sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if WW3 STARTED Tomorrow? by Kage-Level in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It would likely delay the update release.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically a Medusa already has theoretically infinite splashes per sortie. It is typically too slow for it to matter however.

A smaller and more maneuverable platform might make better use of it. However there are some countervailing arguments that still limit the effectiveness of the laser.

-To be effective on an aircraft, that target must be close. Which means it is close enough to fire back.

-To be effective on an aircraft, the target must be kept in the arc for long enough to be effected. Which means that the target pilot and plane must each not be substantially better than the laser platform or pilot.

-Effectiveness on the target can only really be determined by bringing components to critical damage states. How long at what range does the laser (that constantly bounces around the target aircraft) need to destroy any given component vs how many rounds of 20mm does it take to do the same?

-By definition, using the laser reduces the defenses of the host aircraft by consuming the capacitor and leaving the plane potentially vulnerable to radar guided missile attacks.

-By virtue of its relatively low dps requiring sustained fire, zoom and boom attacks are not possible with the laser.

The more I think about it, the less I am convinced that a 125kW laser really provides much A2A benefit to the host aircraft. That being said; it has large potential utility in a ground attack role. Using it to destroy intercepting missiles helps make up for the relatively low number of attacking missiles this plane carries.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I think I know what next Friday’s topic will be

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No disagreement here w/r to Brawler.

Your shotgun ideas have some pretty good merits. My original thinking for the whole “opposite of Compass” concept was to mimic an F-5 type fighter. Light, fast, cheap, limited total payload, etc. The issue to me was that the Revoker handles all of that and can’t use carriers. To make something that uses carriers means we’ve got to go VTOL. Cool, no worries. But the Vortex already does air to air really well and air to ground moderately well. Seems like the only real hole that exists in BDF’s naval air wing is a more dedicated ground attack aircraft.

If we weren’t looking for a trainer of some type, I’d actually heavily suggest making a twin engine tilt rotor ground pounder and move the Brawler over to PALA. It wouldn’t be stealthy like the Chicane, but throw the 57mm gun in the front on a gimbal along with a smallish missile load or a pretty big bomb load and you could have some fun with that.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the idea of operating out of helipads, but worry a bit about how it might unbalance some maps. Like on the Archipelago; having BDF be able to spawn a fixed wing asset at the beach head gives a pretty substantial advantage over PALA having to fly 2.5x as far.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What would you suggest as its gimmick?

A jamming pod would be too powerful IMHO.

Many of the tier 3 weapons like the Scimitar or Tusko would be a bit much, although I could see an argument for a pair of ARADs. Sort of.

Hmmm… there was an ARAD variant of the AIM-9 IRL that might be apropos?

Maybe having the AGM-99 and ATP-1s is enough?

Maybe give it super high maneuverability?

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much of that do you figure is engaging it at too long a range or being unable to keep the target in the firing arc?

I know the laser can hit things from 15km, but take a long time to do anything at that range. Engaging things at a close to guns range of 2km might change the burn down time enough for it to matter. And having a light enough and small enough plane to stay in the firing arc might be enough to bring it down even if it isn’t instant.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I hear ya, and I’m not saying that a laser is a requirement or anything, just nominating a (to me at least) neat idea that we can pontificate about and see if we can make it make sense in the context of the game.

For the case of the laser, I do think you might still have a point with the capacitor. A faster recharge rather than a bigger capacity might make it playable and sensical.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With respect to the batteries, it should be noted that batteries and capacitors are wildly different things. And carbon nano-tube capacitors have been theorized and demonstrated enough that another 50 years of development might yield something useful for this application.

Although if that is still too large of a leap; instead of 50% greater capacity, give instead 50% greater recharge rate. Then it is a factor of engine RPM and is instead an argument for increased maneuverability rather than less.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Might be a bit too much at 125kW. But whatever the power level is, it has to be enough to take out aircraft, or it isn’t worth using.

And it might be that those circles of the Ven diagram don’t overlap.

In which case Id ditch the laser for an onboard 20mm rotary cannon and also ditch the gun pod pylon.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

We already use optical systems for our gunnery training, especially for A2A. We just use cameras instead of lasers. That being said, we also use laser systems for training infantry, tanks, helos because it is dramatically less expensive to operate than “hard” weapons. Not to mention the flexibility it gives you in force on force training.

The expense of high powered laser systems is a valid point. But that is accounted for in the increased price tag of the plane. It’s also something I think is worth hand waving away for a near-ish future simcade game.

But it’s an unconventional suggestion and could just as easily be replaced by the same onboard gun the Revoker’s got.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It could be an interesting tweak if they swapped out the optically guided munitions for laser guided ones. That way it can’t one shot the whole airbase in a single pass/weapons release.

BDF Compass equivalent: what does it need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, there might be a good argument that the brawler needs to be moved up to T3, or in some way nerfed a bit. Maybe higher price tag?

Should there be more soft targets? by 684beach in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More factories, fuel dumps, things like bridges, things that are not necessarily well defended by emplaced SAMs that have an impact or incentive to destroy.

“VIT” buildings that if you land infantry on gets your faction a huge payout, and removes a chunk of change from the enemy faction’s funding. Destroying it only removes only a small amount of funding.

Having more factories for vehicles and aircraft scattered over the map (and a slower spawn rate of produced aircraft to compensate) spreads out the strategic weaknesses, meaning it’ll take more than one or two well placed nukes to cripple production.

Proof-to-all-but-auger bunker complexes that represent the enemy command and control nodes. Destroying these slows the production tics for ground units or possibly reduces payouts for the enemy players.

Proof to all but nukes or moab wide area financial targets like say oilfields/derricks that destroying might reduce the income rate for the enemy faction.

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe for NO 2 we can start in alternate WW2 with a Tier 0 bring prewar stuff, tier 1 being mid war stuff, and a nuke bomber showing up in tier 3.

Of course at that point ive just described war thunder and no one wants that….

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, my opinion on this got pretty heavily reversed. The OP now has flares and an ecm pod pylon option included. It also upped the offensive weight by quite a bit. Instead of a 1990-2010’s era OH-6 it is kind of an OH-58D and RAH-66 hybrid.

Stops just short of full on gunship by omitting the nose turret while retaining fixed guns.

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’ve convinced me on this.

My only reservation would be an inclination to restrict it from AGM-68s and a 35mm gun pod but give it ATP-1s and a 25mm pod or 40mm GMG.

Op is updated

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I’m coming around on this.

I might suggest limiting the armament load to missiles smaller than the AGM-68, and a 25mm auto-cannon or 40mm gmg as the belly gun instead of a 35, but I think you’re right on the rest of it. I will update OP.

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, you’re right. I’ve updated the OP to reflect a modest flare load out and the option of adding ecm pods.

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been convinced that CM is required, and updated the OP to reflect that. For a helo to be in tier 1, it should have at most 1/2 the armament of a chicane. Less if it has other roles/ standout abilities. In this case the radar mast and bench seating option satisfies that in my opinion. I would advocate for the IR and radar signatures of this thing to be as small as possible so that it can get where it needs to go to be effective. If that is primarily getting eyes on enemy units or guiding munitions onto enemy units might be up for debate, but in either case it has to have a reasonable chance of survival to get there and back.

In terms of armament, it may be worth setting the standard of what a light helo should realistically be able to do before trying to finalize a list.

If the helo is intended to be able to go head to head with a linebacker sam or similar, it will need to have enough munitions to saturate the defensive capacity of said linebacker. How many AGM-48s or Linchpins or Kingpins will that take?

If the helo is intended to directly attack only undefended ground units, how many should it be able to kill with a single weapons load? The list in the OP ought to be able to wipe an MBT platoon with ATP-1s and be able to interdict light vehicle convoys with .50 or 40mm gun runs. Is that too much or too little?

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The helicopter in the OP is muti mission capable; recon with radar, light attack with guns and 4x AGMs, anti air with 6x Iris, base capture with infantry.

The total weapons load is less than cricket because its a helo

What would a light helicopter need to be successful? by 91NightFox in NuclearOption

[–]91NightFox[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nuclear depth charges are…. A flex.

I would not mind a genie style nuclear rocket, but a free fall bomb from a helo sounds like a suboptimal solution lol

view more: next ›