AbortedMan

Again, how is DataLink going to resolve the supposed structural, performance, missile, and radar issues people have cited previously in this discussion to start this whole balancing debate in the first place? Often times there's a single Su27 tasked in an area due to the non-coordination of a group or series of groups of people. In what crazy alternative facts logic world does DataLink solve the issues that you people are pointing out? First its missiles are the reason Su27 sucks, then it's the structural integrity during extreme maneuvers is the reason the Su27 sucks, then it's the refueling, then it's the radar that's holding it back...surely it can't be all these things. Are you guys actually saying that the F15 has none of these similar challenges? Have you even used the AIM7? Are you really saying the Su27 needs one of the best SARH missiles as well as one of the best IR missiles to be competitive? Are you really saying the Su27 doesn't maneuver as well as or better than the F15/Mirage? Are you really saying the two extra minutes you need to wait for fueling is what's making you lose engagements in the Su27? Are you really saying it's because you don't have DataLink that you're losing 1v1 engagements? Are you really saying that with ten more azimuth degrees of radar range than the F15 and Mirage you're at a disadvantage? Are you really saying that having EO radar is not a factor in this debate on the Su27's capabilities? Is this real life?

Not to mention that the Mirage is at almost every airfield for some strange reason. Specialize these slots to only a few select airbases and the problem is solved.

How are you losing SA when engaging while in an Su27?

The issue that people aren't seeing regarding buffing the Su27 is the the proprietors of this discussion seem to keep applying incorrect tactics to take advantage of the Su27. I don't understand the logic behind the self-imposed authority on balance changes by people who employ the tools given to them incorrectly. Success is possible in the Su27 and that's an undeniable fact. You will have to use different tactics than a Mirage or F15, but that's the case for every airframe. It sounds like when in an Su27 you're thinking gorgonzola when it's clearly brie time...then trying to change the rules to meet your expectations. What do people think DataLink is going to do for a 1v1 fight (most common in BF) where DataLink radar coverage isn't an option? How is this supposed to support the claims and address the airframe, missile, radar, structural performance (all conjecture) that have been cited recently in this thread as the cause for the Su27's deficiencies? It won't. If you want to solve the Mirage problem, solve the Mirage problem...don't create another with perceptions and personal failures with the Su27.

On the contrary...I feel as if red players are the only ones speaking out to make this change for the very reasons you point out. I actually enjoy flying red more than blue and was assigned to red team when this conversation started.

Thanks Ciribob! We'll test the Gazelle multicrew and get back to you via this thread.

This is just simply not true. Fixing the issue with too many Mirages won't be solved by buffing another aircraft above and beyond the current mission rule set.

It's not about hiding it. It's about the utilization of mechanics you feel you're entitled to for some reason with no consideration of balance. You're advocating that DataLink will give the Su27 the advantage it needs to bring it to a competitive level. I'm assuming you are of the mind that DataLink will fill in the performance gaps that exist between the Mirage, Su27, and F-15. During our conversation about your use of dual boxing a fighter and GCI slot you stated it hardly gave you any information that helped your effectiveness. That it was not enough of an advantage to matter. It was a justification that minimized this information availability. In essence, you were gaining an advanced version of the DataLink mechanic that shares information across every airframe on a much larger scope in a much larger format. The issue I have with your perspectives on balance is the conflicting sentiment I see here. 1. DataLink is a function that will sway the scales and provides a balance for the Su27 2. Dual accounts using GCI while in a fighter (effectively simulating DataLink) provides no advantage and does not affect the outcome of fights enough to be morally unsound. Which is it? This isn't a personal attack, I'm just trying to get clarification on why the topic of balance is being brought up specifically from the position you've taken.

Honestly not trying to sound like a dick or start an argument, but should anyone really be having a conversation with you about how balance works when you're the guy that thinks it's totally ok to be connecting with dual DCS accounts/installs to take both a fighter slot and a Forward Observer slot at the same time to have GCI information on a 2nd monitor while you fly a fighter?

Can we please get guns on the Huey? Blue currently has zero anti-heli options to protect themselves when they happen to meet an Mi-8 and SA342M isn't very capable either.

I often question what is really being asked here in this thread...a lot of you here are calling for balance... Everyone on both teams choose to fly Mirage and gets on, literally, a balanced playing field across the board and everyone starts complaining again. You guys do know once you give Red/Su27 anything that is not standard to balance and or the current rule set and everyone else is going to start complaining, right?

Give DataLink to the Su27 and you have the same exact problem with the Mirage, but now with the Su27...except one side will start complaining.

General consensus?! Two...three people?

Yet you're the one stating ED did it all wrong and calling for changes to the mission. Seems legit.

Mocking players? You're downplaying my comments as just pointless vitriol as a petty defense because it doesn't align with your perspective. I get it. In reality, I'm after the same goal everyone else is, I'm just not being unreasonable in my expectations to achieve it. The too-many-Mirage issue will be dealt with, I'm sure. There's a myriad of other ways to do so without changing DCS missile dynamics or giving another aircraft equipment and/or ordnance that is outside of the scope of the current rule set.

What you call belittling is actually just my pointing out the flaw in logic that this conversation is saturated with. You guys seem to know the strengths and weaknesses of the systems you employ and are employed against you yet you insist on not using those strengths and weaknesses to your advantage. I'm imagining this is all stemming from constant head-on engagements where you're pulling the trigger and just waiting to get face****ed by a missile, which of course is not going to work in favor of the shorter range missile. Ironically, I was in-game watching Moltar's engagement that started this whole missile balance conversation in the first place and that is exactly what happened...and he lost the engagement doing exactly what he shouldn't have been doing but refuses to accept it. Instead it seems you and others want to cater the game/mission to your deficiencies despite Red team already being capable of winning the engagement/objective (obviously...look who won).

You're not talking about balance, you're talking hyperbole and casting instances of your failures onto being a fault of the game design. Furthermore, you're all arguing with eachother as if each of you personally have control over what gets added or changed on the server in the name of the ~600 other people that play on it. Have this discussion in the proper place, in a proper format, with the proper outcome, and provide feedback on the thread as a request on the thread like every other sensible person is doing.

Can you armchair weapons experts take your pissing contest somewhere else? I just had to read through two pages of garbage to look for things actually relative to the server.

Destroyed Senaki AF tonight. Was not showing any damage on website, but was showing under attack. Multiple AI bombers called in, Viggen runs, fully loaded A10 with 11 kills and still 100% on website and CTLD menu. Also it was not showing in the correct PAK in the CTLD menu...shows in PAK3 when it should be PAK5. EDIT: 3rd bomber was called in and notification stated it found no targets so it was going to carpet bomb. Still showed 100% repaired.

Right, I didn't think you would be sure since it doesn't support your side of the argument.

Weren't some of you arguing that the FC3 aircraft should be removed altogether because they're "EZ mode" like...a month ago?

Just so this doesn't get glazed over and missed.

Why is everyone talking like the Su27 is completely neutered and incapable of winning any fight in Blue Flag? All this hyperbole flying around is not getting anyone anywhere.

Thank you for the updates Ciribob.

Tbilisi AF was completely destroyed today and would only go down to 20% with no closure. This was verified with spectator mode showing zero blue units at Tbilisi.