|
Smiling Jack posted:I am putting them at their max attitude. Almost as if I played the tutorial, which is part of the campaign. I think the game is overplaying stealth and that's what causing it. You can detect MiG-29s half a continent away with no problems, but PAK-FAs can sneak so close that I usually pick them up by IR rather than radar most of the time if they are flying straight towards you, same thing with those UCAVs. Than there are the sub-launched ASMs, and those ludicrously invisible small Russian boats, project something something "Viking" something? They certainly don't look stealthy, but I only seem to be able to locate them by visual, usually from a sub-hunter I sent out thinking they were subs.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
Probably enough interest for its own thread in games, no?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 10:58
|
|
davecrazy posted:Probably enough interest for its own thread in games, no? eh, whatever. Here's a good a place as any.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
I made a thread for it in Games anyway: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3479034 Someone please post it in so I don't look like a nobby no-mates. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Today was a good day. Got to play with the following: Oldschool F-16s  Prowler  Hornet  Superbug  Hind  F5N  SMART-1  Hawker Hunter  Newer F-16s  BUFF  New Hawkeye  Patriot  Stinger teams (with IFF deployed, hopefully, as opposed to this picture) Also, these Stinger teams have link-16. fancy.  The other day I got stuck behind a ZSU-23 with its smoke system on. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
^^ Awesome! How many did you shoot down  Question, trivia goons (see GBS sticky) need your help. Join the Wiki, check out Picture 19. <edit, pic removed, cna't be shared> movax fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
movax posted:^^ Awesome! How many did you shoot down It went well for us. More live flying over the next few days which should up the ante with a more varied mix of aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Bravo Romeo Delta is unbelievable, I took out three quarters of the US land based missile capability in my first strike and was able to close the deal on every non-city target category on day 1 without invoking armageddon. Had to wait till day 2 for the last enemy bombers to be intercepted somewhere over the Caspian Sea. And what do I get? A bloody loving truce. With a 0.07:1 correlation of forces, 95% of my ICBM fields still intact and 93% remaining communications efficiency. I hit _every_ early warning and OTH radar, VLF antenna and airstrip in North America with thousands and have my missiles still in their silos, ready to rule the world for generations. This game is too broken
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
What's the little thing coming out after the stinger? Is it an explosive charge to send the rocket on it's way out of harms way before the rocket kicks in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Bravo Romeo Delta is unbelievable, I took out three quarters of the US land based missile capability in my first strike and was able to close the deal on every non-city target category on day 1 without invoking armageddon. Had to wait till day 2 for the last enemy bombers to be intercepted somewhere over the Caspian Sea. And what do I get? Definately Obama's fault. That sly bastard melted Putin's resolve with his undeniable charm  EDIT: Oh, the game's from 1995. Maybe in that reality the Russian PM was a woman?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
ricepaddydaddy posted:What's the little thing coming out after the stinger? Is it an explosive charge to send the rocket on it's way out of harms way before the rocket kicks in? I don't have an ADA MOS, but I'm around 14-series Soldiers enough to know Stingers have a motor to get them out of the tube, and then another motor for flight. So your guess is probably correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Bravo Romeo Delta is unbelievable, I took out three quarters of the US land based missile capability in my first strike and was able to close the deal on every non-city target category on day 1 without invoking armageddon. Had to wait till day 2 for the last enemy bombers to be intercepted somewhere over the Caspian Sea. And what do I get? That is better than i managed to ever do. What kind of strikes did you use? I tended to go for c3 stations in the first strike with ICBMS. Then again i played against the soviets, and their c3 is hardened in many ways ours isnt. Sometimes it withstands major hits. Bombers are such a waste, since most get intercepted, and take 15 hours to get that far anyway. I think playing against the USA is easier, since we had less missile silos than the soviets and no mobile launchers. The soviet mobile launchers can be a bitch to hit. Also Moscow had their ABM system that does a 50/50 job in BRD, but it means youve got to send three times the number of strikes if you really want to be sure Moscow gets it. DC has no such protection. the fact that you in all purposes 'won' WWIII in two days with minimal casualties is a victory, be proud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
It's just full of weird idiosyncrasies, this happened earlier today: 286 warheads targeted in total on all USAF, USN and C3 assets in two strikes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
From what i know of the game, the only USA weapons that can hit the CIS hardened c3 sites with enough power to destroy them are the ICBMs, or bomber launched. I notice the USA has executed 134 strikes, but only delivered a fraction of your total, but you have half the strikes. Theyve also got 111 in progress which means theyre using bombers now. id guess they went SLBM, i dont know what they went after, but look at their horrible hit rate! they missed 44 times while your 77 launches had 100% accuracy! drat youre better at this game than i ever was and i played it at least three times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
I forgot to share: I was driving home a couple days ago and saw a B1 fly by on approach to Davis Monthan 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
Today a B-1B and some Harriers joined the fight. The Harriers were kind of forgettable. The B-1B was notably unforgettable. A B-1B in full blower a few hundred feet off the deck is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
Raw_Beef posted:From what i know of the game, the only USA weapons that can hit the CIS hardened c3 sites with enough power to destroy them are the ICBMs, or bomber launched. Yeah playing as the Soviets seems so much easier but the AI is messed up anyway, there's no plan. It's poo poo like this which I hate though. Have victorious do they want you to be  Anyway my new trick is targeting missiles with single warheads since the reliability odds don't stack over multiple ones. You burn through your heaviest ICBMs faster but in this case I got 7/8 ICBM fields and 2/3 sub bases in the first 30-warhead strike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Not really cold war, but Panzer Elite SE is on sale at GOG for $3 this weeekend. http://www.gog.com/gamecard/panzer_elite_se
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Airpower/SAM/Videogames talk: Rock Paper Shotgun has a preview of a pretty hardcore looking SAM simulator up: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/12/20/serious-sam-simulator/ It looks painfully authentic. As in, click this button, then turn this dial to boresight the azimuth. At that point my brain just clicked out and I thought I'd better just turn this over to the hardcore milnerds/actual SAM operators. EDIT: This is the link with the real meat behind it - a brain bleeding step-by-step on how to power up, target, and fire a nuclear-tipped(!) SAM. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/20/the-flare-path-nukes-and-rebukes/ Myoclonic Jerk fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
This is funny. So apparently during WWII, the Soviets got their hands on a B-29 when it had to make an emergency landing. Naturally, they didn't give it back, but instead reverse engineered it. Stalin wanted an exact copy of the dismantled B-29, so that's what he got. "Wikipedia posted:The dismantled B-29 had a small flaw in one wing - a small rivet hole that was drilled mistakenly by an unknown Boeing engineer. Given Stalin's order for preciseness, all Tu-4's had this same hole drilled in the same location on the wing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
dakana posted:This is funny. Yeah, I don't buy most of those "and they put Boeing on the rudder pedals" or "and they used chromate paint on half the aircraft and lead based on the other half" or anything but the "and the Russian rubber industry wasn't up to building B-29 tires, so they bought them surplus in the states". Cute stories, and drat if the Bull doesn't bear a striking resemblance, but they had several aircraft to work from, so I don't think they copied battle damage patches or misdrilled rivet holes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Yeah, I don't buy most of those "and they put Boeing on the rudder pedals" or "and they used chromate paint on half the aircraft and lead based on the other half" or anything but the "and the Russian rubber industry wasn't up to building B-29 tires, so they bought them surplus in the states". Actually they did, but it wasn't because "hurr stupid Soviets slavishly copying everything hurr." I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but here's a really good Air & Space story on the whole deal: quote:One immense challenge was the difference between English measurements used by U.S. manufacturers and the metric system, which the Soviets used. Early on, Tupolev decided not to convert the U.S. units to the metric system, which would have been time consuming. The manufacture of aluminum panels exemplified the problem. The standard thickness of the aluminum skin on the B-29 was 1/16 of an inch (1.5875 millimeters). It was impossible for Soviet plants to fabricate metal sheets to that dimension. Tupolev opted to vary the thickness of the Tu-4’s skin between .8 and 1.8 millimeters, which actually had the effect of strengthening the aircraft’s structure in some areas. Despite such changes, the weight of the Tu-4 would turn out to be only one percent greater than the B-29. No less critical were other compromises made on electrical wiring as well as hydraulic pressure and fuel consumption. So they did copy some of the cosmetic things, but did so to help cover the other, more significant, changes they had to make to get a functional aircraft. As far as there being different aircraft, only the General H.H. Arnold Special was disassembled and used as a model; the Ramp Tramp was used for flight test and the Ding How was kept assembled to serve as a reference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Actually they did, but it wasn't because "hurr stupid Soviets slavishly copying everything hurr." I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but here's a really good Air & Space story on the whole deal: Nice. that is 10 pages more detailed than anything I'd read on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Nice. that is 10 pages more detailed than anything I'd read on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend any good books about submarines? I've read Scorpion Down,A Time to Die: The Untold Story of the Kursk Tragedy, and Rising Tide: The Untold Story of the Russian Submarines That Fought the Cold War. Both the books about the Russian subs were nerve-wracking enough just to read about. Scorpion Down though... Eh, take it or leave it, I found it kind of poorly written. I'd love to hear some more about undersea warfare and disasters. And if there's anyone out there that would like to do an infodump, or share some stories (I know there's at least one Los Angeles class crew member that hangs around TFR), rest assured that at least one person would read it with great interest. Also any fun facts about the new Virginia's would be swell, the New Hampshire just recently got launched and I missed it by a few days, I really wanted to see it off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
I'm gonna assume you've read Blind's Man Bluff and just forgot to mention it, because that's kind of an essential. I kind of liked The Ice Diaries, about the Nautilus' under pole transit... Kind of interesting. Red November: Inside the US - Soviet Submarine War isn't bad, but it's kind of a poor man's Blind Man's Bluff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Already mentioned in this thread some time ago but I can't recommend this enough: http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/Newport-Papers/Documents/16-pdf.aspx "The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I'm gonna assume you've read Blind's Man Bluff and just forgot to mention it, because that's kind of an essential. I kind of liked The Ice Diaries, about the Nautilus' under pole transit... Kind of interesting. Red November: Inside the US - Soviet Submarine War isn't bad, but it's kind of a poor man's Blind Man's Bluff. After typing that post, it instantly struck me that I actually haven't read Blind Mans Bluff. Ten seconds later I bought it on my kindle. Has anyone read Project Azorian? Is it worth picking it up as well? The Glomar Explorer is certifiably badass in every way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Sooooooooooo that Arctic War game crashes all the time right when my JSF strike package is about to wipe the Soviet Baltic Fleet from the face of the earth. Also, gently caress whatever Russian missile that is that forces half my CAP to expend all their AAMs on the incoming missile strike on my airfield.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Sooooooooooo that Arctic War game crashes all the time right when my JSF strike package is about to wipe the Soviet Baltic Fleet from the face of the earth. So basically this is the most realistic wargame ever made, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 04:52
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:So basically this is the most realistic wargame ever made, then. No, the JSF is actually sometimes useful in this game.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:No, the JSF is actually sometimes useful in this game. No better than an arcade style shooter, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:No better than an arcade style shooter, then. Gotta say, I like your new av a LOT more than the old one. edit: check yo PMs
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:No, the JSF is actually sometimes useful in this game. Anything that flies and carries an AMRAAM is useful in this game. Anything that floats and carries SM-2 is useful in this game. Everything else is kind of meh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Rather than videogames featuring post-cold-war aircraft, I'll post about the air war in Vietnam. Specifically, this book titled The United States Air Force in Southeast Asia The War in South Vietnam The Years of the Offensive 1965 - 1968 by John Schlight. It chronicles exactly what you would think it would, in detail exceeding 100 pp/year. I'd post a Let's Read, but you can d/l a copy yourself. So far I've made it into chapter 1, and it is rather dense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Gotta say, I like your new av a LOT more than the old one. Haha, I doubt you're the only one who feels that way. And clean out your inbox.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
A friend of mine is a game developer and is developing a new naval warfare game, the game is called battleship:the game based on the 2012 movie based on the 1967 Milton Bradley board game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3onurrMdaw&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
He's got the perfect voice for this sort of thing. "Wer back on Baalship" Just towin' my Fulcrum down the road
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:He's got the perfect voice for this sort of thing. "Wer back on Baalship" Bet that guy never has an issue with people tailgating him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Haha, I doubt you're the only one who feels that way. And clean out your inbox. gently caress, AGAIN?!? Cleaned out, or you can just respond ot my email, if you still have it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:52
|
|