4.31 U1 - DEV VIDEOS
-
-
lol, bug like in error or….bug like in hornet
-
I can haz confusion: aren’t we past 4.31? I thought we were on 4.34?
-
What Bug?
guys chill…it maybe be a sarcastic joke at the competition Simulator ??? an FA18 is sometimes refered to as SuperBug /or Bug?
-
What bug ?
The NWS suddenly turning off for no reason.
Sent from my Redmi 7A using Tapatalk
-
The NWS suddenly turning off for no reason.
Sent from my Redmi 7A using Tapatalk
The reason is NLG wow switch being triggered very briefly by a nasty bump
I am not sure it happens again in U1 else I will improve it
-
guys chill…it maybe be a sarcastic joke at the competition Simulator ??? an FA18 is sometimes refered to as SuperBug /or Bug?
No “chill” (?) if there is a bug it is good to know what to be able to fix.
-
SA10 HARM killer
Demonstrator code : not implemented due to lack of reliable information about capability of the sams
I hope it will be implemented with limitations sooner or later.
Also if a HARM can be downed next step can be the anti ASM. Welcome the naval combat in F4 world. Yehaaaaaaaaaaaw. -
As we have discussed it … Anti HASM/ASM is not an issue … It can be implemented tomorrow (actually it already exist).
Question is: How to implement without breaking overall balance and Campaigns. That is a problem and is much more tricky than “simply” launching missiles on other missiles. -
Why breaking balance D? Actually all the A-G weapons we implemented in 4.33 are a balance breaker, giving the other side a way to protect itself is more balance. e.g today you can kill a carrier with a couple of Harpoons, but if it’ll get such protection against low-level flying missiles, then let’s see the challenge to kill it
-
Anti-missile sutff implemented without real constrains will deplete SAM launchers in few seconds … then … there will be no more active SAM at all … No more need to try destroy them. No need of talents, no need of tactics, annihilating SAMs will becomes a piece of cake.
-
As we have discussed it … Anti HASM/ASM is not an issue … It can be implemented tomorrow (actually it already exist).
Question is: How to implement without breaking overall balance and Campaigns. That is a problem and is much more tricky than “simply” launching missiles on other missiles.It’s no secret that BLUFOR has a lot of advantages in BMS. That may or may not be the case IRL, I don’t know, but currently, the scales are definitely tipped in NATO’s favour a bit too much.
Even if it’s not entirely realistic, which I know is your objective with BMS, I think many would agree that adding anti-missile capability to a select number of units of which it is currently suspected-but-as-yet-unproven that they are capable of such feats, would make NATO a lot less powerful. Ironically, an unrealistic change would actually make the battlefield more realistic in terms of balance.
One possible major problem with adding this functionality, however, is that it may require a rewrite of the way BMS code frags campaigns. You will have to rely on a lot more SEAD / DEAD, and/or overwhelming SAM-sites by sheer numbers, and how AI will (re)act to/around a target that still has SAM-cover, because the weapons assigned to that were intercepted. Simultaneously, you would have to link SAM Btn together to get that capability (e.g. SA-19 as SAM, but also as anti-missile-capable point-defense for an SA-2), and be able to have the SA-19 engage missiles bound for the SA-2 as well.
-
Bluefor will still have the advantage in KTO … Even more since DPRK don’t have anti-missile capable systems and Patriot will take the advantage of it. And on other cases, it will be even worse except by setting SAMs unlimited ammo.
Ask Jp to add it in future version, (maybe with an F4Patch option to unactivate it for ppl who don’t want to see SAM becoming ineffective in one or two minutes if not less) …. and enjoy a sterile environment.
If we are telling you this, don’t you think it is because we already know what will happens … -
As we have discussed it … Anti HASM/ASM is not an issue … It can be implemented tomorrow (actually it already exist).
Question is: How to implement without breaking overall balance and Campaigns. That is a problem and is much more tricky than “simply” launching missiles on other missiles.I know.
-
Why breaking balance D? Actually all the A-G weapons we implemented in 4.33 are a balance breaker, giving the other side a way to protect itself is more balance. e.g today you can kill a carrier with a couple of Harpoons, but if it’ll get such protection against low-level flying missiles, then let’s see the challenge to kill it
Ships are less problematic. The problem is the ATO and 2D world. Much stronger sead is needed for certain sams but as long as sams can be hidden…
-
Anti-missile sutff implemented without real constrains will deplete SAM launchers in few seconds … then … there will be no more active SAM at all … No more need to try destroy them. No need of talents, no need of tactics, annihilating SAMs will becomes a piece of cake.
Why? Anti-missile mechanism should possibly be implemented to very specific units and only at very high targets and also probably to defend the most advanced long range SAM systems (e.g I heard once that with every SA-10 unit there is a SA-15 to defeat missiles aimed on the main battery, I don’t know how much it is true though).
-
Why? Anti-missile mechanism should possibly be implemented to very specific units and only at very high targets and also probably to defend the most advanced long range SAM systems (e.g I heard once that with every SA-10 unit there is a SA-15 to defeat missiles aimed on the main battery, I don’t know how much it is true though).
S-300/400 it may have Pantsir defense. Tor-M1 is division level army air defense, S-300/400 is homeland defense.
Only in non Russian country can be Tor-M1. But only a very few have both S-300/400 and Tor-M1 or M2. -
Anti-missile mechanism should possibly be implemented to very specific units and only at very high targets and also probably to defend the most advanced long range SAM systems (e.g I heard once that with every SA-10 unit there is a SA-15 to defeat missiles aimed on the main battery, I don’t know how much it is true though).
Yep this is a very good point and example. This is indeed that kind things that needs to be discussed and listed …
I didn’t said that we can’t or should not do it … What I say is that it has to be properly anticipated, defined and evaluated.… Go ahead … Go ahead …
-
IMHO, the way to address this is to start with the anti missile capability of ships.
TASMO in BMS opens a huge tactical playground. But at this time sinking ship in BMS is so easy that it is very far from being realistic.
if TASMO need to become interesting and challenging, these ships need to defend themselves and much better than what they do now
And IMHO, against aircraft and missiles with all their weapons. -
@Red:
IMHO, the way to address this is to start with the anti missile capability of ships.
Agree. And IIRC Jp think the same.