Optional setting: Aircraft loadouts based only on weight and pylon \ bay size + wing overloading

[mint tulip]

Nature of change: optional setting

Implementation technical requirements:

• Every pylon and internal bay station in the game must be rated for a certain weight and volume.

• Every weapon in the game and their available mounts must be sorted based on volume and internal bay compatibility (e.g. S1 wouldn't fit internally with the tube housing and most racks wouldn't fit on wingtips)

• Aerodynamic and structural model must be tweaked to allow wing-structure and weapon mount failure under high weight and G loading or supersonic flight regimes.

• Pitch limiter must be modified to also prevent wing failure under wing overloading conditions.

• A speed limit alert must be added when carrying mounts not designed for supersonic flight. (e.g. agm-48 quad rack on revoker)

-A function to jettison external mounts in an emergency must be implemented.

Possible fun configurations allowed by such implementation:

-"Stinger" Chicane

IRM-S1 x8, AGM48 x8

-"Hellfire" Darkreach

AGM-48 x64

-"Banzai" Cricket

1.5kt nuclear bomb x2, IRM-S1 x8

-"MIRV" Revoker

1.5kt nuclear bomb x4

-"Doomsday" Cricket

AGR-18 x126

-"Nullifier" Compass

MMR-S3 x14

-"Dakka" Chicane

20mm gunpod x4, AGM48 x8

[fathom mural]

64 F^CKING AGM-48'S?!?!?!?!??@?@

[mint tulip]

THE HORROR

[rocky marten]

An 18-pod Lynchet.

[mint tulip]

Based on the Chicane wing mount, x1 AGM68 is equivalent to roughly x1 AGM48 quad rack.

So yeah, 64 AGM48s on a Darkreach :))

I'd go as far as to allow 1.5kt even on revoker wingtips, but the world would burn enough even without :))

[ashen cloak]

Mathematically some of these (ahem Doomsday Cricket) would exceed the max gross weight of the airframe

[mint tulip]

I would't stop the players from trying. They would find out the hard way :))

[steady canopy]

I dont think that additional weapon payloads would benefit the game. IMO this approach would encourage suiciding while releasing a massive amount of ordnance instead of flying a sortie and returning to base multiple times.

[mint tulip]

As long as the weapons in the game follow the internal design document the devs have, where for example ground lasers will annihilate even dozens of lynchpins, then it will be a battle of choosing the right weapon, and quantity for the job.

Overloading the aircraft will make it less maneuverable, and far more fragile due to increased wing loading.

And the problem of people suiciding can be solved by adding a severe penalty to players who get their pilots killed or captured.

I can imagine CAP aircraft being loaded lightly to help keep enemy aircraft at bay, while heavily overloaded strike and CAS aircraft clean out the ground units in as few RTBs as possible.

My idea is based primarily on the fact that the devs intend to make the missiles in game work in a rock-paper-scissors manner, and so I want all airframes to choose freely between available options.

[steady canopy]

At the end of the day, increasing aircraft payloads doesnt do anything but upend game balance and shorten the time required to clear a map. IMO payload quantities are on a slider, the more ordnance airframes carry, the more work they can get done per sortie the shorter the games will be.

This being a combat flight game, the point is to fly and fight. This erodes the flight part of the loop by minimizing RTBs and I dont see the value in rapidly clearing large swathes of the map.

Also, since this game takes queues from IRL, overloading airframes is avoided, because it puts excessive wear and tear on airframes and shortens their lifespan. Things like disabling G-limiters exist so that they can save a pilot's life in a pinch.

Overloading an aircraft just to go out on a mission isnt prioritizing safety and aircraft lifespan, which are things that are heavily prioritized IRL.

[mint tulip]

So if I want AGR-18s on a revoker, I should have that option, as only the AGR18 can be used effectively against "X future SAM unit" and without it the revoker will be hard-countered.

Indeed, overloading the airframes isn't essential to better gameplay, but having any missile on any pylon IS.

My initial post is primarily about having the option of mounting any weapon on any airframe, on any pylon (with exceptions wherever reasonable, like no cruise missiles on the cricket). So the airframe differences are found mainly in their weight limitations and aerodynamic performance.

The overloading was just a bonus possibility, but it's not the main focus.

[steady canopy]

Ahh, I understand the main point now. Every airframe to mount every weapon within weight/space limits.

I think that the existing restrictions, both in quantity and type, are there for balance reasons. Its so that different aircraft have to perform different roles and excel at different things.

If the Revoker mounted every weapon, there would be no reason to use a Cricket or Compass, since they would just be inferior platforms. The Revoker far and away has the best flight performance of any jet in game.

[mint tulip]

Yep, I agree with you. This is why my suggestion is for this to be an optional setting for singleplayer or some casual fun with friends, so that we may also experiment with different loadouts and their uses.

I do believe that the default game should remain AS IS, as this is the best way to balance the assets in the game.

[steady canopy]

Nice, yeah as an optional setting I dont see an issue. Honestly I think this could also be done with mods when modding support is added.