|
Bacarruda posted:
In keeping with our Ace Combat theming...
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Relatedly: Anyone who doesn't have "The Liberation of Gracemeria" playing in the background when they're watching the stream/video/whatever when that comes around is a killjoy and should feel bad for themselves  (Seriously, we're making a final push to liberate Luanda, there is literally no reason not to use that as BGM!)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:Relatedly: Anyone who doesn't have "The Liberation of Gracemeria" playing in the background when they're watching the stream/video/whatever when that comes around is a killjoy and should feel bad for themselves Alternatively, Wings of Unity or Diapason work as well. Farbanti unfortunately does not work as well as those three. Dreamsicle fucked around with this message at 06:21 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
The keyword is couple. We don't need to sell Hawks, we need to have 2 or more. We don't need to sell Frogfoot - unless we can get a superior version of it - we should have at least two. And 20 of the most modern Fishbeds we can find. Fiiiiishbeeeeds
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Alternatively, Wings of Unity or Diapason work as well. What, are Emancipation and Keep Alive (and if we're using ACI, Reprisal and Shall Defend) chopped liver?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:What, are Emancipation and Keep Alive (and if we're using ACI, Reprisal and Shall Defend) chopped liver? Oh poo poo forgot about Emancipation. Did Keep Alive play during a Capital asaault/liberation? Trying to keep the songs limited to those missions. Dreamsicle fucked around with this message at 07:13 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Oh poo poo forgot about Emancipation. Did Keep Alive play durring a Capital asaault/liberation? Trying to keep the sobgs limited to those missions. Keep Alive plays during the Moscow gunship assault in Assault Horizon. Shall Defend is the flipside of that, but also plays during the Dubai mission of ACI. (Similarly, Reprisal plays on the Tokyo mission.)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Even with extensive automation it takes 140 people to crew a Zumwalt. I would like to point out that 15,000 tons of bote being crewed by a mere 140 sailors is insane. glynnenstein posted:Apple can afford those insane guided shells for the Zumwalt! Perfect operator for that platform. I was under the impression that the USN decided that the Zumwalts were going to be fitted with the much cheaper, slightly shorter range OTHER guided Rocket Shell thing? Since the price difference is enough to actually justify "this is a guided rocket shell, not a super expensive missile made of money and gently caress". Groggy nard fucked around with this message at 08:12 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:What, are Emancipation and Keep Alive (and if we're using ACI, Reprisal and Shall Defend) chopped liver? Emancipation is one of my favorite AC4 songs, surpassed only by Comona and Escort.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
I think the super expensive rounds are super expensive because people take the costs of the program and divide it by the number of rounds made to get the final result. The rounds might be cheap-ish individually, but not with the RnD costs looming above their heads.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think the super expensive rounds are super expensive because people take the costs of the program and divide it by the number of rounds made to get the final result. The rounds might be cheap-ish individually, but not with the RnD costs looming above their heads. It was the difference between making a whole new turret or just slapping some poo poo on standard 5inchers, that I've read about.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
JcDent posted:The keyword is couple. We don't need to sell Hawks, we need to have 2 or more. We don't need to sell Frogfoot - unless we can get a superior version of it - we should have at least two. I've got a fishbed model I want to paint in hayard gunes colors. Do it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
My take would be that restricting some top-grade munitions by introducing a per-mission cap on them is a good solution to a lot of problems. It would definitely make both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat far more exciting and challenging, since it would once again entail some risks. When we started out, we saw dogfights. Now air combat is an afterthought, since we can just point-and-click with the Meteors. And people have already stated a case against the SDBs. But it's not just about bringing the excitement back. It also makes planning more diverse and interesting, and any specific flights seem less interchangeable. When one pair of CAP Gripens has Meteors, but the other only has AIM-9s, then I feel like it gives the pilots of both flights more... prominence, maybe? More spotlight. And the planner must consider where will the Meteors go, and where they won't. Finally, it removes some weight off of Yooper's shoulders when preparing the scenarios. If he knows we won't have 48 SDBs, he can force us to make decisions - will we use them on the Buk that stands in the way to the enemy airfield, or against one that protects the enemy ground forces? And elsewhere he'll be able to put up some lower-tier equipment, so that the Kvadrats or Fishbeds of this world no longer only serve to clutter up the map. It won't be necessary to use Raptors and S-300s to give us a challenge, Mig-29s and F-16s will suffice to make things interesting. And, by consequence, this will allow our weaker aircraft to get back in business. The escalation from garbage Chinese AA and J-whatever Fishbeds to Buks and Su-30s has made it so the SK-60Bs, for example, which worked so hard and successfully in Tibet, are now not just lacking in capability, but also in purpose; the technology level in the threat environment has left them behind so much that people advocate outright selling them to be replaced by more Gripens, F-18s, even Rafales. I say - nuts to that, diversity rules, let's rewind the clock a little bit. Moreover, this will mean some operations will be markedly different to others. One fight may see us capped at 5 SDB flights and 2 Meteor flights, another may remove the Meteors altogether, but then the climactic assault on the enemy capital will give us all the toys back to ramp up the scale and make the final battle seem more like a final battle. In short, I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal to limit SDB/Meteor/other top of the line munitions saturation while opposing the suggestion to knock singletons off our equipment list. Thanks for reading.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:Relatedly: Anyone who doesn't have "The Liberation of Gracemeria" playing in the background when they're watching the stream/video/whatever when that comes around is a killjoy and should feel bad for themselves Agreed. So very agreed. I can hear the opening strings already! Counterpoint: http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h...d-Gunnes%2C+LLC The briefing music for the grand finale of AC6 is a bit overwrought for this scenario, but AC4's briefing music has about the right mix of electronic and orchestral sound. EDIT: The strings even kick in for the first time as Bac says "The Dictator has realized it is literally do or die time for him, and he will not give in without a fight." Perfect. Realbarrow fucked around with this message at 15:37 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:My take would be that restricting some top-grade munitions by introducing a per-mission cap on them is a good solution to a lot of problems. It would definitely make both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat far more exciting and challenging, since it would once again entail some risks. When we started out, we saw dogfights. Now air combat is an afterthought, since we can just point-and-click with the Meteors. And people have already stated a case against the SDBs. We're still seeing dogfights. Do you not remember the Phantom gun kill on that Brewer? The big reason we were seeing more dogfights in Tibet are twofold: 1) We've seen far less of the AAF than we saw of the PLAAF or the Burmese in Tibet because they've been very unwilling to come up and play with us and 2) we've got more aircraft for A2G missions, allowing us to have more Gripens on CAP. There's a pretty reasonable argument that keeping more of the lovely bomb trucks around has led to that perceived problem. The reason we're becoming so dependent on SDBs is because people do not want to risk expensive aircraft by going into air defences when you can release the bomb from without and it'll glide in. Tevery Best posted:But it's not just about bringing the excitement back. It also makes planning more diverse and interesting, and any specific flights seem less interchangeable. When one pair of CAP Gripens has Meteors, but the other only has AIM-9s, then I feel like it gives the pilots of both flights more... prominence, maybe? More spotlight. And the planner must consider where will the Meteors go, and where they won't. In that scenario, there's not going to be two pairs of CAP Gripens. There'll be the one pair with Meteors and the other pair will get Paveways to bomb some poo poo instead of trying to go toe to toe with aircraft that will likely have BVR missiles while they don't. Tevery Best posted:Finally, it removes some weight off of Yooper's shoulders when preparing the scenarios. If he knows we won't have 48 SDBs, he can force us to make decisions - will we use them on the Buk that stands in the way to the enemy airfield, or against one that protects the enemy ground forces? And elsewhere he'll be able to put up some lower-tier equipment, so that the Kvadrats or Fishbeds of this world no longer only serve to clutter up the map. It won't be necessary to use Raptors and S-300s to give us a challenge, Mig-29s and F-16s will suffice to make things interesting. I don't think we've seen a single scenario where there's been 48 SDBs airborne. Secondly, we've seen a lot of SDBs get shot down by either SAMs or gunfire. Saturation of an IADS is needed now to ensure that at least one bomb will get through to the target and that's difficult to do if you don't have stuff like the SDB around. Edit: And in the future this will likely get even worse as laser systems are likely beginning to proliferate at this point. Tevery Best posted:And, by consequence, this will allow our weaker aircraft to get back in business. The escalation from garbage Chinese AA and J-whatever Fishbeds to Buks and Su-30s has made it so the SK-60Bs, for example, which worked so hard and successfully in Tibet, are now not just lacking in capability, but also in purpose; the technology level in the threat environment has left them behind so much that people advocate outright selling them to be replaced by more Gripens, F-18s, even Rafales. I say - nuts to that, diversity rules, let's rewind the clock a little bit. I would argue that when you look at the Sk 60Bs dispassionately they've been very unsuccessful aircraft. They've only truly proven effective at striking soft stationary targets such as the parked J-20s we rocketed in Lhasa. Beyond that, they've spewed rockets every which way but at the targets they've been assigned and to employ them effectively we've had to delouse the surrounding area of local air defences with stand-off weapons like the SDB you've decried, and even then we've lost one to a Korean War-era AAA emplacement. The other aircraft that people have generally been in favour of getting rid of are the Frogfoot (limited range and no IFR) and the Hawk (only a pair of Mavericks). I'm far more gung ho on selling aircraft, but even I have a place for stuff like the Kfirs or the AMXs, never mind the very successful Phantoms. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:My take would be that restricting some top-grade munitions by introducing a per-mission cap on them is a good solution to a lot of problems. It would definitely make both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat far more exciting and challenging, since it would once again entail some risks. When we started out, we saw dogfights. Now air combat is an afterthought, since we can just point-and-click with the Meteors. And people have already stated a case against the SDBs. I think this a bad idea. The gripens with meteor loadouts are the things that keep the rest of our planes safe. I would be fine with banning the SDB's but a cap on meteors is an open invitation to start taking big ATA losses, and if we put in restrictive RoE's, that's just more micro for Yooper. And it would also just not eliminate the problem. The real problem anyway is that the gripens are several times better than anything else in our inventory. The gripens crush the modern AA defenses that out right murder the rest of our planes. The Gripens blow things out of the skies that would all of our other planes up. The solution to this problem is simple; we either upgrade the rest of our fleet or we take the gripens out after Angola under the pretext of them undergoing upgrades to the E variant. And then we see how much we end up liking that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Realbarrow posted:
Well, yeah, but using Operation for everything is like cheating! It goes with every briefing we have!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think the super expensive rounds are super expensive because people take the costs of the program and divide it by the number of rounds made to get the final result. The rounds might be cheap-ish individually, but not with the RnD costs looming above their heads. This is basically the case. Apparently somebody developed a naval version of the Excalibur round that can be used for cheaper since the Zumwalt's gun is also 155mm.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Well, yeah, but using Operation for everything is like cheating! It goes with every briefing we have! I cannot help Tetsukazu Nakanishi's genius, only share the masterpiece that is AC4's soundtrack with the world.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
You know, we could take a less serious OP while we send out Grippens for a refit and upgrades. Maybe we might start getting them back in two as such. We can make up for the capacity by Phantom CAP and 16 MiG-21-2000s.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
 Going to run the stream this evening. Probably around 21:30 EST. I caught one hilarious bug that halted our advance until a hospital was destroyed. I figured you guys would like that one. https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/vacation?iso=20170521T2130&p0=4910&msg=Hired+Goons+Mission+6&font=cursive
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I don't like the idea of restricting weapon loadouts. The SDB in and of itself is a neat weapon, but it's vulnerable to ground fire and doesn't have a big warhead (as evidenced by some targets taking 2-3 bombs to take out last mission). It's good at what it does, being a standoff weapon best against small targets. Plus it forces us to choose what we want our Gripens to do. Either be our best A/A Fighter a really good standoff attack aircraft. It can't do both. This is also how it works (to a degree) in the real world, with highly capable aircraft sanitizing airspace and escorting less capable bomb trucks. That being said, taking a less intense contract while our Gripens are being upgraded in Sweden would be a cool idea. I hear South America is nice this time of year.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:It's very locked down, to the point where the best way to get database changes is to request them from the developers. Beer4TheBeerGod posted:That is dumb and bad. I mean, I was able to figure out how to modify it, but I'm absolutely sure I'm not supposed to have been able to do that, so I'm not gonna say anything else on that subject other than to generally agree with Beer's sentiment. xthetenth posted:I've got a fishbed model I want to paint in hayard gunes colors. Do it. Do it anyway and then post that poo poo! Claim it's a non-working one we found in the Angolan countryside and repainted as a show piece if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Instead of outright denying munitions, a better idea is to set a certain amount of the fancier ordnance types at the start of each theater. with an opportunity to have a smaller restock midway through. We might have enough to lob around as much stuff as we want for one mission but not for the entire campaign, adding a bit of paranoia to our long term planning, forcing us to be conservative. For example we might get a few meteors but a lot of AMRAAMs. Few SDBs but a lot of Paveways, forcing us to reconsider where we put our best ordnance. The question should not be: "what is best?" but rather: "what will do the job?" because the former is rather easy due to tech being so unbalanced but the latter is much harder due to the unknown variables on the oppositions side. Running out of precision ordnance during campaigns have been a real concern for much larger and better supplied militaries than us. Britain nearly ran out of Brimstones in libya, NATO of precision ordance altogether during the first gulf war. I realize that a lot of people want to go full awesome but it seems to me like the biggest problem of this LP ATM is the traditional roleplaying PC powercreep in which we become so powerful that its hard to make good challenges for us. Other option is of course to make a mission intentionally designed to take us down a peg or ten. orcbuster fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:I don't like the idea of restricting weapon loadouts. The SDB in and of itself is a neat weapon, but it's vulnerable to ground fire and doesn't have a big warhead (as evidenced by some targets taking 2-3 bombs to take out last mission). It's good at what it does, being a standoff weapon best against small targets. Plus it forces us to choose what we want our Gripens to do. Either be our best A/A Fighter a really good standoff attack aircraft. It can't do both. This is also how it works (to a degree) in the real world, with highly capable aircraft sanitizing airspace and escorting less capable bomb trucks. This sounds a good compromise between meta and fiction.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:Instead of outright denying munitions, a better idea is to set a certain amount of the fancier ordnance types at the start of each theater. with an opportunity to have a smaller restock midway through. We might have enough to lob around as much stuff as we want for one mission but not for the entire campaign, adding a bit of paranoia to our long term planning, forcing us to be conservative. For example we might get a few meteors but a lot of AMRAAMs. Few SDBs but a lot of Paveways, forcing us to reconsider where we put our best ordnance. The question should not be: "what is best?" but rather: "what will do the job?" because the former is rather easy due to tech being so unbalanced but the latter is much harder due to the unknown variables on the oppositions side. Other than that, sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I got caught up with work for a week or two and now I have 1668 posts in this thread to get caught up on. Time to get cracking.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:One downside: having to worry about running out of ammo is going to take away from that whole Ace Combat feel, I think. I don't think we want this to be like an ace combat powertrip though. this is a long term thing where we have to manage our forces not just for this mission but the ones after as well (in a humourous setting and manner of course) which makes it fundamentally different in feel from a pure spectacle game like AC, and to make it interesting we have to have more inventory dimensions than just the planes and their loadouts.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:I don't think we want this to be like an ace combat powertrip though. this is a long term thing where we have to manage our forces not just for this mission but the ones after as well (in a humourous setting and manner of course) which makes it fundamentally different in feel from a pure spectacle game like AC, and to make it interesting we have to have more inventory dimensions than just the planes and their loadouts. Well, I was being semi-sarcastic. I think it'd be an interesting element, actually. I remember reading an article about aviation in the Iran-Iraq War where Iran's top ace and one of their most senior air force dudes frequently urged his pilots not to fire off their missiles, because they only had a limited supply on account of the sanctions. It could also theoretically shape our future loadout - we've gone NATO-heavy, for sure, but maybe it might encourage us to diversify - if, say, we were to be able to get a stockpile of Russian munitions on the cheap at one point or another - we might want to consider buying jets that could use them, just to give us options. Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 21:41 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:Instead of outright denying munitions, a better idea is to set a certain amount of the fancier ordnance types at the start of each theater. with an opportunity to have a smaller restock midway through. We might have enough to lob around as much stuff as we want for one mission but not for the entire campaign, adding a bit of paranoia to our long term planning, forcing us to be conservative. For example we might get a few meteors but a lot of AMRAAMs. Few SDBs but a lot of Paveways, forcing us to reconsider where we put our best ordnance. The question should not be: "what is best?" but rather: "what will do the job?" because the former is rather easy due to tech being so unbalanced but the latter is much harder due to the unknown variables on the oppositions side. This all good and cool but we started out with something like this and it didn't work. It's also straight up more work and headache for Yooper. The workable solution for now is not taking the gripens into the next theatre and seeing how that turns out. I think we'll be taking more losses than we'd like to, but if the goonmind demands it, we can accommodate.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
OR! We can continue playing as we have been, and not do a bunch of ridiculous crap to try to fix problems that might not actually exist.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:This all good and cool but we started out with something like this and it didn't work. It's also straight up more work and headache for Yooper. I realize this which is why I suggested that we only do this for a few select extreme range stand off munitions types (which is easier to determine now that we have more of a handle on gameplay mechanics) like the meteor and SDB. Having us suffer extreme casualties more regularly is another option which I heartily approve of 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:I realize this which is why I suggested that we only do this for a few select extreme range stand off munitions types (which is easier to determine now that we have more of a handle on gameplay mechanics) like the meteor and SDB. Having us suffer extreme casualties more regularly is another option which I heartily approve of I might do this in the next theater. Now that we have cargo ops it can potentially make for an interesting decision. It also allows us to use our cargo planes. It'd totally be cool to try and escort cargo planes through questionable airspace. I'll think some more on it and how to make it fun. Because if video games taught me anything it's that escort missions are loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I might do this in the next theater. Now that we have cargo ops it can potentially make for an interesting decision. It also allows us to use our cargo planes. It'd totally be cool to try and escort cargo planes through questionable airspace. I'll think some more on it and how to make it fun. Because if video games taught me anything it's that escort missions are loving horrible. Starting with 100 meteors and SDBS (or whatever) and needing to allocate cargo runs during other missions sounds fun tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Completely changing tangents, (and I might be wrong here) but aren't we missing one of the most integral parts of a fighter (or military in general) unit? I am of course talking of a latin motto. Faux or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
A generalized need to keep ourselves supplied could add some good variety. Do we divert a flight to escort the cargo plane carrying our anti-air missiles? Our SDBs? Both? Or do we dedicate those resources to what we are actually being paid for and hope the cargo makes it in? Do we provide CAP for that freighter carrying our food and TP or do we bomb an airfield? And we lose/are restricted in our munition choice if the precious cargo explodes and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:Completely changing tangents, (and I might be wrong here) but aren't we missing one of the most integral parts of a fighter (or military in general) unit? Liberatae pro mercede operis sui. Which is what I am certain is a very high quality machine translation of "Liberators for hire."
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Carpe Pecunia.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Caecilius pecuniam numerat
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Omnibus servari non potest 'You can't save everyone' Ne quid umquam abjicias 'Never throw anything away' Quia tuti sunt tibi gradibus 'You are protected because of the stairs that you have.'
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:01
|
|