Strike Command: Wait, is that a fucking laser? - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > Strike Command: Wait, is that a fucking laser?

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper, on a forum filled with excellent (some may stretch the definition) LPs, I think you've really hit it out of the park with yours. Did you actually put down :10bux:

:10bux:

for voice actors?

Anyway I don't think anyone has signed up for the old standby Maverick yet, if it's been taken can I be Zandris?

And a question for the planegoons, I know it's been mentioned this edition of CMANO doesn't do damage modelling, but in modern air combat, how likely is it for a fighter to survive a missile hit? Is any significant hit pretty much fatal or can fighters be reasonably expected to limp back missing wings/tails?

Also is ejecting and SAR modelled in CMANO?

# ¿ Apr 9, 2017 09:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:06

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Quinntan posted:

The Sk60s are utterly useless for this, we can't use them.

Load them up with rockets and crash them into the airbase?

Worked for the IJN!

# ¿ Apr 9, 2017 15:08

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Ikasuhito posted:

To think, you guys could have managed to get into a fight with the United States instead of war ravaged China.

We could have accidentally sunk the USS Donald Trump instead of some piddly Chinese frigate. Think about the glory!

# ¿ Apr 9, 2017 20:32

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

What does the runway's "HP" actually stand for?

Is it a sliding scale on how badly damaged a runway is or is it a binary thing where >0 is "fully functional" and 0 is "non-functional".

Looking at the videos and photos we don't actually need to destroy that much tarmac to make the runway functionally useless in the short term (though easily repaired), but I don't know the game models it.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 19:35

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiwDUdTbuA

There it is folks. poo poo's getting real.

When he says he has a wing of Rafales does he mean a literal air wing? 3 squadrons? 60 aircraft?

That sounds like a full blown invasion!

# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 21:44

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

Perintah yang benar dari orang sultan senjat (The righteous order of the sultans arms.)

Don't know if you were intentionally going for goofy Google-translated Malay but a better translation would be something along the lines of

Pasukan Senjata Mulia Diraja (Valorous/Distinguished Royal Armed Company) - something an military division might actually be called.

Or

Darjah Yang Mulia Senjata Diraja (Distinguished Order of the Royal Weapons) - this would be akin to the British CBE/OBE etc

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 13:16

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

JcDent posted:

Try more like a chapter of crusading knights or something.

Satria Udara Diraja - literally Royal Air Knights.

Malay doesn't use Sultan as an adjective, they will use Diraja (royalty) if it's an adjective. If you want to show belonging then it can be (name of group) (name of sultan it belongs to) - ie. Satria Udara Sultan Yooper - lit Sultan Yooper's Knights of the Air.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 19:00

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Quinntan posted:

I don't think anyone's saying that she's likely to go nuts, but there is a risk that she will do poo poo that will not only spike up the threat level, but will also hurt the Count's public image. If the supposedly humanitarian Count has forces going off and bombing hospitals, that's not good for his ability to get foreign aid and support. However, Zack and his intelligence community contacts will help us target exactly what needs to be targeted and help us mitigate the chances of collateral damage.

Waiting for when the spook gives us bad intel and gets all our assets blown up after all those gambling debts are called in by the Free State.

Remember Zack is a spook with baggage. Can we really rely on his intel if his 'baggage' is a nebulous 3rd party that can be easily bought out?

Rohan

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 17:38

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yvonmukluk posted:

I'm omewhat concerned by the new Air Marshal's 'big ideas'. I don't like surprises unless they're in our favour.

Do we have ideas what they might be? Bombing on the mines? Our capital? Hell, rushing our support elements before we have CAP established? We still have eyes on at least one airfield, right?

What do they even have left to throw at us at this point?

I think "new ideas" can safely be translated into maximum warcrimes.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2017 20:09

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

JcDent posted:

I don't see nothing unethical about bushwhacking Black Trump unless he's flying with a helo full of kitten nuns.

After 30s in that helo with him they're neither kittens nor nuns no more. :v:

:v:

# ¿ May 6, 2017 12:06

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yvonmukluk posted:

Do you really think the the DRC is just going to 'suck it up' if we fired a goddamn missile in their territory? That's an act of war. Do you want them to come in on the side of the Free State, or worse the Dictator? We have enough enemies as it stands, we don't need more. Also, you could give the Chinese the excuse to come in hard against us, and the UN to rule against Von Hoff when it comes to the settlement. Yeah, allowing the Free State to move supplies through their territory is kind of iffy when it comes to international law, but launching a military strike into a (nominally) neutral country is so much worse. We're a mercenary company working for an unrecognized state, not a superpower. We can't get away with that.

I'd like to be able to knock the Free State out with one fell swoop, really, I would. But even if it worked (and that's assuming the missiles don't get shot down, which might be the best case scenario here), the consequences for us are going to outweigh the benefits.

It's not just handwringing over innocent lives (although I'd be lying if it's not my personal primary opposition to the plan), it's the wider geopolitical implications.

But the bridge joins with an Angolan city on one end. Couldn't we just blow it up in Angola's sovereign territory? Or bomb the Angolan terminus of the bridge.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 10:11

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

paragon1 posted:

Give the electric car company man what he wants.

I wonder if Col Musk is a play on Col Hammer. Elite mercenaries driving top of the line poo poo blowing everything up (I.e us)

# ¿ May 12, 2017 23:05

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

darthbob88 posted:

No, it's a reference to Elon Musk, co-founder of Tesla Inc and 80th-or-thereabouts-richest person in the world. He can probably buy a wing of F-22s with pocket money, plus command of the squadron.

Uh... it's not a reference to Elon Musk, it actually is him? I just wondered if having Musk take to the battlefield with his own squadron of superplanes is meant to be a parody of another sci-fi mercenary group with really expensive, high-end gear. Contrast this to our kitchen sink airforce.

# ¿ May 13, 2017 00:59

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

1) K&P Attack
2.) Ivanov Attack
3) K&P Fighter

Down with the ~~wrong-voters~~bote lobby. Seriously I choose to believe it when the top 2 mission planners we have say it's going to be a terrible idea.

BOTE melek kol ha'olam!!!

Z the IVth fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 24, 2017

# ¿ May 24, 2017 17:40

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Balkans, sell all and consolidate

# ¿ May 25, 2017 22:19

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

I worry that the natives with POOR IMPULSE CONTROL are just gonna be like Dos Santos except without the $$$.

Imagine being ordered to secure a barren patch of nowhere because some shaman got hopped up on mushrooms.

So vote Mitsu

# ¿ May 26, 2017 12:36

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Dr. Snark posted:

I'm still honestly baffled at how the thread collectively ended up going for a set of missions that they didn't like for a company whose styles they hate in a region that they don't want to be in.

Seriously, why didn't you guys choose the Balkans again?

Boat lobby got beaten in procurement, spite voted for Bering sea. Balkan contingent then spite voted for the weaboo corporate overlord and Yooper's dog sealed the deal.

:downswords:

:downswords:

Edit also Nativecorp sound less like poor oppressed natives and more like a mashup of G4S and the Home Office.

# ¿ May 27, 2017 18:49

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yvonmukluk posted:

We'll be the judge of whether we want to gently caress off, thankyouverymuch.

Seriously can we downsize the salt factory a little? It's getting annoying.

# ¿ May 28, 2017 19:04

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Snakedancing and/otherwise subhunting

# ¿ Jun 8, 2017 18:51

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

Well Hired Goons, a new challenge has come to our doorstep. The Russian battlegroup approaches and the only thing that's going to slow them down is a couple of US Navy submarines. But they lack any air cover and Halsey is worried that the Russians are going to bring in some ASW assets. It'll be crucial in the next six hours to keep those subs safe. We've got a narrow window to get the nuke offloaded and it'll get really tight with a Kirov and an S400 bearing down.

Long story short. Anti-ASW patrol needed.

But, we just took one hell of a licking. We can bow out and hope the Navy can hide well enough.

Pick One

Help the US Navy or hope they can hold.

Aren't we still based out of a Russian airfield? And if that is the case, what's to stop the Russians murdering our supports when we start to interfere with their ASW?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 13:46

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

Yes, it is a Russian airfield. But we have a security contingent of Cobbie's "not so finest" who are eagerly wanting a ride home. So they'll keep us safe. We're there ride home.

Fine then, gently caress with Russian ASW and then GTFO.

Furthermore, can we hatch a deal with the USN to grant us an airfield somewhere to refuel so we don't have to leave all our crap behind.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 14:15

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

In the big scheme of things "this isn't happening" and if it does happen it'll be a diplomatic issue. The US Military has managed to retain control and professionalism at least on its own borders. A challenge like this from the Russians is just too much for them to let slide. US Diplomatic sources are saying that the Russians have been given a line. If they cross it, the subs will engage. The Russians are standing firm by the claim to St. Lawrence. With the gutting of the State Department in prior years much of the skill and nuance has been lost as the career diplomats are now bartending at golf courses and selling timeshares.

So will the Russians engage? Will they cross that line?

One thing is for sure, they will remember where we stand.

OOC : This will change future procurement options much in the way we are unable to purchase Chinese aircraft.

If we don't help the USN what are our evac options? It's looking very complicated and if the Russians figure out we've got the bomb they're not going to let us leave.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 15:38

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Changing my vote to Don't Poke the Bear.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 14:59

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

It's not an F-35 or an F-22.

If anything I want to move us away from the huge gently caress off range stand off stuff. Sure it's cool to launch an AAM 300km, but unless all of your poo poo can do it then everything else feels gimped. It's really stark how incredible the difference is between just a decades worth of production. So if we enter into the realm of F-35's then most of our fleet becomes retardedly obsolete as the threats we need to face are demon spawn SAM's that eat everything and anything except Gen V fighters.

Speaking "In-Character" the nation states of the world are seeing a proliferation of PMC's and most are fine with it. It's making the aerospace suppliers happy and driving costs down for modern fighters. But the various nations are worried that these PMC's might challenge them. So instead of offering the Cadillac/Corvette/McClaren of fighter jets technology they are looking more at the Impala/Peugot/Land Rover style. Old(er) production lines are coming back on line and the modern fighters are seeing slightly reduced capabilities.

Big Nations want to make sure they have the utmost in reach and range to prevent one country from hiring a PMC to do it's dirty work. (Imagine that!) As such our availability of long range standoff missiles will become either reduced or in some cases outright eliminated.

B-b-but our Gripen backbone!

# ¿ Oct 10, 2017 17:13

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Gripens and Invisibote. It might not necessarily be the optimum choice (despite Bac's excellent post), but by drat Gripens are the Hired Goons schtick. We started with em, we'll go down in flames with em.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2017 00:20

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Balkans

Also

Yooper any chance of Maverick being moved into something armed? Otherwise he's never going to get shot down.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2017 13:44

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

DT5

All day, every day.

Yooper what's happened to our previous cast of contractors? In the drunk tank/alimony hell/Gitmo?

# ¿ Oct 26, 2017 21:05

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

AmyL posted:

Girls Und Panzer?

I wonder how many Gunnes wish they had Idolm@ster skins on their birds and secretly watch Strike Witches.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 02:42

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Mikl posted:

The latest Macross, Delta, has an idol squad as singing support for a mercenary pilot team.

Note however that in the Macross universe singing is literally magic: having someone singing for you while you fly gives you super awareness, super reflexes, etc, and sometimes had freakish effects like long-distance FTL communication and summoning eldritch horrors from beyond.

Macross 7 had speaker gunpods, speaker missiles and an axe as a control stick.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 09:05

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

TheDemon posted:

Well, I've been testing our odds in A2A and I personally don't see the point of doing nothing but a regular CAP.

First off, those F-5Bs are not night capable. I can't even force them to launch at night. So they're right out.

Second, taking down the Pleven radar (presuming we also take out every other radar) is extremely good for us, because both bisons and cheetahs only have 60nm conical radar. At the edge of its range it's pretty bad (cheetah are slightly better but have no BVR missiles), so our bison can get off missiles first and if the enemy has to then evade it can cause misses or no-shots. And best of all if we manage to position our CAP outside the cone we can do a decent stealth fighter impression. A single ALARM Tornado can knock out this radar with ease, it takes an average of 2-3 ALARM shots and just popping over the mountains at 200ft AGL means the ALARMs go in totally undetected and therefore unshootable by basic SAMs like a gainful.

Here's the problem, though. If our bisons aren't on the axis of the enemy approach and the enemy has no contact reports at all, you can usually go 2:1 in the air, but eventually you run out of missiles and that's when things go wrong. And even a few losses quickly mounts in price. If the enemy has contact reports from before the radar went down you're going to trade in the air at best even with the AEW advantage.

To be completely sure, I feel that we should bomb the airfield. Again. I've tested some bomb types and one (1) measly mk82 of basically any variety can consistently knock out an entire hangar including all planes in it. Two tornadoes is all it takes to suppress the radar and most expected defenses - you can get away with one most of the time but two makes it certain. Then just send in the glide bombs with a WRA of one per hangar/parking. I recommend Paveway IVs from two nighthawks, as SPICE have other uses this mission.

Granted, we don't know the real air defenses at this airfield, but I feel we would regret it if we took an even air engagement. We'd be booking ourselves for at least 30 million in A2A losses.

The other option of course is to release the meteors.

It's fast becoming the HG calling card when the local airfield disappears in great balls of fire.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2017 10:49

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Groggy nard posted:

The good ones that they kept on a different airfield, if the last mission is any indicator.

Time to bomb every airfield. Just in case.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2017 16:31

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

It's fascinating that in this simulation of modern air combat, the most effective method of dogfighting is to bomb the poo poo out of your opponents before they even take off.

The IJN clearly had the right idea.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2017 19:02

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:

Well drat I didn't know we were doing musicals.

The Ballad of Fox Three.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2017 19:30

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Zebrin posted:

Maybe we can challenge them to a race? I mean, legit challenge, with a bet on it and everything? Win or lose, it gets our name out there with some awesome advertising. And I can imagine the sheer shenanigans that would come of this.

Only if we get to Meteor them when it looks like we're going to lose.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2018 14:56

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Bacarruda posted:

Please don't vote for anything that puts our F-117Cs at risk. Don't bring along the slow Reaper, our escort will be out of gas and heading for home, leaving the Reaper as easy pickings. And please don't vote for anything that paths our planes right by enemy airbases (and outside of our radar coverage).

That leaves us with...
1. Operation Minimal Effort
2. Operation Cannon Fodder

I know this isn't one of the options, but how about this, Yooper?

1. We interview and hire any of the credible small-time operators out there as sub-contractors for us. We could use some specializt support on things like Recon, EW, CAP, and SEAD. And it'd be a chance for us to see some rarer planes in action.
2. We do Anta's deconfliction clearing-house idea and spread the word to anyone not working for us.

Supporting Plan Bandwagon Baccaruda

# ¿ Jan 17, 2018 11:53

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

They will continue going about their business shooting at each other. If they engage us it'll be purely coincidence or we've strayed too close to them or they don't like the B.O.N.E.R. program.

Well they can have the B.O.N.E.R or our boner equivalents aka Meteors.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2018 01:54

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

orcbuster posted:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3815107&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=349#post480010155

Its time I made a prior promise into reality.

OK, so I need volunteers for The Grand Soars challenge. Sign up your pilot and name your plane of preference (NEEDS A FORWARD SCANNING RADAR) and I will do a writeup of the challenge. If you provide some info on your pilot as well that only makes it easier for me. Pilot does not need to have a plane assigned to them atm

I'll take the first five and pick one at random and repeat the process once I'm done with that writeup.

Can Maverick join in with his KC-135R Stratotanker?

# ¿ Feb 18, 2018 22:14

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Besides, letting them in incentivizes them to keep an eye out for saboteurs since their safety is now tied to that of our mountain supervillain lair.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2018 21:53

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Question from the peanut gallery, why is it that no one has tried using a big strategic bomber with bays full of Meteors as an air superiority craft?

Is it because the range is too short and the target too big? It seems to me that our Gripens are basically Meteor delivery systems anyway and don't do huge amounts of dogfighting so wouldn't turning that up be the logical conclusion?

# ¿ Mar 25, 2018 10:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:06

Z the IVth: Jan 28, 2009; The trouble with your "expendable machines"; Fun Shoe

Yooper posted:

On another note, the SSLP allows us to get some interesting flexibility in regards to the OPFOR. Mainly, I can referee a Goon V. Goon match. There's some cool scenarios where the Chinese Air Force strikes a US Carrier Task Force. If you guys don't mind the SSLP format, I might get it going as a supplement.

This sounds amazing.

On a tangential note - Can we expect a novel on the Ballad of Hyard Gunnes in the near future?

B+

# ¿ Sep 19, 2018 20:42

1
2
3
4
5

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > Strike Command: Wait, is that a fucking laser?

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS