Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 8

You don't think it's a bit ridiculous to compare a simple loss of radar-guided missiles to Call of Duty?

Please. Radar missiles are one of the largest contributors to the "airquake" mentality of other servers. With this change, egads, we might have to spend a bit of time in the merge and, dear Lord, actually have to do some quick thinking rather than just popping off our slammers/R-27s/AIM-7s and juke around/notch a bit.

Yes, red is slightly advantaged due to the presence of HMS for the R-73. I don't remember those of you adamantly pointing this out rushing to decry the availability of AIM-120 on Round 6, however. That's a bit odd, wouldn't you think?

To compensate, I guess I could sacrifice the Mirage on REDFOR if we wait on starting the round until any bugs with getting the Magics off the rail have been fixed, which'll hopefully be done tomorrow - as far as I know, the "slave to CCM" function is finally being turned on as well. Alternatively, and try to follow me here.. why not allow the East German MiG-29 to make an appearance? I think this'd be a much better fix than restricting the Mirage, it ticks both the "realism" and "balance" boxes just fine.

I think this'll be a fun round for me to jump back into to make up for my being busy through Round 8 overall, though. Us MiG-21 pilots don't get to have our day in the sun, ever, and it'll still be a hard fight for us regardless. Good thing I'm a bit of a masochist, I guess.

Really, though, the restrictions of every round to this point have been arbitrary, designed around creating interesting setups less so than realism. I don't see why some kinds of arbitrary restrictions seem to fly, but one that seeks to force everyone to go to the merge has become unwelcome. Check the player counts on the "Vietnam" and "Korea" servers as opposed to Blue Flag when the event's running, I believe you'll find that BF generally has no less than double the amount of connected clients of any (or both) Vietnam servers put together, plus those of the Korea server. Those of you saying that this restriction is going to kill Blue Flag, while a change to an era-appropriate layout featuring only 6 modules (3 per team) would be a resounding success are a bit off-base, and that's as politely as I can possibly state it. Case Blue, as cool as it was, wasn't nearly as active as the usual BF event, after all.

As much as I would love a Vietnam-style event to come down the pipes, I don't exactly blame Buddy Spike for not wanting to immediately run a mission where the primary aircraft for one side is a beta/early access module with some issues left to be resolved, either. Hold your horses!

Goofy is NOT the reason I like this particular server. 104th or Open Conflict would fit that. This was a nice server that made people work together with realistic weapons/loadouts and aircraft. Now, IMO, it just turned into someone's fantasy idea of a guns only server.

I literally see no reason why the 104th or Open Conflict are goofy in any way.

This is will be an interesting round of blue flag because Blue are at a slight technical disadvantage for once, but instead of just cracking on they all just seem to be cracking up and bawling about it.

Time will tell I guess...

I literally see no reason why the 104th or Open Conflict are goofy in any way.

 

This is will be an interesting round of blue flag because Blue are at a slight technical disadvantage for once, but instead of just cracking on they all just seem to be cracking up and bawling about it.

 

Time will tell I guess...

All of em. Yep. AAAALLLLLLL of us. Eyeroll.

Sent while I should be working instead.

No fantasy, Give us vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam vietnam !!!!! :D:D:D:D

This is not HAWKS or COD, where fairness must be always guaranteed, this is a simulator, and the objective is to simulate as possible and playable as we can. I don’t understand where is the need on trying to make that skills is the only difference between winning or losing.

This is not HAWKS or COD, where fairness must be always guaranteed, this is a simulator, and the objective is to simulate as possible and playable as we can. I don’t understand where is the need on trying to make that skills is the only difference between winning or losing.

If you think that the F-15 and the Su-27/MiG-29 are equivalent in the merge then you are wrong

If you think that the F-15 and the Su-27/MiG-29 are equivalent in the merge then you are wrong

If you think that the earth is flat then you are wrong.

I like the idea of heaters but the idea of having 15s and 27s and other modern craft is a bit dodgy. I would have rathered the migs and sabres or migs and tiger2s. I like the thought of bfm up close with heaters but I don't think having the modern planes in will do it justice as if it were gyro gunsights and early gen heaters.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

https://youtu.be/UZIr6tiXqr0?t=146

I think he knows how it works just fine, he never said the Flanker and Eagle are equivalent after the merge, and Jack never said the Earth is flat.

Seems pretty Even Stevens to me.

Greg to be honest as a sever Admin my self this will kill your sever. Red has a stacked deck with this and no one like to go up and get shoot down after waiting to fuel, rearm, and takeoff . I see all the arguments about numbers on side at any time. To give the honest truth with a small community dcs has and how many people live in different countries who play blue flag you are not going to get even number all the time. red is going to have numbers at times and blue is going to get numbers at other times. that when the map moves. I foresee round 9 be the shortest round in blue flag history. What fun will that be? I had the best fun in my life during round 6 and 7 flying sead mission that was my bread and butter. now another round with no sead mission and another round I sit out.

Ah no worries. Round 4 lasted 1.5 days and even case blue didn't kill us :P

It would be better if you spent some time to read my previous post here.

Instead of keeping the server down we have it up with this concept.

Do you like it? It's ok.

Also don't take into account only some posts here as we have whining in every round by the same people who are finally in the server 8 hours daily. There is no scenario that some people won't rage here even if there is no particular reason for this.

At the same time there are clients and squadrons that like other concepts from time to time but just don't post here and only enjoy the server.

You have to get more feedback when you run a server with such numbers as blue flag.

Greg

Am I hearing this right, round 9 is going to be a "dog fight" scenario instead of an era like Vietnam? Tell me I'm wrong, please...

Lol ? Lol... Lol !!! No, seriously guys, stop trolling us :lol:

So If I am reading this correctly the Mirage is only on the Red side?

 

JD

AKA_MattE

What the hell... :noexpression: These posts sums up pretty much everything, I've probably skipped other posts like those. Tell me that's a joke right ?... What the heck is currently happening ?! If things are defined like this, I'll probably pass that round 9, I mean it, I do find no interest at all in such scenerio, neither my squadron. I don't know what came up in admins mind with that initiative, I really don't get it. Moving the M2KC in the REDFOR was maybe the biggest move which makes me really doubt of BS realism fidelity. This is just so wrong, how about removing GCI, setting up guns only just like any other arcade/training servers ? At some point we would probably end up being "wings only", when you you'd have to splash your opponent using your wings (however fuel tanks restricted, those are deadly).

Round 8 was a well design round, scratch the trolls out, it was a good round and it wasn't unbalanced regarding assets, it was more likely a server population issue which has to be expected on a public server unfortunately because of the slots restriction, but the assets were good to me. I had a really good experience by my side. Reading that Round 9 changes log made me laught at first as I tought you guys were just joking... now I'm just really disapointed and starting the question things out.

What I would suggest is actally getting the Round 8 up again, with slights changes and improvements, fixing the bugs, adding some AAR as it was requested many times, keeping things as Warsaw Pact vs NATO only. For now, things are really questionnable.

Finally if you guys want a feedback, how about creating a poll ? You'd have a clear idea of what the community desire the most.

@greg

Just asking: Is the Korean era setting (F-86, MiG-15 and P-51) still on the roadmap or has it been scrapped? I was so excited for that one (and still are).

Also, how about a Vietnam era setting (MiG-21, F-5, UH-1, Mi-8)?

@greg

Just asking: Is the Korean era setting (F-86, MiG-15 and P-51) still on the roadmap or has it been scrapped? I was so excited for that one (and still are).

 

Also, how about a Vietnam era setting (MiG-21, F-5, UH-1, Mi-8)?

Well it's even possible being round 9 concept.

Nobody seems to read my post :D

Greg

Well it's even possible being round 9 concept.

Nobody seems to read my post :D

 

Greg

Well, there were M2000s, F-15s, MiG-29s or Su-27s in neither Vietnam nor Korea.

But if you're refering to this:

As said before this is not close to the final concept.

... then I'm more than excited for round 9 :D

(in that case I'm wondering if it will be Korea or Vietnam :))

... then I'm more than excited for round 9 :D

(in that case I'm wondering if it will be Korea or Vietnam :))

Could be the Kargil War :music_whistling:

Well it's even possible being round 9 concept.

Nobody seems to read my post :D

 

Greg

Well, it looks like I might finally get the MiG-15. Neat.

Could be the Kargil War :music_whistling:

Damn, I can't argue this :lol:

Any combination that would limit the number of FC3 fast movers is fine by me.

I'd vote with my joystick if it wasn't broken. Great change! This sounds like it'll be a very fun round.

Any combination that would limit the number of FC3 fast movers is fine by me.

You realise that not everyone have all the modules in the dcs but still want to fly in blueflag? All those people asking for vietnam-korea-whatever are literally going to spoil my DCS experience for a couple of weeks because there is only one actually playable thing in the whole DCS which is blueflag?

Heaters-only setup is OK by me, but blue must have MiG-29G and Mirage.

You realise that not everyone have all the modules in the dcs but still want to fly in blueflag? All those people asking for vietnam-korea-whatever are literally going to spoil my DCS experience for a couple of weeks because there is only one actually playable thing in the whole DCS which is blueflag?

Heaters-only setup is OK by me, but blue must have MiG-29G and Mirage.

You will survive a few weeks. As greg just said, Case Blue (WW2 Blue Flag) worked well too.

I would love a ww2 scenario again but round 9 if it is implemented with the posted settings sounds really fun as well. In all other rounds blue had the cap advantage, now it is the other way around. I will always fly red, but it will be great not to be the underdog for once. I guess m2k was moved to red because of the stacking issues, I think it is worth a test. If it doesn't work out we can move it back to blue in the following rounds.

While a Korean or Vietnam round sounds fun, I think there could be some problems regarding server population. I don't own any of the planes that would fly there and sadly don't have the money for a mig21 right now, especially since I have to save up for the typhoon :).

I read a lot about modern air warfare and it is stated often that most engagement would end up in a dogfight since the rules of engegament demand a visual iff confirmation. Since we can't limit the use of radar missiles to be used only after visual iff, I think a ir only round is not at all unrealistic.

you can save up for the Typhoon untill 2030 i guess :P

@Greg

I flew on the server last night, and tested the FARPs to see if I can refuel(Red Side). The fuel trucks are there, but they are too far away from the actual FARP. If you can move the fuel truck to near the Urals are, it should work. They pretty much have to be sitting on the FARP itself like the Urals in order to work. Thank you.

Reaper6

@Greg

 

I flew on the server last night, and tested the FARPs to see if I can refuel(Red Side). The fuel trucks are there, but they are too far away from the actual FARP. If you can move the fuel truck to near the Urals are, it should work. They pretty much have to be sitting on the FARP itself like the Urals in order to work. Thank you.

 

Reaper6

Yes they need to be inside 100 meters and they are not :doh:

Greg