|
Yvonmukluk posted:Does that include alternate votes? its a count of those who vote for K&P attack over Ivanov attack and vice versa which as far as I've understood it will be the final determiner for who gets picked. Basically I only count those two and whoever is highest on everyones list. If both of them are on the list then the one who is highest gets the point. orcbuster fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 24, 2017 |
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Finally adding to the list of merc companies:not Peanut's Mercenary Report posted:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:I count 43-35 in K&P attacks favour. I counted more closely, and yeah, I think K&P are a few ahead.  Optimization won against everything. Not just the Bote and Hinds... Even the Su-24s, Su-35s, Super Tucanos... We went with workhorse F-16s. Whee, off brand NATO here we come. (I love NATO, but still... ;_;) RA Rx fucked around with this message at 21:00 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:BTW I'm not advocating that we get Attack helicopters. I'm actually firmly against them as I believe they have limited utility in the sort of missions we conduct. Weapon capable Helis can wait untill we get boats and ASW helis. This. (Attack helicopters are still cool and we should definitely get some soon though.) There should be enough Mi-8/CH-53/Super Puma variants floating around that we could get a few cargo helicopters reasonably cheap. Or we could get an Mi-26. It's basically a VTOL C-130 
PenguinSalsa fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I counted more closely, and yeah, I think K&P are a few ahead. TBF we can't really call this Strike Commander inspired without F-16s. I have a feeling people will complain when they get assigned to the Atlantique instead of getting an SU-24.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
At least there's 6 Tornadoes, and I have no idea what that French thing is. Dropping sonobuoys and launching Exocets sounds like fun. We're going to be way more powerful now, but there's always SEAD to let the rest out to play. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:TBF we can't really call this Strike Commander inspired without F-16s. Complaints will disappear once they take out their first Submarine, launch exocets and Paveways.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Brovine posted:My "gently caress you, gravity" loadout was about 20000lb overweight. Max fuel, max weapons. We confirmed the LAU-88 has been retired because of the various Mav issues, but we're also going to need a retiredment year in order to back-check all other similar loadouts. Anyone with a firm source on when the pylon was retired ?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:Complaints will disappear once they take out their first Submarine, launch exocets and Paveways. I will complain about the lack of MALD-Js at every chance possible.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
1. Ivanov CAS 2. K&P Fighter 3. Ivanov Support
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I counted more closely, and yeah, I think K&P are a few ahead. Ivanov CAS is actually a close second and a push for BLFM CAS can still make it the winner. Don't be such a downer just because not enough people agreed that $400,000,000 for 1000tons of scrap steel is a good deal.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
The amount of salt I will feel for us buying the Xena-16 vs. Troll-16 can only be exceeded by the Hand That Voted For Migs And Botes Shall Never Touch Ours Committee For Prudence.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
 Two Hours till Vote Closed! 1900 EST 2300 GMT Then you'll learn about The Night of the Bone Harpoons and the Death of Janko Perešin.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
1900 EST is midnight GMT.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Death of Janko Perešin. How'd you come up with that name? Genuinely curious. Because I guess it's a reference to Rudolf Perešin.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
WHALE WARS
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:1900 EST is midnight GMT. This man says it's so, I'll trust him as I think he might live in that timezone.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Yooper posted:This man says it's so, I'll trust him as I think he might live in that timezone. I think you meant UTC, as GMT applies daylight savings but UTC does not.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
In any case, that will give you 5-6 hours to spam the thread and leave me with hundreds of posts to read in the morning.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
JcDent posted:The amount of salt I will feel for us buying the Xena-16 vs. Troll-16 can only be exceeded by the Hand That Voted For Migs And Botes Shall Never Touch Ours Committee For Prudence. Look, CMANO is NOT a particularly kind simulation engine. If Yooper wanted to make a single corvette relevant and/or plausibly survivable, he'd have to to far to much scripting and hand holding to be practical in the long term. As is, we would have to devote far to much of our other assets to protect it, and that takes away from our ability to actually accomplish mission objectives. $400M is simply far to little to break into naval action with any sort of success. My current idea is that we get offered ships as an alternative mission payment. Much cheaper than normal procurement, and opens up special event opportunities. As for the Fishbeds/choppers, you might be fine with burning millions of our hard earned dollars for 3-5 minutes of entertainment, but the rest us of have to deal with the consequences. Like I said before, CMANO is NOT kind, and punishes gently caress ups ruthlessly. "Cute gimmicks" are an explicit recipe for failure, and is considered to be a design feature. Even if Yooper wanted to hold our hands, he still can't control what the AI does. EDIT: for those that wan't to fly turd, I'm brainstorming a possible solution. It features the return of Wacky Willy. omegasgundam fucked around with this message at 22:05 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Ivanov CAS is actually a close second and a push for BLFM CAS can still make it the winner. Don't be such a downer just because not enough people agreed that $400,000,000 for 1000tons of scrap steel is a good deal. One night you'll wake up, and walk up to your window to close it from the heavy spattering rain. Looming above in the darkness outside, water dripping off its masonry, Tokyo Bay Fortress will swallow you whole and ferry you down to the Mariana Abyss where you will spend eternity together with James Cameron. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 22:36 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
The be-all, end-all of naval power is an aircraft carrier strike group. With 6,700 sailors, 80 fighters and helicopters, six warships, a submarine, etc. it apparently costs $6.5 million a day to run (one presumes that this is a very conservative figure). The initial procurement cost is estimated at around $30 billion dollars. Anything less than that will get plastered by ground-based aviation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:The be-all, end-all of naval power is an aircraft carrier strike group. With 6,700 sailors, 80 fighters and helicopters, six warships, a submarine, etc. it apparently costs $6.5 million a day to run (one presumes that this is a very conservative figure). The initial procurement cost is estimated at around $30 billion dollars. Well all we need to do is kidnap Musk and demand his fortune for ransom. If I'm not on a list, well I am now.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I think you meant UTC, as GMT applies daylight savings but UTC does not. All I know is that it's 90 minutes until the vote ends and it's 90 minutes until midnight. also, Vote K&P for incendiary cluster bombs.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
A vote for BFLM CAS is a vote for MALDs and 6 paveway A-10Cs. Vote BFLM CAS. Alternatively you can all give these options the finger and buy my B1-B and my AC-130U. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:A vote for BFLM CAS is a vote for MALDs and 6 paveway A-10Cs. Vote BFLM CAS. I'm okay with that so long as Ivanov CAS is the number 2
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
If we want to get into some naval boat action then it's probably best suited to have us borrow and play with boats as part of the scenario. Fleet Vs fleet action with Mercs in the mix as the deciding factor sounds super interesting and there's a ton of cool stuff available. Like interdiction, supporting/repelling amphibious assaults, etc. Naval combat can also be less mix maxed than the current air domain state, it'll be nice to interact with the whole spectrum of naval craft from rhib gunboats to missile toting destroyers. Having our success based on how much of our fleet survives allows some flexibility in scenario making and allows us to lose a lot more assets without completely boning us, so the scenarios don't have to be crafted as tightly. Very glad we're not spending all of our cash on a single boat plus some token flying gimmick chaff. If we'd have gotten the boat we wouldn't have any extra gameplay options except 'defend the boat' since we would have no new airplanes (the ancient migs are barely more effective than our existing sk60s)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
At least F-18s are amazing. F-16s are just so... rote cost effectiveness. Just five of them though. And the Tornados and Atlantique are nice. My dream of flying a Mig-21 and strafing schools... Well, maybe there'll be a helicopter later on. 
RA Rx fucked around with this message at 06:56 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
something akin to Sea of Chaos in AC5 would be amazing, though probably without the bit where one f-14 solos two separate battlegroups
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
1. K&P Attack/CAS 2. Ivanov Attack/CAS 3. BFLM Attack/CAS 4. BFLM Fighter 5. Ivanov Fighter 6. K&P Fighter
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Another way to soft-nerf Meteors is to introduce civilian and third-party aircraft, and require positive ID on all BVR shots. In Angola it was easy because we could just say that anything airborne that wasn't us or Rohan was hostile, and simply launch Meteors at max range. With a little bit of uncertainty we'd have to send our CAP to go investigate a contact before shooting it down, since we couldn't draw an exclusion or box-select-mark-hostile anything in the air lest we start shooting down 737s or neutral fighters. On the other hand, we have two great tools to ID a contact from very long range: The S 100B has some really space-age NCTR, and our Gorgon Stare can zoom right in and read the roundel on the plane's tail. From a game balance perspective... I think we're actually getting the benefit of this, too, maybe even a little unfairly. You know how Yooper is pretty good at marking new contacts as hostile? If the AI doesn't have settings for that, like an exclusion zone, they'll just see that our planes are yellow unknowns and hold their fire until they're sure that we're someone they don't want to hit. A lot of the time that'll be too late.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:Another way to soft-nerf Meteors is to introduce civilian and third-party aircraft, and require positive ID on all BVR shots. In Angola it was easy because we could just say that anything airborne that wasn't us or Rohan was hostile, and simply launch Meteors at max range. With a little bit of uncertainty we'd have to send our CAP to go investigate a contact before shooting it down, since we couldn't draw an exclusion or box-select-mark-hostile anything in the air lest we start shooting down 737s or neutral fighters. That's a really good idea, though one problem is I don't think there is a script yet for random civilian traffic, so any traffic has to be placed manually in scenario editors. Its a bit of extra work making a bunch of missions for civilians to fly from one place to another, but totally doable. Is it possible to pot traffic from scenario to scenario to cut down on work?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Voting is Closed
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
I think the disagreements over procurement with regards to what the most "fun" option is can be mostly traced back to the fact that there's a couple distinct points of view at play here, at least among the more active followers. I'd roughly sort these into the following: The Optimizers want to play the numbers game and outmaneuver and outfight the enemy forces with superior forces; they are likely to be big fans of standoff weapons which means generally nothing but relatively modern airframes. Team Buy A Bunch Of Weird Garbage (disclaimer: me) wants to see how well relics from the 70s can fight, and isn't above solving effectiveness shortcomings with numbers and/or small handfuls of modern systems meant to assist the primary force of older craft. Buy A Boat just really wants a boat and doesn't care much about what kind of boat it is, which generally means sacrificing aircraft capabilities as boats are expensive. Fans of Warcrimes don't care too much about what we buy so long as it mounts napalm and/or cluster munitions. And then there's the guys who are all in for Russian Hardware who just don't want to see Generic NATO Airforce #92. My point is that with a single-package procurement system, probably only one of these is going to really get what they want. I don't know that I have a better answer - something involving multiple pieces where the top couple get combined into the actual result but you can only pick one, maybe, but that sounds nightmarish to manage. But I think it's worth keeping this in mind when it comes to deciding how to handle this next time as it'd be more interesting if everybody felt like they got something along the lines of what they wanted, somehow.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Clearly we just need a bigger budget  How much for a discount aircraft carrier group?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Easily a couple billion if you don't want it to sink to a strong sneeze.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
I'd support an Optimized Weirdness coalition.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
 We had 81 unique voting goons for this procurement round. Because we didn't transfer all 9 votes, but just 3, some of you did not get counted. Making everyone list all 9 would've gotten us to the same place, just given us all more work to do. Voting!  We had no clear majority in the first round. K&P Attack leads Ivanov Attack with the Bote Option a close third. The fighter packages, BFLM Support, and K&P Support are all cut.  Now the BFLM Attack option is dropped as it only gained a single vote. Interestingly the Ivanov Support option did not gain any additional vote. K&P Attack gains, as does Ivanov Attack.  In Round 3 we see all of the BFLM Attack votes go to... not the bote. At this point some folks had no more options, so the %'s get funky. Also, no bote. But, no clear majority and it's anyones guess as how it'll shake out. There it is! Drum roll...   Watching with his steely eyes, the European Union's Mascot, a fish in a chicken smoking a cigarette, is pleased. Later I'll introduce our theaters. The Bering Sea beckons as does... Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
 Updated Hayard Gunnes fleet chart. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 01:01 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Loel posted:Clearly we just need a bigger budget As mentioned above, the marginal cost for an aircraft carrier battle group (an aircraft carrier, an attack submarine, five to eight destroyers and missile cruisers, up to nine squadrons of carrier-capable aircraft, and at least one oiler/support ship) is at least thirty billion dollars. And, even if it was just tooling around, it'd cost around 200 million a month in operating costs. I'm not sure what a discount aircraft carrier battle group would cost. HMS Queen Elizabeth and her class mate, HMS Prince of Wales, come out to about $4.2 billion each, and they're hardly Nimitizes. China picked up Varyag for a song, but I don't know how much she cost to refit (and in any case we could hardly expect a repeat.) I frankly doubt we could manage it for less than $10 billion. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 00:31 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 00:28
|
|