Make the Carrier Duel actually about carriers instead of missile battleships

[dreamy bramble]

a salvo of the Carrier Duel fleet consists of somewhere around 26~30 missiles, which JUST hits the "sweet spot" of "can penetrate BDF fleet but not PALA". Even if the player dedicate to interception they would at most intercept like 4~6. Not even close to enough to even just be the "critical few".

[zenith bough]

unironic skill issue

Edit: I made a much longer comment about how you’re supposed to play Carrier Duel (and the vital role naval aviation plays in a modern naval conflict) but realized that this really, truly, 100% is an issue with OP wanting to obliterate everything in a handful of sorties without significant difficulty

So, skill issue lmao

[visual marsh]

The main issue with BDF carrier is that it has superstructure blocking rear CIWS turret and thats why it has worse AA in this scenario

btw you can safely intercept 14 ASHMs with chicane

[dreamy bramble]

not sure if you know but I have a "skill issue = insta block" policy. Even if directed against someone else.

[zenith bough]

This is an issue with the Annex and current roster of surface combatants, not an issue with Carrier Duel conceptually, or Naval Aviation in general

[dreamy bramble]

well that's nice but still doesn't solve the core issue. Core issue being ship anti-missile being far too easy and the naval war is fought by ships instead of planes. That's not how the level of "carrier duel" is supposed to be.

sea-skimming missiles should not even be targettable by SAMs at all. they will only be interceptable by CIWS in very terminal stage.
also real world missile-to-missile interception rate is about 90% at 3 missiles (launched against one target). In this game it's 100%.
not to mention NO also don't have the problem of differen't launchers launch at overlapped targets, which is a serious issue IRL.

[zenith bough]

I mean, I can use softer language, but it doesn’t change that you’re not only hilariously wrong about how a “naval war” is fought, Carrier Duel is also honestly not that hard.

…aaaaaaaaaaaand now you’re claiming sea skimming missiles can’t be intercepted by SAMs despite the creation of systems to do exactly that in the 1970s

ooooooooooooof

[dreamy bramble]

also I'm not even sure if Annex and Hyperion have same missile AA. does Annex have both SARH and IRSAM?

[limber salmon]

It does. RAM45 and I think 4 IRM-S2 pods, where hyperion has IRM-S3s.

[dreamy bramble]

yeah so you are just proving to me how wrong you are in every sentence you utter. What's the point? You are just creating a pointless argument. You have voiced your worthless disagreement and thus exhausted your constitutional right of free speech, now leave.

[dreamy bramble]

I'm also curious about radar coverage. We now do have earth curvature simulation so radar mounted height is a thing.
And without looking at specs I guess Annex's radar is lower than Hyperion?
@limber salmon so, indeed Hyperion does have superior missile AA, I guess?

[zenith bough]

https://www.twz.com/navy-blasts-supersonic-sea-skimming-target-with-sm-2-missiles-in-impressive-video

“Exhausted my right to free speech” is a new one lmao you really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you

[dreamy bramble]

"Seconds after the deployment of GQM-163 in the footage, the target is engaged by"
so, detected before reaching sea-skimming stage.
ships don't have missile launchers just above waterline, so yes that can and will happen.
bro it's not that hard. if missiles can intercept sea skimming missiles then just fly at normal height. We know they don't, so there must be some advantage for that.

and you seems hilariously quiet about the 90% at three interceptor figure.

[limber salmon]

so, indeed Hyperion does have superior missile AA, I guess?
Marginally, but it also doesn't have the 73mm gun. Asymmetry!

[zenith bough]

lol

lmao, even

https://youtu.be/JQTzsneadQM?

[dreamy bramble]

what does that do tho... isn't QF naval guns usually only effective against ground or slow-flying aerial targets?

[zenith bough]

https://youtu.be/_pezJKg4M98?

https://youtu.be/1CvJiPqKDLM?

apparently the Chinese and Indians also posses this mysterious technology

[dreamy bramble]

by the way IIRC that was Patriot against aircraft target.
against missiles would be lower, even lower against ballistic missiles.
but in NO? always 100%.
not to mention we have munition stealth mechanisms that are supposedly made, but not effective. Pablos should have been very stealthy but I have never saw one NOT getting detected at catalogue range.

[limber salmon]

It's plenty strong enough to kill dynamos/shards if it gets past their PD, and even when getting stopped it's applying continual pressure contributing to overwhelming it.

[dreamy bramble]

sorry, PD?

[limber salmon]

Point defence.

[zenith bough]

It’s not a 100% interception rate by missiles ingame, fleets often rely on CWIS to intercept ASHMs that leak through

Weird hill to die on

[dreamy bramble]

yeah, you see, that's part of the problem. Air defense in NO is SO op that NOTHING is entirely un-interceptable. Even Tarantula's 76mm shell is interceptable.
I would really like to see a real-world example of naval gun shells getting intercepted.
But then, the aircraft haters will cry "future technology", which somehow doesn't apply to planes, only ships.

[zenith bough]

aaaaaaaaaaaaand we’re back at “skill issue”

[limber salmon]

If a ship is busy intercepting shells from an Annex or tarantula, it's got less weapons free to point at other incoming. The gun doesn't kill ships by itself, but it helps other munitions get past.

My experience has been similar in that the Annex does die much faster than the hyperion, but I don't think it's worth fundamentally changing the design of every naval unit just to balance one mode when the factional carriers work just fine and offer unique benefits in every other mode. If anything, I find that boats tend to die too EASILY to solo/uncoordinated attacks.

[dreamy bramble]

Well then we must be playing different games. The smallest thing I can use to overwhelm an unescorted (i.e. shouldn't appear that way) Hyperion is 24... god dammit what's the name of it?
the cheaper quasi-ballistic missiles

with the recent addition of Vortex's internal PAB-125 options, that can, factually, get through, but the yield is too small to make a difference

[visual marsh]

Tusko B? Even 10 AGM-68s can overwhelm carriers AA

[dreamy bramble]

didn't try with that but then what? 10 68s with maybe 1 or 2 surviving isn't going to deal meaningful damage, similar to 12x PAB-125s.
and let's not forget that's an unescorted carrier which shouldn't exist in the first place

[visual marsh]

I sometomes try to launch some agms and while they are flying approach carrier for bombing run with gpo-500 or gpo-2p

[dreamy bramble]

well before the 12x PAB loadout, my go-to anti-ship solution was a suicidal 4x GPO-500 (preferrably with 2 of them being 1.5kts) mach dive run. It is effective against a lone Hyperion but still

also last time I checked I think the only plane capable to carry 10x AGM68s is the Ifrit, so I guess you're going against the (now we know weaker) Annex?

[visual marsh]

At the moment the only sure way to lethally **damage **carrier is 4 agm68 + 4 tusko b mixed with irm-s1

And Annex isnt really weaker, it has 40mm ciws wich oneshots your aircraft and 68s, hyperion has only 30mm

[dreamy bramble]

fair, that sounds about right with my experience and what I'm saying is that's problematic.
in the Carrier Duel mission the fleet salvo is 30x AShMs. No amount of players, when assuming against enemy players, can reliably coordinate that amount of a salvo

[dreamy bramble]

what's the difference between 40mm and 30mm CIWS? they 1-shot missiles anyway.
as a matter of fact, pitching same 30x AShMs against each other, BDF gets damaged while PALA doesn't.
it's black and white kind of difference.

[visual marsh]

In terms of interception or actually firing 30 AshMs? You can take 10 ir missiles in ifrits bomb bays and 8 more on exterior pylons, which gets rid of half of this salvo

[dreamy bramble]

well that's a different problem: BDF don't have Ifrits. And Vortex can't carry anything that penetrates the AA net of two dynamos, four shards and a Hyperion.
I have actually tried this against the Terminal Control PALA fleet (which is already smaller than Carrier Duel due to geographical distance). the only thing that effectively penetrates, is a DR with 68 PAB-250s dropping from 15km altitude

[visual marsh]

it has Dynamo, Hyperion, and 4 shards, you can kill them all with tuskos in one way run or just carrier if you really wanna see your wife and children back at home

[dreamy bramble]

two dynamos. And no, four tuskos don't penetrate anything. Not even a lone Hyperion.

[zenith bough]

stop firing them at max range silly

shotgun em, you’ll get better results if you fire them at point blank range so they’re still accelerating when they hit

[visual marsh]

I played terminal control yesterday and fired them from 6km and killed everything besides 1 shart

[zenith bough]

shoot I bombed a dynamo with 250s and mission killed it on TC… with a Compass…

anti ship is, if anything, too easy

[visual marsh]

it aint *too * easy, it is just possible

[dreamy bramble]

and how are you going to survive that close with 4 externally carried Tusko, "silly"?

[visual marsh]

i think he meant DR, if you fire 4 tuskos at each ship they wont protect the carrier

[limber salmon]

Ships' radars can't target you if you fly below 20m (not sure why they still have this limitation when every other radar no longer does but /shrug), you can fly over their coverage until you're ready to dive on them, you can prepare them for a strike by killing their radars with medusa...

[dreamy bramble]

DR or Vortex, a Tusko-heavy plane just can't survive "point blank" into anything that resembles a fleet

[zenith bough]

sea skim and pre flare, it’s incredibly easy on naval maps because there’s no waves to make staying at 10ft of altitude actually hard

[visual marsh]

waddaya mean point blank, CIWS start firing at you from 5km and shots land when you are already at 4km, ir missiles start flying at you from 6-7km

[dreamy bramble]

I'm not sure about that. I just tried to sneak upon the radar truck on terminal control and it kills me at 6km. I was <10m altitude. Unless you mean this only happens against ships and not radar trucks

@visual marsh Someone told me to "fire at point blank" so that the Tuskos hit when still accelerating

[zenith bough]

A sub 10km launch is point blank in air combat terms, especially if you’re supersonic

Regardless, sea skimming and pre flaring will get you close enough to bomb and strafe a ship, let alone slam fire tuskos and gtfo

[visual marsh]

Once more, take DR, fly super low (below 10m) at 100% engine power and fire salvo of tuskos from 9 to 6 km, then flare and notch

[dreamy bramble]

I'm calling this BS. I launched 4 Tuskos and 2 68s at 15km and all got intercepted
oh now it's 9km? ok suppose I try again. (there was a troll skill-issue-ing me claiming 13km)

[visual marsh]

holy mother of evasion manouvers

[dreamy bramble]

do I need to remind you Compass is also not an option for Annex?

[visual marsh]

fire 2 agms when destroyer and corvettes start shooting guns at you, then fire agms, then tuskos

[dreamy bramble]

wdym "fire 2 agms then agms"? Vortex can only carry 2.

[visual marsh]

sorry, i meant agm-68s first, then tuskos

[dreamy bramble]

fine that's what I'll try. 9km and start firing sequence

[zenith bough]

the Vortex, while having its issues, is plenty capable of killing ships

man I really called it with this whole “skill issue” thing huh

[visual marsh]

too far, i usually shoot from 5-6km agms and about 3-4 tuskos (they are literally unguided if you fire them from shorter distances)

[dreamy bramble]

bro you literally just said 9-6 kms yourself, you can't move the goalpost like that

[visual marsh]

maybe I wasnt clear, but 9-6 for big ol DR, 4-5 for ifrit and vortex

[dreamy bramble]

how is that supposed to make sense? it's the same missiles why different for different platforms?

[visual marsh]

because you shoot 24 tuskos from DR and overwhelm whole fleets air defences, ifrit and vortex can shoot only 4 tuskos, so you have to get past other ships' air defences

[dreamy bramble]

and to be honest if it only works in such specific ways of dropping then my point already stands. Penetration is not possible in normal engagement parameters.

[zenith bough]

It’s a Carrier Strike Group, that’s how it’s supposed to work, welcome to 1970 2070

[visual marsh]

i think that in Carrier duel scenario you have to destroy carriers escort and then move on to the carrier

[dreamy bramble]

and now you're moving the goalpost again.
tell you what I'm already calling this BS. I got engaged by two Ifrits and a friggin Medusa. it's just not gonna happen in normal circumstances.

[visual marsh]

los angeles class submarine
actually shows Alfa class soviet SSN

[limber salmon]

Just tried it, can confirm that even with the whole fleet there you can get munitions in on the flanking dynamos in carrier duel using a vortex with 4 68's and 2 tusko

[zenith bough]

imma be honest, I’m not putting a ton of effort into searching for references because OP doesn’t deserve that kind of effort

Good catch though that’s hilarious

[dreamy bramble]

you can't even stay unengaged. The whole PALAN swarms on you even if you stay <20m

[limber salmon]

A better player might even have got away, but trading a plane for a dynamo is more than worth.

[visual marsh]

thats what carrier duel is about, picking one ship after another, "eating" the air defences onion

[dreamy bramble]

I wouldn't have issues for having to start with dynamos. Back in the old Carrier Duel it was to start with Shards as well. The problem is the ship Asm does like 30x my damage

[dreamy bramble]

test result: cannot. you will be fired at by IR and SARH SAMs befor getting <6km. I did eventually kill a dynamo but it looks too luck-based

[zenith bough]

you struggling with a reliable tactic multiple people have reproduced is, by definition, a skill issue

[visual marsh]

not to be the "skill issue" guy but it really comes with experience

[dreamy bramble]

experience doesn't make my RCS smaller. I was <20 and STILL did not stop taking SARHs.

[dry cave]

Its better than OP aircrafts going through ships AA
Like, ships is the only really threatening target in comparing to other AA

Carrier duel being one sides was purely because BDF got a little bit weaker Carrier in comparing to AA capability, while it still has its up's against Hyperion and in lone frontal engagements Annex will eventually win

Account that ships are still really vulnerable to Jamming and Arad's and you can easily "peel down" this AA onion of the ships, by removing threathening RSAM defence of theirs

[dreamy bramble]

I beg to differ. Like I have contantly argued since Shards were added: this is a plane game. Planes should be a bit OP because we know perfect balance doesn't exist.

Also do note my result of killing one Dynamo was immediately neutralized by an incoming ship AShM wave. No stunts pulled on the enemy side. So yes Carrier Duel is one sided and it's not just a little.

[dry cave]

So, i really dont know what this suggestion propose
like, only carrier in carrier duel's or what

[visual marsh]

with newer updates multipathing below 20m doesnt work anymore, you have to stay at 5-7m and it doesn really work after 5km to target or so

[limber salmon]

2nd run, another dead destroyer (slower this time because it was a 68 that got through instead of a tusko). Seems pretty reliable to me. I even lived this time!

[dreamy bramble]

"Carrier duels should be about carrier aircraft, not about surface AShM salvos". If AShM salvo is the only thing that penetrates ship AA there's problem.

[dry cave]

Shards as of right now, didnt changed much
and they were only "difficult" to everyone, because noone know how to deal with them
Right now, they are really not that difficult, that even cricket with only lynches/kingpin can take out one

[visual marsh]

btw lucky agm68 can solo a destroyer

[dreamy bramble]

so now you are moving goalposts yet again. How do I know that works for Hyperion's taller radar? how do I know against Hyperion it's not 1~0m?

@dry cave I begain suggesting ship AA OP since Shard update because we didn't have so much anti-ship options back then. Remember that was before Voltex, before Bucko (or whatever that's called) and before Voltex PAB-125 internal

Actually I would like to point at all the recent anti-ship additions as evidence that ships are indeed OP. Otherwise we won't need those.

[dry cave]

It is not only thing ?
Only thing that penetrate ship AA is quantity
all weapons can penetrate AA defence in numbers, that a general rule of NO
While for ground AA numbers are usually smal, for ships they will be quite bigger, that's by nature
ASHM's on their own do pretty bad jop at penetrating AA defence, only large numbers with Dynamo or few DR can launch, can with significant loses get past defence

[fast bay]

This is a true moment

[limber salmon]

This is true for everything EXCEPT SHIPS. 20m is still safe against naval radar

[dry cave]

I remember
franctly, tuskos not that reliably because shard has RSAM
missiles like AGM's is still more usefull and strategies at taking out shard has not changed much from the day one
Tusko's just add another option and PAB-125 is literally garbage against ships, you better use GPO that none of ciws cant intercept, even one

[dreamy bramble]

well said: only thing that penetrate ship AA is quantity, and aircraft has no quantity. That's the whole point. That's why Carrier Duel became Battleship Showdown.

[fast bay]

Yeah,its not like you can use AGM-48s, Lynchpins, Kingpins, or Pablos to overwhelm ship PD right?

[dreamy bramble]

no it's not. I literally just got shotdown at 26km below 20m.

[dry cave]

Carrier duels are meant to be played with whole team
8v8
when you have even 2 players that dedicated to attack, you already can do serious damage with coordination and right actions
Dont forget that Lynches are still OP vs ships, because you can fire a lot of them in single sortie and they often take out ship defence

[limber salmon]

Did you watch the video I posted which demonstrates getting within 10km of the entire fleet without taking a single SARH because they can't see you flying below 20m

[dreamy bramble]

well indeed you can't. their platforms don't survive long enough into range when facing anything that remotely resembles a fleet.
@limber salmon no. I'm flying and testing right now.

[dreamy bramble]

yeah this is yet another "this game isn't supposed to be played single player"
bro, it's not my fault to be born in a country where the nearest NO player is 300 ping away.

[fast bay]

Very much not true,you can definitely close in enough to use most,if not all of these weapons.
Just because you yourself can't manage doesn't mean the rest can't.

[dry cave]

Im not saying its "not suppose to be played singleplayer"
you cant balance things around only singleplayer and call it a day

Even by yourself, you still have lynches
and medusa with arad's

[dreamy bramble]

doesn't penetrate. Either of them.

[dry cave]

Ships bigger than shard, always needed more than just one plane in general, if you want to do things save, or with a team
and it wont work for balance to nerf all ships, so one plane can destroy them reliably and always
We already have like 90% of targets that already fragile and not a match for compass for example

[dreamy bramble]

and that's the problem. With bots the Carrier Duel cannot have meaningful carrier aircraft impact and becomes Battleship duel

[verbal bolt]

You can pretty easily kill a Dynamo with just one Compass and 4 500's

[brittle gazelle]

500s still exist

[verbal bolt]

Also saw some comments on how modern AD cannot intercept sea-skimming missiles which...isn't really true? I mean, it is true if your AD is 1980's Soviet naval defense

[dry cave]

idk in with quentities and at what target you are firing
generally you should focus only one ship at the time, and attacking from their blindspots

[dreamy bramble]

not modern AD but specifically SARH missiles. of course CIWS can. it's what they are built for.

[verbal bolt]

Not really, no. Modern SM-2's are ridiculously overpowered against modern Sea-skimmers.

[visual marsh]

modern anti ship missiles fly at 2-3m height, which is makes missiles proxy fuse detonate

[dreamy bramble]

By the way, the PALA fleet in Carrier Duel just intercepted an entire AShM salvo while BDF can't even with full roster. In terms of team imbalance I think that's pretty proven.

[brittle gazelle]

mitch has said that the goal is for the factions to be a bit assymetrical

[verbal bolt]

Again, not really. There's actually a video above of an SM-2 going even lower than a sea-skimming missile to get a proper look at it against the sky, proximity fuze isn't just "whatever goes" anymore

[gilded heron]

Use the Medusa, Jam for other aircraft to attack or jam and use some of your own anti radiation missiles to destroy smaller ships.

Then attack with other aircraft.

[dreamy bramble]

SM2 mark 3 (modern SM-2) is IR plus SARH, not pure SARH in the game.

@brittle gazelle asymmetrical doesn't mean and shouldn't mean unfair.

[brittle gazelle]

take that up with mitch then, thats what's planned and what already is showing in the game

[visual marsh]

didnt know about that, im no expert on american SM's, but i know for a fact that all S-300s cant do this

[gilded heron]

Multiple carrier launched aircraft are viable for attacking the fleet, I like to use the tara for the sake of stylepoints.

[verbal bolt]

Every single modern SM-2 is SARH. You're thinking of SM-3, which is SARH + IR.

[brittle gazelle]

20x agm 48s vs 20x ashm 300s who will win?

[fast bay]

I will agree that the Hyperion does feel a bit more capable of self defense than the Annex, though that maybe could be offset with the BDF getting one extra escort or smth like that

[verbal bolt]

Also not really. S-300 is a wide family of SAM systems, with the newest being fairly capable. They don't have the "dive below target and look up at it" feature, as far as I know, but they don't proximity fuze on water.

[gilded heron]

3rd option: 76 mil.

[dreamy bramble]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard
"SM-2MR Block IIIB missiles have dual infrared homing/semi-active terminal homing."

[quaint tulip]

thats such bs lmao

me when I lie

[verbal bolt]

I stand corrected on the claim that none of them are IR, but I am still correct in that there are pure SARH's that can intercept sea skimmers, such as RIM-156

[dry cave]

thats because one ship has weaker AA
Annex only has 1 Ciws and 1 IR missile at the front, with is S2, that is not quite good as S3, but definitely and upgrade in comparing to S1 that was before
Faction right now still dont have a lot of advantages over one another, to change balance in favor of one side

[dreamy bramble]

there are lots of "buts" in that statement. first of all sea skimming missiles often fly high in terminal, I think probably for "having a better look at target" or something...
and by "terminal" we're prob talking about 10km from target so pretty decent window for SARHs to intercept

[verbal bolt]

Uh, not really relevant towards the missile intercepting the sea skimmer in it's terminal phase. Also, it was 1 "but".

[gilded heron]

Sams ingame should hit seaskimming weapons as thats what they do irl.

[dreamy bramble]

that's just the first one...

[fast bay]

yeah you gotta look with infrared light,theres like 20 buts inmediatly after

[brittle gazelle]

I support this 100% but then any and all cruise missiles would just become objectively the worst munitions in the game
They're already barely useful and most of the time they're only vulnerable to short range AD

[dreamy bramble]

well then what's the point of sea skimming? if your missile is sea skimming and still nonethless gets engaged at catalogue SAM range (15km for boltstrike, 50km for R9, what's the whole point?

@brittle gazelle exactly, that's the problem.

[limber salmon]

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure that's a bad thing tbh

[gilded heron]

To get closer and saturate attack your target.

[fast bay]

It reduces the maximun range that ground SAMs can engage it from due to the horizon

[verbal bolt]

Absolutely not lmfao. Multiple things to take away, here. Some modern AShM's (particularly Russian) have one missile climb while the rest stay at the sea floor. Moreover, it dives well before reaching 10 kilometers from the target

[limber salmon]

A weapon that flies across the entire map by itself and doesn't even care about line of sight should probably not also reliably get through defences by itself. Effort in should be at least reasonably proportional to reward out.

[dreamy bramble]

yes it is. It creates a warplane game where warplane is useless.

@gilded heron no you don't get close. You get shot down when you're still at the previous country

actually I just noticed that in the Carrier duel map the PALA has a sea platform with extra AA blocking northern detour attack route while BDF don't. that's even further imbalance.

[gilded heron]

Yes, you do get close.

[fast bay]

This kinda feels like a "I want a win button or its not fair!" type argument

[verbal bolt]

Takes longer for the radar to see it, because the earth isn't flat.

[dreamy bramble]

yeah only after we added curvature system...

[gilded heron]

@dreamy bramble I need to watch you play and see what you're doing because this entire thread seems like there is a critical failure happening at one point and I don't know what it is.

[verbal bolt]

So...what's the point? The sea skimming feature of missiles works (takes longer for radar to spot them), and SAM interception is correct (Not 1960's missiles)

[brittle gazelle]

I'm not sure where this whole "if you fire something from long range and safety you shouldnt be allowed to contribute to a match" attitude comes from in gaming but it doesnt really make much sense in NO's context because NO at least tries to be an authentic ish recreation of the modern battlefield
and in said battlefield, standoff attacks are often quite effective

[dreamy bramble]

no it's not. Real world SAM interception is 90% kill at three interceptors per target (and that's a plane sized target, Patriot spec). In NO it's 100% for one interceptor even against ballistic missiles in terminal phase

[limber salmon]

Nuclear option also happens to be a videogame, and videogames tend to be more fun when they drive (and reward) you to take risks and exercise skill.

[fast bay]

Standoff attacks in real life tend to have pretty large numbers, and often target places not as well covered by air defenses(and if they do,they push through saturation,or by exploiting the type of air defense available,ergo Drones and so on.)

[dreamy bramble]

failing to play with others I guess. I know saturation will be easy if I have teammates but I just happened to not.

[verbal bolt]

You keep jumping from one topic to another. First it was sea skimmers, now it's planes? Yeah, NO has a really high intercept rate (futurecopium or whatever), but we are talking about sea skimming AShM's. Missile interceptions against those are completely fine.

[quaint tulip]

Hi for anyone reading, dont believe this without actual documentation and evidence!

I would know!

[fast bay]

When you see footage of cruise missile strikes,or drone strikes hitting their targets its either because air defense present has been saturated, degraded,or is just not propely present.

[dreamy bramble]

it's not planes. Read it. SAMs have 90% kill rate at three missiles against a plane, but in this game it's 100% at one missile against a missile. Therefore SAMs are OP relative to real world. and of course you guys will start crying "future tech" but then forgets about future tech when it's working on the planes' side.

[gilded heron]

I mean, it is meant to be played with people but I and multiple others have been able to do it solo so I'd have to see where the breakdown is happening here.

[quaint tulip]

OP blocked me because my single message got more up votes than his whole post 😂😂

[fast bay]

Source for that if you can?

[verbal bolt]

Uh, please send a source?

[brittle gazelle]

You may be unaware but not every single aspect of modern warfare is exactly all that romantic the way you seem to think it is, standoff attacks may not be the most fun thing in the world to experience in a video game, but they are a key component in modern warfare so they deserve to be represented in NO

[dreamy bramble]

no because you were literally name calling saying "don't believe in this guy"

[quaint tulip]

Please send a source for the name calling ❤️

[verbal bolt]

She does have a point, though. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. I promise you, send me one good, reliable source that backs up your claims wholely and I will leave

[brittle gazelle]

elave

[fast bay]

elave

[gilded heron]

I'd also like to see some evidence on this one.

[verbal bolt]

I'd like to see evidence that I said "elave"

[brittle gazelle]

hmmm how can this thread be derailed to be about a shitty cas jet,,,,,

[dreamy bramble]

the source was MDC, a very authentic military fan website in my country. The page is deleted and even if it's not, it's in Taiwanese traditional Chinese so you won't read it due to language barrier.

In any case we do know real world SAMs have fail rate. even with quick search the Patriot "success rate" was 95% and I very much doubt that's for launching only one missile per target.
in contrast NO SAMs have 100% success rate at one missile per target.

[quaint tulip]

FAN WEBSITE LMFAO???? AND HE REFUSES TO SEND THE LINK ANYWAY LOOOOOL

[fast bay]

"No guys the source its definetly real,it just goes to a different school!no you can't talk to it,its in chinese anyways."

[dreamy bramble]

I tend to believe the "95%" figure is for multiple Patriots against multiple targets, which may or may not include saturation, "many launcher against same target" as such.

[verbal bolt]

Success rates are counted on a per missile basis, so that's moot.

[dreamy bramble]

well it's a big topic, maybe I should have segregated it into smaller stuff like BDF being weak in the Carrier Duel scenario and naval targets being impossible against single players.

[fast bay]

https://tenor.com/view/metal-gear-rising-metal-gear-rising-revengeance-senator-armstrong-revengeance-i-made-it-the-fuck-up-gif-25029602 (found the source)

[quaint tulip]

If you'd provide the firing table that accompanies this statistic, I'll be able to translate into English for everyone here!

[verbal bolt]

(NASAMS operator by the way^^)

[brittle gazelle]

First NO classified document leak inbound???

[dreamy bramble]

firing table will not give success rate mate. But we do know IRL SAMs fire multiple missiles against one target (if they can. some earlier systems simply can't). You might want to think about why.

[fast bay]

Who's we?

[verbal bolt]

I genuinely wouldn't debate how SAM's operate against someone who does it for a living...

[dreamy bramble]

We also have saturation-induced tracking paralyzation which isn't simulated in the game (perhaps in this game we are assuming every radar truck is an AEGIS)

[gilded heron]

A military fan website is not exactly a good source of information, I need to see where they're getting their numbers so if you could post that it would be great.

[limber salmon]

I am well aware of the realities of modern warfare, and that warfare in general is generally best waged in a way that makes things as unfun and unfair as possible for the opposing party.

I'm in no way arguing that cruise missiles/standoff munitions should be useless/not represented, just that, for the sake of interesting gameplay in this videogame played by people who presumably want to have fun, chucking a bunch of them across the map into an intact AA network should not be rewarded as much as more aggressive plays.

[fast bay]

Phased arrays don't have that weakness,and so far all radars in game have that

[quaint tulip]

This is top class debating

"this is why X should happen!! because of Y statistic!!"

"yo where the statistic (quantifiable btw so language doesnt matter)"

"IM NOT GIVING IT NUH UH"

[dreamy bramble]

sorry that's where our agreement will end. MDC, like I said, is very authentic here.

@limber salmon that's basically my point. Cruise missiles need something other than sheer amount to counter AA

[fast bay]

"My sources are very trustworthy,no you can't look at them, take me on my word"

[quaint tulip]

L 😂 L

[dreamy bramble]

otherwise we might actually need air launched torpedoes or something. something that is big, unwieldy, single purpose but at least not gonna get CIWS'd at 5km if they survive the missile wall at 15km.

[verbal bolt]

Towed decoy array

[fast bay]

Wait until he hears about RBUs and other underwater intercept methods too

[brittle gazelle]

[gilded heron]

You're not posting the link?

[dreamy bramble]

imagine quoting Jane's to someone who don't know what that is... that's basically what I'm getting now. Sadly too many journals and stuff are only locally authentic so this indeed happens. One just have to carry on.

@gilded heron you want me to post a dead link?

[fast bay]

"Locally authentic" LMAOOO

[quaint tulip]

I literally do air defence as my job

[gilded heron]

If the link is dead then there is no source for what you're saying.

MDC isn't a think tank, JANES is, CSIS is.

[dreamy bramble]

yes. that does very, very much happen in every field of work. Certificates, journals, sources. There are stuffs that just becomes a scrap of paper once across order.

[fast bay]

If the link is dead one can still access it with the WayBack Machine

[quaint tulip]

is this the pirate software of nuclear option?!

[dreamy bramble]

I literally can make the same claim. Oh I forget to tell you the MDC source was sourced from my friend who works in Taiwan's NCSIST (google it).
Yes he makes air defense systems. Yes that's only locally authentic. Yes you will deny all this.

[fast bay]

Anyhow at the end of the day if you can't back up your claims with a source, even if it did once upon a time exist, then that source is as good as non-existant. By that same rule i can say i read a report on a very local journal on how interception rate is actually 23.4%, but then i can say my dog ate the journal and its no longer accesible.

[gilded heron]

No, you need to post the source for what you're talking about. You HAVE to backup what you're saying here man.

[quaint tulip]

My friend is an elf and works at Santa's workshop (google it) to make his air defence sites. Yes you will deny all this.

[fast bay]

New copypasta dropped

[verbal bolt]

Now I am imagining Santa trying to dodge S-400's

[quaint tulip]

lowkey i knew as soon as he blocked me for saying "give a source" he'd be a lolcow of the highest order

[fast bay]

We're also waiting on the name calling source,but i guess thats locally authentic too

[quaint tulip]

also if he sends a link use a incognito tab with VPN to open it or something incase it blows your pc up

[fast bay]

That's assuming he does send a link

[quaint tulip]

"evilassiplogger.net.cn"

[dreamy bramble]

I've had enough with all this gaslighting. I'm making my last summary and call it a day:

1. there are two major issues: one is BDF being too weak in the current Carrier Duel scenario which seems to be less disputed.

2. the other issue is how the current balance between ships and planes make Carrier Duel a "Battleship Duel". This itself has multiple components:

2a. first is SAM system being too idealized. One missile against another missile has 100% success rate which isn't happening IRL.

2b. second is the entire nullification of cruise missiles which has been a problem since playtest. Sea skimming/terrain following currently does not provide any advantage beside curvature/terrain-induced detection delay. Once detected it becomes a turkey shoot.

2c. and then it's the vast superiority in firepower, including range and salvo volume, of surface combatants relative to aircraft. A standard salvo for the Carrier Duel fleet is 30-ish AShM-300s which is unachievable even with reasonable multiplayer conditions (even with 8v8 team the most you can get is like 2 strikers which gives ~20 missiles with far shorter range.) We are not counting in railguns yet. This is why even if in better conditions aircraft very rarely, if ever, gets fully credited for a surface combatant kill. I myself only got like +19.x for the eventual Hyperion kill (full credit will be 59.2 or something like that).

So with that, Carrier Duel is currently closer to Battleship Duel.

I will continue to update if people starts flushing this summary down.

[quaint tulip]

Also, looking at @dreamy bramble message history, he is more than capable of posting links to sources when they actually exist!

So I've had enough with all this gaslighting. I'm making my last summary and call it a day:

No evidence, no spine and no skill 🐴🐴

[dreamy bramble]

you are not even supposed to be here. I was never talking to you.
And that's before I get to your action of copying my sentence structure which is a classic troll tactics.

---

I've had enough with all this gaslighting. I'm making my last summary and call it a day:

there are two major issues: one is BDF being too weak in the current Carrier Duel scenario which seems to be less disputed.

the other issue is how the current balance between ships and planes make Carrier Duel a "Battleship Duel". This itself has multiple components:

2a. first is SAM system being too idealized. One missile against another missile has 100% success rate which isn't happening IRL.

2b. second is the entire nullification of cruise missiles which has been a problem since playtest. Sea skimming/terrain following currently does not provide any advantage beside curvature/terrain-induced detection delay. Once detected it becomes a turkey shoot.

2c. and then it's the vast superiority in firepower, including range and salvo volume, of surface combatants relative to aircraft. A standard salvo for the Carrier Duel fleet is 30-ish AShM-300s which is unachievable even with reasonable multiplayer conditions (even with 8v8 team the most you can get is like 2 strikers which gives ~20 missiles with far shorter range.) We are not counting in railguns yet. This is why even if in better conditions aircraft very rarely, if ever, gets fully credited for a surface combatant kill. I myself only got like +19.x for the eventual Hyperion kill (full credit will be 59.2 or something like that).

So with that, Carrier Duel is currently closer to Battleship Duel.

I will continue to update if people starts flushing this summary down.

Is this guy hacking or what? how can he reply like exactly 0.1 second after me? Reasonable doubt.

[quaint tulip]

https://tenor.com/view/good-morning-good-afternoon-good-evening-good-night-hello-gif-22572201

Oh I forget to tell you the source was sourced from my friend who works in Santa's Workshop (google it).
Yes he makes air defense systems for santa.. Yes that's only locally authentic to the North Pole. Yes you will deny all this.

[gilded heron]

You're not using naval aircraft effectively and Cosmic posted his attack run on a Dymo to show it can be done.

You've made claims about SAM systems and you haven't backed it up, you just reposted a wall of text to try and override someone else, you're engaging in this in bad faith.

[quaint tulip]

Yes I am hacking discord! I am a hacker (my friend works at the discord hacking factory) google it!! I won't send you the link because you won't understand!!

This is all locally authentic

[dreamy bramble]

if you consider "bad faith" for "making my voice heard" sure. And that proves you are gaslighting.
oh and "someone told me how it couldl be done" part: yes it's done. Still the fight was Battleship duel. I got only +19 for the carrier kill

I'm making my last summary and call it a day:

there are two major issues: one is BDF being too weak in the current Carrier Duel scenario which seems to be less disputed.

the other issue is how the current balance between ships and planes make Carrier Duel a "Battleship Duel". This itself has multiple components:

2a. first is SAM system being too idealized. One missile against another missile has 100% success rate which isn't happening IRL.

2b. second is the entire nullification of cruise missiles which has been a problem since playtest. Sea skimming/terrain following currently does not provide any advantage beside curvature/terrain-induced detection delay. Once detected it becomes a turkey shoot.

2c. and then it's the vast superiority in firepower, including range and salvo volume, of surface combatants relative to aircraft. A standard salvo for the Carrier Duel fleet is 30-ish AShM-300s which is unachievable even with reasonable multiplayer conditions (even with 8v8 team the most you can get is like 2 strikers which gives ~20 missiles with far shorter range.) We are not counting in railguns yet. This is why even if in better conditions aircraft very rarely, if ever, gets fully credited for a surface combatant kill. I myself only got like +19.x for the eventual Hyperion kill (full credit will be 59.2 or something like that).

So with that, Carrier Duel is currently closer to Battleship Duel.

I will continue to update if people starts flushing this summary down.
TBH I think this summary would have been a lot less controversial, if the reader is unbiased that is.

[fast bay]

I wont contest 2a,you don't have a point because you refuse to provide a source.

2b. a system being vulnerable to something doesn't nullify it. Regular subsonic sea skimming cruise missiles are not hard to intercept by today's SAMs,let alone ones from 50-ish years into the future.

2c. The hyperion carries a much greater degree of firepower,but this again is deployed through cruise missiles,which again, easy to shoot down. Naval aviation comes in to degrade the enemy's capabilities by sinking escorts. The railgun does mean that some damage inevitably stacks up,but aside from the damage it deals to shards,its actually not that great against larger vessels, furhermore both factions get one of these DDs,so the effects are equal on both parties.

[gilded heron]

still won't post evidence

[quaint tulip]

whole lotta yap
no evidence

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1400424937390473298/1400469710952464445/1646697724473.jpg?ex=688cc08e&is=688b6f0e&hm=f8b95b3f53b5b59b1577776a164dc3b5d7f623002c7fbb9f9ec76dffc6af279e&

[dreamy bramble]

for those who claim "we taught you how it's done and you succeeded in the end":
remember I only got <20 kill credit for the Hyperion so the fight was still very much Battleship Duel. Le'ts not forget that.

Oh and yes I did back it up. The "3 missiles 90%" was quoted by my friend who works in NCSIST. Yes you will deny it, no I am not surprised.

[fast bay]

You can't make a point for gameplay change based purely on your personal experience.

[dreamy bramble]

read above. You are going to deny my friend who works in SAM development but at least do that after you read.

[quaint tulip]

Oh I forget to tell you the source was sourced from my friend who works in Santa's Workshop (google it).
Yes he makes air defense systems for santa.. Yes that's only locally authentic to the North Pole. Yes you will deny all this.

[dreamy bramble]

see this is what I meant by gaslighting. At this point you are no better than using COD lobby-level of language to call people out. You simply modified my sentence with hostility to make it sound less legitimate without providing anything supporting your claim.

BTW for my health I'm gonna stop showing blocked messages from identified gaslighters. Jonyx2 is typing so I guess I'll see what they're saying

[fast bay]

Your word has exactly the same value as everyone else's here, any point you make based on what someone else told you,if you can't actually bring said concrete source forth for anyone to read,is good as nothing.I can say a friend of mine told me the exact opposite and he works in Lockheed Martin. Same weight to the argument

[quaint tulip]

I am aussie and you have only heard me being polite.

If you want to see my credibility, please log onto the ADF Intranet and find the images posted of NASAM training in January!

[gilded heron]

based

[fast bay]

Yes you did name call me, my friend who works in NCIST told me so. Yes you will deny it

[dreamy bramble]

oh I forgot to mention one thing. I have many enemies on this server, and the only reason was "I trust (someone's ID) so you must be the troll here if you are arguing with them". This single line of thought has gained me at least 20 people who "will disagree whatever I said before even reading" all the way back in playtest era.
So don't even imagine I will be surprised about being unpopular. I already knew what this community is like long before you joined.

[quaint tulip]

😂😂 is this guy real?

is this dead internet theory at play

[fast bay]

We're at the victim card part of the suggestion, someone should really make a bingo card for this type of stuff

[gilded heron]

This has to be a joke, right? Or like an MSS guy who's trying to get people to leak things?

[fast bay]

The depths of current day psyops truly know no bounds

[quaint tulip]

I would agree with what you said if you had a source we could see. If I saw a exercise table and saw the numbers I would agree.🤷‍♀️

[fast bay]

It was revealed to him in a locally authentic dream

[dry cave]

2a. if they wont be idealized, it would make gameplay even easier, without the need to put more preasure on the sam, if it wont be able to intercept even 1 missiles

2b. cruise missiles is hard to balance, like at all, they were a nightmare in early days on regular escalation, when one DR could spam a bunch of them and if your AA is crippled your base is considered to be destroyed by the point when they would be spotted, that work in case if there is some terrain or someone manages to get a bunk before launching them, otherwise cruise missiles easily can be intercepted

2c. 30 ashm's is not that much, half of it can be intercepted purely with chicane, other half has less chances to get past defence, and nothing really stops you from supporting your ai's plane in medusa, with jamming

[dreamy bramble]

finally something that actually is a discussion.

a, yes it is eventually about making aa net easier to defeat I won't sugarcoat that. I'm not suggesting we go overboard like a single Vortex can erase an entire CVBG (as if that would even be physically possible to happen). I'm just suggesting about having some "flaws".
Perhaps there's a 5% chance the missile is botched. Detonated wrong place. damaged but failed to kill the missile, and so on. Perhaps when you present a certain amount of projectiles the whole system gets downgraded (won't suggest full paralyzation as that would increase one more thing difficult to balance).
Or perhaps, make ARAD actually take out a ship's radar, and considering ARADs are often modified from AAMs, they really should see a notably lower chance of being successfully intercepted by SAMs.

b. I have no idea how "early" you are talking about but let's not forget bombs were once entirely un-interceptable back in playtest. Back then flying high enough so your bomb will reach the target was the go-to solution to saturate an AA net and wipe a base. And then came the rockets. Now neither are effective: they both got nerfed. Bombs are now very much interceptable and you can't survive that high, that close; rockets are limited to how many targets you can laze. So more often than not you come back to missiles which gets shot at like turkeys.

c. sure, but having a player intercepting incoming ship-launched AShM's is only going to make it worse, as in, make it even closer to "battleship duel with carrier aircraft support.
The problem was never whether planes can intercept AShMs or not. It's the sheer fact that you even have to do so. When carrier aircraft is participating/helping/defending ship-to-ship missiles, it's already making the mission closer to "Battleship duel".

[gilded heron]

"Or perhaps, make ARAD actually take out a ship's radar"

they do that currently ingame

[dreamy bramble]

reference for "HARMs are fast they should be harder to intercept":
AGM-88 terminal speed: Mach 2.9
TC-2C (Taiwanese ARM modified from AIM-120-like AAM): Mach 6
RIM-66 terminal speed: Mach 3.5

I believe all current in-game AShMs are subsonic. You can't persuade me R9 and Boltstrike should intercept both of them with 100% success

[quaint tulip]

"I believe all current in game AShMs are subsonic"

does this guy even play the game 😭

[verbal bolt]

TC-2C isn't an ARM. That's the TC-2A.

[quaint tulip]

Brooo I should start lying and call it critical thinking and analysis

[fast bay]

https://tenor.com/view/sageyonce-gif-20853661

[quaint tulip]

Is this source locally authentic? Did your friend who saw the pinky toe of the janitor who cleans the factory tell you this?

[dry cave]

a. I dont like the idea to bring randomness in NO, like at all, what I kinda find weird is how on the other side ARAD is usefull, but at the same time can easily be intercepted, sadly because of that same rule of quantity is applied, but they have bigger chances to get past defence than other weapons
b. that was mainly used with pablos, where they had ridiculously rcs that RSAMS just ignored them because they dont had a lock on it, or it was low chance of hitting that they dont bother. Only bombs that were nerfed is pab-80
c. dont see it as a problem, we already have a situation where not everyone is trying to intercept incoming munitions, with is usefull for your team and your bank, because you still will be in profit for intercepting them

[dreamy bramble]

but if you don't bring randomness you will make SAMs 100% effective against everything, which is part of the current problem.

I will steer clear of discussions about Pablo because for some reason my installed game NEVER presented correct Pablo RCS behaviour. They always get detected and targeted at full range. Any version.

[fast bay]

"Alleged problem"

[verbal bolt]

AD in this game is actually ridiculously incompetent and easy to beat. Please show us your gameplay sometime soon

[modest vortex]

Hey uh, news flash buddy, naval combat in the missile age is all about missiles. You got ship launched anti ship missiles, anti air missiles, air to air missiles, anti missile missiles, on and on and on.

You also get the fact that anti ship missiles can follow the terrain (or be ordered to overfly them), so terrain is exactly NOT what a fleet wants to be sitting around if they want to see and intercept incoming missiles. Aircraft fleets from a carrier do support the naval vessels, and the naval vessels support the aircraft, though the aircraft can and absolutely will take out ships, particularly with jamming

[verbal bolt]

Your version is the same as everyone else's

[fast bay]

Literally.As someone who spends a good amount of multiplayer games trying to set up nice and defendible AA positions with Tarantula's,and by manually redirecting convoys that have AD, its baffling how easy it is for a player to deal heaps of damage to even well layered air defense networks

[quaint tulip]

He is playing on the locally authentic version!

[dreamy bramble]

"You also get the fact that anti ship missiles can follow the terrain (or be ordered to overfly them), so terrain is exactly NOT what a fleet wants to be sitting around if they want to see and intercept incoming missiles. "

that's part of why I wanted the two fleets to have terrain between them. If they don't have LoS of each other they won't AShM each other, and planes can use terrain to get closer. This in turn serves my "make Carrier Duel actually about the carrier" agenda.

[dry cave]

randomness is usually number 1 problem and things that get players annoyed most of the time
and i dont see much of an issue in SAM being able to intercept incoming missile that heading straight at it, it would be just weird if sam was not able to
Pablos as for now yeah, not in their "beautiful" glory as they were, and I think that its even quite sad, because you cant just use them anywhere where is RSAM is present
not to mention spaags whom could intercept them closely, while single GPO-500 survives like 5-7 salvos from one sentry

[fast bay]

Yes Missiles have a 5% of just spontaneosly combusting upon launch, yes a friend from NSIST told me so, Yes you will deny all this

[modest vortex]

In a multi domain battle, the launch craft does not need to see the target, especially with self homing munitions like anti ship missiles

[verbal bolt]

They will AShM each other regardless of if they have LOS or not

[quaint tulip]

So you want to fundamentally change the game because of your own wants and desires?

this is absolutely peak

[dreamy bramble]

that's not what's currently happening in the game I believe? do ships launch AShM against each others without direct LoS?

[dry cave]

and because of that I kinda stopped using tara at frontlines, I loved to try and "reinforce" some convoys that lack AA with AFV6 AA, but even AI didnt have a lot of problem taking them out

[quaint tulip]

Chat is this locally authentic?

[modest vortex]

That's because the PAB-80LR has a notable radar signature because it was too strong, it got nerfed. SAMs are also incredibly effective in real life, against both bombs and missiles, and against aircraft.

And yes, ships launch AShMs without LoS, have you even played this game? It's like you never played a match of Escalation

[fast bay]

Literally, the only good method i've found to help convoys is to slowly set up small stationary AA sites, but you need to have some mid range AA as well as for AFV6 AA to actually make sure it doens't get clobbed by any plane that can do ground pounding

[dreamy bramble]

I have specifically tried to deny enemy from seeing friendly ship by ordering ships away and killing enemy planes. It did not work. they still ASHm each other.

and about PABLO I specifically said ANY VERSION. i.e. including before nerf

[gilded heron]

(its because he's not engaging in good faith at all)

[modest vortex]

... That's because they don't need LoS. They just need someone to detect. It's like you refuse to read.

[dreamy bramble]

are you not reading? I DID refuse them to detect (by plane). They still fired and I can only assume they fired from ship-to-ship radar contact.

[modest vortex]

Do you know what the term "datalink" means

[fast bay]

I sent the enemy ship a strongly worded letter to please not fire!

[verbal bolt]

I don't think he does

[dry cave]

I hope we would get emplacements for tara and ibis to drop off, with would include some advanced AA's

[quaint tulip]

No, its not a locally authentic system!

[dreamy bramble]

it means SOMEONE has to see the target. But i have denied the planes so it has to be the ships that saw my ships.

[fast bay]

https://tenor.com/view/pray-crying-black-guy-pleading-plead-gif-15911108386383402751

[modest vortex]

No, the planes saw them. They can triangulate the ground/sea radar source upon getting pinged

[quaint tulip]

Especially the Medusa but I dont think he knows what the Medusa is since its not a locally authentic system

[dreamy bramble]

and I very specifically told you I denied that... please read.

Of course maybe, just maybe the bots side have detecion bugs. I reported this issue once and supposedly it was fixed

[gilded heron]

Everything that emits a radar signal will be detected.

[modest vortex]

Okay so you're just rather unintelligent, gotcha

[fast bay]

Yes,but you forget he said no to them so, legally speaking,they can't actually spot the ships

[dreamy bramble]

you joined lated and didn't read anything and just went for name calling... ok, I guess?

[quaint tulip]

He's going to block you for your Call Of Duty language since its not locally authentic to his region

[gilded heron]

Somehow I got Senhara to block me and methinks vcharng has already.

[fast bay]

No way,locally authentic name calling?

[modest vortex]

Because you know nothing about the game and insist everyone else is wrong instead of sitting down and letting other people tell you that you're wrong... I read most of the conversation

[quaint tulip]

~~ you deadass cannot be breathing the same oxygen as me ~~

Senhara actually entertained your bs longer than anyone here lmfao

[dreamy bramble]

I beg to differ. I don't think a 3.5 mach thing should have 100% success intercepting a 2.9 mach thing. The margin of error is just too small for something to NOT go wrong.

As for Pablo I mentioned above that even before the nerf they never expressed the correct RCS behaviour on my system. Not the first time won't be last. Maybe I should reinstall my copy one day.

(For the record: this is not the first time. When Medusa first came out there was an actual occasion where me and another player have complete different jam success from same range against same two boltstrikes. Both versions are video recorded. This issue vanished about same time when jam effect becomes shown on screen)

[modest vortex]

You pissed me off that one time but you really haven't done so since so it's whatever now I guess.

[fast bay]

He probably is,its just hes breathing a pretty small fraction of what a normal person would

[gilded heron]

Ah, sorry fam.

[quaint tulip]

Yes because top speeds in perfect conditions ultimately decide how well a effector can function against incoming munitions! Yes this is locally authentic information!! The laws of physics mean nothing here!

[modest vortex]

A high speed missile dedicated for intercepting other missiles, like a Stratolance, can absolutely intercept almost any kind of missile

[fast bay]

Actually most missiles are required to roll a d20 before intercepting,and if they roll below 5 they just explode. I know because a friend that works in Airbus told me so

[dreamy bramble]

the same update also changed jam-able range. Before that I can't successfully jam a Boltstrike at >30km. Now I can at ~35.

[modest vortex]

What is bs is stuff like IRM-S1s being able to do that, they don't have the sensor resolution and tracking quality to intercept incredibly fast missiles, particularly hardened targets like ballistic missiles

[quaint tulip]

Yes but your point means nothing since it doesnt conform to my unchanging pre-conceived opinions /j

[fast bay]

I mean,if the range is close enough,i don't see why not,its a matter of it chasing after the heat signature of the missile after all

[dreamy bramble]

""not to mention spaags whom could intercept them closely, while single GPO-500 survives like 5-7 salvos from one sentry"

which is why I mentioned above about missiles damaged but fail to kill an incoming AShM. (as a possible way to make AAs less effecitive in a controllable way)
Isn't AShM like the largest kind of missile carried by planes? It's fairly reasonable to give them a bit more HP innit?

[quaint tulip]

Its a hunk of metal filled with hate moving at mach "screw you" on a ballistic trajectory, an IRMS1 even with a direct hit wouldn't do much.

[modest vortex]

They don't have the sensor resolution, fast moving missiles move fast, so the IRM-S1, basically a stinger, realistically can't accurately plot a course to intercept reliably. It'll get close on a good day, but close only counts for nuclear weapons

[fast bay]

I'm not so sure, its not just a hunk of metal,its an explosive hunk of metal,and something that admittedly is much smaller can still deliver a pretty hefty amount of fragmentation onto it. Though fair is fair,at least for S1s,it wouldn't be that unrealistic for it to take two hits to propely kill

[quaint tulip]

Even if it was an S2 it would have trouble dealing with it. Only direct frontal aspect impacts would have enough effect to achieve mission kill on the munition in a highly ideal scenario.

[verbal bolt]

Scythe's and even Stratolances realistically wouldn't do much to them. There is a reason we have Hit To Kill missiles to deal specifically with BM's

[modest vortex]

Radar guided munitions on the other hand know almost all the variables of the target based on the radar return, so they can easily plot an intercept course. Even then, in real life, that doesn't always work. Patriot batteries struggled against Scuds, for instance.

[verbal bolt]

(until they got hit-to-kill ability, but this ^^)

[fast bay]

I mean we have to asume that when you're firing an s1,you are doing so from the range at which it is effective. If you're firing on an interception course where the airframe is bewteen the missile and its target,its not unfeasible for it to actually be able to propely path a course to it.

[modest vortex]

Yeah. Intercepting missiles is hard, and IR missiles don't actually know all that much about the target, so it's incredibly hard for them to plot an accurate course against a missile

[verbal bolt]

Thing is that basically all AAM's in the game currently (especially the IRM-S1) would have difficulty breaking through the tough armour that TBM's have (since they have to deal with crushing forces as well as insane heat). An IRM-S1 would realistically do absolutely nothing to a TBM

[quaint tulip]

Not really unless it is a very very very specific scenario designed solely for the IRM / MMRs to succeed. Not enough kinetic energy wouldn't be enough. Even highly touted SAMs cant achieve a interception on a BM in the best scenarios using the best munitions available to them.

[modest vortex]

The only way an S1 could stand a chance is if it's directly in the way and doesn't have to move at all. Even then, it might improperly calculate the movement of such an absurdly fast target and throw itself off. IR missiles are very stupid.

[dreamy bramble]

anyway, allow me to again organize stuff.
the current balance between ships and planes make Carrier Duel a "Battleship Duel". This itself has multiple components:

a. first is SAM system being too idealized. One missile against another missile has 100% success rate which isn't happening IRL.
ARADs, AShMs being as easy to intercept as ATGMs is also strange.
Now, there will be people suggesting adding a fail "chance" would be adding randomness and thus decreasing the balance-ability. Sure, then perhaps introduce proper missile HP can be a thing?

b. second is the entire nullification of cruise missiles which has been a problem since playtest. Sea skimming/terrain following currently does not provide any advantage beside curvature/terrain-induced detection delay. Once detected it becomes a turkey shoot. This could again be balanced with missile HP.

c. and then it's the vast superiority in firepower, including range and salvo volume, of surface combatants relative to aircraft. A standard salvo for the Carrier Duel fleet is 30-ish AShM-300s which is unachievable even with reasonable multiplayer conditions (even with 8v8 team the most you can get is like 2 strikers which gives ~20 missiles with far shorter range.) We are not counting in railguns yet. This is why even if in better conditions aircraft very rarely, if ever, gets fully credited for a surface combatant kill. I myself only got like +19.x for the eventual Hyperion kill (full credit will be 59.2 or something like that).
As such current discussions about Carrier Duel too often become about doing stuff that would make it a Battleship Duel (as evidented above)
Intercepting ship-launched missiles. denying enemy detection. All these are very "super dreadnaught".

[junior jewel]

I'd like a source for the 90% interception rate, because that figure for modern systems is ~178%

[verbal bolt]

Even SM-6, the mighty missile it is, can only achieve BM interdiction when it is in the terminal phase

[dreamy bramble]

source is my friend working in military aerospace who quoted a now-deleted but was very authetic site.
178% means one missile takes down nearly two targets? I think that's prob calculated differently.
you're probably talking about one LAUNCHER taking down 178% of itself per wave or something innit?

[quaint tulip]

We asked for it an said first it was in Chinese and wouldn't send it, then said it was a dead link, then said his friend who builds them is the source for the civilian run fan website he got his numbers from 😂

[verbal bolt]

LMFAOOOO

[modest vortex]

Standard Missile 6 my beloved

[verbal bolt]

I love the SM series, so epic

[modest vortex]

Cool, provide the link anyways, I'll find some archives.

If you have the filename for the PDF or whatever I can also trawl random servers for a copy of it

[quaint tulip]

He'll now say because its in Chinese he won't send it, or he'll block you

actually has he blocked you already Senhara?

[modest vortex]

I have some friends who speak Mandarin I can also just send it to them so they can tell me if it's legit or not

[verbal bolt]

He'll say it's some forbidden and lost Chinese dialect or something

[junior jewel]

Modern interception missiles split into multiple independent GGKV units that intercept quite a few incoming missiles, missiles typically have 3-6 units, depending on the launcher size

[small oxide]

It's actually classified distribution statement uhh F

[quaint tulip]

Its not locally authentic so he won't consider it

[fast bay]

Thats... crushing strength and heat resistance do not equal a resistance to blast and fragmentation. And i doubt a missile has a lot of armour around it, at least i've not heard of a missile being armoured against that kind of thing.

@quaint tulip Ill agree that through kinetic means only it probably wouldn't do much, but it does have an explosive payload. A bunch of fragments shooting at high speeds against the fuselage of the missile is bound to cause some damage, maybe not enough to detonate it, that much i don't know.I doubt missiles are build with the idea of tanking hits in mind

@modest vortex I agree that you need to have a good position to actually have a chance to intercept BMs with S1, but im not sure about the calculations of the missile, it failing to actually propely path a way seems like rng,which i guess is a matter of preference,but im not much of a fan

[modest vortex]

Yes, the trilobite has blocked me already lmao

[junior jewel]

Sry for not explaining the acronyms:
GGKV - Gnome Guided Kill Vehicle

[dreamy bramble]

that's still not gonna hit two targets with one.
I think there's a British system called what, Starstreak? It splits into three and against a helicopter target it often hits two of them (on the same helicopter of course)
So if that's where your 178% comes from, sure.

[verbal bolt]

They can in fact survive hits from a small missile. Fragmentation won't do anything to it. It's why ABM's are forced to have KKV's (Kinetic Kill Vehicle's)

[modest vortex]

IR missiles are basically just guessing the characteristics of the target based on how they move across the sensor, and threats like BMs move far faster than their intended target envelope that something like a Stinger probably just can't compute the behavior of and improperly chart an intercept course

[fast bay]

I thought KKV's was due to the fact that missiles don't NEED fragmentation to take them out,hence you can save up on the explosive warhead and just have the missile slam into it?

@modest vortex If IRs work off the characteristics of the target,wouldn't it be possible for the airframe to transfer the specifics of the muntion targetted to the missile prior to launch? (This is a big if,i don't think theres any ingame lore that supports this.)

[modest vortex]

No the IR missile is simply too stupid for that. Modern IR missiles memorize the visual signature characteristics of the target on launch but they don't actually know anything about the behavior of the target, they just try to hit it

[fast bay]

Ah alright,i mean i guess its not unreasonable to think future IR systems could be equipped to recognise the targets they're given, its something other weapon systems are capable of (namely the german Seahawk torpedo, which i agree is a pretty big departure but its the only thing that comes to mind) In any case i guess its reasonable to argue it should have a higher index of failure based on the trajectory if the IR missiles of NO have similar capabilities to the ones of our current day

[modest vortex]

missiles like heaters "recognize" the target to the point where they know what to literally look for and track that change over time (say, dipping out of afterburner), and try to recognize when flares are attempting to mask the target IR signature.

[quaint tulip]

Also using IIR missiles against BMs is just wholly inefficient and if you are sitting in the chair deciding what to fire, you are going to fire the right tool for the job.

[modest vortex]

missiles in Nuclear Option know the actual game engine stats of their velocity and altitude, things like that, so they have perfect knowledge of the target, they don't try to simulate inaccuracies given from a specific seeker type and target behavior.

[fast bay]

True,the idea of IR missiles working against BMs is not so much if its the right tool,but moreso if its the ONLY tool available

[fast bay]

Yeah,i was arguing under the impression that this is more of a feature than a placeholder/simplified version, but i get your point if IRs worked more accurately to modern missiles,they shouldn't be as good

https://tenor.com/view/can-win-with-great-friends-cant-win-dumbledore-harry-potter-dumbledore-gif-11857079230268258615

[modest vortex]

yeah idm the IRs having REALLY GOOD tracking against planes and stuff, I just hate that a chicane with 14 IRM-S1s can effectively defend a fleet from half of a Tusko strike or almost two full Piledriver strikes. It's really annoying, to say the least.

also back to this thread, real world carrier strike groups... The carrier likes to stay far away from the enemy ships uh, you got your supporting fleet for taking out the enemy ships.

[dreamy bramble]

anyway, the digest:
a. first is SAM system being too idealized. One missile against another missile has 100% success rate which isn't happening IRL.
ARADs, AShMs being as easy to intercept as ATGMs is also strange.
Now, there will be people suggesting adding a fail "chance" would be adding randomness and thus decreasing the balance-ability. Sure, then perhaps introduce proper missile HP can be a thing?

b. second is the entire nullification of cruise missiles which has been a problem since playtest. Sea skimming/terrain following currently does not provide any advantage beside curvature/terrain-induced detection delay. Once detected it becomes a turkey shoot. This could again be balanced with missile HP.

c. and then it's the vast superiority in firepower, including range and salvo volume, of surface combatants relative to aircraft. A standard salvo for the Carrier Duel fleet is 30-ish AShM-300s which is unachievable even with reasonable multiplayer conditions (even with 8v8 team the most you can get is like 2 strikers which gives ~20 missiles with far shorter range.) We are not counting in railguns yet. This is why even if in better conditions aircraft very rarely, if ever, gets fully credited for a surface combatant kill. I myself only got like +19.x for the eventual Hyperion kill (full credit will be 59.2 or something like that).

As such current discussions about Carrier Duel too often become about doing stuff that would make it a Battleship Duel (as evidented above)
Intercepting ship-launched missiles. denying enemy detection. All these are very "super dreadnaught", and thus "not really about carriers".

[quaint tulip]

literally ignored what was said, copy and paste something from 20 minutes ago

[dreamy bramble]

yes because there's only two people who I deem still worthy of discussion. And the past 13 messages before my digest wasn't from one of them. Neither are you.

[modest vortex]

a. SAM systems, especially naval systems, are exceptionally good at intercepting incoming threats.

b. Missiles are not tanky in real life. Terrain following is an exceptionally useful feature if the enemy fleet has an obstruction in their way, allowing the anti ship missiles to close in without being DETECTED and INTERCEPTED.

c. Yes, ships can carry more munitions than planes. That is why they are so damn scary. More at 11.

[quaint tulip]

Yo mutha deemed me worthy last night 🐴🐴

[modest vortex]

To further elaborate on point A, even soviet era missile cruisers can stand their own against a set of incoming Harpoons, even when they're sea skimming.

[quaint tulip]

Its almost like, naval sams are optimised for naval targets, which somebody cant understand 🤔

[visual marsh]

tell that to Moskva

[quaint tulip]

They downgraded with rusfed technology packages

[modest vortex]

Anti ship missiles rely on not being detected. If they close in without detection, interception becomes almost impossible, and the missiles almost always strike their targets. Also, current day Russian ships have poor training and are notorious for being in poor states of repair.

[visual marsh]

"muh technology" kind of argument, Moskva's air defences really were never capable of intercepting a modern AShM

[dreamy bramble]

remindes me when I translated Crashback. According to her commander at the time, he even doubted USS Cowpens at the time of the near-collision incident against PLAN can actually deal with an AShM salvo.
He used a term to describe such salvo that I believe if I say it I will be banned.

[modest vortex]

the best way to kill a ship is to hit it where it cannot be aware of the incoming threat, this is why IRL anti-ship missiles can follow complex waypoint missions.

[dreamy bramble]

I would personally welcome such addition too. Right now trying to AShM a target is like a glorified WWII torpedo bomber run, because your missiles don't know to turn.

actually how about this: make a friendly salvo a lockable target. You can launch similar AShMs and they will fly WITH them. That would make it a lot easier to "coordinate" when your teammates are either too new to the game or are outright bots.

[modest vortex]

I'm pretty sure Moskova was simply unaware of the incoming threat until the last second and thus got sunk, which hey, that's a kill, means the missile works when fielded correctly.

I also like how OP ignores everything that disagrees with him. Very funny.

[dreamy bramble]

I only ignore stuff spoken in obvious ill intent such as you in this one. Your previous discourse was not, so I responded.

[modest vortex]

sounds like cope

[quaint tulip]

Hi do you have the sources from before?

[modest vortex]

anyways since the OP likes to block everyone, stopping them from reacting on the pinned emoji at the top.

The community consensus for this suggestion is OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE

[quaint tulip]

AND HENCEFORTH NO LONGER WORTHY FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION 🔥🔥🔥

[dreamy bramble]

but isn't it like second-most advanced in the Soviet "carrier-ish cruiser" line?
not to mention its position as Black Sea flagship at the time of sinking IIRC

[quaint tulip]

If anyone wants to send a message here, just ask OP for the sources for his frankly insane claims, otherwise dont interact since he is no longer worthy for discussion or consideration!

[visual marsh]

Was. It was one of the most advanced cruisers in 1989, now there are dedicated anti air destroyers and corvettes (sorry forgot the project number)

[quaint tulip]

https://tenor.com/view/source-consider-the-cite-citation-gif-20216442

[dreamy bramble]

I mean carriers. The only more advanced "carrier cruiser" in the entire soviet line was Kiev innit?

[visual marsh]

Moskva (which sunk) was Slava class missile cruiser, Kiev was project 1143 aircraft carrying heavy missile cruiser

[dreamy bramble]

oh I thought it's a different Moskva

[zinc river]

there was only one moskva or am i stupid

[dreamy bramble]

Wiki lists 5
The Slava one, the Helicopter carrier one, the WWII Destroyer, the unfinished battlecruiser and the ancient Ship of the Line

[quaint tulip]

Can you send that source or is it in lost dialect version of Wikipedia

[visual marsh]

2 in soviet navy - 1123 and 1164 projects

[dreamy bramble]

add the WWII DD and it's 3

[visual marsh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskva_(disambiguation) See ships and moskva class hyperlink

[quaint tulip]

I want to see @dreamy bramble sources for his claims towards the beginning of the thread :]

[rotund dew]

Its not that difficult, pack an Ifrit with 68s in all pylons and bays but one, fill that with Scythes, sea-skim and get as close as possible, maybe get out alive, rinse and repeat

[dreamy bramble]

1. BDF don't have Ifrit
2. even with that, in the current meta (so to speak) aircraft is still not going to take majority, or even significant, credit in the sinking(s)

[rotund dew]

Sure take a Vortex then, same thing really

And in my experience the ASHM waves are really, really easy to intercept, just load up a Chicane with 14 S1s

[dreamy bramble]

maximum AGM-68 capacity on Vortex is 2. it boils down to suicidal run with 4x Tuscos and 2x 68s. Yes it does eventually hit the target but in the end your fleet's ship-launched missiles would still be the main damage-dealer. And that's what I meant with "Carrier Duel is more like Battleship Duel".

[rotund dew]

It’s 6 but OK

[dreamy bramble]

this was covered above as well. It's not about how easy or hard it is to intercept ship-launched AShMs, it's the fact that you are doing this.
as soon as you are doing this, aircraft in this mission is not being the main damage dealer. and again it becomes "Battleship Duel".

[junior jewel]

Pretty sure it's 8 agm68 + room in the outer bays

[quaint tulip]

It's higher than 2.

Also provide source when

[rotund dew]

What’s wrong with the existence of anti ship missiles, it’s not like that’s remotely unrealistic or anything

[dreamy bramble]

in any case it's not a more optimal setup than 4x Tusco + 2x 68. Yield problem.

[junior jewel]

Also, is the core issue that a carrier fleet doesn't fold in a single solo sortie?

[verbal bolt]

Yes

[dreamy bramble]

Carrier Duel. it's a mission supposedly meant for carrier vs. carrier. If your carrier aircraft simply becomes assisting ship-launched ASMs it's not carrier duel.

@junior jewel no, but the core issue is when the fight is over, most or even all ships are sunk by ships and not aircraft.

this is a mission called Carrier Duel in a plane game. it won't be an overstatement if we argue ALL ships should be SOLELY sunk by aviation.

[quaint tulip]

Is this an authentic local source?

[rotund dew]

Make your own carrier duel then dude, just a singular annex vs hyperion

[limber salmon]

When the arms are combined:

[verbal bolt]

This is genuinely the most stupid and tone-deaf recommendation I have seen in this server. And that is impressive.

[quaint tulip]

(he is going to block you now btw)

[dreamy bramble]

carriers realistically don't sail alone. They sail in battle groups. and if a game gets balanced in a way that carrier planes cant sink a similar carrier group that's problem. Especially when it's a plane game.

[rotund dew]

Okay so you want them in a battle group but don’t want the battle group to have any kind of offensive capability whatsoever

Get rid of the Dynamo, ez, and let us have our fun

[quaint tulip]

I've had conversations with moss that are more constructive than this.

[junior jewel]

I mean most of the ships sink each other if the fleets get too close because the match has gone for over an hour. You can definitely chip down and significantly weaken the enemy fleet in that time

[rotund dew]

Literally enter the mission editor, get rid of the Dynamoes, and replace them with more shards

[dreamy bramble]

what is "your fun"? Playing in a plane game where planes are NOT the mainstay? is this what you call "fun"?

[rotund dew]

Yes I quite enjoy it, so do many others. Maybe Nuclear Option isn’t for you

[quaint tulip]

Is he going to do the "you are namecalling so im going to block you" thing again, I want to laugh again

[dreamy bramble]

that would be a sad conclusion.
For the past 20 years I have suffered from one game to another, where naval aviation of all eras always getting overnerfed for "gameplay reasons".
the last thing I would want to see is for a plane game, where planes should be the sole centerpiece, falls into the ever-growing list of that.

[rotund dew]

Sorry for your immense pain and suffering, it seems it’ll continue

[quaint tulip]

This mf 20+ years old talking like this 😭

HOW ARE WE EXISTING ON THE SAME PLANET

[dreamy bramble]

you are just trolling at this point. I will not accept an air combat game gets "adjusted" to the point where naval aviation gets downgraded to battleship slaves. It happesn in naval games and that's bad enough.

[verbal bolt]

@hardy ledge Can you please deal with this thread? I honestly think that it only exists to ragebait people

[rotund dew]

I’m not trolling I like the game I play, people have different tastes in things. This is subjective dude

[quaint tulip]

has he blocked you yet?

[junior jewel]

Tbh you can definitely sink both dynos + a couple shards in a single sortie if you practice

[quaint tulip]

this guy said that there were no supersonic AShMs in the game, I dont think he knows whats going on

[dreamy bramble]

with what? prob not a single Vortex?

[rotund dew]

GPO-500s kill a Dynamo in one go

[verbal bolt]

I don't think he actually plays the game

[junior jewel]

2x tuskos close range kills a dyno. 1x agm68 kills a shard. 4 kills in a vortex

[quaint tulip]

negative 28 hours in nuclear option

[modest vortex]

Gunner Heat PC is all about tanks so tanks should be the focus of the game and we should avoid overnerfing it, ergo, I'm recommending all tanks in the game should come integrated with an S-400 battery to take out helicopters

[dreamy bramble]

well in my experience one Voltex only gets one tusko across in one run. everything else gets intercepted
it will sink a dyno with a delay but that's about it.

[verbal bolt]

No no, you don't get it, he has been suffering for 20 years with multi-arm games

[junior jewel]

Close range, 5km

[quaint tulip]

My friend works in the multi arm game factory and provided me with the local authentic source.

[dreamy bramble]

correct. Only one gets through. Also with Tusko's RCS you can hardly fire that close.
earlier today I did a test run where I repeated that twice against the carrier and sank it.
I only got 19-ish for sinking credit i.e. about 1/3
the rest are all dealt by ship-launched AShMs
that's what I meant by "Carrier duel is more like battleship duel"

[modest vortex]

Anyways how does dude not realize ships are vastly more powerful and terrifying than planes... Which means the ships are going to matter more and the planes have to work to defend and support them.

[verbal bolt]

Sum isn't it like 4AM for you

[quaint tulip]

The local authentic sources (google it) display people launching tuskos on ships from within 6-5km (my friend works in the tusko factory) (google it) and it works

[junior jewel]

No? If you fire at 5km then neither will get intercepted, because everything will be targeting you

[rotund dew]

How much do you think a plane can blow up? Are ships just there to look pretty and die? Nuclear Option isn’t a campy horror movie

[dreamy bramble]

well that's my first hand experience. I don't even think me being target really helps. I was chased by 3 IRSAMs and 2 SARHs but that didn't stop most of my missiles getting intercepted

[junior jewel]

If you get targeted by SARH then you're too high. The vortex intake should be scooping up seawater

[quaint tulip]

I think because the game is named nuclear option (i have suffered 2 decades in multi arm nuclear simulators) we should just experience the game from a FPV view of the nuclear weapon being launched (google it)

[rotund dew]

Maybe rack up some more hours in-game, revisit the mission

[modest vortex]

Truth nuke

[dreamy bramble]

nope, I was 5m radio altimeter. Vortex with external stores get shot at from <8km at any altitude

scooping seawater? ok? so what happens when I drop the tusco? it becomes a torpedo?
you do remember I need some altitude to make missiles separate, right?

[rotund dew]

He was joking, genius

[junior jewel]

I'm starting to think we're playing a different game

[quaint tulip]

You see, he has 20 years of multi arm game experience! And 4 million power in rise of kingdoms!

[dreamy bramble]

yeah. I often think so. As a matter of fact there were recorded evidence of RSAM jamming working differently for me versus for another player. We did that test when Medusa first came out.

[junior jewel]

Im usually skimming at 1-2m, missiles don't really need any altitude to release.

[rotund dew]

There’s a separate edition of Nuclear Option sold to this guy specifically to torment him

[quaint tulip]

victim complex at play btw if anyone is studying psychology

[dreamy bramble]

do realize tho earlier this thread there was a guy claiming <20m and I should be safe. And then another guy claiming 7m.
Add those to your 1-2m claim and it becomes textbook example of "moving goalpost".
also factually speaking due to (the lack of) deadzone settings I can't do 1-2m sea skimming with my controller.

[quaint tulip]

This guy hasn't played since the radar changes confirmed

[rotund dew]

Different people moving goalposts as a collective. We are all a hive-mind, designed to make your beautiful vision of Nuclear Option impossible to realize. This is what you face… resistance is futile.

[junior jewel]

The 20m is probably outdated info from before the radar rework. And I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm just stating what i do, not what the maximum altitude is, feel free to practice getting close to ships at different altitudes

[dreamy bramble]

the guy claimed the 20m safe zone persists after the rework for naval radars. If you want to argue, argue with him.
YOU are not moving the goalposts, you and them added together are. and I don't care the difference.

[rotund dew]

HE KNOWS WE ARE A HIVE-MIND, MOVING THE GOALPOSTS TOGETHER AS AN INTELLIGENT COLLECTIVE

[atomic depot]

there is a radar horizon mechanic that could potentially make 20m altitude safe at a distance but not safe closer

[junior jewel]

As i said, best to try it yourself

[quaint tulip]

MOVE THE GOALPOSTS!!!

QUICK UPDATE THE GAME SO ONLY HE DOESNT GET THE NEW VERSION!!!

[modest vortex]

I'm moving the goalposts to 3m altitude, limbo that

[junior jewel]

-0.2m or gtfo

[dreamy bramble]

that's the curvature thing, we're not talking about that.
From what I see after the radar rework it's all about balance between RCS and ground clutter. the smaller your RCS the closer you can get with same AGL without being targeted by RSAM. there is no "absolutely safe regardless of RCS" altitude.
and with external Tuskos your RCS is huge.

[rotund dew]

I actually turn my vortex into a submarine to avoid radar sams

[quaint tulip]

you should -72 m/s NOW

[modest vortex]

Mmmm yes put water in the air intakes good for plane yes mmm water

[junior jewel]

Planes get thirsty, you should water them regularly

[atomic depot]

why are you getting close with tuskos

[dreamy bramble]

lol go argue with the 10 people calling me stupid for firing it afar earlier on this thread.

[quaint tulip]

hi, thats name calling, you are BLOCKED 🚫

[quaint tulip]

Also was this source provided by the whispers of the Egyptian Sandspirit?

[dreamy bramble]

enough is enough.
summary to what I want to say:
This is a plane game. Carrier Duel should result in vast majority of ship damage being done by planes.
evidently it doesn't. That's what I'm suggesting about.

[modest vortex]

Lmfao

[atomic depot]

do you want a larger map

a larger map would do that

[rotund dew]

It’s so sad we should like a video game, we should partake in the misery you have to live every single day

[modest vortex]

Did OP try to close the thread or something why did it vanish for a second

[atomic depot]

really I just think it's an issue of map size more than any individual piece of equipment from any ship is too strong or any individual munition you can fire against ships is too weak (other than the AGM-98). you don't really have the map space to position the fleets far enough where you'd get that desired "aircraft doing most of the work" outcome

Maybe in the future we'll get a map that's bigger and you'll get that desired outcome but as of right now, ships will probably not be changed to make carrier battle more about the aircraft t

[modest vortex]

Oh OP did try to close the thread that's incredibly funny

[quaint tulip]

enough is enough.
summary to what I want to say:
This is a plane game. Carrier Duel should NOT EXIST! IT PLANE GAME NOT SHIP GAME majority of ship damage being done by planes.
evidently it doesn't. That's what I'm suggesting about.

[rotund dew]

ASHMS have 400km of range, good luck with pleasing this guy

[quaint tulip]

ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS DELETED 🔥🔥🔥

[atomic depot]

an ashm would take like 7 calendar weeks to travel 400km, you'd have more time to intercept the incoming salvo at least

[modest vortex]

For those keeping track. 14/15 downvotes

[rotund dew]

HE DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO CLOSE A THREAD 🔥

[verbal bolt]

500 messages of digusting ragebait

[quartz plover]

Not 100% interception rate, 100% kill rate when hit /track rate

[quaint tulip]

all the reactions got deleted lmaoooo

[modest vortex]

Nah you can't lock a thread unless you're an admin, you can close but anyone else can reopen it

[verbal bolt]

Tell him to ask a moderator to lock it

[junior jewel]

Better ping Mitch to do it

[rotund dew]

OP should gaslight us into thinking the suggestion was popular

[quaint tulip]

https://tenor.com/view/master-oogway-kung-fu-panda-inner-peace-gif-11501603

[rotund dew]

“Original message was deleted”

[wind vessel]

I'd say AD in NO is lacking, really easy to saturate it

[dreamy bramble]

again depends on what you're facing. ground? sure, CVBG? not even close.
And like I said, yes I did eventually penetrate it but the Carrier Duel mission still became Battleship Duel where most ship damage was done by the two Dynamos and not carrier aircraft (plural).

[rotund dew]

Maximum GPO-500s, go up to Dynamo, drop, dead Dynamo

[quartz plover]

Mfw supposedly modern air combat is reduced to 1970s anti ship tactics again

[wind vessel]

also it's normal that a multi billion dollar fleet outmatches a multi million dollar aircraft, fleet destruction is best done with teamwork

[quartz plover]

It's criminal that all you need to to to kill ships is walk up to them at low altitude pull up and drop bombs or missiles

[rotund dew]

Yeah honestly fleet AD should get a buff

[dreamy bramble]

can you stop tagging me? there's a whole bunch of internet bullies in this thread (and server tbh) and every time you tag me it FORCES me to re-follow this thread.

yes of course many aircrafts work, but there are players like me where even the closest fellow NO player is beyond 300 ping range.

[wind vessel]

fr, dynamo fires both IR and SARH way too slowly, it's easy to saturate

[rotund dew]

R SAMs should be able to kill non-stealth sea skimmers reliably

My concern is that stand-off munitions are kinda boring to use, so that’s not really a hill I’ll die on

[wind vessel]

fr, it'd be nice for the dynamo to get it's own radar missiles, being similar to the SM-2 in how it's an ARH, but with less of the real world gimmicks for balance, due to them being better against sea skimmers

[modest vortex]

womp womp

[wraith steppe]

Reading this makes me wonder do you have issues staying at low altitude?

[quaint tulip]

He might have a variety of issues which may be put under the umbrella term of "skill issue"

[modest vortex]

true

[wraith steppe]

@dreamy bramble skill issue

[dreamy bramble]

so you just came out to tell me you're a troll.

[wraith steppe]

A troll that read the whole thing showing how you getting kicked in upon by almost everyone in the NO community

[quaint tulip]

disagree = you are troll
opposition = you are a troll

somebody check his man's recidivism rate

[plush slate]

Personally I'm just confused about the argument being both "carrier groups are too good at defending against missiles" and "ship-based missiles are too good at getting through carrier air defenses"

[modest vortex]

as far as I can tell OP just doesn't know how the game and real life multi domain battles work, utterly incapable of understanding

[wraith steppe]

Yeah, what's up with that?

[verbal bolt]

Sum please go to sleep I need you to be alive so we can kill fascists

[plush slate]

like... wouldn't nerfing CVBG defenses just make the problem of dynamo salvos even worse?

[quaint tulip]

the ancient Egyptian sandspirits told him how combat works in the 2070s

[modest vortex]

ye

[wraith steppe]

@dreamy bramble explain

[quaint tulip]

@dreamy bramble grok is this true?

[atomic depot]

can we just rename carrier duel to fleet warfare

[modest vortex]

as a note for new readers, this suggestion was seen as OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE

[zenith bough]

womp womp

[quaint tulip]

cactus joining in too 😭😭

[zenith bough]

I just got back from volunteering this morning and y’all made me cackle, thank you for calling @dreamy bramble out on his clearly bad faith posting. I’m still amazed how showing him footage from the Compass, Vortex, and Ifrit killing ships wasn’t enough to teach him how to do it successfully. I think I called it with the initial skill issue comment.

@gilded heron those videos were footage from @normal jackal who’s in [MF] with me, anti ship strats like that are pretty reliable no matter who’s doing them… unless you’re OP, I guess

[zenith bough]

I cannot believe he doubled down after I left

“Locally authentic sources” is possibly the most hilarious phrase I’ve seen on this server my god

[quaint tulip]

My friend is an elf and works at Santa's workshop (google it) to make his air defence sites. Yes you will deny all this.

[wraith steppe]

Killing ships are the easiest things to do assuming there are basically nothing else getting in the way

And the massive payout from doing so

[gilded heron]

Yeah I think I've seen you do a few naval attacks before.

[quaint tulip]

I genuinely stayed up waiting to see your reaction to this bs

man's tried to tell me how GBAD works??

[normal jackal]

What the hell happened here

[quaint tulip]

local authentic source nukes were used

[gilded heron]

A crashout of significant size.

[wraith steppe]

Someone was being dumb
People told him how dumb he is and provided solutions
And said someone continues to double down
And as a result the server piles on him

[zenith bough]

for once, cross server unity

[normal jackal]

can i get the tldr

[wraith steppe]

#1400424937390473298 message

[verbal bolt]

He thought that SARH SAM's cannot intercept sea skimmers, he wants to make all ships incredibly easy to kill, he thinks that missiles shouldn't hit

[zenith bough]

OP can’t into anti ship, OP thinks NO ships are too strong (lol), OP wants the game nerfed so they can kill the entire enemy fleet in a single sortie (not joking)

[quaint tulip]

And that because carrier duel is named as such only planes should do the killing

[wraith steppe]

Deserves all the mockery

[normal jackal]

ships are pretty weak, CMs just get the short end of the stick because of [lack of EMCON mechanics]

[verbal bolt]

Cactus showed him the SM-2 video and he just went "Yeah it saw it before it dived)

[quaint tulip]

My friend is an elf and works at Santa's workshop (google it) to make his air defence sites. Yes you will deny all this.

[zenith bough]

also OP’s dad uncle distant cousin totally works designing SAMs and they totally published a “locally authentic paper” that totally details how they fail at a much higher rate than they do in NO. No, you cannot see it.

[gilded heron]

He also claimed a source that was a "military fan community" which was a "dead link" and wouldn't share the documentation. 🙃

[quaint tulip]

Its actually stored in the top story of the Babylonian Tower guys! My cousin uncle saw the builders right eyelash! It's true!

[normal jackal]

honestly would love if the ships in the game were brought up at or close to QOL mod ship standards

[verbal bolt]

Most would call engaging with this a waste of time. I was chatting with Hana and eating strawberries as this nutjob dig himself into a hole 😭

[small oxide]

did he unfollow this post

[gilded heron]

yes

[quaint tulip]

yeah but if you ping him he gets dragged back in

[rotund dew]

He’s part of a Russian troll farm intended to sow doubt in western military capability, only that he’s so bad he does the opposite

[wraith steppe]

@dreamy bramble you there?

[normal jackal]

imagine trying to cheese augers on a Dynamo and a blue streak of light slaps one of your augers clean out of the sky, its peak, its so peak

[zenith bough]

yup, but if you ping @dreamy bramble they automatically refollow it, not saying you should do that but I figured you should know

[small oxide]

This is some serious high-quality ragebait, truly caviar

[dim hollow]

Idk what OP's deal is but i know that if you put the fleets further away from each other and toss some shards in the middle it makes things more interesting imo

[rotund dew]

Prigozhin’s worst soldier

[gilded heron]

Strongest MSS poster vs NO suggestion forum.

[small oxide]

Ministry of state security?

[gilded heron]

Yeah; PRC.

[normal jackal]

okay but ocean map when

[gloomy nova]

Inability of teamplay issue. A single Compass can take down 11 missiles, Vortex and Ifrit can take down 14 without counting in skilled pilot that might also use the gun. Two pilots who are not morons can clear two full wave, not talking about that the carrier group can take care of 15-20 missiles itself. If you fly proper fleet defense missions as is your duty, you carrier group is immune to anti-ship missile attacks.

[brittle gazelle]

Ignition map

[dim hollow]

Nah rai means like empty open sea

[rotund dew]

It’s not even worth trying man, good luck though

[normal jackal]

ive already talked about this before, Ignus has way too much land for proper fully naval missions

[quaint tulip]

I tried for hours to talk to him and he just wouldn't give up or budge

[small oxide]

Do you mean solid ocean or like bigger ignus with minor island elements

[dim hollow]

What could happen is merge heartland and ignus. Have heartland up to the north so there's stretches of open water leading down to ignus

[wraith steppe]

Goodness the distance

[normal jackal]

literal ocean, i mean you could add ocean rigs to have the rotorcraft do logistics stuff, but 99% pure sea like god intended

[small oxide]

Simpleplanes map for real

[manic veldt]

wait he deleted the thing?

[gilded heron]

yes

[quaint tulip]

yeah and he deleted all reactions and tried to close the thread like 10 times lol

[dim hollow]

🧂

[small oxide]

add one inconspicuous rock colored steel grey and not visible on the map to kill the singular player who manages to find it

[manic veldt]

it has not even been a day 😭

[gloomy nova]

Look, both maps are kinda too small for anything but COIN operations, as as far as the map is not larger than at least trice the range of the longest missile range in the game, it's just war all around, frontline type of operations and most of the aircraft in the game would never even be placed as close to the line of conflict but not everybody is a fan of 30minutes flight and refuel on the way to the AO. 😄 (I do hope we will get that option too, if the game engine is able to handle it, but for fast random MP as it is now, that would not be ideal nor fun)

Great... now I have an itch to find and download F-22 TAW...

[verbal bolt]

Can we shut this thread down

[atomic depot]

u guys rlly gotta just let this guy sit in his L and stop bringing him back into this for more insulting its not chill

[rotund dew]

Custom maps will be great when they’re added, something for everybody

[zenith bough]

Lock it so if he acts up again we can link his behavior in this thread

Because this is the kind of person that will start shit again and gaslight everyone about this specific thread and what was said

[fast bay]

Im back,damn did the guy get bullied off his own thread?

[rotund dew]

Yep, read thru it it’s great

[verbal bolt]

Just document it thoroughly and end it. This POS thread is annoying and doesn't serve any purpose

[quaint tulip]

i ain't hear no bell

[fast bay]

I disagree,it served the great,wonderful purpose of collective bullying

[normal jackal]

i think Ignus is generally the golden area on map size its main issue is that its 80% empty void and all the key areas are halfway across the map

[small oxide]

https://tenor.com/view/ompangie-pentol-ringing-bell-annoy-annoying-gif-18255023

[atomic depot]

the bells gonna be an admin...

[quaint tulip]

I got mansplained to by some 2bit idiot about air defence and all he tried to do was use big words to see us back down

[zenith bough]

I really like this though, it means airbases live longer and fighters actually get to sortie on meaningful patrols

But I don’t think every map should be like Ignus, not at all

[normal jackal]

honestly, TC should just start at Rank 3 to spare people from using subsonics

[small oxide]

for sumthangg apparently

[gloomy nova]

Yep but I'm not sure if the engine can handle anything significantly larger. Each software has it's limitations, and at certain point it becomes either impossible or impractical to attempt on expanding past certain thresholds. Often, at that point it's a matter of sequel build on improved or different engine. Think about it this way, an example - after 20 years, the engine ARMA series (4 sequential game generations) runs on finally got a version where you can have objects longer than 50m.

[zenith bough]

The game in general plays better when everyone starts in Revokers

If Rank 3 had more variety- like a lot more variety, if it was fat with aircraft options- I’d argue to start at Rank 3 and make the grind to Rank 4 and 5 much greater

[normal jackal]

or perhaps Rank 2 can be the barely supersonic phase with supersonic LCAs and small fighter-bombers instead of the desolate wasteland it is

[atomic depot]

I think the whole rank and economy system needs a scrap and rework but that's just me

[small oxide]

I wonder when RNG | Mitchell is typing... will come

[atomic depot]

this thread is now about the economy

I say it's dumb that there's two and a half different economy systems working against each other and the whole thing needs the scorched earth treatment

[manic veldt]

RNG moment

[normal jackal]

do you want to talk about the original subject

[atomic depot]

there is no original subject

[normal jackal]

not in ba sing se

[manic veldt]

its gone

[quaint tulip]

Gone, reduced to atoms

[fast bay]

https://tenor.com/view/no-war-in-ba-sing-se-avatar-earth-village-gif-25923233

[wraith steppe]

Desecrating the grave of a dumb suggestion

[atomic depot]

there was no argument about carrier duel on kamino

[manic veldt]

chat do we start a civil war here? like number one vs number two?

[fast bay]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1349466090585194617/1373612656694399007/truthnuketula.gif

[manic veldt]

soooooooooooo do you guys like taco cake?

[hallow grotto]

yes

you have all disappointed me