|
I'm erring towards A la carte in this situation. It will not kill us to spend some money on proper air defenses, and more importantly it means that we won't have to spend as much money on them later when better planes become available.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
At this point we've been warned at least 3 times about the need for SAM coverage. First, the Lhasa strike where we destroyed some completely undefended planes on the ground as they had no early warning coverage or area SAM cover. Second Yooper posted:
Third Yooper posted:Fast Turnaround allows a flight to get back into the air quickly but the problem becomes you can't do it for longer than 3 ops in a 24 hour period. Things will get really funky if I have to cycle a bunch of planes in and out of that. If we don't get some SAM coverage for our airbase then we fully well deserve to get stomped on the ground by whatever hostile strike package Yooper cooks up. Our GM has literally told us that they will be necessary 3 times. We've been warned to buy the silver sword 3 times after we've been painstakingly shown what werewolves can do and I honestly don't know why people are ignoring the exceptionally strong hints that our GM is dropping. Literally 24/7 SAM airbase coverage is an absolute essential for air operations. It's the first thing that rolls off the back of the cargo plane when you deploy to a new airfield. It's one of the items which you will fail without having. Just like if you don't buy a tanker so you can't reach the target- you fail the mission. You don't get any OECM/SEAD so your strike package gets shot down - you fail the mission. You don't have friendly SAM coverage over your airfield and you leave it undefended as you carry out your strikes- and someone comes and destroys it as your planes are out/on the ground- you fail the campaign and lose your planes. 1xHAWK (24mil) is literally the cheapest and most efficient way to have 24/7 early warning air defense for our airfield, so we don't have to worry about it for the rest of the campaign. It's not possible to have a CAP up 24/7 without dedicating 4+ planes to baby sitting our airfield. Planes that we could use to go earn some money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:At this point we've been warned at least 3 times about the need for SAM coverage. No early warning you can thank hero Grimace Howlington III, shot in the knee for your sins
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
I'll vote A'la Carte
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I haven't played CMANO in a long time. Is there damage and maintenance times? Nope. But on quick turnaround once you hit those 3 ops in 24/hrs then your plane is done until enough time has elapsed. I'm thinking of a way to approximate ground maintenance better but it's not terribly easy to do it so it's fun and not just frustrating. Dust storms knock out a plane or two, that's interesting. Elephant stampede, that's interesting. 12% base maintenance downtime at any moment, not interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
quote:Tanker $200 quote:spend more on SAMs quote:no
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
If we do operations against the Free State a bunch of anime avatars are going to blow up our company twitter :/
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Velius posted:It's also comical that he wants to put two Grippens on permanent babysitting duty because he doesn't want to spend 1/3 the cost of a Grippen to give us more than a token base defense. Given that Yooper explicitly said we should think about AA etc I don't understand this at all. Mr Crustacean posted:You've presented a very false economy with using planes for a constant CAP. The opportunity cost of using planes to protect our airfield 24/7 is really terrible. Quinntan posted:It's actually worse than that. To have a dedicated flight up at all times would require us to have essentially four gripens dedicated to the role as the ones in the air will need to land for refuelling and changing the pilots and we'd want to have someone in the air at all times to provide coverage. We'd also require a second Erieye, unless we are willing to accept either reduced or no AEW coverage for offensive operations, which as bacarruda said earlier, is what makes us money. Before I go further, I'd like to reiterate what I've said since the very beginning: we need to wait and see on Angola's air attack risk. We don't know anything about the identity, capability, or personality of our enemy. My position is not (and never has been) constant CAP as a default. Read the original Plan Parabellum post again. Using our fighters is simply one of many options we can pull from when building our air defense plan. If there turns out to be a massive air attack threat in the theater (Yooper and good words on this?) -- we have options. 1) We lean on Von Hoff to give us radar data from the civilian airport radars at Namibe and Lubango.That gives us some early warning we can use to scramble Alert 15 and Alert 30 fighters. 2) We use CAP fighters. There are many ways to do this. Two Gripens airborne. The Argus, a Phantom or a Gripen airborne to give radar coverage, with Alert 15 or Alert 30 fighters as backup. 3) We focus on recon and intel-gathering so that we'll have early warning of any attack. We pay off a guy in the other merc organization to feed us data, we pay off airport employees, we stick spies in trees with satellite phones, get satellite coverage from .com, .mil, or .gov sources, create our own Observer Corps and give local folks binocs and landlines to call in any incoming strikes. We do occasional recon flight over hostile airfields with Tornados or Gripens 4) As soon as we complete our first mission, we pay Willie and go buy some radar and/or SAMs. 5) We buy a bulldozer and revetment the gently caress out of our airbase to protect parked aircraft. 6) We locate long highways, small civilian strips, etc. and disperse our aircraft. This is literally what the Gripens were designed for, and it's a strong reason to invest in them. Keep enough aircraft hidden that any adversaries won't dare make a first strike for fear of what our second strike will do. Mr Crustacean posted:If we don't get some SAM coverage for our airbase then we fully well deserve to get stomped on the ground by whatever hostile strike package Yooper cooks up. Our GM has literally told us that they will be necessary 3 times. We've been warned to buy the silver sword 3 times after we've been painstakingly shown what werewolves can do and I honestly don't know why people are ignoring the exceptionally strong hints that our GM is dropping. Here's an idea that may meet your concerns: let's buy some medium-to long-range search radars for $5-15 million from Willie. It'll be cheaper than the Hawk battery, so we can work it into the Parabellum plan. It'll give us long-range radar coverage, allowing us to scramble fighters in response to any incoming strike. For example, we can buy a very modern Israeli-made EL/M-2048 for about $14 million. It's got a 250km range (the Hawk's radar only reaches 148km, which is incidentally the same as the search range on the SIDAMs included in Parabellum). And that's the high end of radar out there -- we can get similar coverage from cheaper surplus radars. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Before I go further, I'd like to reiterate what I've said since the very beginning: we need to wait and see on Angola's air attack risk. We don't know anything about the identity, capability, or personality of our enemy. Things have settled into an uneasy stalemate now that the Free State and Von Hoff have no air assets. We're likely to stir this place up something fierce. It's quite likely we could go to poo poo in the Free States cheerios and the Angolan Air Force might see an opportunity to sneak in an attack, just to rub some salt in the wounds. I'm all for pursuing other intel means. The game even has ways I can model this. Von Hoff will definitely share whatever rickety radar data he has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
If a'la Carte is willing to budget in getting the Phantoms to 100% reliability (~1M per, IIRC), I'd switch my vote to it. Having them available for non-Gripen required ops will probably be important. Though upgrading them to being able to use AIM-120Cs (about +20 nm in range) would be nice, but I don't think anyone fields F-4s with that capability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
A bit of a look at all procurement proposals that have been proffered so far, with their pluses and minuses in my eyes.Bacarruda posted:Procurement Plan Parabellum + Additional Gripens for multirole operations + Includes jammer - Doesn't provide a surety that we can get a decent number of Phantoms up - Extremely weak base defences Jimmy4400nav posted:[code] + Good number of Phantoms, ensuring that we can expect to have at least six Phantoms + Good at attacking ground targets + Includes jammer + Very strong AA defences Soup Inspector posted:BUY: + Decent ground attack capabilities + Strong EW capabilities ~ Adequate AA defences - Doesn't provide a surety that we can get a decent number of Phantoms up Psawhn posted:Proposal: À la carte + Includes an upgrade on the mediocre Sperwer UAVs + Good number of Phantoms, ensuring that we can expect to have at least six Phantoms + Good AAA defences + Includes EW platform Davin Valkri posted:JAS 39C Gripen (70M) x 1 = 70M + Good number of Phantoms, ensuring that we can expect to have at least six Phantoms + Extremely strong air defences + Includes jammer - Does not leave a lot of change Mr Crustacean posted:2x JAS 39C Gripens (140m) + Good number of Gripens for multirole operations + Best tanker + Good sized Tornado force + Includes jammer - Doesn't provide a surety that we can get a decent number of Phantoms up - Mediocre air defences Renaissance Spam posted:Plan Quinnabellum + Good number of Gripens for multirole operations + Best tanker + Good sized Tornado force + Good air defences + Includes jammer - Doesn't provide a surety that we can get a decent number of Phantoms up Mr Crustacean posted:Voting: Plan Quinnabellum modified + Good number of Gripens for multirole operations + Best tanker + Includes jammer ~Okay sized Tornado force ~ Decent sized Phantom force, allowing for us to be sure of at least four Phantoms - Mediocre air defences TheGreatEvilKing posted:Hmm. Seeing how little money we have left makes me retract my support for Parabellum and advance: + Large number + Best tanker + Includes jammer + Substantial cash reserves remaining ~ Okay sized Tornado force - Does not include tanker - Poor air defences - Leaves us with only a pair of Phantoms Coffeehitler posted:1x Gripen (70M) Replace losses + Good sized Tornado force + Good number of Phantoms, ensuring that we can expect to have at least six Phantoms - Does not include tanker - Does not include air defences - Leaves far too large of a cash reserve Tevery Best posted:1x Tornado ECR (100 000 000) + Includes jammer + Largest Gripen buy + Only proposal that includes rotary-wing assets ~ Mediocre air defences - Mirage lacks precision ordinance - Doesn't provide a surety that we can get a decent number of Phantoms up Popete posted:Procurement Plan: Red Viking + Large Phantom order, allowing us to ensure at least six Phantoms airborne + Between Tornadoes and Fencers, provides for a strong ground attack element + Includes tanker - No air defences Quinntan posted:BUY + Large Tornado force + Large Phantom order, allowing us to ensure a at least six of Phantoms airborne + Includes jammer + Good air defences ~ Mediocre tanker Quinntan fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
^^^ A La Carte does have an EWAR platform in its EA-6B Prowler.Bacarruda posted:My position is not (and never has been) constant CAP as a default. Read the original Plan Parabellum post again. Using our fighters is simply one of many options we can pull from when building our air defense plan. You have the fundamental problem that you need to dedicate planes to defending the airfield. You have to take away planes from our strike package to sit on out airfield and babysit it in every scenario. If you just have the search radar you will see the enemy planes come from afar right up until they kill us. You'll have to dedicate some jets Gripens/phantoms to just sit on our base and react to an incoming raid. Planes that could otherwise be on our strike package. 24 mil gets us a full HAWK battery, multiple missiles, launchers and radars. That we can just leave to detect and kill an incoming strike and not have to worry about. It's a lot cheaper and and stops us from having 2+ Gripens/Phantoms permanently babysitting our airfield and prevents Yooper from having a stroke at having to juggle a whole strike whilst running the CAP for our airfield. Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:^^^ A La Carte does have an EWAR platform in its EA-6B Prowler. Fixed, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:A bit of a look at all procurement proposals that have been proffered so far, with their pluses and minuses in my eyes. Thanks for the summaries Quinntan, they've helped make everything less ambiguous. I'm curious by what you mean by a "decent number of Phantoms" with regard to my proposal; with replacement parts sourced for our extant Phantoms we would be able to reliably field a full flight of them with the purchase of the two other Phantoms. Or I suppose to rephrase: what counts as a reasonable number of Phantoms in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:You have the fundamental problem that you need to dedicate planes to defending the airfield. You have to take away planes from our strike package to sit on out airfield and babysit it in every scenario. The Hawk can't reliably deal with a low-altitude aircraft, so it has to be paired with SHORAD. The real cost of the Hawk isn't $24 million, it's closer to $30-50 million. With Parabellum we have 20 aircraft that can do interceptor work. Ten of them are Gripens, which punch well above their weight in air-to-air combat. So, let's say we leave two fighters behind on Alert 15 or Alert 30 (Phantoms are a completely respectable choice for this). That still leaves us with 18 multi-role fighters for a strike package, plus the Frogfoots and the Hawks. That's a huge amount of firepower, especially when you consider the 48 to 80 SDB the Gripen strikers can bring. We did most of the damage at Lhasa with only nine strike fighters. And in the unlikely event they try to strike at the same time we do, we can just re-task the airborne CAP aircraft (and the strikers, if needed) to engage their attack. In fact, we should welcome an attack like that, since we'd have lots of fighters airborne to go after their bombers. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Thanks for the summaries Quinntan, they've helped make everything less ambiguous. I counted a reasonable number of Phantoms as four, and I was under the impression that they would be under the same 1/5 chance of not working as our current pair of Phantoms. I'd expect a plan that purchased an additional four Phantoms to be able to field at least four reliably, and I expect a plan that purchased six extra Phantoms to be able to field six most of the time. Bacarruda posted:With Parabellum we have 20 aircraft that can do interceptor work. Ten of them are Gripens, which punch well above their weight in air-to-air combat. Unless you are including the Tornado as an interceptor, I don't know what your interceptors are. I personally would not count an aircraft limited to a pair of WVR missiles as an interceptor, those are for all intents and purposes for defensive purposes while carrying out a ground strike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I counted a reasonable number of Phantoms as four, and I was under the impression that they would be under the same 1/5 chance of not working as our current pair of Phantoms. Alright, I understand. Yooper, would the new Phantoms be subject to the same chance to fail as our previously bought Phantoms? If so, can we cough up the cash to ensure their proper functioning? How much would that set us back? I know I'm asking a lot of questions but I want to get this right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
I thought Yooper had cancelled the "no x% chance to not be available mission by mission" as unfun?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I thought Yooper had cancelled the "no x% chance to not be available mission by mission" as unfun? No, he made it so that it's a roll once per mission chance rather than a once per sortie chance. [EDIT] And the chance is rolled during planning phase, not action phase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:
Wait what, Im confused, my proposal calls for both Hawk batteries and all 4 of the Pantsir batteries. I think of all the proposals mine is heaviest on base defence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Wait what, Im confused, my proposal calls for both Hawk batteries and all 4 of the Pantsir batteries. I think of all the proposals mine is heaviest on base defence. It's more that right now A La Carte and Para Bombum are neck and neck, and if I vote for you, Para Bombum might win. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It's more that right now A La Carte and Para Bombum are neck and neck, and if I vote for you, Para Bombum might win. Sorry! Oh I see. Are we just doing one round of procurment voting or can we do a runoff between the three most populat choices? Given that we have more than half a dozen options present there is quite a bit of vote dilution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:No, he made it so that it's a roll once per mission chance rather than a once per sortie chance. I changed this to occur at procurement, if anything like this happens in another procurement. It was unfun to not know prior to missions, and I decided it was unfun except during the special procurement event. For example Saro's Museum buy. If it's broken, you'll know before we go into theater. If it works, we'll assume it works unless a special event says otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
 Voting is very close between Proposal: À la carte and Proposal Parabellum. I the event of a tie the two proposal makers will have a dance off. Just kidding, I don't know what we'll do in the event of a tie. The next lower vote quantity is 1/3 of what either of those have. If you change your vote, please note it after this post and don't edit your previous post. Yooper fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Uh, just to be sure, the A La Carte proposal is this one. That's a vote with an offer to modify it. And restating my support for A La Carte Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Voting À la carte
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
I vote for À la carte to get the SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Switching vote to À la carte now that SDB Gripens are standard and I want a SAM
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
A la cart
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I haven't played CMANO in a long time. Is there damage and maintenance times? Very soon: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/693/details/Command.Chains.of.War quote:NEW! Comprehensive damage model for aircraft. Aircraft may be shot down outright or receive damage that will still allow them to limp back home. Different aircraft can absorb different punishment on their fuselage, cockpit and engines. Depending on the amount of damage received a plane may be "mission killed" if its repairs take so long that it misses the fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
I'm just glad I was able to contribute to the debate a little. If nothing else I've learned a lot about aircraft combat roles, so thanks thread! A La Carte gets my vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I do plan on working the damage model into the LP. Especially in regards to repair cost. If planes survive long enough to limp home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Switching from my proposal to A La Carte.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Voting for A La Carte since it's pretty close to what I wanted anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
A la carte
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
My proposal dude voted A la carte and seeing how it does gave Shilkas, I do too. Come on, we'll be able to knock down ground pouding planes, suppress entire geographical features and entertain starving Angolan rebel children at the same time! We should spend some of th cash we have left over for napalm if we end up overflying free state territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Changing to A la carte.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
a la carte 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Dammit Bacarruda, you convinced me. Parabellum.
pthighs fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
A la carte I'd much sooner buy two gripens by getting our own bloody air defense and freeing them up than buy two gripens by paying full purchase price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:13
|
|
