Ranger79 Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Since the 1.1.0.9 patch, CBU 97's and CBU 105's are pretty much useless against tanks. Even with default HOF, and direct hits last night no joy. Is there a way to increase there power to at least make it enjoyable to use again? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Ranger79 OEF/OIF Veteran YouTube Channel Twitch Channel Mods, Missions, & Tutorials: Operation Piercing Fury Campaign Ranger79's Object Pack ISIS CrisIS Campaign Mission Editing Video Series
159th_Viper Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Since the 1.1.0.9 patch, CBU 97's and CBU 105's are pretty much useless against tanks. Even with default HOF, and direct hits last night no joy. Is there a way to increase there power to at least make it enjoyable to use again? At present there are no CBU-97/105's in-game and never were. They are currently being implemented and, if all goes well, will debut in the next patch. For more info see the following thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=78046 Until then, utilize the Cannon or alternative ordinance for plinking tanks. Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
Ranger79 Posted August 14, 2011 Author Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) Ok....so when i use 97's and 105's on my a/c presently they are not modeled correctly because they are in game and usable. Confused by your response is all. Edited August 14, 2011 by Ranger79 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Ranger79 OEF/OIF Veteran YouTube Channel Twitch Channel Mods, Missions, & Tutorials: Operation Piercing Fury Campaign Ranger79's Object Pack ISIS CrisIS Campaign Mission Editing Video Series
159th_Viper Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Ok....so when i use 97's and 105's on my a/c presently they are not modeled correctly..... Correct. If you have a close look at the sub-munitions dispensed you'll see that they are actually BLU-97/B bomblets as contained in the CBU-87/103. In previous patches/versions the bomblets were just a wee bitty 'stronger', giving the 97/105 it's 'effectiveness'. In the latest version (1.1.0.9) they are akin to 87/103's. Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
Ranger79 Posted August 14, 2011 Author Posted August 14, 2011 Ah, gotcha viper, thanks for the response. Man those look screenshots look sexy! Man I love this sim! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Ranger79 OEF/OIF Veteran YouTube Channel Twitch Channel Mods, Missions, & Tutorials: Operation Piercing Fury Campaign Ranger79's Object Pack ISIS CrisIS Campaign Mission Editing Video Series
159th_Viper Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 No bother. Trust me when I say that it will be worth the wait :) Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
Qazme Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Well hopefully the wait will be worth it.....and hopefully we don't have to wait long. Killing tanks with clusters is one of the best parts of this aircraft and it has been effectively ruined. Apparently guns aren't doing anything either. I put multiple bombs and gun runs on one target last night and it didn't do jack. Ended up having to put a GBU-12 down it's throat to kill it. A bit overkill I think. Wouldn't it have been better to wait a do all these changes in the same freakin' patch so that we have a usable assortment? Regardless if it's modeled 100% accurate or not. Just seems rather dumb to me. And before I get flamed with ED supporters, I love the sim and the company. I've always waited patiently for the patches to come out and have always appreciated the changes. I understand they are currently making way for more accurate models of the 97/105's, I just find it a bit backwards to do it the way they have, and I'm aggravated that my sim is ruined till the next patch.....
159th_Viper Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 ....Apparently guns aren't doing anything either.....and I'm aggravated that my sim is ruined till the next patch.... Don't blame the SIM for your lack of practice ;) It takes 70 rounds to kill a tank......that's 16 MBT's with one payload of 30mm if done right: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1266425&postcount=6 Oh yes - how does an implementation of a weapon not yet implemented ruin a SIM? I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems any reason to moan is good enough, no? Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
tjhowse Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Oh yes - how does an implementation of a weapon not yet implemented ruin a SIM? I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems any reason to moan is good enough, no? His (valid) point is that nerfing the CBU-97 doesn't make sense. There's no reason to do so, as it now resembles the actual lethality of the CBU-97 much less authentically. Sure, the real deal is coming soon, but there was no merit in making a change until then.
mvsgas Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 2 To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
mvsgas Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=74426&highlight=powerful To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Grimes Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 I think 1 of 2 things happened... A. The testing version of A-10C featured the currently in-development CBU-97. As the testing for the 1.09 patch was in full swing and it was decided to copy the capability of the 87 to the 97 than to go back to what it was. ... or maybe they forgot. B. It was realized that the new munitions would not have the same power and devastation that players were accustomed to, so they nerfed the CBU-97 for 1.09 so when the new munitions are introduced the players would get an upgrade in destructive power and not a downgrade. In other words, it was changed to get us used to it not being the mini-nuke that it was. The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world. Current Projects: Grayflag Server, Scripting Wiki Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread) SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum
Qazme Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Don't blame the SIM for your lack of practice ;) It takes 70 rounds to kill a tank......that's 16 MBT's with one payload of 30mm if done right: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1266425&postcount=6 Oh yes - how does an implementation of a weapon not yet implemented ruin a SIM? I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems any reason to moan is good enough, no? I've gotten plenty of gun kills before this patch. I don't have a 'lack' of practice. However I will say I was a bit disgruntled last night since it was the first time I had flown since the .9 patch so I may not have been exactly accurate since I was a bit miffed at the time. His (valid) point is that nerfing the CBU-97 doesn't make sense. There's no reason to do so, as it now resembles the actual lethality of the CBU-97 much less authentically. Sure, the real deal is coming soon, but there was no merit in making a change until then. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Taking a weapon that's available and totally making it useless against the intended target because in a month or more a patch will be made available that will correctly model it is dumb, in my opinion. I know they are doing good work most of the time but this one really doesn't make sense to me.
supraman2turbo Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't it have been better to keep the BLU-97s overpowered until the CBU-97 was modeled? So say next patch if the CBU-97s come out. Implement the new CBU-97s and in the same patch lower the power of the BLU-97s? I mean I love the game and all just seems that would have been a better route for the users. Still can't wait for the new CBU-97s to reign death on those dang T-72s
Qazme Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 They didn't nerf the -97, they made a copy of the -87 submunition used in the -97 while they worked on the -97 improvements. ED could have left the old -97 submunition in, created an entirely new 97 submunition, perfected it, then swapped at the end. But this means changing more values, more work, and more chances for mistakes. Nerf = take away damage potential. I would say that has happened. I understand why they did it and what they've done. Just don't understand the timing I guess. Hopefully I've gotten a temporary fix for it while I wait on the next patch. ;)
Recommended Posts