Frostie

The server player setting is at an even number 70, it would be better set at an uneven number eg. 71 to allow equal sides, 35v35 + server.

Change it in your options before joining. options>gameplay>units=metric

Do you even BVR. Any 27 paint on your RWR no matter how long should get your attention. To think when in a 27 you turn radar off you become ignored is just amateur.

GCI requires aircraft radars to give a picture, with this picture known bandits can be read out and an effective CAP to stop these threats can be achieved. Otherwise you're flying without radar for your own ends to rack up kills and stay hidden not really helping the whole BF teamwork system.

So basically fly airquake style because performing an effective CAP protecting strikers, choppers and holding ground is not what BF is about. And why shouldn't the Flanker have good SA that is the way it was in the 80s and how it is in DCS.

Sorry you're not making any sense. Why continue to be tetchy on the subject, it is a testing phase and we are discovering that people will fly Flanker if it has some capability in this scenario.

The Flanker tactic to fly without dl is to fly Mirage that has always been the point.

I cannot into tactic to combat datalink, please re-nerf.

As far as i'm aware the first production Flankers were the Su27S and Su27P which the PVO intially received 20 followed by deliveries to the VVS air force. Later in 1989 only Su27P (same as 27S but with A2G capability removed) aircraft were built and only delivered to the PVO ADF. Both are referred to as just Su27.

The Flanker is an air superiority fighter not an interceptor, flying without radar seems like a crazy way to achieve that especially as EWR etc. are not all seeing eyes. I think the main benefit of the Flankers datalink is seeing your own flight and what their radars see, this is the ultimate SA tool for flying as a flight of two or four and that requires radar on.

MiG21 and F5 have a role when your fighter lives expire adding them to captured airbases would make a lot of sense. Full payloads at Batumi and Anapa seems great from the outset but towards endgame it would become bonkers, imagine trying to push an already stretched CAP into Georgia against endless AIM-120s. Interceptors would go right out of the window and Strikers wouldn't stand a chance.

That seems a bit unfair when you consider the idea is to add dynamics to the mission. Moving units create lag within high pop servers so creating a mission for Helos to go to a point on the map providing logistics to help create a SAM battery. Just because the knowing of what is going on in the mission is there doesn't mean its interpretation is the same. If someone asked you to place a pin on a map for a good location for an ice cream van, then when you go there an ice cream van is already parked there did you just create that van by placing a pin, or did someone work behind the scenes to get that van there.

Drastically changed? No it would still be the same situation because 4+ mins is still drastically slower than 1 min. Plus who max fills up at such prominent situations.

I agree with the reasons on both sides of the refueling coin but picture this, the attackers perform a succesful CAP at a captured airbase, say Red capture Gudauta for example, that CAP then has to land and refuel at Sochi/Guduata while Blue fighters can get immediately airbourne again at Sukhumi and again and again, basically the constant stream that zero fuelling gives while Red fighters, even though initially in this case winning the air battle, are now being overwhelmed by numbers they have already beaten because their turn around is considerably slower. As for the gear exploit, though I don't advocate it, doing so does not give any particular advantage over other airframes as the Flanker seems to take the longest to fuel up. This is no more of a terrible exploit than switching from a chopper mid-flight to a fighter or striker because CAP or CAS is needed asap. I'm sure there are plenty of more exploits that don't warrant anyones attention because they are too trivial and just anal, because this one is visually unsightly it gets more attention and hype. Game changer it ain't, reason to have a moan and pretend it's a game changer - seems so.

That won't sort the issue here though.

So when these guys create scenarios for their Hornets and A-10s will they still restrict themselves flying against AI opponents which imo is as unrealistic as using labels. I suppose they can get a smarter and more realistic behaving opponent flying MiG21s but oh boy the challenge for those F/A-18 CAP guys must be off the chart, I guess mission success everytime is a must though. When the AI gets too stale i'd hate to see something like the Hornet avionics etc. being ported into Mig29s, Flankers, Tornados etc. as in some other sim just to make a challenging pvp environment. But at least we wouldn't have to acknowledge those arcaders asking for some sort of 4th gen diversity.

Yes equal strengths, equal opportinities, repetitive limited training. Angles v energy fighters, ac that perform better at different altitudes have different payloads etc. creates much more variation

Thats my first thought but them again portable moving map systems weren't a thing in the '80s. I think GPS was just a co-ordinate and your aircraft was your finger on a map. :)

For me there is no challenge fighting against the AI in co-op, it is stale and has very little learning value. In mp fighting against the same aircraft has limitations too. Fighting against weaker aircraft has the same issues as the AI point. Fighting against stronger opponents is degrading and requires more training than is usually possible to keep motivated. That leaves the best option which is having several choice of aircraft all on a similair level, this is not a War Thunder idea it is using simulator fighter jets for exactly what they are designed for, combat. That involves designing situations or scenarios to apply tactics and learn how to co-operate effectively as a flight or many flights and the best opponents you can have for this are like minded human ones in equally capable airframes.

The way I see it is if you win the airspace and destroy the enemy CAP your strikers have a window to press an attack, if fighters are able to instantly take off it becomes a constant wave of attacks with no window.

Sissy for life, now prep to get rekt.:P

I never once mentioned "asymmetrical balance". I'm leaving this now because it is going nowhere, currently we have DL for Flankers let's see how it goes, i'll even try Blue to get a feel for it. But like I've said before Red is very organised when the right players are in.

If more Flankers are being flown then that is a victory for the scenario the fact red are still winning with or without it is insignificant don't you think. What was the issue before DL maybe that is what needs looking into. Destroying placed EWRs would stop the DL effectiveness.

I am just trying to convey that I give open minded opinions based on a lot of experience in creating fair and balanced scenarios. I don't see a need for same platform balance as I've only ever seen fit to create asymmetrical missions. Everything is down to the admins to decide what is right but what I bring to the table have no way in making one side superior to the other and every change is experimental so what harm is there in that during testing phase. Your insults are noted but mostly ignored, thanks anyway.

530 was garbage when it was EDs missile. And 120 does always win or are we talking airquake? I'm part of the movement that created this whole notion that 80s scenario is Rvs7 back in the day when the ER was a 120km monster. In the PvP missions I've made I have championed the 80s scenario as a great alternate to full payload. I've probably reviewed more engagements between different platforms with all measure of DCS weapons than you've fired missiles. In the 13 years I've been doing so in this sim I reserve the right to judge what I deem a fair scenario don't you think rather than be told otherwise by someone who has a snow drop of experience in this whole PvP environment. If you had an inkling of what is required to perform CAP for strikers you'd understand the biggest flaw with the Flanker in this scenario. It really is quite simple if DL is not working, too OP then it will be reverted why are you so against change.