 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Why would we? It's my understanding that the Chinese have it now, but it still adds carrier capability to the Russian side, why remove it? "When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. Therefore, including this unit in Black Shark would detract from the realism of the product. The R-27AE was removed for a similar reason. -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colt40Five Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Ha! Shows what you know... my Su-33 mission pack dealt with an American carrier group violating that treaty to support Georgia...and the Kutz coming in to clean house... :) IMHO it's all about having options to create real OR fictional scenarios(remember it's about fun first)...but like I said above since I won't be flying off the Kutz in BS who cares? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 Ha! Shows what you know... my Su-33 mission pack dealt with an American carrier group violating that treaty to support Georgia...and the Kutz coming in to clean house... :) Mmm. Perfect example. ;) -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino104 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. -SK So they broke the treaty, and now there is a war? Sounds like a good scenario to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellcat61 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Considering that all scenarios in the "Lock On" world are fictional, why does it matter? There is no historical event that occurred in the Black Sea that BS intends to recreate, so whats the point? I would rather have the option to use the Kuz. If you don't want a carrier in your missions, don't put one there. "When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Shocker Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I like the Kuz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKungFu Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Well now that black shark is standalone, i guess you can remove whatever thats not "realistic" since its going along with the whole theme of black shark. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. Therefore, including this unit in Black Shark would detract from the realism of the product. The R-27AE was removed for a similar reason. -SK With so many treaties being broken unilateraly due to the cause "they have become obsolete" I wonder what would be easier to see in a shooting war. To revive a dead missile or pass an imaginary line of death with a carrier that already exists? After all whos going to garauntee any treaty survives a shooting war unviolated? I can remeber a few treaties and international laws not being respected in the last few conflicts by several different countries. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALDEGA Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. Therefore, including this unit in Black Shark would detract from the realism of the product. The R-27AE was removed for a similar reason. -SKAnd we all know what happens to treaties in times of war... (in general) Btw, you don't really care about this, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah, I don't get this strong personal struggle for this cause. It's already there, so you can use it if you find it appropriate. And it provides the carrier ops for the Su-33. I really don't understand why should it be removed. It reminds me of that initiative to remove the Caps Lock from the keyboards.. :) i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 So they broke the treaty, For what purpose? (that involves the Ka-50?) -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 The Kuznetsov is not a carrier, the Vinson is, that should be removed, the Kuznetsov was built there for cryin out loud, remove that damn nuclear opression island. But seriousely, removing the Vinson would be a great excuse to not further expand the naval aspect of digitall comeback stim. Oh well, I'm sure the chopper has great anti radar capabilities and probably some hardcoded weapons so we can't even 'LOPE' a Kh-31P to it to experiment with in single player mode. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avimimus Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. Therefore, including this unit in Black Shark would detract from the realism of the product. The R-27AE was removed for a similar reason. -SK People are always breaking international treaties! Look at the *removed so as not to point fingers at anyone* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I want to start my mission from the The Kuznetsov with a squadron of Black Sharks and sneak into the mainland to deal with the local terrorists. :D … Su-33 will protect our package… DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALDEGA Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I want to start my mission from the The Kuznetsov with a squadron of Black Sharks and sneak into the mainland to deal with the local terrorists. :D … Su-33 will protect our package…Sounds like the script of a Hollywood movie. All that's missing is a love story and a happy ending :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneski Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 SK. Maybe there is a reason that the Memo was missed... but this maybe incorrect but you don't have to use any object in the game that YOU don't like as well as the nation the AI is using... SO if you don't want the Carrier don't use it... why lobby to take it out? Other people might really like it and find it fun to have it in there. Do their opinions not matter? The 3D model was built... it's in the game... the player can use it if they like... deal with it. 1 My mission is to fly, fight, and win. o-:|:-o What I do is sometimes get a tin of soup, heat it up, poach an egg in it, serve that with a pork pie sausage roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellcat61 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 remove that damn nuclear opression island. Opression island? What the heck are you talking about? "When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Opression island? What the heck are you talking about? Those things look scary, the Kuz looks like a toy ship (though it has a nice roach plague in RL). When will we get AVM (Advanced Vermin Moddeling) in the dried crap sim, man that abbreviation sounds like some game made by the porn industry :P Then again it's only a stupid name, it's all about the content. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I doubt any country would be crazy enough to enter the black sea with a carrier in times of conflict. Treaty or No treaty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoose Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would say no, do not remove the Kuz. Prime example would be what Cold40Five has already mentioned, creating different and interesting scenarios. On a plus side, would be interesting to land the Ka-50 on the Kuz. I for one do not comprehend the fascination to remove the Kuz or other objects. They only need to update the 3d model and splash on a high res skin.:D Antec 900 gaming tower, PSU: Corsair 750W, Q6600, Asus P5K, 8Gig Mushkin, Nvidia eVGA 280 GTX Superclocked 1G DDR3, SSDNOW200 Kingston Drive, TrackIr 3000+Vector, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick, Saitek rudder pedals pro, Sharp 42" inch LCD Aquo. OS: windows 7 64bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Last I understood, the Kuznetsov (was at the time anyways) was termed a "heavy aviation cruiser", thereby negating the treaty, so it wasn't violated. The Russians simply termed it to make the treaty null on the Kuznetsov. LOMAC Section| | Gaming Resume (PDF) | Gallery | Flanker2.51 Storage Site | Also known as Flanker562 back in the day... Steam ID EricJ562 | DCS: A-10A/C Pilot | DCS: Su-25T Pilot | Texture Artist "...parade ground soldiers always felt that way (contempt) about killers in uniform." -Counting The Cost, Hammer's Slammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Ironically enough, for the sole purpose of getting it out of the Black Sea. (The treaty actually restricts passage though the Straits of Bosporus.) But Ice is right - the treaty is hardly important, when putting a carrier in the Black Sea during wartime would be purposeless suicide anyway. Then again, I'm also not a fan of lining up 16 tanks on a road in broad daylight to be wiped out by Vikhr missiles, or sending my pilots without RWR onto a battlefield with radar-guided AAA. *sigh* War is so stupid. -SK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts