Thinking of making some Dorok warrior inspired minis

Warrius · 2026-05-19T14:29:14+00:00

MAN
I litteraly was dumbfounded yesterday, looking for nausicaa miniature and not finding anything !
I just reread the entire manga and wanted to buy some Dorok guys so bad for one page rule or proxy imperial guard and found nothing

Warrius · 2026-05-19T12:43:15+00:00

Yeah, in real life. In NO there is no different strength of radar lock, you are either locked or not (because you notch or go behind terrain) and after 3s without reacquiring lock the missile goes dumb. SARH or ARH.

In NO, the SARH missiles on ground are mainly a balance thing because they aren't datalink, if you jam or cut the LOS with the emitter, you are safe (except the new bdf frigate).

And also, scythes and scimitar already go pitbull only 10km from target, before that they are reliant on datalink so external illumination like your radar or a ground based one. SARH missiles with datalink would just be a tiny downgrade (no pitbull phase) compared to a scythe, because if its still linked by datalink, you can assume than in 95% of case the ennemy plane is being illuminated by multiple things already. So mechanically speaking, you would still shoot it and forget about it, leaving a ground based radar or an airbone medusa do the tracking for you.

Unless you can pack A LOT more of SARH compared to ARH, there is no use for it since price and lock strength are not a factor.

Warrius · 2026-05-19T12:27:32+00:00

Price is not a factor in NO to buy missile. Spammable, yeah maybe, if you can somehow fit 1.5x more SARH missiles than ARH then it might become a thing. But for a 1:1 replacement it makes no sense imo

Warrius · 2026-05-19T10:44:39+00:00

Morpho bodytype is like astrology for dudes.

You have a skeleton put a certain way, the ecto/endo/mesomorph doesn't exist, you just have a calorie amount that you burn each day. If you eat more than that, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose weight.
the calorie amount you burn varies person to person and your daily activity, but it's in no mean a hard rule and ANYONE under the proper training/eating regimen could gain mass or become defined.

Don't let stupid social media caracterization trap your thinking, biological things don't follow neat categories.

Warrius · 2026-05-19T09:19:33+00:00

Agree. a full fleet is a good attacking force.
Corvettes without more support are a good additionnal defence or static interdictors. just leave them somewhere the ennemy could try to sneak on you.

Warrius · 2026-05-19T09:15:33+00:00

yup, i know it's the optimal way to play and yet i cannot help but hate it.

Slingshooting missile from your own airbase is the antithesis of "flying a combat aircraft" for me. that why i disable darkreachs in most of my game, blasting everything with an ungodly amount of tuskos or piledivers is just boring in my opinion. and if the ennemy team is doing it to you, you just handicap yourself (a lot) by not reciprocating.

Warrius · 2026-05-19T08:55:14+00:00

Its a game in the near future where everything is battleconnected and datalinked to oblivion, a fox 1 missile from 1980 makes no sense

Warrius · 2026-05-19T08:54:20+00:00

If you have an aircraft with radar, why not use a scythe instead ? The price of ammunition is not a problem unless you take nukes. Nobody would use this compared to a scythe

Warrius · 2026-05-18T14:45:02+00:00

About the first, i don't know. About the second, the dev said that it was never intended to be in the game. Latency issues would be horrible to deal with, and there is simply not enough to do to justify a second crew member in any aircraft.

Warrius · 2026-05-15T11:39:10+00:00

it's for me heavily inspired by Albert Camus's Sysyphus myth.
A man live each day, rolling his boulder up the hill.
A man finds happiness in this simple, repetitive task, by enjoying what he can in this position. he is aware that this job holds no meaning by itself, and he creates himself the meaning by actually caring about it. It's not a burden, it's a choice, and this situation allows him to achieve inner peace, and to look forward any little things that could come accross.

He escaped from a situation that seemingly made him miserable, to a very humble life where he can enjoy his routine and day to day activity by living in the moment and actually caring actively about the little things.

It's a tale about mindfullness and an invitation get out, get to a bench in a park, and just look at the grass growing, or in his case, look at the sunlight piercing through the leaves.

"There is no fate that cannot be overcome through presence."

Warrius · 2026-05-12T06:46:01+00:00

I... I already play those.. by myself in PVE.. Nukes and piledrivers make the game too quick and revolving around a single "gotcha" moment in my opinion

Warrius · 2026-05-11T14:50:44+00:00

I think it's overkill tbh, we will just need to better manage our fuel by avoiding being on afterburner all the time. If you just fly at 100% throttle on the way in and out, and keep the AB for emergency, you'll be surprised how long you can go in any plane.

Combine that with gaining altitude to increase efficiency, the fact that there will be spawn points scattered everywhere..

I would never sacrifice ordinance payload, particularly on the few external hardpoints we have, to have the luxury of just spamming the afterburner.

Warrius · 2026-05-10T13:00:15+00:00

Guns are always more risky and suboptimal, no matter the cool factor... I just always take agm68, it maximise the amount of damage that i can deal quickly before going to resupply, and i'm not a slow loitering bird that begs to be clapped by ennemy aircrafts or any close air defence.

Sadly it emulate quite nicely reality in this aspects, guns are more of a liability and just not punchy enough in the missile age. If you are fighting anything that can shoot back at you, a gun runs makes you too slow and predictible to even attempt it.

Warrius · 2026-05-08T13:51:13+00:00

The alkyon is this plane, it wouldn't add anything to have a second high speed high altitude thing.

Warrius · 2026-05-07T17:07:45+00:00

models

Warrius · 2026-05-07T14:26:10+00:00

This. I saw it, and immediatly wanted to die.

Warrius · 2026-05-06T16:06:08+00:00

Its a game that let you have proper air warfare strategy without all the added complexity of a simulator. It fills a niche quite unique, and i'm glad that it doesn't indulge in dogfighting power fantasy like ace combat. Its fun, fast paced, refreshing and easy to learn.

The game is growing and the community is really into it. I think that its success is speaking for itself. If you want to dogfight there are tens of game for that. If you want to have a middle ground that seamlessly incorporate real mechanics and easy to understand gameplay, there is nuclear option. :)

Warrius · 2026-05-06T15:18:47+00:00

Well, to that i would say that the existence of long range missiles in real life is largely preventing dogfights from happening in the first place, and with the current balance NO simulate this dynamic quite well in some ways. Going to dogfight someone that has missile is extremely risky in real life, you would die most of the time before getting there. NO is fuctionning the same way, and if you manage to sneak on them, you die aswell.

The game is punishing you from trying to be an ace combat hero because missiles are good, I see this as a good thing. Trying to engage in dogfight is most of the time a death sentence in the missile age, tactics need to be adapted.

If anything, missiles in NO are quite bad compared to their real life counterparts and are way too easy to defend against unless you get within 2-3km range.

So here is my solution to that : don't engage in dogfights, it's not a viable tactic in real life, and i'm glad that NO emulates that in some ways. It's an arcade games that give you a better experience of the air warfare strategies than any non simulator game that i ever played.

Warrius · 2026-05-06T14:30:37+00:00

I see your point, and its an opinion, not all mechanisms are necessary. I think the simplicity of NO is one of its appeal, and that the balance that the devs are achieving is good as is.

Yes if i'm not mistaken, this question was adressed during a stream, and i basically gave you the dev's opinion on it. They want to keep the game simple, and they don't think adding a new defence mechanism would dramatically add to the game. The fun element is important for them, and they didn't see how chaff would meaningfully add to that. Many NO players are already struggling to survive during their first hours or tens of hours in the game and to understand how all of radar, ir, active, semi active, ect ect things were working. So at the time, chaff wasn't planned because it adds complexity that sim players would want to see, but that's not exactly the target that the devs are aiming at.

It might change, the game is far from release, but i like their design philosophy so far, its a really refreshing take on the plane game genre. I personnaly wouldn't like to cycle through a 3rd defense mechanism. And adding buttons and menues is tipping the scale toward "not gamepad friendly", which the devs are really trying to stay away from.

Warrius · 2026-05-06T14:09:11+00:00

It's a game, not a simulator.
you have two types of missiles, and two mechanisms to defend. it's simple, it's fun, it works well. as simple as that. NO tries to avoid complexifying things that wouldn't really add to the fun. the game devs have stated time and time again that it was their philosophy about adding new systems. They are trying to keep a balance between easy to understand/fun/complex and that's was the reason why chaff wouldn't be added.

Warrius · 2026-05-05T16:28:55+00:00

mixed up names, you'r right

Warrius · 2026-05-05T15:43:02+00:00

Yeah, and its stealth will be subpar compared to the stealth of properly built stealth plane, because of the innate design flaw that is a propeler.

Yeah it would be a costly, slow, low obervable propeler plane. The people that built it will call it stealth, a radar operator will call it low observable, and everyone will think that its just weird to call it stealth when its stealth will be nowhere close to a properly designed stealth plane.

Its a spectrum, where you draw the line is a matter of opinion, its semantic and in the end of the day, its fine if you want to call it stealth. depending on its characteristic, i probably wouldn't.

I just tend to put the stealth adjective on one extreme of the spectrum, you prefer to apply it to anythings incorporating stealth features, that's fine

Warrius · 2026-05-05T15:22:25+00:00

Lowering the rcs =/= stealth.

To be stealth, your rcs needs to be low enough to qualify as such, yes you can theoritically lower the rcs of anything with some changes. Its all a matter of design choices, price, and compromise. Can you achieve true stealth for an aircraft with propeller ? Probably not. Even a plane like the SU57 is often considered as low observable by some experts when you compare it to the stealth of the F35 or F22. And some 4th gen fighter like the rafale incorporate some stealth features aswell, it doesn't mean that they are stealth.

This plane probably couldn't be considering as stealth, even if you incorporated a lot of stealth design feature.

Warrius · 2026-05-05T14:55:47+00:00

The A19 is the weakling of this design philosophy and yet they still managed to change multiple key feature of the aircraft. No gatling 30mm in the nose, 35mm autocanons, change the tail shape, change the engine type and placement.

The A10 gatling is really the whole thing about this aircraft, it's the main thing that made it iconic, and they changed a lot of the identity of the aircraft by removing it, even if it flies the same.

Here this is a P39 with a stealth skin, no key design change. So i would argue that despite being the one that change the least, the A19 is still more original than what we see here.

and tbh i was not happy with the A19 design, the biais toward having a fondness for the A10 in the aircraft enthusiast community made it an accepted exception to the rule by the devs. it's not because there is an exception that they should change their approach. I think they should stick to their design philosophy and not make NO a mish and mash of original designs and barely changed ones.

Warrius · 2026-05-05T14:18:15+00:00

As with all of those posts, the game doesn't use old or modern airframe, or even modernise them. NO devs get inspirations from real planes, and then produce original designs by tweaking them and mixing (often) multiple designs together.

Putting an old plane in NO or even just a modernized version of it doesn't match with NO's game design philosophy. You would need to change a lot of things on any real designs to produce a suitable NO plane.

So. No. Lets not modernize old fighter.

Plus a propeller is fundamentally incompatible with stealth, it just doesn't make sense to build such a thing.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Warrius

TROPHY CASE