M0ltar

So is the aim to have the server be a more accurate representation of real life then?

Wait, what? D2 is gone? I know I said earlier that I didn't understand the mirage having D2M and the Flanker not having DL, but now that the Flanker has DL I think removing the D2M may hurt the mirage if it indeed was removed. I guess some testing is in order. Take my comments with a grain of salt as the change was just made and I'm basing its removal on what other people say though.

Awesome! Thanks again for everything!

No, no, not at all. Was simply saying let's see how all the airfields shape out for default.

I was agreeing with you... All I was saying was I didnt think all the airfield were setup yet. So red, having been used to being able to use maykop and beslan in the past has not been able to yet. That's all.

Yes it's intended game play, I agree with that. However, I think people are mistaking a partially completed map for how Blue Flag will be. Why don't we wait to see what the map looks like and what flight times actually are before we make assessments on what is needed in the server. Don't get me wrong, smokey, I'd like to see ERs, but it's hard to determine flight times when. I dont think the airfields are done with slots. If they are, I take back what I said.

Delete

I would venture to say that even with refueling the mirage will get up significantly faster than the FC3 planes.

Part of the imbalance could be because people wanted to fly the Flanker with DL. Its new. Give a it a few testing rounds and lets see how it shakes out. Im betting a lot of it is because it is something new and people either A) want to try it, or B) are afraid of it because they have not flown against it before in BF. TLDR: Just give it time for testing and lets see if the players numbers balance back out.

Great points as normal. The more we talk about this the more I'm starting to realize that maybe it's people not adjusting to the new rules and features. I think the fuel is a major part of Blue Flag and adds a new complexity that forces people to manage. Ok to allows for a new strategy of forcing airfields out of full before pressing, something they could happen in real life.

Cool that you guys are thinking about something. I would not worry too much about the current discussion topic of balance. I think this is a much more civilized conversation than ones we have had in the past about this and other topics. I do the think anyone is gunho about something being done now, people are just voicing how they feel about it and bringing ideas to the table.

I know the AI CAP was my idea, but I think it may cause lag whether they spawn in the air or on the ground. I think the third groups could cause more problems than it solves. What if tons of people join that group? What happened a if you're in that group and you want to play with friends but teams are even? How's does it determine what team to put you on then? Again, what about adding the ability to deploy a certain air defence like the sa10, tors, etc? Have them then despawn on restart. Or better yet, just have them spawn in if the team balance is too bad. That way there is added defence to make it much harder to attack, but not impossible. Have like an sa10 shield that can be hit with coordinated attacks, but prevents people from just pushing and dominating. One thing I have to say though is that I'd something like this does get put in the campaign will go without movement for a much longer time.

Or the ability to place more sa6 or the ability to construct a single sa10?

I see, if the same thing is done that TAW did, the same thing happening here. It really is a hard thing to do and overcome. Maybe enabling AI fighters for the team with the smaller numbers if the population is too different? I mean enabling AI CAP that spawns air born and not on the ground then needing to taxi. Again, no idea. Anyone else want to weight in?

That's a really hard questions and something that a lot of people of brought up before. I personally have no idea how it would be done unless you allow team switching after a certain period, but that defeats the purpose of the server and mission a bit if you ask me. Again, it's really hard on public servers and I have no idea how it would be done. Hope we figure something out.

Are you sure it's limited to WiFi or is it simply people with high ping? Some game frameworks fall apart for everyone on the server when a high latency client connects.

Now that I think about it, I do remember your name from around then. The CAS/Rotor was an issue if you remember specifically because of the A10C. People can compare the Su25 and the Ka50 to the A10C, but an A10C in DCS they are not. The ground attack capability and the speed at which it does it is far far in front of the other 2. There were issues with it only being on one side because of this. Yes, the Ka50 is capable, but it can't take an airfield in anywhere near the time that the A10C can, even if the A10C has a rookie pilot, and that is why, again, there were problems. Also, CAS/Rotor separation was not always a thing in Blue Flag. It was introduced in round 8 or 9? and a lot of people didn't like it because it gave certain sides a major advantage when the goals were the same on both sides. If you want different air frames on each side, make this like a real conflict where each side has a different goal or different assets protecting said goals, but again people will complain because of x, y, or z. We can talk about tactics and such all day, but if you don't have an air frame that is as capable you are going to be at a disadvantage. Also, you guys make it sound like its only red complaining. Blue complained about not having the Mi8 specifically because of its high altitude performance and its ability to climb. They also complained when the Ka50 had bombers for a couple of examples. People in this thread, on both sides only provide the part of the story that paints them in a good light and act like this is a new argument, balance. This argument has been going on the entire time Blue Flag has existed and will continue to because people are passionate about this virtual campaign. Again, yes separated air frames would be awesome, but we, here in DCS, do not have the number of different modules needed yet to make this a possibility unless we are going to make Red and Blue's objectives different or assets at each objective different. Even if you go down that road people will complain saying Red or Blue only has to do this and we have to do that. On top of that it is very very hard to balance something that is asymmetrical.

Let me preface this by saying this question is not meant to be mean or belittling or anything like that just want to know for something I was thinking about. This really goes for anyone arguing for CAS and rotor separation as I know how many rounds a lot of the players on the side Im for have been around for. It just seems we have a lot of new faces in this discussion and that is not an issue just want some more information so that I don't make an assumption.. How many rounds have both of you been through on blue flag? I mean real rounds and not testing. So that would be like actual round 8 for example.

If that happened I think you'd need to do the R77 or something for red to make the Mig more appealing, but maybe that's just me. I like flying against a couple different airframes and not just a single one. I also don't think the R77 is anywhere near as bad as the aim120. Again, maybe just me.

Again, the reason you really can't put CAS and rotor on one side is because we don't have enough and the ones we have vary too much. Give me an A10C and I'd have an airfield closed by myself in 2 to 3 minutes last round with full defences and buildings. You can't put the SU25 on one side and the A10 on the other and have that be even because the frogfoot can't do it nearly that fast. You can whine and say, change your tactics, but that doesn't work either. The A10C is just a better ground pounder in DCS than the SU25. Than on the other side, now blue doesn't have SEAD if the 25 is now only red. With missions that are the same on both sides, which I think work best for public servers, it's really hard to put CAS and rotor only on single sides. If you then say, the 25 is fine on both sides, well ok, but now where do you draw the line. Where do you stop saying, but this one can do this and this one can't? It may be different when the 18 comes out, but until we get more modules it's really hard, especially for CAS and rotor, to only be single sided.

Who only plays on one team?

What do you mean, fuel?

I'm all for having the mirage on one side. My support in the having everything on both sides is limited to just CAS and rotor. I'd like to have fighters only on one side. I do like the option that was proposed earlier of the mirage only on blue and the 29 with the R77 being on red.

Guys it's all well and great to base this on real life, but that really restricts options. You can always make things up and say the mirage is purely redfor. It really doesn't matter. People get way to hungup on whether it's real in real life or not.

That's all awesome and the sides have been pretty close to that. The issue you run into, specific to CAS, is blue has no SEAD so they have to have the SU25. Unless both sides do not have the same objectives, airframe overlap is inevitable. Until we get more modules there is no way around it. I like the idea of MK2 on one side and giving the Mig R77. That sounds cool.