|
raptus posted:Yooper: I feel you have made things a little too easy for us by making armor and mechinf stationary. I mean isn't the SDB for stationary targets only, while armor and mechinf are designed for mobility? That's a good point Raptus. I'll have to experiment with SDB's and see how they behave in that regard. SDB Gen 1 is stationary only while the Gen 2 can track moving targets and differentiate between targets. Making things move, stop, move, stop, adds a bit more complexity to the scripting but if that proves to be the answer then it'll be easy enough. Loel posted:Yooper, can we attempt to steal boats next campaign? Now that we can move units and drop troops, maybe. It'd be damned tough to a> fly into port, b> drop troops, c> fight the crew, d> capture ship before it's scuttled, e> fire it up, get it to speed, hope it wasn't in the middle of an oil change or maintenance, f> leave harbor, slowly, g> escape into the open ocean. There's good sized shipyards near home so I hit up some of the guys. They said the only time a bote stops moving is when it's broken or undergoing preventative maintenance. So even when a destroyer docks up, the crew goes on liberty, etc, someone is probably using that time to fix something important. But. Maybe. Gervasius posted:
gently caress yah it does. Thank you! Bacarruda posted:Furthermore, we haven't had a no-brainer mission yet. SDBs may be good, but they aren't a "press 1 to win" weapon. They have to be used wisely. Every operation has required goon planners to be creative, clever, and thoughtful. We only pulled of Operation Finest Hour because Quintann put together an excellent plan. And even with a good plan, the operation was touch and go. The more I'm thinking about SDB's the more I'm not minding. In reality all I need to do is offer several groups of targets, any of which would be easy with SDB's but we lack enough ordnance to do them all. SDB's and Meteors won't go away, but they'll be limited in quantity and the targets will evolve. This forces us to use our other planes to hit secondary (or what the mission planner thinks is secondary) targets. Bac brings up a lot of great ideas in regard to maintenance too. Realistically not everything is flying all the time. This ties in to the next point, if everything flies today, can it realistically all fly tomorrow? If it can, how long can you sustain that before a wily opponent sends in a flight of super-tukes and catches you doing engine maintenance on your CAP? (Yes, we have SAM's, but you get the point) Escalations are another good idea. We don't need to, or maybe want to, send everything in the air at once. The next two theaters should both tie into this nicely. I like the split mission idea as well. Goon #1 would plan from 0000 to ordnance dry at which point we'd go into another mission voting phase and Goon #2 would finish the day with remaining planes against remaining targets.
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Gervasius posted:Hope this helps. And they're still developing even nastier versions, too. The S-500 is like an S-400 on steroids. Will happily swat planes from the air at 216 nautical miles, can shoot down ballistic missiles and other hypersonic threats travelling at up to Mach 20 and at altitudes that are literally classified as "in space". Oh, and the radar has a 1,620 nautical mile range for big targets. Edit: What I'd really love is a comparison between the best American and Russian SAM systems - how do things like the THAAD, Aegis Ashore, and Patriot compare to the S-300, S-400 and other systems in development? Plus, any relevant European or Chinese systems (or whomever else), if there are any. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 13:13 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
1) Ivanov Attack 2) K&P Attack 3) BLFM Attack I mostly just want to bomb stuff. Speaking of, Yooper, can you put me on the pilot roster for an attack plane/bomber, callsign Hateball, please?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Edit: What I'd really love is a comparison between the best American and Russian SAM systems - how do things like the THAAD, Aegis Ashore, and Patriot compare to the S-300, S-400 and other systems in development? Plus, any relevant European or Chinese systems (or whomever else), if there are any. poo poo's likely classified, you are likely to find pro-Putin guys claiming that SA-2 can shoot down any F-35 Amerikkkans send to support Ukrofascists, while pro-American dudes will claim patriot can shoot down abstract concepts. JcDent fucked around with this message at 13:33 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
1. BLFM CAS 2. Ivanov support 3 K&P Fighter
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Lots of straw-man arguments about "what will happen" if we choose interesting options! Don't be deterred; what will happen will be fun. 1) Ivanov Support 2) Ivanov Attack 3) K&P Attack
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Lots of straw-man arguments about "what will happen" if we choose interesting options! Don't be deterred; what will happen will be fun. That line of thought has lead to a lot of game breaking problems in CYOAs.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:poo poo's likely qualified, you are likely to find pro-Putin guys claiming that SA-2 can shoot down any F-35 Amerikkkans send to support Ukrofascists, while pro-American dudes will claim patriot can shoot down abstract concepts. I mean we saw SA-11s bring down F-22s. Stealth doesn't make you invulnerable.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:That line of thought has lead to a lot of game breaking problems in CYOAs. Trust in Yooper.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
gonna be real funny watching all the people who wanted Fishbeds bitching about how useless they are.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:gonna be real funny watching all the people who wanted Fishbeds bitching about how useless they are. Joke's on you, I never complained about the SK60Bs
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Joke's on you, I never complained about the SK60Bs I was a strong proponent of the SK60 and I still think that they're an excellent tool when used in a permissive environment.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:gonna be real funny watching all the people who wanted Fishbeds bitching about how useless they are. That's a good avatar for that. Also, I need to finish my PMC.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Nothing we have is going to be useless. SK60Bs are some of the most limited planes in the database: 1st gen, sensor-less, rockets/guns only and they still had a fantastic moment. Old planes are harder to use effectively, but the fun is in pulling off the challenge.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Nothing we have is going to be useless. SK60Bs are some of the most limited planes in the database: 1st gen, sensor-less, rockets/guns only and they still had a fantastic moment. They may have had that one moment, but that was a small area where we were able to sanitize all AA threats. In missions where we've had a wider front to deal with, they've been incredibly ineffective and in areas where there are either enemy fighters or still some enemy ADA assets active, they've done nothing but die. Couple that with the fact that we're going to be more limited in our numbers of SDBs, the primary weapon we used for eliminating ADA, and things become far bleaker for either the Sk 60s or any potential Fishbed purchase.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
With regard to SDBs, we've already seen the limits to their usefulness. They're slow, easy to shoot down, and have a small warhead size. They had difficulty taking out armored targets and structures. And they represent a huge opportunity cost when using them. Every Gripen we put up with SDBs is one less with Meteors. SDBs are very useful in some situations, but they aren't overpowered more than any other standoff weapon or guided bomb.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Also, the SK60Bs and similar do more to make mission planning boring than anything else. They need sanitized airspace, so you go in, sanitize the airspace and let the meaningless bullshit move mud. Every single time. If we want them back, we have to take the air defense down, and that gets predictable fast.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
1) BFLM CAS 2) K&P CAS 3) Ivanov CAS
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
It's similar to why I vote against bote. If we could have a whole flotilla of botes that could perform dedicated naval missions that might be fun, but as it is a single corvette is a super expensive asset that will effectively just end up hucking cruise missiles at stuff and being babysat. The botes that would make botes fun are either too expensive, not sold by nation states period, or would just require us to have more than one of them and at one per procurement that ain't gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Realistically we need to be rolling into procurement with about a billion to get something decent together
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
I think there's a fundamental split here between goons. On the one hand, you've got the people who are taking the game seriously as if they were actual mercs trying to run a company, turn a profit, and not die. On the other, there's the more meta group who just want to do crazy and interesting poo poo that would probably be idiotic in real life (like buy a single bote and some Fishbeds and then go work for AngerPEACE), but just want to have fun with it and trust that Yooper is not too cruel of a god. I don't know how to resolve it, hell you probably can't because that's just how different people enjoy different things. But I'm pretty sure it's why both sides arguments aren't very convincing to the other.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
 Going to close voting this evening. 1900 EST 2300 GMT Tally will not take long. Then I'll introduce the theaters, let you guys ask questions, and give it a day or so before we actually vote. The Bering Sea is not the same place it was a few months ago. Things are escalating around the world. Goldman Sachs expects profits.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
It's mostly that I don't find the idiotic poo poo interesting. "We fail and die because we're stupid assholes" is every bit as boring as "Meteor-meteor-SDB RTB" I'd like a happy medium. Or for the game to be set in the 70s so we get constant gunfights and short range missile dogfights.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I think there's a fundamental split here between goons. On the one hand, you've got the people who are taking the game seriously as if they were actual mercs trying to run a company, turn a profit, and not die. On the other, there's the more meta group who just want to do crazy and interesting poo poo that would probably be idiotic in real life (like buy a single bote and some Fishbeds and then go work for AngerPEACE), but just want to have fun with it and trust that Yooper is not too cruel of a god. I just don't want every single mission to devolve into "the high end stuff sanitizes airspace for the low end bullshit". That's not fun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
How about turning that around? A large number of hardened targets you need modern munitions for with 30-40 Mig-21s flying CAP? No rearm.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Put me down for these: 1. K&P CAS 2. Ivanov CAS 3. BFLM CAS It's CAS all the way down... (not to be confused with Support!)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
1) K&P Attack 2.) Ivanov Attack 3) BLFM Attack K+P and Ivanov attack all contain planes which are useful. It's no fun to have trash sitting around that isn't capable of anything. If you don't want to cheese with standoff weapons then you can go for Ivanov. If we wanna play with boats then we're gonna be best served by having a scenario that lends us some boats so we can afford to lose a few instead of having a single dinky corvette that we have to baby sit and magic up a GM scenario where it is useful and doesn't get blapped instantly/there's some degree of risk to using it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Eh. To be very clear I'm not setting out to be stupid and fail. For one, I assume Yooper won't be too dickish and give us Mig-21s (or substitute whatever older asset) and then create a mission designed to kill them all because they're old and dumb. I expect that, within a framework of hard decisions and tradeoffs, there will be a niche for all our assets throughout a theater, if not every mission. It's why I consider the "we can't protect a single boat it will just get sunk" a fallacy; we might have to work to keep it safe and make tradeoffs, but we're just not going to get a mission where a sub we can't possibly counter sinks it, even if that's what might happen in the real world. The boat will also have tasks suspiciously suited for it as though a person were tailor-making missions for us!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
1: K&P attack 2:K&P Support 3: K&P Fighter Eurotrash forever.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I just don't want every single mission to devolve into "the high end stuff sanitizes airspace for the low end bullshit". That's not fun. That means either dumping the low end or the high end kit.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Eh. To be very clear I'm not setting out to be stupid and fail. For one, I assume Yooper won't be too dickish and give us Mig-21s (or substitute whatever older asset) and then create a mission designed to kill them all because they're old and dumb. I expect that, within a framework of hard decisions and tradeoffs, there will be a niche for all our assets throughout a theater, if not every mission. It's why I consider the "we can't protect a single boat it will just get sunk" a fallacy; we might have to work to keep it safe and make tradeoffs, but we're just not going to get a mission where a sub we can't possibly counter sinks it, even if that's what might happen in the real world. The boat will also have tasks suspiciously suited for it as though a person were tailor-making missions for us! I'll have fluid theaters, some places more permissive than others. If you send your bote into an area that enemy fighters might kill it, expect it to get killed without proper support. If you send MIG-21's out without proper air cover or SEAD, expect it to die. In most cases this will be I will not just go "Lol, dead migs," unless the mission lets it happen or there's a comedy of errors that results in the CAP all dying and hence all the MIG's dying. Not saying this won't happen. Air battles tend to have a very nasty tipping point. Lose two, or even one, fighter and you've lost 8 or 12 BVR missiles. In reality any air force that had that happen would turn tail and run. Ideally I can get a script down to mimic this with our opponents. FYI : Expect missions that might be recon, or elint, or some other wild event that I can't foresee. Not everything will involve dozens of strike aircraft and a missile filled CAP.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Idiotic was fun in Paradise Lost but then we kept dying or getting the wrong people killed. That's where I'm coming from.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
1: K&P attack 2:BLFM Attack 3: K&P Fighter
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
The bote could be fun but the rest of the package just seems very whatever. Fishbeds would probably just be the new SK60s or maybe get some A2A duty by babysitting our support craft and then praying they can lob enough close range missiles at whatever managed to get back near Windmill, iSpy, etc. I just having a hard time seeing that package doing much or opening up new avenues of fun beyond the bote.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:That means either dumping the low end or the high end kit. Or having a decent amount of variety in high end kit so that we can add on interesting high end strikes like we've been somewhat capable of in Angola. Rather than just picking a bit of frontline to sanitize for the mud movers, we'd do that as part of an overall operation that includes a lot more work in target selection, strategic planning and all that fun nerd poo poo. Once we don't have all the high end stuff on babysitting duty, that opens up choices in what we split off for another mission, and a lot of options on what that other mission is. Whether it's trying to pick away at stuff under a high end SAM, long range precision strikes to knock enemies off balance strategically or what have you, there's a lot of fun to be had. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 15:55 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I'll have fluid theaters, some places more permissive than others. If you send your bote into an area that enemy fighters might kill it, expect it to get killed without proper support. If you send MIG-21's out without proper air cover or SEAD, expect it to die. I enjoy the direction you're taking things and I appreciate that being dumb will be punished. The unpredictability of risk in cascading failures is also probably the best part of this LP meta, imo. In a scripted campaign losses can cripple you and just end the game, and it's enormously frustrating when a series of bad rolls or failed gambles halts things. Here we will get to roll with some interesting punches even if they do hurt and the show will go on. It makes taking risks more fun, to me at least. Anyway, I think I've made my case about as completely as I can. I'm still gonna enjoy a bunch of pretty sweet F-16s if we end up with those, I just don't want to miss out on the crapjets and their little crap niche.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Well, supress and move mud is the basic cycle of any ground pounding op. This is why I tried to shake things up by suggesting interesting targets that were out of the way and would lead to narrative twists. But then people hated them because they might lead to some ill-defined negative consequences, so I have no idea what people want. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
I'm more interested in seeing some Hinds in action than the bote tbh. Sure, helicopters are incredibly slow and vulnerable CAS aircraft if they're used as a part of the kind of ops we did in Angola but it'd be interesting to have a few just to be able to throw in an SAR or convoy escort mission for variety. Trying to sneak in a rescue team of helicopters and obsolete CAS aircraft under the enemy's radar would be more interesting than just cruise missiling every radar site on the continent.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
I was under the impression that CMANO was particularly brutal towards helicopters, and that was one of the reasons we avoided using them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
modern warfare is brutal against helicopters But it has resulted in a slew of amazing "helicopters below treetop level going fast" videos because that's the only way they can hope to stay alive
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:22
|
|
