Monkey21

Hey, only I can make forced memes happen on this forum. Manzanita, I dont have footage because I dont record my flights, but this isn't exactly an isolated incident or an uncommon complaint. Plenty of people on both sides have had issues with it. Shively, Red do their fair share of complaining too (just read the round 6 thread) so stop trying to paint Blue as a bunch of crybabies. Both sides have their whingers.

I still think it's a valid complaint. Sure many of the damage models are off (F-15 hydraulics system is stupidly weak for example, I'm sure the Flanker has issues as well) but none quite so obviously and critically as the Mirage.

It still baffles me that people think it's just one side doing this; THE LAG IS UNIVERSAL. Blue fighters lag for RedFor, Red fighters lag for BlueFor, it is not one team's fault, and it's unfair on those playing legitimately on both sides to imply that they are cheating.

Yeah I share this opinion, three AIM-9s and several 20mm snapshots before it goes down is pretty ridiculous. I love the module, but it's just not ready for a campaign like this, where efficient use of weaponry is so important to CAP on both sides.

I think we have enough issues with killing certain aircraft without adding more wonky damage model jets.

The only time I've ever seen the Blue Phantoms kill anything was when they killed me with friendly fire!

It's not me we're talking about here, it's IASGATG

Now that is a good joke.

Not at all, I think you're misunderstanding my point; if you read back through this thread you'll see I proposed an AIM-7 vs R-27ER scenario, giving Red an additional missile on top of what they currently have. The point about Red winning with 80's missiles was not that it was unfair, it was that Red seem to cope with the lack of current gen weapons better than BlueFor does, and that is a credit to Red. Edit: I just read my comment that you were referring to, I didn't say "only."

RedFor have won rounds three four and five, which includes the two rounds so far that were 80s missiles only, so my statement stands.

That's an ad hominem, and is symptomatic of the lack of respect both sides have for one another.

I somewhat agree, although I think the difference is much smaller than the scenario Rage is proposing. I went to chat to a load of RedFor guys last night before the end of the round, and I can see the frustration associated with the Charlies with the lag occasionally rearing its head: it affects Red more than Blue in the Round 6 scenario, which is why I proposed the ER vs Sparrow and the ET vs 120B scenarios, which I feel are very reasonable.

You do? You think choosing a brief period in history with the simple intent to benefit your own team to the great detriment of the other would not suck out a large part of their motivation to fight? It's certainly an optimistic view.

Would Red be the underdog in the scenarios I suggested? I don't think they would, especially given that Red won the rounds where Blue were restricted to Sparrows. I agree, it is realistic, but picking a 2 year time frame in a conflict potentially spanning 30 years (a window equivalent to just 7% of the time frame) purely to give yourselves an advantage does not sound to me like something in the best interest of the server as a whole. I'd happily fight that scenario, but I can see it driving many other players away in droves.

Last round was a "realistic" modern scenario. Didn't stop people whinging. Trying to cherry pick dates that suit your team the best doesn't help anyone.

I'd be okay with ER vs Sparrow, or ET vs 120B. I think asking for the full compliment of Russian missiles vs just Sparrows is a little bit silly.

Congratulations to my Blue brothers, and well fought RedFor!

I'm sure this is a sentiment shared by many, but would implementing a server password not be a good idea? I see no drawbacks to it, as long as the password was made available either on the forums or the Teamspeak. This would go some way to preventing the randoms joining who just see a populated server on the list and join without knowing what's going on, and then proceed to take up slots better used by those flying the objectives. The password does not need to be well protected, but a small barrier to entry would probably go a long way to stop random people gumming up the works for both sides.

Just encountered a bug: Took off from Sochi with troops and a Stinger loaded in my Huey. IASGATG cleared the Maykop/Sochi FARP and I took it, and then took off again with more troops, and was told I had six lives left rather than seven. I hadn't died at any point, but because I had captured a FARP I had effectively lost a life. Seems a bit unfair to be punished for completing objectives.

I've really enjoyed previous versions of Blue Flag, but this sounds so rushed. Why not wait for the upcoming WWII aircraft to flesh it out?

Sounds great, sign me up in an Eagle!

I'm not proposing a static campaign.

Any thoughts on implementing a team limit of 30-40 per side? I think a contributing factor to the team imbalance is the (entirely necessary) server cap of 60 players, because it makes it harder for people trying to join to even up the teams. A few times I spent 10 minutes trying to join the server, only to find 10 or so blues trying to fight 40+ red (and vice versa in previous campaigns) and the (again, totally necessary) server cap of 60 makes it very hard for the outnumbered side to turn it around, even if they have the manpower, because they're all stuck in the multiplayer lobby. I'm really sick of the "but X outnumbered us" complaints, they make the losers sound like spoiled children and it cheapens the victory for the winners and perhaps limiting the number of people able to be in one coalition at any one time would go some way to preventing huge imbalances from occurring. I'm thinking 35? It allows the side with a numerical advantage to exploit it somewhat by giving them potentially 40% extra aircraft, without creating a scenario where one team cannot defend themselves effectively, and it means the server cap does not act to benefit the numerically superior quite so much. The obvious consequences of this would be lots of people in spectator mode, waiting for an aircraft, so it's far from perfect. Inb4 "war isn't fair" comments.

Congratulations to Red, I actually have to admire the creativity of whoever set our SAMs to hold fire!

See, frankly I find that racist against helo pilots. How dare you suggest that a helo pilot's life in only worth 1/4 of a fighter pilot's life, and this is coming from a life-long fighter jock. This bigoted attitude has honestly triggered me so much, I propose we start a "chopper lives matter" action group to combat the blatant prejudice here, it's disgraceful. It's 2016, it's high time we in the fighter community recognised our fighter pilot privilege and work together as allies to stamp out this disgusting and inhuman discrimination. #CHOPPERLIVESMATTER Let's get this trending people!