Jump to content

Cold War 1947 - 1991


Alpenwolf

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, sthompson said:

Or maybe a newbie trying to figure things out? Was there any attempt to contact the person? First time on a server it can take some time to figure out what you should be doing, and someone might not realize they are screwing up the mission for others.

not newbies, they've been on a few times, hence the team killing in a previous mission. We tried calling them on SRS, which they're not on. There was no apparent need to send a message as they were flying over a friendly airbase, of which the 25 had just taken off of.

I understand new guys struggle, and we do our best in the GCI/tac com slots to give them a hand over SRS or messaging, but either people aren't on srs, or they don't read the chat. A good example of the latter was a 25-t attacking the friendly farp the other day, we messaged him about 5 times it was friendly but they continued shooting the farp and friendly helo's.

A side note for context if you're lacking it, we did call out the squadron for shooting down the friendly, they decide to respond childishly about some obscure fact that one of our pilots had "an abused upbringing" rather to owning up to and apologising for the team kill.

I understand its a cold war server, and missiles don't track perfectly. Generally a simple apology is perfectly acceptable to most people and I do my best to ensure the new guys learn. But when people blatantly don't care for the other players on their side and refuse to learn/improve, I think all of us would rather they keep away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Show me a script that detects a player while being AFK and I'll have that implemented. And a script that prevents players from switching sides any time they want. It's not like I'm not aware of these issues (and more). The bitter fact is through the ME a mission designer can't do things like that. And scripting is really a thing and I know only the basics simply because it would require a lot of time to go deep into it. Can't do that. Not time.

Teamkills will always be. You don't fix that by banning players (unless it's obvious and often. Some players are banned for life for it and will remain banned). No matter what I do there will always be flaws. I understand your desperation as I share that with you all. So you report the issues to me and I appreciate that but hate to tell you I'm limited in my the options giving to me in the ME or whatever little scripts we have out there.

I've always worked alone and it will always be like that. Co-admins are not the solutions and things will surely happen behind my back whether you believe it or not. So I'm left with your reports (tacview files, screenshots, etc.) and those did help quite often in the past to react appropriately to any given issues on the server.

 

Hope you understand that.

 

@MarkMD:

I'll try and catch 'em.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up the tks @CAPT_Kirkpatrick mentions, here they are in their files.

https://gyazo.com/06e94231c8eb9e536a25a6bc99c32c98

https://gyazo.com/3b44ea59174dd915d4b887dd0482eddc

https://gyazo.com/d3afb1fe5c9c0c9fff2f3a75110f8712

 

@AlpenwolfThe FARP spawns on Battle For Sukhumi Unleashed still have the issue of helicopters spawning inside each other. This is as of yesterday 🙂 . As for the MiG-29 guy in the slot not really much we could fix with that other than just sucking it up. That person is definitely not new for the people that presume so. I don't really expect these people that I reported to get banned either, just reporting if incase it happens again.

 


Edited by Zachrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alpenwolf @Zachrixand I have routinely had issues with Zappbrannigain. Meanwhile today we had a player with no callsign teamkilling our ground units using the Tac commander slot. Allegedly you have access to the connects/disconnects list? Zach should be able to follow up with the screenshots he took at the time.

 

Meanwhile, have you had any luck asking the 4YA or other server devs for help/copies of their scripts? Frequently on their discords they have dedicated script channels with chatter, examples and links for you to implement them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever scripts are out there I already know of. Anything else that is not shared publicly is simply not to be shared. And I did ask around and the answer was "we keep some of our scripts to ourselves only".

Nothing I can do, folks. And all these years not one guy who's good at scripting felt like taking the time and help out a bit. Not blaming anyone, why would I? just sharing facts. I do everything I can but there is a limit to what I'm capable of in terms of time and scripting knowledge.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alpenwolf Almost forgot, on Search and destroy, seeing as the Fulcrums are limited to R-27s due to sharing the same field as the 21s, could the F-14s not have Aim-9s? They still get to carry 6 bleeding Aim-7Ms at the same time.

 

On a separate note, once the Hind gets R-60Ms, would you consider adding the mistral gazelle to more missions? A few people on today voiced their opinion that it would be good to get people off the deck and make the Kub/Hawks more valid both to build and to neutralise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2021 at 2:15 AM, Apok said:

 

Nellus here is chart for performance of our Lord and savior R60 that can help you with what happened.

 

164443_219116077_B7A8C09C-2558-4898-949A-F3CF9872C5AF.jpeg

 

Worth note that the 9L doesn't line up with this chart either - in DCS it performs as a full-blown all-aspect missile, and will reliably track when fired from 0 degrees head-on from quite far out. I've had suspicions the R-60 is still making hits it shouldn't for a while, but ultimately, so are a lot of other things and the 9P almost seems to be the exception here. I don't think the R-60 can make pure head-on shots anymore but I also haven't tested extensively enough to say for sure. It does hold track on a target once they turn into it though, so hits that are in the realm of that chart's R-60M zone are common - against afterburning targets, which brings me to the following...

 

An important note, though I don't know how sigificant an impact it makes: this chart is explicitly labelled as being for mil power ("maximal without afterburner") and at an altitude somewhat above where most of our fights take place, which should mean slightly better missile and seeker performance than down low, logically.

 

I'd love to ditch all of the newer missiles and go to R-13M1 vs its actual historical equivalents (9D and E?), but it's looking doubtful whether older modules will be able to carry the older Sidewinders when they come with upcoming modules, and they may even end up making shots they shouldn't do, which brings us back to square one. On top of that we've got 7Ms being chucked around, occasionally someone decides to visit a road base or FARP and load up on all-aspects, etc... the R-60's effect on gameplay isn't severe enough to really warrant yet another missile row, because they aren't constructive and will inevitably result in someone asking for a better/all-aspect missile under the guise of "fairness", again. If you don't want to get slapped by an R-60, either don't get in front of a MiG, or stay too close even for that thing to turn - a lot of F-5 guys are already doing this well enough that I'm still relying on my gun a lot. Better yet, don't let a MiG get close enough to even hit with one, learn the acceptable launch parameters of the 9P, and slap him from further out. The R-60's performance comes at the expense of easily being duped by flares, short range on the deck, and low hitting power. The 9P is pretty much the opposite and is a very good missile when actually used correctly.

 

As for the "newbie trying to figure stuff out" argument - maybe if they only do it once. There has been a pattern with some people either teamkilling (particularly ground units, and some even taking control of ground units to shoot down friendly helicopters at the FARP), taking very limited aircraft and flying them into the ground repeatedly, or what we had yesterday, where someone switched teams and proceeded to use team chat to try and give away the locations of enemy units (which is extremely not cool), followed by taking control of vehicles that were in close proximity to the enemy and sitting idle so the tac commander couldn't move them. Once might be an important phone call or someone who doesn't quite understand how the server works, multiple times is pretty suspicious, especially if they've gone to the trouble of blanking their name out like old mate yesterday did.


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

Not sure what we can do, but at this stage it's a bit of a handicap for the other side. One has to evade, loose speed and waste flares on every merge, just as a precaution, to dodge a rouge R60 hitting one in the face. 

I got another in the face shot yesterday, fair play, not so sure about that.

 

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.04.05 - 12.18.22.27 (2).png

 

DEVILS - COLD WAR AVIATORS

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LegionCW said:

@Alpenwolf Almost forgot, on Search and destroy, seeing as the Fulcrums are limited to R-27s due to sharing the same field as the 21s, could the F-14s not have Aim-9s? They still get to carry 6 bleeding Aim-7Ms at the same time.

 

On a separate note, once the Hind gets R-60Ms, would you consider adding the mistral gazelle to more missions? A few people on today voiced their opinion that it would be good to get people off the deck and make the Kub/Hawks more valid both to build and to neutralise.

 

 

 

That's already been mentioned multiple times. Yes.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

Worth note that the 9L doesn't line up with this chart either - in DCS it performs as a full-blown all-aspect missile, and will reliably track when fired from 0 degrees head-on from quite far out. I've had suspicions the R-60 is still making hits it shouldn't for a while, but ultimately, so are a lot of other things and the 9P almost seems to be the exception here. I don't think the R-60 can make pure head-on shots anymore but I also haven't tested extensively enough to say for sure. It does hold track on a target once they turn into it though, so hits that are in the realm of that chart's R-60M zone are common - against afterburning targets, which brings me to the following...

 

An important note, though I don't know how sigificant an impact it makes: this chart is explicitly labelled as being for mil power ("maximal without afterburner") and at an altitude somewhat above where most of our fights take place, which should mean slightly better missile and seeker performance than down low, logically.

 

 

In Mountain Peaks mission recently I got to fire R55s head on, tho locking enemy with radar first. Ofcourse it wouldn't hit a broad side of a barn. Maybe its the same with R60 until it gets with in parameters then starts tracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Apok said:

 

In Mountain Peaks mission recently I got to fire R55s head on, tho locking enemy with radar first. Ofcourse it wouldn't hit a broad side of a barn. Maybe its the same with R60 until it gets with in parameters then starts tracking.

 

Affirm, sure you can get tone in the head on, but it won't track - only beginning to track if the target turns and gives it more of a side aspect, or kills them via the prox fuse if they fly in a straight line in the head-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Apok said:

In Mountain Peaks mission recently I got to fire R55s head on, tho locking enemy with radar first. Ofcourse it wouldn't hit a broad side of a barn. Maybe its the same with R60 until it gets with in parameters then starts tracking.

 

Radar shouldn't affect it (of course this is DCS we're talking about, so who knows). Best I can tell it still usually won't track when fired directly head-on, but if fired ~3/4 front it may track, and if fired on a beaming target who then turns into it, it will usually continue to track. It probably needs some looking at from the actual devs, but it's not that huge of a deal in the grand scheme of things, considering half the guys in MiGs launch at like 5km, or salvo-fire head-on at point-blank range, so they aren't going to hit anyway.

 

Remember, tone from a Soviet missile does not mean it will even make an attempt at tracking - if people want to waste R-60s on hail Mary head-ons, that's up to them, but personally I'd be a lot more concerned about the guys who wait for a better shot before taking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that in the mission "Search & Destroy" the red Farp is protected by a SA-15 that also covers the TWO EWRs! On the other hand the blue side only got one EWR without any AA cover, as the Stinger missiles on the Avengers dont have the necessary range. Would be nice if the blue EWR would also get SAM cover like a Roland or sth comparable.

 

Is there any urgent reason for this set-up?


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

4 hours ago, BurroHablando said:

I saw that in the mission "Search & Destroy" the red Farp is protected by a SA-15 that also covers the TWO EWRs! On the other hand the blue side only got one EWR without any AA cover, as the Stinger missiles on the Avengers dont have the necessary range. Would be nice if the blue EWR would also get SAM cover like a Roland or sth comparable.

 

Is there any urgent reason for this set-up?

 

The EWRs were set up by our helicopters in such a spot that they are covered by the SA-15, if your side's helicopters tactically set up defenses and EWRs it would be even. By default in most missions get only 1 EWR each (there is an additional EWR for red that the MiG 21 pilots cant reach). Welcome to the server. As for the r60 that shot is perfectly within his limits granted the opposing fighter had his afterburner on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zachrix said:

The EWRs were set up by our helicopters in such a spot that they are covered by the SA-15, if your side's helicopters tactically set up defenses and EWRs it would be even.

Yeah, that's not the case. I was in the mission since the start and TAcview shows the EWR with SA-15 cover before the first helicopter spawned. The Helicopters also just can carry SA-6 and SA-13 as far as I am aware. The second EWR for frequency reasons, okay, but why one side gets SAM cover with a really powerful SAM-system since the beginning?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BurroHablando said:

Yeah, that's not the case. I was in the mission since the start and TAcview shows the EWR with SA-15 cover before the first helicopter spawned. The Helicopters also just can carry SA-6 and SA-13 as far as I am aware. The second EWR for frequency reasons, okay, but why one side gets SAM cover with a really powerful SAM-system since the beginning?

If that is the case then you saw the Mig 15 EWR and Mig 21 EWR. Our helicopters can carry a KUB and Strela in addition to various other things (including EWRs) depending on the mission. For the one you are referencing the helicopters can even carry T72s. Keep in mind these EWRs don’t have great coverage in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BurroHablando said:

I saw that in the mission "Search & Destroy" the red Farp is protected by a SA-15 that also covers the TWO EWRs! On the other hand the blue side only got one EWR without any AA cover, as the Stinger missiles on the Avengers dont have the necessary range. Would be nice if the blue EWR would also get SAM cover like a Roland or sth comparable.

 

Is there any urgent reason for this set-up?

 

 

Because I'm the only one who has access to all missions' data and over a period of time I've noticed Blue strikers attacking Red FARP's more often than Red attacking Blue ones. Yes, attacking FARP's is allowed but there is always that thing about exploiting what is allowed to the extent it becomes ridiculous, especially in the mission Search & Destroy. So one Tor unit is there (players have no access to it, just AI controlled) to help reduce those attacks a bit. Why? Because at the end of the day it is a game. And a game is there to be enjoyable. We always talk about realism, right? Trust me. FULL REALISM wouldn't be as much fun as most people think. I wouldn't mind it, but I'm certain that most players would. All that doesn't matter anyway because we haven't got the tools to make things around here all that realistic, although I do try to get as close as possible to that while always bearing in mind the fun factor of it! So it's the middle way more or less.

By the way, I've seen F-14A's taking care of that one Tor right at the beginning of the mission with some high altitude striking missions. And once Blue has an aircraft capable of performing SEAD missions (allegedly this year) things should go back to normal. For the record, Red doesn't have the Su-25T in Search & Destroy. So no SEAD capabilities for Red either.


Edited by Alpenwolf
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MarkMD Only just occurred to me that I probably should have been lead, seeing as I have the FLIR camera and am the dedicated scout heli. And as we can't take mixed loads, I could only glare at the strela that got you. Shame you didn't stick around long enough to GCI me to their fighters, as unlike most people, I'm averse to foxing without GCI confirmation. According to Kirk (red GCI), we were never spotted so at least we know we did a good job. He says only I was spotted, and only when I popped up adjacent to their Sukhumi runway killing their L39. Looking forward to the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

FULL REALISM wouldn't be as much fun as most people think.

 

laughs in PVO

 

In seriousness: blue generally has access to better A/G capability (except for helicopters), and so it's much less of a hassle for them to go crater an airfield or harass a FARP as a result. Sidearms snipe off Kubs with ease and the Harrier itself is usually hard to find and kill, A-10s and Viggens get Mavs which are quite competent for sniping off Strelas, and of course the Viggen is absolutely fantastic for rendering an airfield into the past tense. Red can generally do the same stuff but with a lot more steps involved, or with having to work around certain limitations. As a result they tend to focus more directly on both A/A and attacking the actual objective, while blue can divide its effort if needed and try to harass red FARPs/airbases to keep their aircraft grounded and buy time. So yeah, not really surprised that blue do it more than red, it's just easier for them. In a galaxy far, far away, I am sure the Su-17 will solve that problem and red will be able to return the favour without having to sink in far more time and effort.

 

The Tor itself is dangerous, but kind of overstated. Just stay high and it won't touch you, or alternatively, don't fly into the valley where the FARP is. Blue's FARP is also risky to overfly because the Avenger, while it often fails to do much damage and only has a ~5km slant range, is extremely accurate and doesn't decoy easily. Sometimes you can get away with rolling the dice on damage, but the one time you get deleted by the launch you never even saw kinda makes it not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

And once Blue has an aircraft capable of performing SEAD missions (allegedly this year)

May I ask which aircraft is to be released?

 

6 hours ago, rossmum said:

Red can generally do the same stuff but with a lot more steps involved, or with having to work around certain limitations.

I have a lot of hours on the MiG-21 and I am aware of the limitations. The Su-17/22 would be a real dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

laughs in PVO

 

In seriousness: blue generally has access to better A/G capability (except for helicopters), and so it's much less of a hassle for them to go crater an airfield or harass a FARP as a result. Sidearms snipe off Kubs with ease and the Harrier itself is usually hard to find and kill, A-10s and Viggens get Mavs which are quite competent for sniping off Strelas, and of course the Viggen is absolutely fantastic for rendering an airfield into the past tense. Red can generally do the same stuff but with a lot more steps involved, or with having to work around certain limitations. As a result they tend to focus more directly on both A/A and attacking the actual objective, while blue can divide its effort if needed and try to harass red FARPs/airbases to keep their aircraft grounded and buy time. So yeah, not really surprised that blue do it more than red, it's just easier for them. In a galaxy far, far away, I am sure the Su-17 will solve that problem and red will be able to return the favour without having to sink in far more time and effort.

 

The Tor itself is dangerous, but kind of overstated. Just stay high and it won't touch you, or alternatively, don't fly into the valley where the FARP is. Blue's FARP is also risky to overfly because the Avenger, while it often fails to do much damage and only has a ~5km slant range, is extremely accurate and doesn't decoy easily. Sometimes you can get away with rolling the dice on damage, but the one time you get deleted by the launch you never even saw kinda makes it not worth it.

 

Exactly this! You saved me some writing time.

cold war 1947 - 1991.jpg

Cold War 1947 - 1991                                       Discord
Helicopters Tournaments
Combined Arms Tournaments

You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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