Jump to content

F14B can carry GBU12 with TGP?


Torattacker

Recommended Posts

Well that's too bad it won't be available on initial release. But I'm honestly not too broken up about it. For me myself, I plan on mostly using the F-14 as intended,

in the Fleet defense role.

 

Precision A2G would be nice but that's what the hornet and harrier will be for. ;)

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like what?

 

Taking pictures... :)

 

TARPS does several good things for the F-14 module, though these benefits are largely confined to single player missions (my preference). It diversifies the F-14's mission set for campaigns and missions. It also requires a very different flight profile and utilizing unique avionics functionality for the pilot and RIO to stay on target.

 

In many ways, recon missions are strike missions without secondaries. You still have to penetrate enemy air defenses and arrive over a target with the correct parameters to obtain the right photos. It is a great reason to fly low at Mach 1 and TARPS crews were quite proud of what they did. They also got to enjoy the much better performance of the F-14A at low altitudes, ACM hard decks limited appreciation of the low altitude power among regular Tomcat crews.

 

Don't you want to photograph a Silkworm site while evading I-Hawks? :D The tactics and techniques are little removed from dropping bombs on them. It also is another skill to learn for the F-14 and will make things more interesting.

 

Also, it's worth mentioning that signs point towards the initial release of the F-14A/B module to favor "mid-life" F-14 operations (~1985-1995). The announcement of the Forrestal class carrier for the F-14 reinforced this - nearly all of the Forrestal class carriers were out of service by 1994 with only Independence still operating (and never operated F-14Bs). This means that the classic F-14 mission of maritime air superiority with TARPS will be the primary mission with the recent addition of iron bomb capability.

 

But I wouldn't discount the possibility of a LANTIRN/late-90s or early 2000s upgrade for the future. I can imagine an upgrade that creates two new versions for the F-14: F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN. This would mean cockpit upgrades/RIO MFD, 3D model upgrades, LANTIRN functionality, and possibly DFCS and/or the sparrowhawk HUD for the F-14B. This would be a great way to further expand the module while offering the classic F-14 for the initial release.

 

The popularity of the DCS: F-14 will likely facilitate a lot of future add-ons and DLC for the module. I'm sure that different users have different hopes for the module, but it is already a monster project even without the features of its final decade. I'm very interested to see how things will grow in the future.

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-14 was cleared to use basic iron bombs in 1992. And the idea of fitting LANTIRN pod was not made until the mid 90s. Honestly I would expect LANTIRN to be present on the D model, but I wouldn't say it has to be included on F-14B.

 

Sure It would be cool to fly multicrew and drop GBU's, but with both F-14A+F-14B, carrier and AI system (not to mention Iranian artwork for redfor Tomcats) I can not ask for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're focusing on the essence of what a Tomcat is + some more to begin with (e.g. TARPS). We have plenty of tricks up our sleeve for the future, however. We realize what you guys want. :)

 

For now it's just a matter of development resources and time.

 

So for now it's NO LANTIRN.

But after release it's a maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's dissapointing. :(

 

Have to say I agree. Felt this would really stand it out from previous Tomcat releases. Mainly because it was a bit part of the Tomcats life and it's main role for its last 10 years or so.

I'm not fussed about it being there on release would just love to see it at some point down the line. Would even pay extra for it as I appreciate the extra development time/work that would go into it. I do believe though that as Nick said they do care about what we want as customers so I will remain hopeful that someday down the line this will be implemented.

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking pictures... :)

 

TARPS does several good things for the F-14 module, though these benefits are largely confined to single player missions (my preference). It diversifies the F-14's mission set for campaigns and missions. It also requires a very different flight profile and utilizing unique avionics functionality for the pilot and RIO to stay on target.

 

Not really. You use the same avionics to guide yourself to a target whether you want to bomb it or take a picture of it. Furthermore, there is zero point to using it for single missions, as recon is used in prep for a strike or to assess a strike. Turning it into the end all be all of a package is rather pointless. Getting a good picture of the target area doesn't mean anything because you can't use them, because there's no persistence in game. Taking a photo of the target doesn't help later missions, even if in a campaign chain because the campaign chain won't run using your information that you've gathered, it'll have its own stock images for briefings.

 

In many ways, recon missions are strike missions without secondaries. You still have to penetrate enemy air defenses and arrive over a target with the correct parameters to obtain the right photos. It is a great reason to fly low at Mach 1 and TARPS crews were quite proud of what they did. They also got to enjoy the much better performance of the F-14A at low altitudes, ACM hard decks limited appreciation of the low altitude power among regular Tomcat crews.

 

Essentially that means your roleplaying. The TARPS pod in game could be simulated perfectly accurately, but without any persistence there is zero difference between an accurately simulated TARPS pod and a 3d model that has a couple of lights turn on in the cockpit when its armed. Not to put too fine a point on it, it'll be another of LNs old dead weight pods.

 

Don't you want to photograph a Silkworm site while evading I-Hawks? :D The tactics and techniques are little removed from dropping bombs on them. It also is another skill to learn for the F-14 and will make things more interesting.

 

And it is more fun to drop bombs on them. Since there's no persistence, destruction is preferable to information gaining. You're not photographing targets to call in later strikes, or to pass accurate locations to the navy for bombardment. You may as well run a strike mission against the same target, as it will have the same results, with the added bonus of actually killing something.

 

Also, it's worth mentioning that signs point towards the initial release of the F-14A/B module to favor "mid-life" F-14 operations (~1985-1995). The announcement of the Forrestal class carrier for the F-14 reinforced this - nearly all of the Forrestal class carriers were out of service by 1994 with only Independence still operating (and never operated F-14Bs). This means that the classic F-14 mission of maritime air superiority with TARPS will be the primary mission with the recent addition of iron bomb capability.

 

The LANTIRN begin integration in 94, with the first bombs being dropped using the system in 95, with the first active tour of duty being in 96 with LANTIRN equipped F-14s. Widespread use wouldn't be until the late 90s and early 00s, butsaying it's out of timeline is wrong.

 

But I wouldn't discount the possibility of a LANTIRN/late-90s or early 2000s upgrade for the future. I can imagine an upgrade that creates two new versions for the F-14: F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN. This would mean cockpit upgrades/RIO MFD, 3D model upgrades, LANTIRN functionality, and possibly DFCS and/or the sparrowhawk HUD for the F-14B. This would be a great way to further expand the module while offering the classic F-14 for the initial release.

 

See above.

 

The popularity of the DCS: F-14 will likely facilitate a lot of future add-ons and DLC for the module. I'm sure that different users have different hopes for the module, but it is already a monster project even without the features of its final decade. I'm very interested to see how things will grow in the future.

 

-Nick

 

I hope very much that you're wrong. The direction of nickle and diming us for every asset pack, pod or bloody sidewinder is anti consumer and liable to push people away from DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tirak...you are playing a sim, you are role playing...what do you think that you are doing?

 

TARPS missions were real missions and important missions, they had escorts and sometimes accompanying strike packages for SEAD. The data could be used for many things, including subsequent strikes. But to say that replicating it has no purpose because there is no dynamic campaign is silly. TARPS pilots didnt review the pictures (in general) or use them for their own purpose. It was for strike planners and battle group commanders, not the "player".

 

Also I'm not saying that LANTIRN is out of place, I'm saying that it looks like the HB F-14B will more closely match the F-14B as it was 92-95. No comment on whether that is right or wrong (not that there is right vs wrong for these things anyway), I'm simply telling you what I see and how that fits with a Forrestal class carrier. But as you said, my operational timeline for deployed F-14B LANTIRN is correct.

 

Lastly, please develop the LANTIRN for Heatblur so that they don't need to charge for it. I'm sure you would do it for free. If you are not willing, please stop asking others to.

 

I see that you are struggling to see other perspectives on DCS, but please stop being the pot that calls the kettle black.

 

LANTIRN will happen when or if it happens, let thing play out.

 

-Nick


Edited by BlackLion213
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if there is no dynamic campaign, reconnaissance missions can be important in multiplayer campaigns made by the community (virtual squadrons for example) .This is one of the roles of Tomcat, so it is important To be able to play it.Maybe not a priority at the release ;).

 

The Lantirn ability and precision bombardment is also part of Tomcat's missions, although the Hornet is better than him in this role, not everybody wants to fly in hornet. And anyway, we do not have one Nor the other for the moment ... (with still more news for the tomcat !!! :lol:)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have some really cool ideas for how TARPS will work in the sim and I personally believe a lot of you will really enjoy playing around with it. :D

 

The F-14's from the time frame we're aiming for did not use Lantirn pods and hence the current plans are to not include them at launch. That said, everything is subject to change as you know; we might decide to add it at a later point for instance. The pod would add a fairly significant system to the development roadmap and i'm sure everyone would rather have a Tomcat without the lantirn earlier rather than a tomcat with lantirn later ;)

  • Like 1

/Daniel

 

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are playing a sim, you are role playing...what do you think that you are doing?

 

-Nick

 

Well put, just because the functionality is not in the sim right now doesn't mean you can't replicate the mission profile at the very least.

  • Like 1

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have some really cool ideas for how TARPS will work in the sim and I personally believe a lot of you will really enjoy playing around with it. :D

 

The F-14's from the time frame we're aiming for did not use Lantirn pods and hence the current plans are to not include them at launch. That said, everything is subject to change as you know; we might decide to add it at a later point for instance. The pod would add a fairly significant system to the development roadmap and i'm sure everyone would rather have a Tomcat without the lantirn earlier rather than a tomcat with lantirn later ;)

 

yes for sure! is there another laser designation pod on the tomcat?

 

 

This is good news for Tarps, look forward to seeing this!:smilewink:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sure everyone would rather have a Tomcat without the lantirn earlier rather than a tomcat with lantirn later ;)

 

1+

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially that means your roleplaying. The TARPS pod in game could be simulated perfectly accurately, but without any persistence there is zero difference between an accurately simulated TARPS pod and a 3d model that has a couple of lights turn on in the cockpit when its armed. Not to put too fine a point on it, it'll be another of LNs old dead weight pods.

 

I'd argue that any mission has no sense at all in a non dynamic campaign. But not to be too negative, how does a SEAD make sense if the next mission in the line is going to make its own conclusions about how a target is defended? Or how does a CAP make a difference if no matter how many fighters you shoot down the enemy resources in the next missions are not effected?

 

 

And it is more fun to drop bombs on them. Since there's no persistence, destruction is preferable to information gaining. You're not photographing targets to call in later strikes, or to pass accurate locations to the navy for bombardment. You may as well run a strike mission against the same target, as it will have the same results, with the added bonus of actually killing something.

 

 

To each their own i guess. Personally i loved the photo missions in F-19 (anyone still remember that one?), and there was no real dynamic campaign there either. Just semi random chained missions. But i guess......that's part of the role playing.....

 

Even if there is no dynamic campaign, reconnaissance missions can be important in multiplayer campaigns made by the community (virtual squadrons for example) .This is one of the roles of Tomcat, so it is important To be able to play it.Maybe not a priority at the release ;).

 

Also this! :thumbup:

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tirak...you are playing a sim, you are role playing...what do you think that you are doing?

 

I'm not inventing whole scenarios out of whole cloth when I play a mission in DCS. There is an objective on the map, it is engageable and the results of my engagement will have a tangible effect on the mission completion. TARPS offers none of this. You have to make up the mission in your mind, there is no result from accomplishing it in any way. You're playing imagination land on your own, and if that's the criteria for what you're looking for, then quite frankly such an experiance is already on offer in FSX. Mock dogfights, simulated bombing runs and recon runs are quite frankly pointless in the realm of DCS as it is a combat simulator with objectives that can be completed beyond what we make believe in our own minds.

 

TARPS missions were real missions and important missions, they had escorts and sometimes accompanying strike packages for SEAD. The data could be used for many things, including subsequent strikes. But to say that replicating it has no purpose because there is no dynamic campaign is silly. TARPS pilots didnt review the pictures (in general) or use them for their own purpose. It was for strike planners and battle group commanders, not the "player".

It's frankly make believe crap which offers no gameplay experiance. And I have to disagree with the person who asked the point of SEAD packages or mission viability at all without a dynamic campaign.. Especially in the context of larger packages, SEAD strikes can be run in conjunction with actual interdiction strikes. If run on their own, DEAD strikes are a contest between the pilot and the air defense system. A recon run is simply aerobatics, fly through this point in airspace and go home in the current configuration of the sim. There is no payoff for accomplishing them, whereas there is for eliminating ground targets. If all you want to do is missions where you must fly through a box in enemy air space, then no time is required to simulate TARPS in any way beyond the 3d model and the drag it brings with it.

 

Lastly, please develop the LANTIRN for Heatblur so that they don't need to charge for it. I'm sure you would do it for free. If you are not willing, please stop asking others to.

This argument is facetious and you know it, and frankly I'm astonished you've come down on the side of being in favor of nickle and dime DLC for every bit of capability. When I purchase one of these modules, I expect the full experience, as that's what I pay for. Not the pay to win model of a free to play game.

I see that you are struggling to see other perspectives on DCS, but please stop being the pot that calls the kettle black.

Save the sanctimonious attitude for someone else Blacklion, I don't mind HB deciding they don't want to do a LANTIRN pod, I take issue however with Cobra trying to spin it as "Oh, we want to spend extra time coding more important things about the F-14" in reference to yet another dead weight pod that serves no other purpose than to look pretty on exterior shots.
Edited by Tirak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think us bundling as much as we possibly can together with the Tomcat (and soon... the Viggen) should show some good faith in us not worrying too much about RoI when developing a feature.

That said; adding the LANTIRN and PTID upgrades (the PTID upgrade is not just a simple fancy screen, FWIW) adds a not so insignificant amount of manhours to a roadmap that is already stretching our team to the limit.

 

That said, I don't think the initial release of DCS: F-14A & B is the end of our Tomcat journey.

 

We'll just cross that bridge when it's time. First we need to deliver the definitive Core A & B experience.

 

Save the sanctimonious attitude for someone else Blacklion, I don't mind HB deciding they don't want to do a LANTIRN pod, I take issue however with Cobra trying to spin it as "Oh, we want to spend extra time coding more important things about the F-14" in reference to yet another dead weight pod that serves no other purpose than to look pretty on exterior shots.

 

That's not even close to the correct takeaway from my post. I don't need to spin anything, I have a lot of confidence in our product being a very complete package, LANTIRN or no LANTIRN.

The fact is, that the TARPS pod was certainly a much more mainstream piece of ordinance for the Tomcat at the era we're representing. We don't consider it a critical feature, and we certainly didn't dump the LANTIRN in place of TARPS. They're not compareable at all development effort wise.


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 1

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tirak, since you seem to prefer this format:

 

I'm not inventing whole scenarios out of whole cloth when I play a mission in DCS. There is an objective on the map, it is engageable and the results of my engagement will have a tangible effect on the mission completion. TARPS offers none of this.

 

This is a game. I enjoy these processes (TARPS) and for me the results and benefits are tangible. The purpose of the game is entertainment. Attempts to justify forms of gameplay as superior or more worthy are silly and narrow-minded. Of course you prefer to do things that you enjoy - everyone is like that! But people also want different things, why is that hard for you to grasp.

 

It's frankly make believe crap which offers no gameplay experiance.

 

Tirak, everything you do in DCS is make believe crap - you need to reconcile that and come back into reality. Your gameplay and gameplay preferences carry no more weight than anyone else's. Whether or not your gameplay is scripted - you are using a computer to pretend you are sitting in an airplane. Please look in the mirror and stop trying to portray it as meaningful or important. Enjoy your game and allow other people to enjoy theirs - why the attitude?

 

This argument is facetious and you know it.

 

So is your dismissal of my interest in TARPS - why haven't you noticed? Pot calling the kettle black.

 

I'm astonished you've come down on the side of being in favor of nickle and dime DLC for every bit of capability.

 

I'm not, but I'd rather pay more to have both an F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN (with or without DFCS) in addition to the F-14A and F-14B from 1985-95. If that needs to cost money - I'd pay it.

 

I don't expect Heatblur to take the approach you mentioned. I'd say you are being pretty reactionary and paranoid. Why assume the worst about the situation? Why so "glass half empty"?

 

Save the sanctimonious attitude for someone else Blacklion.

 

I'd love to, but I'm responding to you facetious and sanctimonious statements. Can dish it out, but can't take it?

 

Please look at your own statements and attitudes about other's preferences - they are condescending, baseless, and sanctimonious. Why so obtuse?

 

-Nick


Edited by BlackLion213
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

It's frankly make believe crap which offers no gameplay

...

Save the sanctimonious attitude for someone else Blacklion, I don't mind HB deciding they don't want to do a LANTIRN pod, I take issue however with Cobra trying to spin it as "Oh, we want to spend extra time coding more important things about the F-14" in reference to yet another dead weight pod that serves no other purpose than to look pretty on exterior shots.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including yours and Blacklion. But saying a TARPS pod has no gameplay (an absolute statement) is not true - it is just a different type of gameplay than what you want and is more passive than a prototypical mission. Not saying that I wouldn't prefer a LANTIRN pod too because we certainly can do more with it and would have more lasting value, but there will be missions that can utilize TARPS, but again, obviously not the type of mission that you want to play. I could see a mission or two in a campaign where you have to fight through defenses, weave through canyons, dodge SAMs, etc all to get to your objective to take a picture an interesting spin on things that would be fun to break up the "action-packed" missions. To each their own!

 

TL DR - just because you don't like something doesn't mean others have the same viewpoint. All of us, as consumers, have an equal voice to be heard by the devs.


Edited by Medic8ed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, wait, Cobra! Do we still get LGBs?

 

That's a good question! :)

 

In 92 Tomcats were clear to employ unguided bombs (such as Mk-82), not sure about LGBs.

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question! :)

 

In 92 Tomcats were clear to employ unguided bombs (such as Mk-82), not sure about LGBs.

 

I've heard that the Tomcats did carry LGBs and buddy lased with the Hornets shortly before they received LANTIRN. But I'm not sure if this became a widespread operational doctrine or if it was a one-off type of thing.

 

But from a carriage standpoint, can you carry an LGB if you can carry a Mk. 82-84? I think you can.

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tirak, since you seem to prefer this format:

 

It makes addressing points in order easier, especially as I don't always disagree with some parts of what people say.

 

This is a game. I enjoy these processes (TARPS) and for me the results and benefits are tangible. The purpose of the game is entertainment. Attempts to justify forms of gameplay as superior or more worthy are silly and narrow-minded. Of course you prefer to do things that you enjoy - everyone is like that! But people also want different things, why is that hard for you to grasp.
Look at it this way. You have a chessboard, and chess pieces. But with them, you instead decide you want to play Canadian checkers. The board is the wrong size, the number of pieces is wrong, but hey, you're going to shoehorn it in anyway. And then you try and claim that the chessboard should be made with the number of squares a Canadian checkerboard has so that you can enjoy playing Canadian checkers better with your chess set.

 

I'm not going to tell anyone how to play their game, I'm not even going to tell them they're wrong for playing the game in a way I don't find fun. But I will argue strenuously against someone trying to push development down a path I don't agree with. It's debate. I disagree that your way is as fun, and therefore I view time and effort spent on what you want to be frivolous. I'm not just going to say I disagree, I'm going to say why I disagree so that we can discuss it, and if at the end of a discussion we disagree, fine. Just because I argue against something, doesn't mean I have disdain for the people who enjoy the thing I argue against. It would be prudent I think, if you understood that instead of taking it personally.

 

 

Tirak, everything you do in DCS is make believe crap - you need to reconcile that and come back into reality Your gameplay and gameplay preferences carry no more weight than anyone else's. Whether or not your gameplay is scripted - you are using a computer to pretend you are sitting in an airplane. Please look in the mirror and stop trying to portray it as meaningful or important. Enjoy your game and allow other people to enjoy theirs - why the attitude?
See the chessboard example above. It seems you're having trouble reconciling that we're having a discussion from differing viewpoints. I'm presenting my reasons, you're presenting yours. There's no "attitude" here, just debate.

 

 

 

So is your dismissal of my interest in TARPS - why haven't you noticed? Pot calling the kettle black.
Facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor. I'm not being humorous, I'm presenting a straightforward argument with solid reasoning, this part of your argument is not on the level and you know it.

I'm not, but I'd rather pay more to have both an F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN (with or without DFCS) in addition to the F-14A and F-14B from 1985-95. If that needs to cost money - I'd pay it.

Again, I'm surprised you'd take the approach where you believe we should be nickle and dimed for capability. I have serious disagreements with that pricing approach as I find it to be anti consumer and inherently anti community. As I'm a fan of the multiplayer side of the DCS street, it is something that I argue strenuously against when it comes up.

 

I don't expect Heatblur to take the approach you mentioned. I'd say you are being pretty reactionary and paranoid. Why assume the worst about the situation? Why so "glass half empty"?
Because I don't view developers as buddies, I view them as businesses, and businesses are out to make money. I point to things like FSX and Prepar3d where every airport, GPS system and scene pack is an add on that costs money. If you want to make your game look good you have to spend literally hundreds of dollars, and just recently ED has opened the door to that pricing system. So yes, I am glass half empty because I know how businesses work, and if for one second any third party thinks they can get away with it, they will.

 

I'd love to, but I'm responding to you facetious and sanctimonious statements. Can dish it out, but can't take it?
I'm not being facetious in my arguments at all. Sanctimonious, perhaps a bit, but not not condescendingly directed at you, which is what you've been implying. Blacklion, I respect you immensely on these forums, and I'm not attacking you as a person, but I will attack your arguments with all the vim and vigour that I have, because that's what people do when they debate.

 

Please look at your own statements and attitudes about other's preferences - they are condescending, baseless, and sanctimonious. Why so obtuse?
Where am I being condescending towards you? I attack the argument, not the man.
Edited by Tirak
It was pointed out to me that American Checkers is 8x8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including yours and Blacklion. But saying a TARPS pod has no gameplay (an absolute statement) is not true - it is just a different type of gameplay than what you want and is more passive than a prototypical mission. Not saying that I wouldn't prefer a LANTIRN pod too because we certainly can do more with it and would have more lasting value, but there will be missions that can utilize TARPS, but again, obviously not the type of mission that you want to play. I could see a mission or two in a campaign where you have to fight through defenses, weave through canyons, dodge SAMs, etc all to get to your objective to take a picture an interesting spin on things that would be fun to break up the "action-packed" missions. To each their own!

 

TL DR - just because you don't like something doesn't mean others have the same viewpoint. All of us, as consumers, have an equal voice to be heard by the devs.

 

I disagree. There is no gameplay value to be had from TARPS. You may personally enjoy it, but at that point, you're roleplaying beyond the games capabilities. It no longer matters if you dragged along any piece of equipment to simulate TARPS, as it would have the same in game effect. When I say gameplay value, I'm confining the statement to the capabilities of the game, not whatever roleplay value you assign to it outside that. And along those lines, I find that TARPS has no merit to be included.

 

As to your TLDR, we're debating, this is my position I've staked out. I'm not going to go all wishy washy in how I discuss it because it is the way I firmly believe. I don't hold your position that it's valuable and so I argue against it. If you want to argue for it, like you're doing, that's fine, and I'm not going to expect you to coddle to my view when you hold literally the opposite one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the chessboard should be made with the number of squares a checkerboard has

 

It is.

 

A checkerboard or chequerboard (see spelling differences) is a board of chequered pattern on which English draughts (checkers) is played.[1] It consists of 64 squares (8×8) of alternating dark and light color, often black and white.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboard

 

A chessboard is the type of checkerboard used in the classic board game chess, and consists of 64 squares (eight rows and eight columns)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessboard

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...