What interest you most, A-A or A-G missions?

[RedTiger]

That LOFC gets the mods it was promised FIRST!!!!!:mad:

 

What, like the improvements to A/A missiles, particularly the Aim-120. Hey, I'm all for that! :D

[GGTharos]

You are certainly correct, but just because they're hard to see doesn't mean they can shoot back.

The .50 is great ... if your attacker dives below 2000' and hasn't put a steel hot dog through you. A CAS aircraft will almost ALWAYS have the drop on a non-ADA vehicle. And yes, it can be made harder, and more dangerous and I quite honestly wish it was - but A2A is still more challenging ;)

 

Alot can be said about a mobile .50cal on a mobile M1-A1. If AI would operate their vehicles almost in a human manner, a2g would be vastly different. Doesnt take much time to hide a truck park in the trees, nor does it take more than 2 minutes to put up a camo net. Did I mention that convoys hardly ever travel in a straight line? Yes I know in this sim-world you dont get that. Typically, all ground targets would scatter like cockroaches at the first site of an attack inbound. AI just drives the path its given and doesnt deviate unless theres a big man-made hole in the ground in front of it.

[Aeroscout]

Give me a friggin' break!

 

In the Lockon forums maybe?? since DCS will not focus on A-A in the coming years anyway, why bother? Rember this is pretty much a A-G forum until ED anounces a A-A platform....

I agree!!!!

 

Seriously, post this in the lock on forums, you won't get such a biased answer. There are both A2A and A2G guys/gals there. I think you'll find the number about even.

 

Putting fighters in DCS will attract more people to the simulation as well.

[GGTharos]

I believe the phrase 'no promises' was very pointedly used many times. ;)

 

That LOFC gets the mods it was promised FIRST!!!!!:mad:

[Boberro]

Yeah people knows what is the best, 66% for AG, it is almost 100% :D

[GGTharos]

No, it just means most people suck at A2A *puts on flame retardant garb* :D

[Boberro]

Hehe your words are only trying to interpret low AA support, but ppl really know what is the best :P

[Pilotasso]

No, it just means most people suck at A2A *puts on flame retardant garb* :D

 

 

I have yet another explanation for this. Most people here are old, not kids, and as such are a bit torwards a more calm gameplay. AA is not for the weak hearted. It draws adrenaline and many antagonic feelings. Something apreciated for younger people. Unfortunatly the younger people like medieval shootemups with spells and wizzards and fairies and sissy stuff like that to play all night long and never date! :D

 

Flankerites will apreciate a calmer SIm where they will face ground targets in slow flight. Thats why AG is winning.

[Boberro]

Did you mean that "older" gamer can get heart attack or floow ? :P

[D-Scythe]

There's a difference between what is most important and what is most fun. Air-to-air is the most fun - I mean, you engage other supersonic enemies in a battle where all the players have all freedoms of movement. On the other hand, air-to-ground has been the primary purpose of airpower almost since its inception. When airplanes were first invented and applied for military use, they were initially as recce platforms, but then some guy saw the usefulness of using airpower as long-range artillery and that role has stuck with the military airplane ever since.

 

However, A/G is arguably not as "fun" - you're attacking targets who are limited to movement on surfaces, with much less mobility than your own airplane, if mobile at all. There's no style or finesse required to kill the target, and a mud-mover doesn't need the golden hands of a fighter jock to become an ace at what he does. I guess metaphorically, fighter pilots are the quarterbacks, the receivers, the running backs, while strikers are the linemen.

 

So, the question boils down to whether you wanna be the star quarterback, or the fat linemen?

[RedTiger]

Unfortunatly the younger people like medieval shootemups with spells and wizzards and fairies and sissy stuff like that to play all night long....

 

Hey, I resemble that remark! (minus the dating thing :shifty:) I don't just play flight sims. I'd rather lick sand paper than play the same crap over and over and over.

 

Anyhoo, I agree with you on one thing. I think A/G might be more popular because it is less intense. I don't fly online so I don't experience the antagonistic side of things. Fighters are my interest and I like to fly fighters in missions that let them do the things they are designed to do, irrespective of what others find more fun, exciting, competative, relaxing, etc.

[tflash]

What I miss most in Lockon is some radio chatter from the busy space below the clouds while on a relaxing CAP mission. In F4:AF I always fly around at high altitude contemplating the scenery with fascination yet compassion. I then hear enthousiastic voices over the comms about succesfull strikes and the like. Intriguing, to say the least! In Lockon there is this annoyance that everyone seems to shoot missiles at you if you just venture above the beautiful Caucasus. I do I find it quite vulgar, really, and outright disrespectful for the finely balanced ecosystem, but hey, who am I to judge?

 

So I send you all a big hi from the sky! Keep us informed about the mesmerizing but somewhat murky world of CAS!

[Highwayman-Ed]

Any of you movie stars that think Air to Ground isn't intense should try flying the Red Flag excercises once in a while.

 

Sure we ground pounders have to wait a while to get clearance into the hot zone, but when faced with having to clear out SAMs, destroying your targets, and evading fighters, it sure mounts up :D

 

Red Flag 5 was a very interesting experience with no SEAD platforms, so us poor old Hog drivers ended up having to clear out a very well organised and layered SAM defense, but thanks must go to the Eagle drivers for helping to run the TOR's out of missiles ;)

[GGTharos]

I saw the RF5 ACMI. Hogs aren't really suited for SEAD, but then again, there's no such thing as SEAD in LOMAC any way you slice it. There's missiles that'll home on radars and work perfectly every time with nothing more than a touch of trickery ;)

Good job, but it still ain't the same, sorry :) You can fly in, fire your weapon and in most cases be certain it'll hit, and if not, you can still devote all your time to whatever that target threw at you (if, indeed, it threw anything at you) and then come back and shoot him again!

 

Contrast this with the A2A situation where things are not nearly as static ;)

[Kuky]

That again GG depends on how well you place your air defences...

[GGTharos]

You mean if you 'place them well' they'll hide, wait until you're close before they lock you up and fire, and move around?

[Kuky]

yeah very funny... no... depends what you place and where... it's very easy to overlook something that will end up shooting you down.

[GGTharos]

Easy if you don't spend a little time or attention looking for it; it is the case that this can still happen, but it is more likely that you will find the SAM than not if you spend that time, where realistically you should not have that opportunity. I have not seen a LOMAC SAM defense yet that could not be successfuly worn down given a little time and care. This can be to some degree mitigated by time and paylaod constraints (ie. you do not have the time, or weapons, or both - to fry the entire AD net - maybe not even really to punch a complete corridor through it) but as far as I'm concerned, you're still dealing with static targets that can't do anything but pop a missile at you at best. Yeah, you -could- be surprised from time to time, but dumb luck does not strike only those without skill.

 

Sorry, A2A is still more complex. I'm not going to claim it's more fun ... just more complex, and requires more skill, and it is more perishable.

[Kuky]

Well you see I don't agree because unlike a fighter, in slow flying strike aircraft you cannot run away if you need to... not from fighters. You are only talking how if you take time and care you can take out any SAM defences... That again is not realistic as unless you have complete air supremacy you don't have that much time especially if there are also fighters in area. And having things not spoted that will end up taking you out is very easy and happens quite often... if you did A2G you would have experienced it.

[GGTharos]

You seem to be talking about A2A again ;)

If you fly a target in the presence of fighters, that is your problem for choosing to do so. But it's not A2G.

And yes, I've done A2G. Plenty of it. I've set up missions with SAMs in ambush positions, and I've seen them work - but they work because people are not paranoid nor suspicious enough, because they do not time things, nor do they understand that SAMs DO get deployed in ambush positions. They all get nailed because they are -simply- not through enough, because they expect to see that little black dot in the middle of an open field - because they won't employ flares coming around a corner, and so on and so forth.

 

And if you're receiving pressure form enemy fighters and can't do your job, then your fighter sweep obviously has not done theirs!

 

In any case, disagree all you like.

 

Well you see I don't agree because unlike a fighter, in slow flying strike aircraft you cannot run away if you need to... not from fighters. You are only talking how if you take time and care you can take out any SAM defences... That again is not realistic as unless you have complete air supremacy you don't have that much time especially if there are also fighters in area. And having things not spoted that will end up taking you out is very easy and happens quite often... if you did A2G you would have experienced it.

[Kuky]

I sure do disagree and I stay to my opinion as I've done plenty of A2A and A2G and you saying being in strike aircraft and trying to attack ground targets while being engaged by enemy fighters A2A, you're little off the track there then as having to deal with all kinds of threats in strike aircraft incuding enemy fighters is still part of A2G missions.

[GGTharos]

A2G is A2G. A2A is A2A. Wanna do A2A in a target? Fine. but don't call it A2G ;)

[tflash]

Of course IRL A2G is just as challenging as A2A or any military mission. But in our game, there are two main differences I guess; one fundamental, and one related to the game. The fundamental is simple: if both adversaries are in the air, you get dynamics of another dimension. You really must think 3D or your SA will rapidly degrade fatally.

 

The second is game-related: as long as we do not have player controlled ground units in DCS, A2G will basically remain an inanimate, scripted thing. If the game moves to all-A2G, it MUST have mannable ground units or it will be a mere boredom generator.

 

The most succesful games and sims, to which I certainly would count Lockon, are player-to-player in an online multiplayer context. Re-inventing previous-generation finite-state machine games is not going to be a quantum leap forward.

[mvsgas]

I just like the numbers on top, 65% for A2G,as of right this moment :harhar::devil:

Watch now tomorrow, the number are going to be completely opposite

[Eagle Driver]

My clock says we're posting two hours apart, and we're up to 85%

Wow.