Dealer of Death wrote:
robert downey.jpgJob_ee wrote:
Then by your definition it is. The game lists every troop type whether it's Eastern Doctrine SAMs, to Western air sups, to EU tanks, it gives the exact real life name of the troop and even tries to make the troops more accurate to what they would do in real life by giving some doctrines advantages over others EX: Eastern vs Western Air Superiority fighters. A game can use real life weapons, troops, equipment, etc and it not be a simulation. It can merely just want to be accurate, which it should strive to do so after all it's done to be accurate to real life so far. Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff.KFGauss wrote:
If the game's goal was to use real life troop types (in the sense I think you mean) (and not just names & pictures, and vaguely similar behaviors taken from real life troop types) then it would be a simulation.Job_ee wrote:
If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.KFGauss wrote:
CoN is a game, not a simulation.
AC-130 Gunship and/or A-10 Warthog
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
... Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff.
I am taking it from someone who works with this type of stuff (for decades) - Me.
-
Colonel Waffles wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
CoN is a game, not a simulation.
-
Teburu wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
CoN is a game, not a simulation.
Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
-
KFGauss wrote:
Teburu wrote:
Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
Teburu wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
KFGauss wrote:
Teburu wrote:
Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
-
im sure they will feel very much honored knowing that at least the weapons they fought and got killed with are historically accurate
seriously tho; thats not really an argument for more realism to begin withI am The Baseline for opinions -
Job_ee wrote:
Dealer of Death wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
CoN is a game, not a simulation.
*** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
The KING of CoN News!!!
The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way
"Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD -
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
... Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff.
Some of those games have explicitly tried to be low-fidelity simulations and some have not (do not).
The sum of all of that is why I know the difference between a simulation and a game.
About the honor/dishonor stuff - I think we will simply have to agree to disagree.
KFG -
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
... Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff.
Some of those games have explicitly tried to be low-fidelity simulations and some have not (do not).
The sum of all of that is why I know the difference between a simulation and a game.
About the honor/dishonor stuff - I think we will simply have to agree to disagree.
KFG
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
That's a swing and a miss by you.I am taking it from someone who works with this type of stuff (for decades) - Me.
Some of those games have explicitly tried to be low-fidelity simulations and some have not (do not).
The sum of all of that is why I know the difference between a simulation and a game.
About the honor/dishonor stuff - I think we will simply have to agree to disagree.
KFG
Fair enough. Agree to disagree. -
Teburu wrote:
im sure they will feel very much honored knowing that at least the weapons they fought and got killed with are historically accurate
seriously tho; thats not really an argument for more realism to begin with
-
CoN dev team undoubtedly has disagreements on the realism aspect of the game. Somewhere Germanico explained that the reason MAA has so many negative terrain modifiers is realism. You can probably find it on the forum
That being said, fixed wing gunships are designed to destroy completely undefended armies. This is yet another reason why heavy needs to be its own damage class; so that units like this can work
I would imagine it being a very weak and slow unit, having a sort of “envelope” periodic attack like you describe instead of standard attack-and-refuel
It would be able to whittle down stacks of MBTs and Infantry without taking damage, but food for SAMs and TDS. Even this is a stretch because the only units that really wouldn’t be able to deal with it is insurgents. Mot inf carry MANPADs which would probably suffice for taking AC-130s down. Heavy bombers would probably do the same job against a well equipped army better than the plane designed for killing terrorists
As for the A-10, I think the problem is that Dorado had a choice: They could split attack jets into 2 units, or helicopters into 2 units. They chose helicopters. You can’t have both because then there are so many units the game becomes cluttered with shit. Strike fighters would have been high damage vs armor, and attack jets damage vs soft. I personally wouldn’t have minded helicopters just staying as Attack Helis, that destroy hard with their missiles and soft with their auto cannonsYee Haw -
Colonel Waffles wrote:
CoN dev team undoubtedly has disagreements on the realism aspect of the game. Somewhere Germanico explained that the reason MAA has so many negative terrain modifiers is realism. You can probably find it on the forum
That being said, fixed wing gunships are designed to destroy completely undefended armies. This is yet another reason why heavy needs to be its own damage class; so that units like this can work
I would imagine it being a very weak and slow unit, having a sort of “envelope” periodic attack like you describe instead of standard attack-and-refuel
It would be able to whittle down stacks of MBTs and Infantry without taking damage, but food for SAMs and TDS. Even this is a stretch because the only units that really wouldn’t be able to deal with it is insurgents. Mot inf carry MANPADs which would probably suffice for taking AC-130s down. Heavy bombers would probably do the same job against a well equipped army better than the plane designed for killing terrorists
As for the A-10, I think the problem is that Dorado had a choice: They could split attack jets into 2 units, or helicopters into 2 units. They chose helicopters. You can’t have both because then there are so many units the game becomes cluttered with shit. Strike fighters would have been high damage vs armor, and attack jets damage vs soft. I personally wouldn’t have minded helicopters just staying as Attack Helis, that destroy hard with their missiles and soft with their auto cannons
Source Citation: Infographics Show. (2020). The Angel of Death - Ac-130. YouTube. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from youtube.com/channel/UCfdNM3NAhaBOXCafH7krzrA.The post was edited 3 times, last by Job_ee ().
-
Job_ee wrote:
Colonel Waffles wrote:
CoN dev team undoubtedly has disagreements on the realism aspect of the game. Somewhere Germanico explained that the reason MAA has so many negative terrain modifiers is realism. You can probably find it on the forum
That being said, fixed wing gunships are designed to destroy completely undefended armies. This is yet another reason why heavy needs to be its own damage class; so that units like this can work
I would imagine it being a very weak and slow unit, having a sort of “envelope” periodic attack like you describe instead of standard attack-and-refuel
It would be able to whittle down stacks of MBTs and Infantry without taking damage, but food for SAMs and TDS. Even this is a stretch because the only units that really wouldn’t be able to deal with it is insurgents. Mot inf carry MANPADs which would probably suffice for taking AC-130s down. Heavy bombers would probably do the same job against a well equipped army better than the plane designed for killing terrorists
As for the A-10, I think the problem is that Dorado had a choice: They could split attack jets into 2 units, or helicopters into 2 units. They chose helicopters. You can’t have both because then there are so many units the game becomes cluttered with shit. Strike fighters would have been high damage vs armor, and attack jets damage vs soft. I personally wouldn’t have minded helicopters just staying as Attack Helis, that destroy hard with their missiles and soft with their auto cannons
Source Citation: Infographics Show. (2020). The Angel of Death - Ac-130. YouTube. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from youtube.com/channel/UCfdNM3NAhaBOXCafH7krzrA.
AC130s avoid operating in areas that are known to have SAMs or lack air superiority. Compared to other CAS aircraft, they are very vulnerable when attacking the enemy. In Vietnam, AC130s were shot down by various anti aircraft weapons while deployed to areas where anti air was not expected. They can engage and even destroy SAMs but doing so is a major risk. Against an enemy ASF, they won’t fare much better than a troop transport. The laser cannon is only in the works and would only be considered in the future if it ever becomes a reality
How would this be represented in the game? Simple. Fixed Wing Gunship blows the living shit out of everything under it, but you must keep the airspace clear and avoid any anti air to keep it alive. A Gunship surrounded by ASF and TDS will be unable to defend itself, and will need support from other units just like in real life. If Dorado added in EWA it may even be viable for hunting down SAMs and other air defenses
Also, Infographics Show is a low quality and unreliable source of information based on what I have seen. Consider instead the CIA Library article on the AC130 cia.gov/library/abbottabad-com…1_AC%20130%20research.pdfYee Haw -
Max level ASF attack 18, so 30 HP can't be really described as beefy at least for fixed wing units, it is quite standard, does not make much difference if 25 or 30 HP at that stage
2 ASF or 3 SAM take them down anyway -
Colonel Waffles wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
Colonel Waffles wrote:
CoN dev team undoubtedly has disagreements on the realism aspect of the game. Somewhere Germanico explained that the reason MAA has so many negative terrain modifiers is realism. You can probably find it on the forum
That being said, fixed wing gunships are designed to destroy completely undefended armies. This is yet another reason why heavy needs to be its own damage class; so that units like this can work
I would imagine it being a very weak and slow unit, having a sort of “envelope” periodic attack like you describe instead of standard attack-and-refuel
It would be able to whittle down stacks of MBTs and Infantry without taking damage, but food for SAMs and TDS. Even this is a stretch because the only units that really wouldn’t be able to deal with it is insurgents. Mot inf carry MANPADs which would probably suffice for taking AC-130s down. Heavy bombers would probably do the same job against a well equipped army better than the plane designed for killing terrorists
As for the A-10, I think the problem is that Dorado had a choice: They could split attack jets into 2 units, or helicopters into 2 units. They chose helicopters. You can’t have both because then there are so many units the game becomes cluttered with shit. Strike fighters would have been high damage vs armor, and attack jets damage vs soft. I personally wouldn’t have minded helicopters just staying as Attack Helis, that destroy hard with their missiles and soft with their auto cannons
AC130s avoid operating in areas that are known to have SAMs or lack air superiority. Compared to other CAS aircraft, they are very vulnerable when attacking the enemy. In Vietnam, AC130s were shot down by various anti aircraft weapons while deployed to areas where anti air was not expected. They can engage and even destroy SAMs but doing so is a major risk. Against an enemy ASF, they won’t fare much better than a troop transport. The laser cannon is only in the works and would only be considered in the future if it ever becomes a reality
How would this be represented in the game? Simple. Fixed Wing Gunship blows the living shit out of everything under it, but you must keep the airspace clear and avoid any anti air to keep it alive. A Gunship surrounded by ASF and TDS will be unable to defend itself, and will need support from other units just like in real life. If Dorado added in EWA it may even be viable for hunting down SAMs and other air defenses
Also, Infographics Show is a low quality and unreliable source of information based on what I have seen. Consider instead the CIA Library article on the AC130 cia.gov/library/abbottabad-com…1_AC%20130%20research.pdf
Also, I have a question related to the new season release in relation to this thread. Why would CON make an elite unit that hasn't been used in combat (that we know of) compared to units that have been tried and true and are still successful weapons in today's world, like the warplanes I've mentioned already? There are also plenty of elite weapons that actually exist and are very new and show great promise like the Valkyrie drone fighter, hypersonic cruise missiles, elite hackers, mines + sea mines, elite strikers armed with CBU's capable of doing remarkable damage against armored units, and of course elite close air support w/gunships. B-52 bombers in real life can't fire ballistic missiles and the EU bomber is outdated. I get that people have jobs and need to make money and that sometimes units are just made to make the game itself funner, but there needs to be a stopping point or a barrier to this. I bet a lot more people would play this game if they had real life weapons in this game. Not creepy game adds in my social media feed.The post was edited 1 time, last by Job_ee ().
-
Job_ee wrote:
. . . Why would CON make an elite unit that hasn't been used in combat (that we know of) compared to units that have been tried and true and are still successful weapons in today's world, like the warplanes I've mentioned already? . . .
-
KFGauss wrote:
Job_ee wrote:
. . . Why would CON make an elite unit that hasn't been used in combat (that we know of) compared to units that have been tried and true and are still successful weapons in today's world, like the warplanes I've mentioned already? . . .
-
CON is about World War III, so so far it considerably lacked fitting futuristic units
CON lacks so much realism, not sure where you would even start to try make it realistic
Which unit does your alliance assume to be a crappy unit? -
Kalrakh wrote:
CON is about World War III, so so far it considerably lacked fitting futuristic units
CON lacks so much realism, not sure where you would even start to try make it realistic
Which unit does your alliance assume to be a crappy unit?
-
Kalrakh wrote:
CON is about World War III, so so far it considerably lacked fitting futuristic units
CON lacks so much realism, not sure where you would even start to try make it realistic
Which unit does your alliance assume to be a crappy unit?
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Tags