IASGATG

A 20% fuel scramble is faster than a 0% fuel scramble.

"80's" is just a meme to get rid of specific weapons from the game.

Unless a Turkey F-16 comes along. ;)

Based off of round 7 stats some analysis was done to have a look at how team stack affected things. What this shows is a cumulative advantage shifting from team to team. The steeper the slope, the higher the team stack is for that time. Anything below the 0 x-axis is a total hour benefit to Redfor and above is a total hour benefit to Bluefor. However, the inclination of the slopes is important. As stated above, when the slope rapidly slopes in one direction or the other, these are periods where one team has the numerical advantage. What we can see is for the first 3/4 of the round, Red had an overall advantage, with some very steep advantages, especially around the 6th and 7th of June. THis was the period where Bluefor was down to just Tiblisi group. After the 7th Bluefor gains a strong advantage and is able to take back everything in the West and parts of the East. This advantage was continue to be held and grow, but unfortunately was not enough to secure a victory in the end. This graph shows the ratio difference between blue and red throughout the fight as well. I've had to cut the bluefor upper limit for readability, as some of the peeks hit 15 and 42. This is reflected well in the integral player hour diagram above. This is what Round 6 looks like however, where Bluefor clearly had a strong advantage throughout.

Nevermind, I didn't scroll. rip

Lag is the biggest killer with more AI units.

[ame] [/ame]

If you have footage of aircraft still clearly unaffected by the damage they have sustained, then yes I'd like to see it posted and the players banned. ??? What do you mean without reason? We have repeated evidence of the SAME person not being affected by the damage they have suffered.

Seeing a static AI MiG-29 on the ground after it got hit by a ground attack is different to seeing AIM-9 after AIM-9 after gun after gun blow piece after piece off of him and watch him continue to fly. Then after dogfighting the F-15 and the Mirage, gun running the AAA on the ground and flying home straight and level with no problems for 10 minutes, then he suddenly "loses all control" and ejects. To have recorded proof of this happening at least 3 times. To say it isn't hacking is naivé or willfully ignorant. If he'd like to provide the track that defies all our tracks and shows that through the grace of lag that he's magically okay, then I'll reconsider my accusation.

Falcon, why is it redfor always jumps to defend their hackers and exploiters? Why don't you have the courage or the honour to admit your mistakes? To have the balls to say "Yeah, some people hack, or exploit, or play as dirty as they can"? It just makes you look like really bad people who I don't want to be around. Please grow up.

Ban Arcus now please. http://imgur.com/a/uSucx

Greg! Where are the stats?!

Is the Hawk's inability to refuel a VEAO bug or a mission bug?

Can I get confirmation on how repair crates work? If an airfield has just gone from 0% to 20%. How many crates would it need to instantly receive to push it up to 40% or higher? I just had 3 UH-1's drop crates at a 20% airbase and it remained at 20%. Cheers.

I'm with Nach on this one. :)

Ehh, I mean the only difference between the A and the C in the game are the CDU and the MWS. The CDU has no real use if there is no JDAM. MWS is nice. Losing the A-10C redfor to lose A-10C and 25T and KA50 would be fine by me though. :)

Greg and his typical excuses.

But in the Russian RWR you know exactly how far away the missile is, so you can tell that it's a missile shot way outside of parameter and you can just keep pushing, or do a slight crank. Don't try and pull a fast one on me. :^)

The problem is though, is that for the missile to be effective you have to be so close that it makes no difference, I'm shooting within active range every time I pull the trigger.

On a side note, is the "spamramm" thing really a threat? Like, players who are shooting multiple missiles at a target are likely shooting from so far that they're no factor no? 95% of engagements are a single slammer at about 7nmi, unless the missile obviously goes stupid off the rail and then I shoot another. The shooting 6-8 missiles at a single guy is just a waste of ammo. It's the lack of spamming 120's that actual makes the F-15 pretty strong against multiple 27's, especially when 27's shoot ET's at like 15nmi and I put it on the 2 and now it's defeat. :^)

The imbalance sucks, but I find it a joke if pilots, especially fighter pilots, stop flying because of the imbalance. The number of times Monkey and I have gone up as like 4 blue vs 30 red and flown and kinda held for 6 hours at a time has been.. well.. just about every round? I hate to meme but, get good if you get scared flying into 5 bandits when you have a wingman. Edit: That being said, I'm obviously not advocating for team player imbalance. That'd be retarded.

It was me, I think I blew up 4 sets bunkers in under an hour?

I remember this, when we went to push Min Vody and Nalchik bugged, starting at 0% and we had to wait 4 hours for helicopters to arrive. If I recall correctly it was something to do with balance with SEAD aircraft being able to be effective without being too effective and with the SAM ranges being too long and overlapping? I could be wrong. Xcom/Greg could shed more light on why no SA-11/SA-10.

You're asking for a "realistic" load out for a very specific time-frame, with that form of realism comes with a loss of aircraft, if you want to be logically consistent, no? Or is this purely to give Redfor as much an advantage as possible?

Are you happy to lose all the other aircraft and weapons that comes with this though? Every time it was suggested a hard line cut, certain people got very unhappy at the idea of losing things. Take this round and the amount of assblasted comments at the idea of Redfor losing the Mirage.