|
Yooper posted:Yes. We can use it. Hmm, interesting. Bacarruda, is there any way we can make these fit into your plans? Like Yooper said, we don't need to completely destroy the runway, but a few bomb craters to make the J-20s crash on landing would be helpful.
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Z the IVth posted:What does the runway's "HP" actually stand for? Other scenarios often set "Runway < 50% = cannot operate, but can be repaired," but I'm not sure if that's a scenario by scenario setting or a fixed setting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Yooper, does Lhasa have two runways like the irl one does?  Yes, two runways.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
I don't know if you've noticed, but Operation Thunderbolt isn't the right comparison; try Operation loving Mikado, a plan so crazy even Thatcher wouldn't sign off on it. I have to vote to kill the runways; the Indian volunteers can handle cleanup. EDIT: It even has all the flaws of Operation Mikado! How will we know where the J-20s are stored, and if any will be available to steal (rather than laid up for maintenance or simply not there, having all departed to attack the IAF)? How will we know our big fat CN235 won't get pinged by a JF-17 or J-16? We have information about what kind of AAA/SAMs we'll be facing, but zero in the way of location and count--one MANPADS means the entire op is screwed. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Strict Parenting with Light Attack. The proper way to shut down an air base!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Jack wasn't the one who sank two nominally civilian freighters and a Chinese frigate, you know. Yeah, I think this one is on us 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Can CMANO simulate a trench run? This is important Forget a trench run, can CMANO simulate submarine launched anti-aircraft ballistic missiles? Let's go maximum Ace Combat!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
I'd rather get F-CK-1s and FA-50s for the sheer novelty value. Kfirs are also good. EDIT: Oh, oh, and F-20s! Don't forget the F-20s! Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I vote that Area 88 be the official soundtrack Supplemented by Ace Combat as needed, because I will not be denied the awesomeness that is the AC4/ACI briefing theme.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:So Google Translate says that intercept is a message to the Lhasa "aviation chief" (airbase/wing commander I assume) RE: "supply problem". The gist I'm getting is that the higher ups are saying that they can't send any more planes and Lhasa will have to make do with what they've got. The J-20's can only be used in case of emergency. Wait, J-20s only in case of emergency? Does that mean that the IAF flight might only encounter J-16s and JF-17s and WE'LL run into the J-20s?! Also regarding nukes, what the hell?! China has an official no-first-use policy! Are they saying the IAF might deploy nuclear weapons?! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Shame they only built like 3 F-20 Tigersharks so we can't go full Area 88. This is clearly an alternate universe. We could probably buy F-20s direct from the manufacturer if we wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I can't believe that worked! I mean, it's one thing to plan it out, and quite another to see it in action! Yooper, can you post the Losses and Expenditures sheet if you still have the end of scenario save? It won't tell us who did the killing, but it will tell us who got killed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:Pfff... Hahahahaha! That's amazing! I kinda have to agree with this. I don't think we'll ever be in a situation where we're strapped for parking spaces, so it isn't like we lose anything by keeping the SK 60Bs in the back pocket. Also I like the investor quote 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 23:25
|
|
) or by the SK 60Bs' rockets!
), but if the opportunity for light CAS opens up again, it lets us save the better airframes for other uses. We can also still use them for their original purpose -- training pilots -- or we can stick an investor in the copilot seat and give them a demonstration flight.
|
I still want to try to make the world better, not actively worse, and setting fully loaded tankers on fire will make things worse. Angola. As for our buy... To Start: $534,012,376.00 (534M) JAS 39C Gripen (70M) x 1 = 70M (To replace losses) Mirage 2000H India (35M) x 4 = 140M (People here like Mirages; good for Strike) F-4E Greek (15M) x 6 = 90M (To make a full squadron of Phantoms; good for Strike and CAP [AMRAAMs]) Tornado (30M) x 4 = 120M (For Strike and SEAD) SIDAM (5M) x 4 + ASRAD (10M) x4 = 60M (because as this showed, you can't be too careful with grounded aircraft) Total Spent = 480M
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Davin you know full well that if we go to Africa we're gonna end up as CAS for whoever the genocidal dictator du jour is. Since we get to pick sides, maybe we can drop bombs on the dictator?  And you can totally be an ecoterrorist in Africa! Enforce anti-poaching regulations with the guns of an SK 60B!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Su-27s are pretty much straight outclassed by the Gripens in the air-to-air role, mostly thanks to the Meteor missiles, with the main exception of number of missiles carried. I really do feel (as in my proposal) that we're best served with a "Gripens First" fleet where everything else exists to let the Gripens shove Meteors into the faces of things we don't like. Alternately, a fleet where the Gripens shove Meteors into anything we don't like which lets everybody else do their business with giant bombs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Man, we need to head to Angola and we need to give the Free State every single swirly possible. Count von Hoff would pay us to do it. Bonus points. Please tell me he's actually an idealist, and not a senile old man who will let his dipshit son/nephew/[insert younger relation here] screw up everything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:Come on man. Look at them. They've got nothing aside from mercs-they would pay through the loving nose for any kind of support. Knowing them, they'd probably pay us in "Free State Scrip" or some other worthless currency. Dr. Snark posted:Besides our two groups really aren't that different-both us and the Free State have/are pissing off power blocs far more dangerous than ourselves. Not to mention that these guys seem like they're as stupidly (and I'd like to emphasize stupidly) ambitious as we are. Okay, first off, gently caress you for comparing us, second off, there's a huge difference between going in to support humanitarian aid and getting dragged into a bigger conflict and resurrecting a model of war that involves going to war over bat poop so that techbros can source their iPhone 13s marginally cheaper. Dr. Snark posted:I mean, they probably are assholes that deserve a good kick in the nads, but god drat would we have stories to tell if we rolled with them. We'd have stories to tell our lawyers to get our money back after they cheat us out of our contract on some stupid-rear end technicality. Also WRT procurement: I'm not sure if we need another tanker--if anything the one we already have has nearly screwed us twice over! And would a Tornado ECR be better than a Prowler?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:If y'all don't buy the two M163 VADS to tool around shooting up Angola then I can only conclude you hate fun. Honestly, if we really want good AA we'd probably buy Soviet, because those guys really know their AA, but I don't trust that dealer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Renaissance Spam posted:So I'm liking the majority of this. One question, besides the fact the thread likes mirages, could you explain to my dumb rear end why a fifth of our budget should go to buying Mirages? I'm just thinking if we want more strike craft why not spend nearly 60M less on 4 more FrogFoots? It's mostly just "the thread likes Mirages". And also souvenirs from India. It looks like the consensus is to drop them. So how about... JAS 39C Gripen (70M) x 1 = 70M (To replace losses) F-4E Greek (15M) x 6 = 90M (To make a full squadron of Phantoms; good for Strike and CAP [AMRAAMs]--that's all of them, btw) Tornado (30M) x 4 = 120M (For Strike and SEAD) ZSU-23-4 (4M*1.2=5) x 6 + SA-22 (18M*1.2=21.6M) x 4 = 116.4M (because as this showed, you can't be too careful with grounded aircraft--also someone above me said that the SA-22, aka Pantsir-S1, is practically a one-group airbase defender) EA-6B (52M*1.4) = 72.8M KC-135 (39M*1.4) = 54.6M Total Spent = 523.8M EDIT: Revised to switch Tornado ECR for Prowler. EDIT EDIT: Revised to add tanker. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
I'm not convinced that our tanker woes are logistical rather than doctrinal, but I've bowed to the will of the majority and added a tanker to my proposal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Actually, here's an idea. This isn't a bad idea, actually. The UK contracts tanker ops in real life. Maybe we can get a sub contract with the same group!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Cathode Raymond posted:I think some old SCUDS or comparably shoddy ballistic missiles would be more sensible than a B-52 if we need to just blow up a big chunk of the earth at some point. I want to point to this and observe that turnabout is fair play. I freely admit that this is a defense of my own purchase (and that I have heavily cottoned on to the idea of "Euro/Asian/'unusual' fighters, US support craft, Russian ground forces"). However, to all of the procurement plans whose ground based AA consists of a few token AA guns: what is your plan if our enemies fire SCUDs or FROG-7s at our runway, or attack with air launched stand-off weapons? We have to be on the watch for OPFOR doing a Strict Parenting against us.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
FWIW, I'd still prefer my option, but I'm happy with Peanuts.power crystals posted:By the way, my head hurts trying to figure out all these competing procurement plans and so I'm going to retroactively change my mind and say that from now on, package deals are probably better for our collective sanity. I'm also going to agree with this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
My proposal has already been made. I repeat my support for Angola, Count von Hoff. If he turns out to be a neo-imperialist we can put him down on the way out. The Dictator is an active and unrepentant human rights abuser, and the Free State is simply unconscionable. Same with the Bering Sea options, really--they're all pirates of various sorts.Crazycryodude posted:Can we PLEASE get around to helping them destroy capitalism one of these days? The post-capitalist future will still need people with guns, we'll just get paid in something other than USD. Hell, it might even be better for us without any shareholders holding our leash. On the operational level we're basically a worker owned co-op at this point, anyways. At that point you might as well work for the loving Free State.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
EDIT: Ehhh, not the place for that. SorryAnta posted:I gotta vote for the Count. We're using lovely Swedish planes to kill planes they have no business even going up against. Of course we have to support the crazy European noble. Agreed on both counts. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Actually now I'm curious. Is our Count intended to be a riff on Carl Gustaf von Rosen? ...are we making a 2nd Biafra?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
I'd actually like to modify my buy slightly, if you all don't mind. Let's call this Plan Better Safe than Sorry. JAS 39C Gripen (70M) x 1 = 70M (To replace losses) F-4E Greek (15M) x 6 = 90M (To make a full squadron of Phantoms; good for Strike and CAP [AMRAAMs]--that's all of them, btw) Tornado (30M) x 6 = 180M (For Strike and SEAD) VC-10 K4 (2M+21M) = 23M (For tanking on the cheap) ZSU-23-4 (4M*1.2=4.8) x 6 + SA-22 (18M*1.2=21.6M) x 4 = 115.2M (because as this showed, you can't be too careful with grounded aircraft--also someone above me said that the SA-22, aka Pantsir-S1, is practically a one-group airbase defender) EA-6B (52M*1.4) = 72.8M (For EW funtimes) Total Spent = 528M Leaving a cool ~5 million for our next advisor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:It looks like now your plan and mine are pretty similar. I'm not against your proposal, but I'd rather have the extra Tornadoes than the MIM-23s, which aren't that good compared to the Pantsirs, especially at defeating ballistic missiles and/or glide bombs. But if your proposal makes it through to final voting and mine doesn't, rest assured I'll vote for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
EDIT: Sorry, Jimmy, but I need to vote A La Carte to protect our airfield from being defended by just a couple of SIDAM 25s! Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
I thought Yooper had cancelled the "no x% chance to not be available mission by mission" as unfun?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:I agree with the prebuilt packages but maybe include a custom ordering option with a decent markup? That way if we want something really cool or good we can get it but other wise we have to work with what we get. I suspect that's what Wild Willie's Special Shop is for. But, yes, that sounds like a good procedure. Especially if we get the chance to order "built but never used operationally" items like F-20s or Yak-141s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Angola - Count
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Count me in for Angola While I agree with you that that's certainly an interesting story, I think after the Tibet debacle we deserve a story where at least one idealist means exactly what they say, no matter how much that conflicts with the rest of the world. If every campaign ends with "and then things got worse!", it wouldn't be very interesting, now would it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:We need to build up plenty of good will so that we aren't immediately sanctioned/invaded by the UN when we establish Outer Heaven. I thought the cynical path our future would take would be more World with No Boundaries, myself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:World with No Boundries was incredibly lame, though. How dare you impugn the awesomeness that is Solo Wing Pixy?! Besides, last time I checked Big Boss's air Force consisted of a few helicopters, not multiple squadrons with support aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Usual Barb posted:gently caress colonialism and I don't trust someone who supported Rhodesia to have the people's best interests in mind. I'm...pretty sure "running humanitarian aid into Rhodesia" means "flew in food and medicine for people displaced in the Rhodesian Bush War", not "supported the Rhodesian government."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Western Angola is the only part that matters. I'm convinced! Lubango, no split. If we split we run the very real risk of getting, I dunno, Camp Bastioned with a strung out defensive line.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 00:58
|
|
