Jump to content

Cold War 1947 - 1991


Alpenwolf

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

Can we get some air defenses at Nalchik and Krasnodar for Red and blue on the open range mission? Just took the 40minutes to fly all the way there, only to have a F-5 pick me out of the sky right as I was hovering over Nalchik. and there is nothing there to engage him, so basically he can just park himself there and there is no way to engage him, and since he's so far behind our lines, and the early warning radar so far forward, no way to detect him.

 

EDIT:

Oh it's even worse. Sekhmet landed at the airfield, and waited for me to arrive, to conserve fuel, and remain undetected, he then took off and shot me downScreenshot (20).png

 

 

It was never necessary to have any air defences at either. But hey! There is always that one dickhead who wants to exploit things rather than sticking to the objectives.

 

I'll add some.

 

EDIT:

Just kicked him out of the server with a warning message.

Thanks for reporting by the way!


Edited by Alpenwolf
  • 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

7 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

It was never necessary to have any air defences at either. But hey! There is always that one dickhead who wants to exploit things rather than sticking to the objectives.

 

I'll add some.

Thanks. Yeah I would have been less annoyed if he didn't just land there so he could see me coming, but not be detected by radar. I'm ok with a F-5 running the gambit and risk getting shot down to kill me, but this is different


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 11:05 PM, rogorogo said:

@Alpenwolf
just an FYI about a potential typo (or a global 2,7 bug, in the latter case disregard).

In the "Phone Booth" mission I was flying around recently (iirc last weekend so around a week ago) via RSBN-Navigation in my 21 and noticed the following weird behaviour.

The RSBN global DCS channel setting for:

  • Mozodok (ch 9) sent me to Nalchik
  • Beslan (ch 10) sent me to Mozdok
  • Nalchik (ch 8 ) sent me off to somewhere too but I have not tested where

As these are the global DCS fixed channel settings for the Caucasus map and I found nothing in the briefing or in the F10-map airfield info to indicate that these were switched IDK if that was a 2,7 related bug, they were switched on purpose (if that is even possible for those and not just the unassigned one as it is in ARC), or I have had #justaDCSmoment.

Since I even touched down in Nalchik (only running over 1 poor infantry guy on the strip) I also noticed the airfield is offering all services even directly on the runway.
I also do no know if you intend for Beslans's RSBN to be even active as long as it is in contested state.

So maybe you should just be aware if that is a typo-related bug - if all is in order or a global thing beyond your influence, please disregard.

 

RSBN is outside of the mission maker's control. You were probably too low to pick up the signal, or forgot to switch from ARK to RSBN (left cockpit wall, near the engine starter). Those channels are correct, are listed in the 21's default kneeboard as well as a reference card on the front right canopy rail, and cannot be adjusted. It's possible there could be a bug with the module, but I doubt it, as I was able to navigate with those channels just fine over the past few days. Make sure your nav system is in the right mode and that you're actually picking up the right beacon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 6:56 PM, Alpenwolf said:

The MiG-21 and the F-5 are and always will be the main aircraft on the server. Therefore, my concern is mostly about their missiles. Not much can be changed or done for the MiG-19 or the AJS37.

 

The mission The Tunb Identity will go online tonight and will feature the new air-to-air setup:

- R-13M1 (main missile), R3S (very limited), R3R (very limited).

- AIM-9P (main missile), AIM-9B (GAR-8) (limited), RB-24 (main missile), RB-24J (very limited).

- air-to-ground ordnance remains limited to unguided weapons as it is already the case in this mission.

- Infantries instead of BTR-80's, M113's and Humvees.

 

R-3S' possible overperformance is only an issue when stacked up against the 9B. If the mission has 9Ps, there's not really any reason to limit the R-3S as it's all the 19 can carry. I'd also say that it's a mistake to overcommit to the 21 vs F-5 matchup at the expense of the 19, although the AJS 37 is a special case as it's a strike/interdiction aircraft with a very specialised role. The 19 is not comparable to the Viggen and nor is it superior to the 21 in literally any measure except sustained turn rate, so if anything there should probably be more 19s available than 21s if the goal is to stop people ganking helicopters over open water. The 19's radar is near useless for independent search, having a little over a third of the range of the 21's and being totally unusable below about 1-2km.

 

Most anti-tank duty in a peer conflict (ie war in Europe) would have been cluster bombs. Precision munitions were expensive and in limited supply and there is absolutely no way an A-10 or Su-25 would survive a second pass, never mind the racetrack - fire - racetrack - fire routine they tend to do in DCS, I'd honestly be happy to see things go to unguided weapons only. Both A-10 and Su-25 get cluster munitions, IIRC, and the 21 and even 29 can carry clusters too, though the 21 has magical bombing CCIP which it shouldn't and the S-24A is... really broken.

 

R-60s will continue tracking a target after it turns into them. They'll make side aspect shots. I haven't seen one actually track when launched from a pure front aspect, but it might happen on occasion, I've seen other "rear aspect" missiles do it too. They're nowhere near how they were a year ago, at least. The AIM-9s are a little more picky about aspect, probably because ED modelled them. To be honest I can see why ED want to handle weapons themselves, the weapons made for the older modules have enormous inconsistencies (R-60, R-3S, Rb 24J, S-24 all being poster children for this). The R-3R is a fairly limited but useful missile, the main problem with it is that apparently people aren't getting lock warnings until the 21 is within ~5km and so only experienced players have time to evade once the launch warning comes (assuming a head-on snap-up, which is usually the preferred shot to make with the R-3R). I've heard claims that the 21 radar doesn't even give search warnings, but in that case I'm quite sure it's just people not knowing how their RWR works. I get search warnings for 21s but in the one test I've had a chance to run so far, the lock warnings were questionable. The radar is pretty busted right now anyway as it doesn't see the new clouds and the rework to fix the FPS bug has possibly uncovered some other issues.

 

I would recommend going back to the Chapparal for blue's SHORAD, but replacing the Strela-10 with the original Strela, which is similarly crappy to the Chapparal. I'd also be inclined to suggest switching from Kubs for red's medium-level SAM to the S-125, just because of how long it takes blue to set up a Hawk (which is a far worse system) compared to the Kub, and the fact we can relocate Kubs at will since it's a highly mobile system while the Hawk is "mobile" in about the same fashion as tectonic plates are.

 

2 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

Thanks. Yeah I would have been less annoyed if he didn't just land there so he could see me coming, but not be detected by radar. I'm ok with a F-5 running the gambit and risk getting shot down to kill me, but this is different

 

This isn't the first time this has happened on the server, but be glad in this case they didn't do it just by the end of your main airfield 🤣

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rossmum said:

This isn't the first time this has happened on the server, but be glad in this case they didn't do it just by the end of your main airfield 🤣

Wouldn't have been as bad because I wouldn't have wasted 40 minutes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

Can we get some air defenses at Nalchik and Krasnodar for Red and blue on the open range mission? Just took the 40minutes to fly all the way there, only to have a F-5 pick me out of the sky right as I was hovering over Nalchik. and there is nothing there to engage him, so basically he can just park himself there and there is no way to engage him, and since he's so far behind our lines, and the early warning radar so far forward, no way to detect him.

 

EDIT:

Oh it's even worse. Sekhmet landed at the airfield, and waited for me to arrive, to conserve fuel, and remain undetected, he then took off and shot me downScreenshot (20).png

 

Fuel wasn't my concern, this was a one way trip. One F-5 for 8 Mig-29's... worth it!

 

5 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

It was never necessary to have any air defences at either. But hey! There is always that one dickhead who wants to exploit things rather than sticking to the objectives.

 

I'll add some.

 

EDIT:

Just kicked him out of the server with a warning message.

Thanks for reporting by the way!

 

Hey, I'm the dickhead! Thanks Alphen, especially for my kick! I don't see how preventing the opposing team from gaining an advantage is an exploit or against the objectives.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

Thanks. Yeah I would have been less annoyed if he didn't just land there so he could see me coming, but not be detected by radar. I'm ok with a F-5 running the gambit and risk getting shot down to kill me, but this is different

 

I did run the gambit.... I had to fly through your entire completely full GCI controlled team undetected via the mountains to make it to Nalchik, and to top it off the whole damn thing is under thick cloud cover. I'm pretty certain I almost flew into a mountain once or twice, but can't be for sure because I couldn't see 5 feet in front of me. I barely made it there in time to stop you.

 

I took a gamble landing at Nalchik because I knew Kras didn't have any defenses, so I assumed it didn't either. It actually almost cost me for two reasons. 1) By the time I got down and turned around, I looked over my shoulder, and you were on landing approach. 2) The buildings and trees at the airfield are blocking the view so much I wasn't going to see you except on landing anyway (I was about to take off because of this). I was very lucky to get back in the air in time to complete my mission, especially without you seeing me.

 

Putting defenses on these bases is fine, but I kinda like how it is right now. It's very high risk for high reward. Slinging is harder than CTLD (though it isn't that hard honestly) thus you run the risk of losing the crate from bad flying, and you're exposed (granted behind your own lines) for an extended period of time.

 

2 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

Wouldn't have been as bad because I wouldn't have wasted 40 minutes

You've shot me down many times in a helo while I'm trying to accomplish a goal, just like you were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BodyOrgan said:

Fuel wasn't my concern, this was a one way trip. One F-5 for 8 Mig-29's... worth it!

 

Hey, I'm the dickhead! Thanks Alphen, especially for my kick! I don't see how preventing the opposing team from gaining an advantage is an exploit or against the objectives.

 

I did run the gambit.... I had to fly through your entire completely full GCI controlled team undetected via the mountains to make it to Nalchik, and to top it off the whole damn thing is under thick cloud cover. I'm pretty certain I almost flew into a mountain once or twice, but can't be for sure because I couldn't see 5 feet in front of me. I barely made it there in time to stop you.

 

I took a gamble landing at Nalchik because I knew Kras didn't have any defenses, so I assumed it didn't either. It actually almost cost me for two reasons. 1) By the time I got down and turned around, I looked over my shoulder, and you were on landing approach. 2) The buildings and trees at the airfield are blocking the view so much I wasn't going to see you except on landing anyway (I was about to take off because of this). I was very lucky to get back in the air in time to complete my mission, especially without you seeing me.

 

Putting defenses on these bases is fine, but I kinda like how it is right now. It's very high risk for high reward. Slinging is harder than CTLD (though it isn't that hard honestly) thus you run the risk of losing the crate from bad flying, and you're exposed (granted behind your own lines) for an extended period of time.

 

You've shot me down many times in a helo while I'm trying to accomplish a goal, just like you were.

 

Well a few problems.

1: i was still starting to decelerate when you shot me down, so It would have been another 5 minutes before I had even come close getting the crate down. Which is a ton of time for you because i can't really evade at all while slingloading and i pretty much had the most effiecient run i could get so i couldn't really get there faster.

2: Even had I spotted you it would mean nothing for the reasons above, i can't evade you.

3: What you did is deliberatly breaking the sling loading aspect of the mission. You want to fly around the base instead, fine, but flying low in the mountains and then finding Nalchik isnt hard, esspesally how far south you flew, and then landing to avoid detection, and planning on a one way trip with no intention of returning that's just admiting that your trolling. As Alpenwolf stated, he shoudn't have needed to put defenses on those bases (though i feel all bases that are in play should automatically have defenses).

4: as for shooting you down in a helicopter. Yeah in the active AO where you have friendlies and defencive ground cover and i always have the intention to at least "try" to make it back, not do a 1 way suicide run. I've got shot down plenty of times in the Ka-50 and Mi-8 but again that was in the active AO. What you did was akin if I had found a map where the tactical nukes where availible for the MiG 21, and then ran in and suicided the airbases. It's the same as the mig 21s landing at Farps to get R60m. Sure can you do it yes, are you intended to based on the parameters? Obviously not.


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

Well a few problems.

3: What you did is deliberatly breaking the sling loading aspect of the mission. You want to fly around the base instead, fine, but flying low in the mountains and then finding Nalchik isnt hard, esspesally how far south you flew, and then landing to avoid detection, and planning on a one way trip with no intention of returning that's just admiting that your trolling. As Alpenwolf stated, he shoudn't have needed to put defenses on those bases (though i feel all bases that are in play should automatically have defenses).

 

4: as for shooting you down in a helicopter. Yeah in the active AO where you have friendlies and defencive ground cover and i always have the intention to at least "try" to make it back, not do a 1 way suicide run. I've got shot down plenty of times in the Ka-50 and Mi-8 but again that was in the active AO. What you did was akin if I had found a map where the tactical nukes where availible for the MiG 21, and then ran in and suicided the airbases. It's the same as the mig 21s landing at Farps to get R60m. Sure can you do it yes, are you intended to based on the parameters? Obviously not.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. It isn't stated in the briefing it is against the rules to attack a sling loading chopper, so your analogy all of which have been stated as breaking the rules doesn't really apply. If it were against the rules, then quite honestly why have the mission in the first place. Just have the 4th gens unlocked from the start. If you don't want to get shot down then maybe sling load on any other server like the aerobatics where you don't have to worry about that.

 

Also, like I said, and what your tacview doesn't show you, is all those mountains were covered in heavy clouds, so yes, actually it was hard to fly through them, and not be detected. Down play it all you want.

 

I also have the intention of making it back in my aircraft. However, in this instance the objective was at the limits of my range, so a Doolittle Raid was put forth.

 

To be quite honest, had a red player shot down the blue teams slinging choppers the blue team would simply have been told it's their fault for not providing air cover. If this were to happen to me, I would have requested air support to clear the area, and maintain a CAP presence while I get the 2nd crate for the next attempt. Instead you take to the forums to ask Alphen to fix it so you can't be shot down.

 


Edited by BodyOrgan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

R-3S' possible overperformance is only an issue when stacked up against the 9B. If the mission has 9Ps, there's not really any reason to limit the R-3S as it's all the 19 can carry. I'd also say that it's a mistake to overcommit to the 21 vs F-5 matchup at the expense of the 19, although the AJS 37 is a special case as it's a strike/interdiction aircraft with a very specialised role. The 19 is not comparable to the Viggen and nor is it superior to the 21 in literally any measure except sustained turn rate, so if anything there should probably be more 19s available than 21s if the goal is to stop people ganking helicopters over open water. The 19's radar is near useless for independent search, having a little over a third of the range of the 21's and being totally unusable below about 1-2km.

 

Most anti-tank duty in a peer conflict (ie war in Europe) would have been cluster bombs. Precision munitions were expensive and in limited supply and there is absolutely no way an A-10 or Su-25 would survive a second pass, never mind the racetrack - fire - racetrack - fire routine they tend to do in DCS, I'd honestly be happy to see things go to unguided weapons only. Both A-10 and Su-25 get cluster munitions, IIRC, and the 21 and even 29 can carry clusters too, though the 21 has magical bombing CCIP which it shouldn't and the S-24A is... really broken.

 

R-60s will continue tracking a target after it turns into them. They'll make side aspect shots. I haven't seen one actually track when launched from a pure front aspect, but it might happen on occasion, I've seen other "rear aspect" missiles do it too. They're nowhere near how they were a year ago, at least. The AIM-9s are a little more picky about aspect, probably because ED modelled them. To be honest I can see why ED want to handle weapons themselves, the weapons made for the older modules have enormous inconsistencies (R-60, R-3S, Rb 24J, S-24 all being poster children for this). The R-3R is a fairly limited but useful missile, the main problem with it is that apparently people aren't getting lock warnings until the 21 is within ~5km and so only experienced players have time to evade once the launch warning comes (assuming a head-on snap-up, which is usually the preferred shot to make with the R-3R). I've heard claims that the 21 radar doesn't even give search warnings, but in that case I'm quite sure it's just people not knowing how their RWR works. I get search warnings for 21s but in the one test I've had a chance to run so far, the lock warnings were questionable. The radar is pretty busted right now anyway as it doesn't see the new clouds and the rework to fix the FPS bug has possibly uncovered some other issues.

 

I would recommend going back to the Chapparal for blue's SHORAD, but replacing the Strela-10 with the original Strela, which is similarly crappy to the Chapparal. I'd also be inclined to suggest switching from Kubs for red's medium-level SAM to the S-125, just because of how long it takes blue to set up a Hawk (which is a far worse system) compared to the Kub, and the fact we can relocate Kubs at will since it's a highly mobile system while the Hawk is "mobile" in about the same fashion as tectonic plates are.

 

 

This isn't the first time this has happened on the server, but be glad in this case they didn't do it just by the end of your main airfield 🤣

I agree with almost all the points you made, although I do consider the 19 to be a fighter on par with the F5 and 21. it has much more advantages than you stated such as acceleration, top speed off burner, climb rate, a MUCH better vertical performance, as well as its fuel economy being a significant advantage, allowing for much more time spent in a fight. but dont let these points take away from the fact that I agree with almost everything you said. especially that Alpen shouldnt stress on the F-5 vs MiG-21 while sidelining ever other plane. and I always see 21s on my RWR, people forget it has to be on "search" to see searching radars.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 21 outperforms it in most of the aspects mentioned, and as the 21 outperforms the F-5 in most or all of those as well I figured it was redundant. The 19's big draw card is that it significantly outperforms both in sustained turns and also has a pretty snappy instantaneous turn rate now as well, otherwise the F-5 and 21 both have far superior weapons systems, better top speeds, better radar, better (F-5) or somewhat better (MiG-21) forwards visibility, etc.

 

The issue with the 21 isn't that it isn't appearing as a search radar, it's that the radar isn't giving lock warnings when it's actually locked. I was wondering if there was some kind of issue with this but never really had the chance to conclusively test it, but the IAF guys did do so and found that the lock warning would not go off (and not just in the F-5, it seems) until the 21 was well inside parameters for an R-3R shot. Honestly it's more of an issue of unaware pilots getting sucker punched, as the more clued in blues are generally too alert to sneak up on and will know to evade any shot from frontal aspect, but it is an issue that needs to be taken into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rossmum said:

The 21 outperforms it in most of the aspects mentioned, and as the 21 outperforms the F-5 in most or all of those as well I figured it was redundant. The 19's big draw card is that it significantly outperforms both in sustained turns and also has a pretty snappy instantaneous turn rate now as well, otherwise the F-5 and 21 both have far superior weapons systems, better top speeds, better radar, better (F-5) or somewhat better (MiG-21) forwards visibility, etc.

 

The issue with the 21 isn't that it isn't appearing as a search radar, it's that the radar isn't giving lock warnings when it's actually locked. I was wondering if there was some kind of issue with this but never really had the chance to conclusively test it, but the IAF guys did do so and found that the lock warning would not go off (and not just in the F-5, it seems) until the 21 was well inside parameters for an R-3R shot. Honestly it's more of an issue of unaware pilots getting sucker punched, as the more clued in blues are generally too alert to sneak up on and will know to evade any shot from frontal aspect, but it is an issue that needs to be taken into consideration.

its also worth noting that the 19 is simply easier than the 21, easier to fly well that is. much like the F-5 is. the 21 is still the most capable fighter on the server but it requires lots of time to get good enough at it to use it proficiently whereas most F-5 pilots can just full stick back on most people and do fine. Curious to see how the F-1 stacks up. im hoping that Alpen decides to include the F-1 into the "F5 and MiG-21 take priority over all" if the F1 is comparable. which its looking to be, what do you think rossum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BodyOrgan said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. It isn't stated in the briefing it is against the rules to attack a sling loading chopper, so your analogy all of which have been stated as breaking the rules doesn't really apply. If it were against the rules, then quite honestly why have the mission in the first place. Just have the 4th gens unlocked from the start. If you don't want to get shot down then maybe sling load on any other server like the aerobatics where you don't have to worry about that.

 

Also, like I said, and what your tacview doesn't show you, is all those mountains were covered in heavy clouds, so yes, actually it was hard to fly through them, and not be detected. Down play it all you want.

 

I also have the intention of making it back in my aircraft. However, in this instance the objective was at the limits of my range, so a Doolittle Raid was put forth.

 

To be quite honest, had a red player shot down the blue teams slinging choppers the blue team would simply have been told it's their fault for not providing air cover. If this were to happen to me, I would have requested air support to clear the area, and maintain a CAP presence while I get the 2nd crate for the next attempt. Instead you take to the forums to ask Alphen to fix it so you can't be shot down.

 

 

If a MiG 21 camped at Krasnador, I would have called them out too, and as mentioned flying around the base is one thing. Landing at the enemy base and literally base camping to save fuel and remaining undetected is what got you the warning ban, don't pretend that you thought that was going to be on the up and up. If you did you wouldn't have used an alias.

 

Also the clouds and fog were reduced significantly, and pretty much none existant in most on that map, as Alpenwolf changed it from before. It was clear skys for me the entire way to Nalchik unlike in previous weeks, so again i doubt that you had to work that hard in the mountains.


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

its also worth noting that the 19 is simply easier than the 21, easier to fly well that is. much like the F-5 is. the 21 is still the most capable fighter on the server but it requires lots of time to get good enough at it to use it proficiently whereas most F-5 pilots can just full stick back on most people and do fine. Curious to see how the F-1 stacks up. im hoping that Alpen decides to include the F-1 into the "F5 and MiG-21 take priority over all" if the F1 is comparable. which its looking to be, what do you think rossum? 

You can also lock up air targets in beam mode last minute. (Which i do from time to time) to give even less warning. You generally want your target inside 3km when the missle comes off the rails for a head on shot, but it can be unreliable with beam mode.


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new flight model adjustments to the farmer It’d be cool to see some missions set earlier in the Cold War with less of a focus on missile combat and guided munitions. For example r-55/rs-2us vs gar-8. Would give the sabers and -15’s a fighting chance as well. RB-05a and Groms being the only guided a2g munitions could be interesting too, with adjusted numbers of heavy ground units.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

If a MiG 21 camped at Krasnador, I would have called them out too, and as mentioned flying around the base is one thing. Landing at the enemy base and literally base camping to save fuel and remaining undetected is what got you the warning ban, don't pretend that you thought that was going to be on the up and up. If you did you wouldn't have used an alias.

 

Also the clouds and fog were reduced significantly, and pretty much none existant in most on that map, as Alpenwolf changed it from before. It was clear skys for me the entire way to Nalchik unlike in previous weeks, so again i doubt that you had to work that hard in the mountains.

 

I wouldn't have posted in these forums informing anyone this was me if I knew I was breaking the rules. I would have created an account under that alias. You're seriously grasping at straws trying to come up with any excuse to paint me as a cheater.

 

Same goes for your continued denial of the weather conditions. Just because your flight had clear skies doesn't mean mine did. The AO we had work in had heavy cloud cover so low we couldn't properly bomb it. How would you know any of this anyhow? You made that single flight and logged off immediately after getting shot down.

 

Say what you want. I'm not going to argue this point further. You're simply salty you didn't get to club F-5's in your Mig-29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BodyOrgan said:

I wouldn't have posted in these forums informing anyone this was me if I knew I was breaking the rules. I would have created an account under that alias. You're seriously grasping at straws trying to come up with any excuse to paint me as a cheater.

 

Same goes for your continued denial of the weather conditions. Just because your flight had clear skies doesn't mean mine did. The AO we had work in had heavy cloud cover so low we couldn't properly bomb it. How would you know any of this anyhow? You made that single flight and logged off immediately after getting shot down.

 

Say what you want. I'm not going to argue this point further. You're simply salty you didn't get to club F-5's in your Mig-29.

I left because I had other engagements. Ask TATS, i told him i could just sling load and then I had to sign off. Not the first time i've done that. Your salty that your actions got you banned, take it up with Alpenwolf 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two missions feature R-55's vs GAR-8's only.

Some missions will have R-13M1's and R3S's vs AIM-9P's, GAR-8's and RB-24's.

Missions featuring the MiG-29A's and F-14A's will still have the R-60's, AIM-9P's and R-24J's enabled.

 

When I say the focus is mostly on the MiG-21 and the F-5 then less on the MiG-19 and the AJS37 that doesn't mean I'm saying the MiG-19 and the AJS37 are comparable to one another or each other's counterpart. How could they ever be?! There are 8-12 MiG-21 vs 8-12 F-5 slots in all missions. Then 2-6 MiG-19's vs 2-6 AJS37's. With the latter being less available and as such not really having an impact on the outcome of aerial battles, the focus on their air-to-air weapons becomes less important. And because the MiG-19 can only carry the R3S there is no way on earth I'm taking that missile away from it, unless it's R-55's vs GAR-8's only as it is the case in the missions Sukhumi - The Beginning and Mountain Peaks. No AJS37's in those two missions either.

 

Attacking helicopters sling loading whatever cargo is allowed. Nowhere it says it's not. And why not? No better way to keep the enemy's advanced jets on the ground. Attacking anything you want is always allowed, unless it's the mainbase of the enemy!

 

The server rules are included in all missions:

 

server rules.png

 

It doesn't say that landing at the enemy's airbase and camping there is not allowed, simply because it'd only be possible if that airbase has lost all its air defences which can never be the case because main airbases are not to be attacked in the first place.

Nalchik and Krasnodar P airbases however, are not main airbases. At some point I used them to add the advanced jets (about a year ago) to enhance the mission and add a new challenge to it. And while at it and came up with the sling loading idea to add yet again a new challenge for helicopter pilots.

The MiG-29A would normally be at Mineralnye Vody airbase and the F-14A at Maykop if MiG-21's wouldn't have access to R-60M's. That's the only reason why I had to place them elsewhere (the F-14A obviously to counter the MiG-29A's further distance from the TA while forced to start at Nalchik). It's not an objective to attack those airbases. I mean, the enemy might never attempt to activate those jets in the first place so why bother attacking them?!

The main and important rules are listed up there and I've never had to deal with any issue that is already not listed as a rule. But there's always that one incident, one exploit, one tiny little inconvenience that comes out of nowhere resulting into an endless discussions like it is the case here between the two of you and me having to react. It's a specific situation so I had to kick - not ban - that player (turned out to be good old BodyOrgan) to have his attention while explaining to him in the kick-message why he was kicked.

 

Air defences will be added as I've mentioned already. A bit busy at work these days but will do if God's willing.

 

Fly safe!

  • 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

49 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Attacking helicopters sling loading whatever cargo is allowed. Nowhere it says it's not. And why not? No better way to keep the enemy's advanced jets on the ground. Attacking anything you want is always allowed, unless it's the mainbase of the enemy!

 

The server rules are included in all missions:

 

server rules.png

 

It doesn't say that landing at the enemy's airbase and camping there is not allowed, simply because it'd only be possible if that airbase has lost all its air defences which can never be the case because main airbases are not to be attacked in the first place.

Nalchik and Krasnodar P airbases however, are not main airbases.

 

It's not an objective to attack those airbases. I mean, the enemy might never attempt to activate those jets in the first place so why bother attacking them?!

 

The main and important rules are listed up there and I've never had to deal with any issue that is already not listed as a rule. But there's always that one incident, one exploit, one tiny little inconvenience that comes out of nowhere resulting into an endless discussions like it is the case here between the two of you and me having to react. It's a specific situation so I had to kick - not ban - that player (turned out to be good old BodyOrgan) to have his attention while explaining to him in the kick-message why he was kicked.

Yes, as I jokingly mentioned in my original post I thanked you for my "kick", of which I read the message, and immediately rejoined, but I've been informed that this "salty" player who took to the forums to complain about his "kick" should take up his "imaginary ban" with the man himself.... Oh wait!

 

Since this has been brought up though, I've paraphrased this quote to draw attention to the specific parts.

 

Basically the above says I'm well within my rights to do exactly what I did, even attacking or landing at the secondary airbase because it isn't under the protection of the rules.

 

I don't remember the exact kick message, but it basically said don't do what I did because of exploits and against mission objectives which is contradictory to what you have written.


Edited by BodyOrgan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

I'd also be inclined to suggest switching from Kubs for red's medium-level SAM to the S-125, just because of how long it takes blue to set up a Hawk (which is a far worse system) compared to the Kub, and the fact we can relocate Kubs at will since it's a highly mobile system while the Hawk is "mobile" in about the same fashion as tectonic plates are.

The S-125 sight is inferior to the HAWK in terms of effective range, and while there are usually many MiG-21s flying on the Red side, and those aircraft may be able to make up for the lack of range, it is still unfair when you consider that there are equal numbers of players.

So I examined the contents of the CTLD script. And I found one possibility. I'd like to share it with the admin Alpenwolf and the other players.

 

@Alpenwolf

My idea is that to assemble the Kub's radar and launcher, I can request two crates for each radar and launcher. As you can see in the image, the CTLD script allows you to request two crates to place one vehicle.

スクリーンショット 2021-05-24 071318.jpg

createsRequired = 2
This is the part that specifies the number of crates required for each vehicle placement. In this case, two crates are required just to place the radar. But I'm not very good at flying helicopters, so debugging is difficult, and I don't know yet if this will work correctly, but if this works, the Red side could require four transports to build a SAM site.

Phantom Forever

F-4EJ / F-4EJ Kai 1971-2021

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use DeepL Translate. Well, I can speak Japanese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BodyOrgan said:

Yes, as I jokingly mentioned in my original post I thanked you for my "kick", of which I read the message, and immediately rejoined, but I've been informed that this "salty" player who took to the forums to complain about his "kick" should take up his "imaginary ban" with the man himself.... Oh wait!

 

Since this has been brought up though, I've paraphrased this quote to draw attention to the specific parts.

 

Basically the above says I'm well within my rights to do exactly what I did, even attacking or landing at the secondary airbase because it isn't under the protection of the rules.

 

I don't remember the exact kick message, but it basically said don't do what I did because of exploits and against mission objectives which is contradictory to what you have written.

 

 

Well, I do remember what I wrote. I didn't say it's against anything. Simply "..., not the objective so please stick to that". You read the message, rejoined, no hard feelings, end of the story.

 

7 minutes ago, Admiral_ZIPANGU said:

The S-125 sight is inferior to the HAWK in terms of effective range, and while there are usually many MiG-21s flying on the Red side, and those aircraft may be able to make up for the lack of range, it is still unfair when you consider that there are equal numbers of players.

So I examined the contents of the CTLD script. And I found one possibility. I'd like to share it with the admin Alpenwolf and the other players.

 

@Alpenwolf

My idea is that to assemble the Kub's radar and launcher, I can request two crates for each radar and launcher. As you can see in the image, the CTLD script allows you to request two crates to place one vehicle.

スクリーンショット 2021-05-24 071318.jpg

createsRequired = 2
This is the part that specifies the number of crates required for each vehicle placement. In this case, two crates are required just to place the radar. But I'm not very good at flying helicopters, so debugging is difficult, and I don't know yet if this will work correctly, but if this works, the Red side could require four transports to build a SAM site.

 

I'm aware of this and it did work in the past (2-3 years ago). For whatever reason it stopped working and Ciribob didn't pay much attention to the script in that period of time. He released one fix last year, I believe, but I can't tell you what it was for any more. Can't remember it. I wouldn't mind checking it again though.

 

EDIT:

Note that changes in the script might cause other things to malfunction, such as having a T-80 "sling loaded" to then unpack a Leclerc instead.

We'll see.


Edited by Alpenwolf

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

1 minute ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Well, I do remember what I wrote. I didn't say it's against anything. Simply "..., not the objective so please stick to that". You read the message, rejoined, no hard feelings, end of the story.

Warning ban, kicked, all the same to me. I never asked for any punitive action, just a solution so that it couldn't be taken advantage of in the future, and letting people know that it was something that could happen with the current setting. It's now going to be resolved which i'm more then happy with and the entire purpose of me reporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 9:05 PM, Get_Lo said:

its also worth noting that the 19 is simply easier than the 21, easier to fly well that is. much like the F-5 is. the 21 is still the most capable fighter on the server but it requires lots of time to get good enough at it to use it proficiently whereas most F-5 pilots can just full stick back on most people and do fine. Curious to see how the F-1 stacks up. im hoping that Alpen decides to include the F-1 into the "F5 and MiG-21 take priority over all" if the F1 is comparable. which its looking to be, what do you think rossum? 

 

To the first part: kinda, now the FM is fixed. It feels less twitchy than the 21, can't really accelerate enough to break itself, and doesn't exhibit the same vicious tail-wag when mishandled, but on the other hand the 19 will quite readily spin and can't always be recovered from said spin, even if you know what you're meant to do in that situation. I'd agree it's easier to fly for the most part, but the consequences for mishandling it are just as fatal at low level and even worse higher up (where the 21 will simply tumble a little, then recover itself).

 

To the second: I'd expect the F1 to have a clear advantage over the 21 beyond visual range (by default, since the R-3R won't reach that far), but WVR I don't know. The F1 is underpowered but does have some fairly sophisticated wing mechanisation, so I guess we'll see how well it turns and how well it holds its speed while doing so. I'd say the F1 and F-8 will compete fairly well with the 21, with each having some advantages to bring into the fight. The 23 will run roughshod over all of the above and so its closest counterpart will probably remain the 14 for the time being, although the 14 has a clunkier radar but also an enormously larger weapon load to play with. The server's dynamics will sure get interesting over the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have always wondered about the MiG-21bis... engine flameout. Was it really this easy to flame out the engine in real life? Reading about aerobatic like furballs in middle east conflicts. And also comparing it against all other jets currently in DCS... Can it be that flameout on MiG-21bis is a bit overmodelled? Flying as carefully as I can during combat, it seems almost impossible to avoid at least 1 engine restart per sortie. If this was true in real life, the TF-30 compressor stalls of F-14 would be peanuts in comparison.

Not looking for a change here. Im used to it by now after all these years. Just curious if flameout a bit overdone and exact to the second when pushing a "non recommended maneuver".      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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