Asymmetric Loadouts

[raven peak]

Military aircraft in real life are sometimes flown with asymmetrical weapon loadouts. Such loadouts in Nuclear Option could improve mission flexibility.

[dull elk]

I want it so bad

Especially for Medusa or darkreach

[crystal stag]

medusa could be big, taking 1 jammer and the rest arads

[tall jasper]

This would require an overhaul of the loadout system, but I believe that is something mitch wants to do in the future

[harsh zodiac]

Probably the biggest winner would be Chicane simply because you could pair already sufficient triple Lynchpin pod with other AGMs

[mint dagger]

We could further if we you redo the system by having different weapons on the same trays like 1s3+1arh instead of 2s3

[crystal stag]

yes i would love this

[mint dagger]

It would also allow for
250kg X 250kg | 250kg X Pablo
Pablo | Pablo

[crystal stag]

i dont think that would really work, you need to jettison the lower one before the side ones to avoid collision

[mint dagger]

Oooh right

[copper mirage]

Be nice to get like the 4 zuni rockets hard point that then also splits 1 large hard point to 6 smallers ones, I will look for an image but I saw them IRL while in USAF. Was used to let F-15E carry a bunch of small bombs.

[copper mirage]

havent found the f15 one but found this one (lower left of picture)

FOUND IT! https://marvineng.com/product/suu-20/
smaller rockets then I thought but thats it, the SUU-20
Wasnt someone who worked with the planes so I didnt know that one was for training use, just saw it on flightline while out there back around 2010-2014. Dont see why you couldnt have one that drops 80LRs though

[winged wharf]

This is still heavily needed

[copper mirage]

The plane in the diagram is very similar to the compass

[sacred shore]

How about a more cinematic selector that shows the camera looking up at the aircraft from the ground in front of it for selecting hardpoints, then pans over to the open weapon bays so you can select their payload, then moves to a view of the tailhook or other aircraft specific mounts, then zooms out for livery selection.

[placid trout]

Perhaps something like this could be considered. This is the aircraft loadout screen from Carrier Landings HD. It allows you to manually select which munition goes on which hardpoint. I don't necessarily think this kind of loadout system would be incredibly difficult to implement as it keeps things similar to the current drop down menus, but without the loading symmetry.

[copper mirage]

thats kinda like warthunders, and I like it. perhaps add drag stats if they are accounted for

[dull elk]

id agree if how this was done is each pylon gets its own tab or selection, layout is whatever but just the ability to go through the list per pylon would be nice. im not picky about bays because thats complicated if you try to fit a size 1 + 3 in a thing that only holds 3 sort of deal

having a big long screen or page in the way is fine if its a tab of its own, and can be hidden for inspection

[placid trout]

That is how it works. You click a box and it shows a selection of weapons available for that particular hard point

[dull elk]

Yeah and it should stay that way, but a different layout would be best for doubling the buttons to allow asymmetry

[placid trout]

I meant the example that I put up with the F/A-18C, it allows loading for singular pylons instead of symmetrical loading

[dull elk]

I mean yeah basically, but whether we want an entire loadout page or just tabs under each hardpoint, it needs a big redesign

[placid trout]

Yea, the F18 example is my vision for it. Obviously, should the devs think about other designs is up to them of course.

[dull elk]

Mhm

[winged wharf]

This is a great idea. I'm even a fan of keeping the current UI but updating it for individual pylons. It'd be useful to have a toggle between symmetrical and asymmetrical placement as well, if that hadn't already been said in here.

[placid trout]

You could, or you could just manually make loadouts symmetrical

[winged wharf]

Right, I know that. Was just thinking of a toggle to reduce loading time if you know what you want beforehand.

[placid trout]

Yea ikwym, I hope I didn't come across as rude

[sacred shore]

How about customizable ejector racks?

[manic patrol]

just realized i messed up the left & right i wanna die

[sacred shore]

You can take like 2 pablos and 1 250 on the same rack

[manic patrol]

just pressurize the launching system so it launches the bombs to the side to avoid collision?

[crystal stag]

sounds like a bunch more points of failure for not much reason

[manic patrol]

i mean it has a valid reason, more multirole capability

[crystal stag]

just load 250s on one wing and 80s on the other

[manic patrol]

i do agree on racks not being required, would be nice tho.

you can have something like:
left: IR missle
right: pablo.
bottom: bunker buster

[crystal stag]

no you couldnt, find a rack for that fist (doesnt exist yet)

[manic patrol]

pretty sure that combination is possible in theory

[crystal stag]

not on our x3 rack, that will not support a 1000kg (auger)+ 120kg (pablo)+ ??kg (s3) load

[manic patrol]

https://tenor.com/view/phil-swift-it-even-works-underwater-invicible-flextape-gif-17291153

[ripe lagoon]

the closest you could get to a mixed loadout like that is the pylons on the F-15E where you have 2 spots for AA missiles and a lower pylon for fuel tanks or a heavy AG weapon (cruise missile, bunker buster, etc)

[dawn willow]

antisubmarine munitions:

[winged wharf]

That would be great. I'd love to see this asymmetry across all planes, but the 2 I look forward to most are the Medusa and Ifrit. Fingers crossed for this to become a reality in the game🤞🤞

[crystal stag]

yeah ifrit would be good when you want a little more air to air along with your pablos

[winged wharf]

Oh yea for sure. I kind of think the weapons bays should stay homogeneous as they are though, due to the already tight space and to avoid the Developer headache of "which different weapons can actually fit in here at the same time and not clip through each other and also still function properly."

My quick example for the Ifrit would be-

Right outer: x2 MMR-S3
Right inner: x2 AGM-68

Left outer: x2 Scythes
Left inner: x3 PAB-80LR

Both internal bays: x2 GPO-500 or x3 PAB-250

I'd use something like that if I could. But I think across the board, asymmetry could bring a lot more individuality to everyone's loadouts and such

Oh man. Asymmetry on the Revoker would be fun too. I'm really fiending for this now lol

[crystal stag]

scythe, auger and 500kg(bay) one side and nothing the other

[winged wharf]

Bonkers loadouts hahaha

Thinking of a Chicane with an MMR-S3, x2 AGM-68, x3 AGR-18 Lynchpins and x2 IRM-S1

And x8 internal AGM-48

[dreamy cosmos]

i think that this would kind of ruin the balance of loadouts tbh

Having a focus on operational flexibity is one thing, most of the aircraft have pretty good multirole capabilities as it stands, and this would mean most of the planes could operate basically their entire armament range at once

it would, imo, remove a lot of the strategy of planning your loadout for a mission when you could just run everything and be set to go

[crystal stag]

you cant run everything in meaningful quantities then though

[dreamy cosmos]

you say that but it's also what everyone in this thread is saying they want to do?

[winged wharf]

How would this reduce or remove strategy? If anything this improves and adds a level of strategy, because you can decisively pick your loadout to suit your specific mission role. The whole point of taking an asymmetric loadout is to give you a strategic edge.

[dreamy cosmos]

yeah but this would functionally mean less decisive loadouts, enabling you to bring along literally every ground attack munition type at once doesn't add complexity to loadouts, it removes it.

Currently, you need to carefully choose what you run on a plane, because bringing anti air puts more strain on your a2g load, and only being able to run 2 or maybe 3 types of ground attack munitions means you'll have to plan what you can effectively hit and how much of each you can afford to use.

With this, a ground attack loadout for a compass could easily include IRs, GPOs, agms, lynchpins, and pablos all at once

[crystal stag]

to the last point, those would all be in very limited quanities, increasing the strain on each individual weapon

[winged wharf]

No it wouldn't.

It is still going to put strain on your amount of munitions carried. I don't know how you don't see that.

You can currently carry x3 PAB-80's on each wing of the Compass. That amounts to 6. If you cut that in half to replace it with something else, you now have 3. You can apply this to every other weapon loadout in the game. You seem to be contradicting yourself about the "decisive loadout" part, because this still very much plays into that.

[dreamy cosmos]

quantity is not my problem at all, my problem is turning flexibility into being able to use every kind of munition at once means much less effort in terms of planning your loadout, as you can simply have every option at your disposal.

Most loadout options in the game involve making a sacrifice of one option for another, for example trading the double IR or triple bomb racks for single scythes. This would make that tradeoff null, as you could take advantage of both the expanded AA range AND expanded hardpoint capacity of the inner pylons

At the end of the day this is really just a matter of the developer vision for how loadouts work, and if they want them to be more or less flexible than they currently are, so I'll just leave it at that.

[winged wharf]

You can already use nearly every munition at once. I guess that's why I'm hung up on your comments about this.

You are still sacrificing a portion of your general combat effectiveness when utilizing an asymmetric load because you're still halving one payload in favor of having just slightly more of another. That's your tradeoff. That falls in line with the kind of give and take notion that you're speaking about. You are just tailoring your specific role with traded-off quantities at the expense of not having enough for one specific type of target, and also having to go back and re-arm much quicker after using them. If you choose a large homogenous loadout, you're gonna have more time on a specific target type and not have to RTB so quick.

It's all the player's choice. That's another layer of strategy to bringing a well balanced loadout.

If you take one bomb rack of 3 PAB's and one Scythe, you're still out x3 PAB's and out x1 Scythe. You can still choose to take x3 PAB's on both sides and lose the Scythes if you so desire, but there's your lack of longer ranged air defense again, and vice versa with x2 Scythes but no x3 PABs.

I firmly believe that this concept still falls in-line with your give and take notion, and that asymmetrical loadouts would be greatly beneficial to this game.

Perhaps we'll agree to disagree. I believe I'll leave it there as well.

[dull elk]

Idk why you wouldnt want this, it adds complexity to your strategies besides bringing the best weapon for everything (the 48 and lynchpin lmao)

Lets say im running a cricket loadout, theres a vehicle depot in my area, and a compass, but my main target is an enemy SPAAG and its accompanying IR sam
I can take a 250 for the depot
2 lynchpin pods for the SPAAG and SAM
An S3 for the compass
And 2 48s for whatever comes across me

[winged wharf]

Hell yea. I'd run the same probably. Probably lynchpins on both wingtips, S-3 inner right pylon, x2 agm48 on the inner left pylon and then x2 PAB-250 on the bottom

[crystal stag]

thats not a possible loadout

[winged wharf]

On the Cricket it would be, with an asymmetrical loadout.

[crystal stag]

oh wait cricket

[winged wharf]

Yea

[raven peak]

5 PAB-80s per wing

[winged wharf]

Not on the Cricket

[raven peak]

u said Compass
also i don't think the Cricket can even carry PAB-80s at all

[winged wharf]

I didn't say anything about the Compass

[raven peak]

wrong

[winged wharf]

You could have provided the specific context in your first message instead of doing it the roundabout way.

[raven peak]

i had specifically replied to the message mentioning the Compass

[winged wharf]

Alright my bad.

What's your point with the 5 PAB comment

[raven peak]

just a minor correction
the Compass can carry 3 PAB-80s on the inner wing pylon, and two extra PAB-80s on the middle and outer wing pylons respectively

[winged wharf]

Yes I know, it was a single example in regards to the homogenous x3 on both sides.

[raven peak]

ah

[sacred shore]

Eeeeee

[merry ore]

As much as it is more realistic and allows more flexibility, for a PVP aspect it takes away some strategy in “counting cards” of what your opponent has on their craft.

[crystal stag]

that is true, but its pretty unreliable even right now

[winged wharf]

How does it take away strategy though? It would give people more options for loadouts which would inherently increase strategic options, right??

[crystal stag]

a ifrit might have 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, etc IR missiles right now

[crystal stag]

its only for counting what cards your opponent has spend already

sort of guessing their loadout, with asymmetric loads the number of possible goes up a lot

[winged wharf]

Right right, but wouldn't that make the encounter more interesting?

[merry ore]

I know that x plane can have the possibility of 2 rad and 2 ir, they shoot at me and I dodge 2 rad. Now I can adjust my strategy and flight style to counter 2 ir. Ticks it a little towards sim <—- gameplay

[winged wharf]

@merry ore I know how it works

[merry ore]

It makes everything more multi role vs dedicating to a unique character. Is it better for the game? Possibly.

[winged wharf]

Every aircraft in the game is already multi-role to a degree

[merry ore]

Yes

[dreamy cosmos]

it makes it a lot more readable, but even then the current system isn't really readable anyway

[winged wharf]

That's why it wouldn't be a big deal to add asymmetry then, as you've already said the current system isn't really readable either.

I mean how are you going to ever reliably count an Ifrit's cards in an encounter with one? Where it could be hiding x6 Scythe or x6 MMR-S3 internally, or maybe just x4 GPO-500s or x6 PAB-250s or maybe nothing at all? Not counting what A2A missiles it may already have on the wings lol

[summer obsidian]

The only thing I know of that you can really count cards with is the Medusa (S3s) and the Compass (Scythes).

[winged wharf]

You're totally right Spino.

With or without asymmetrical loadouts, the Ifrit would still carry a max number of x14 Scythe or x14 MMR-S3, so the assumption that it has at most 14 missiles doesn't change, and that's the quantity you'd have to assume it has either way unless you can directly see the weapons it has on your cockpit's screen.

[summer obsidian]

Nobody really carries more than two S3s on the Medusa, and Compass can only carry two Scythes, so if either of those shoots a pair of that respective missile at you, then you know that's all they've got.

Pretty much all other aircraft have the ability to carry more than one type of AAM on every or almost every station (except the Darkreach obviously, it has none).

[winged wharf]

Yeah you're right. And with asymmetry comes naturally balancing tradeoffs anyway. One example that comes to mind is the Medusa.

Say you choose a Medusa and asymmetric loadouts are a thing. You pick x1 jamming pod and then x7 ARADs.

Pros- you have one more ARAD to launch at Radar SAMs and towers, you can fly for a longer period of time without having to rearm as quickly

Cons- you have no A2A missiles for self defense and your multi-target jamming abilities are no more because you only took one jamming pod, which leaves you significantly more vulnerable at the expense of more weaponry.

Boom, strategic tradeoff

[sweet moon]

Chicane with 1x lynchpin pod 🤑

[winged wharf]

It'd still be the x3 pod technically since there is no single lynchpin pod for the Chicane, unless that's what u meant

[winged wharf]

I do have a suggestion forum about single lynchpin pods for the Chicane though

#1271158394119524412

[sweet moon]

that's what i meant

[winged wharf]

That'd be sweet. AGM-68s on one side, x3 Lynchpin on the other

[summer obsidian]

Do keep in mind that not all aircraft can handle asymmetric loadouts very well. Smaller ones will have more trouble with it, Cricket is a perfect example. Chicane I suppose wouldn't have too much of an issue assuming it's a rigid-rotor helo (which I'm sure it is), but even stuff like the Ifrit could have issues with asymmetric loads placed too far out. Inner wings could probably handle it, but the outer pylons not so much. This new VTOL plane we're getting would probably have a lot of trouble with asymmetric loads

[winged wharf]

I'm not sure how this would cause issue. If it can hold the weapon weight on that pylon normally, it will have no problem with the total value across both sides halved down to just the one.

[summer obsidian]

You can start having control issues if what you have on one side weighs more than what you have on the other side.

This is why Hornet pilots flying with asymmetric loads had to carefully decide the order in which they deploy their weapons

[winged wharf]

Right, and thats already modeled in game, somewhat at least. This forum (from my knowledge) wasn't about adding previously incompatible munitions to other pylons entirely, it's about being able to select currently compatible weaponry for individual pylons instead of it mirroring. Like for example, a GPO-2 Auger would not be able to be moved to an outer wing pylon on the Ifrit, but you could so choose to fly with only one on one inner side pylon, etc, so there really isn't that high of a risk for what you're talking about

[inner scroll]

a lot of my mod concepts involve assymetrical loadouts, so it would be great to have this capability - imagine 12x laser guided bombs and a single designator pod, or an offensive laser array and a capacitator pod, or a napalm ejector and a napalm storage pod

[winged wharf]

That'd be glorious

[dull elk]

It just adds more depth imo, dont be dumb and put 10k pounds on one side and nothing on the other

[mint dagger]

Or do it for the challenge

[lilac roost]

This would be nice. It would allow for more mission flexibility.

[winged wharf]

Haven't seen this active in a few. Still got my fingers crossed.🤞

[manic patrol]

https://tenor.com/view/bump-reminder-manatee-fail-fail-sea-cow-gif-12036766

[copper mirage]

I think it will happen, but more planes and maps are more important for now, and in some ways easier to do. Changing existing things can lead to having to spend a lot of time deconflicting and troubleshooting how the law of unintended consequences decides to play with you.

[livid kelp]

That would take the entire loadout editor rework (with mission profiles preferably).

[winged wharf]

More planes and more maps both seem more difficult than slightly altering the weapons system imo, I understand what you're saying though.

[copper mirage]

If you discount the likely bugs and such that pop up from it yes lol

[winged wharf]

You'll get the same from an entirely new aircraft and map

[copper mirage]

Yes and no, a system that effects all the planes has a lot more interactions with broader code. AI, targeting, flight, how the weapons interact, and lots more I cannot even think of likely. It requires a lot more testing and such due to being able to totally break everything in game

[raven peak]

one of the devs already said this would require an overhaul of the loadout system
click the Jump To Top button, 4 messages down from there

[winged wharf]

"but I believe that is something mitch wants to do in the future" is the rest of the quote, so it's still possible to come.

[raven peak]

yes

either way, it's probably easier to add new aircraft rn than that overhaul

[winged wharf]

I'm not really trying to argue about semantics, LS and I already talked about this

[copper mortar]

I mean, an aircraft that fires one of it's missiles but not the one on the other side is already asymmetrical. So yeah that's definitely a thing

[raven peak]

there's a difference between having one missile and equipping one missile

[copper mortar]

Is there? I mean, physics wise?

[raven peak]

not physically, but with the loadout system? absolutely

[copper mortar]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying

It makes sense that planes should be able to fly with somewhat asymmetric loadouts, since that's already the case if they use their ordinance asymmetrically

[raven peak]

rn the only problem is implementing this into the loadout system

[copper mirage]

I agree the physics wont change MUCH, I mean low speed with an auger on one side could effect takeoff IDK.

What I meant by the bugs that could crop up is how the code for loadout interacts with AI and so much else. It could have some odd code interactions that dont even make sense, something could reference it and no one thinks to check that and it leads to odd interactions.

[inner scroll]

yeahh the way loadouts are done (especially calculations for weight, ammo count, warhead use, etc.) all assume a symmetrical system, although i could see it being changed relatively (?) easily

[copper mirage]

All depends on the code, I dont look at code anymore...that crap only made me angry lol

[copper mortar]

Y?

[copper mirage]

Trying to figure out why code didnt work and coming across the fact that it had "the wrong type" of blank space at the end of a line. Someone removed a part of a line so it ended in a tab, which you couldnt see but the code could and it crashed...

That was what drove me to give up interest in coding back in 2008.

[inner scroll]

it's a lot, lot better now

[copper mirage]

its been nearly 20 years...to say I am out of date would be an understatement...