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.

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      CoN is a game, not a simulation.
      If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
      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.
      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.
      robert downey.jpg
      What's wrong? Don't want to add more good content to a game that a) can make the game more realistic and b) many people have already voiced that they want?

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      CoN is a game, not a simulation.
      If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
      Laughs in SR-71 strategic bomber
      As I have voiced a while back, I don't like the fact that they're using a) and american plane for EU doctrine and b) It never was a bomber, despite it's possibilities. (and of course I got shot down by people who probably haven't even been near a real SR-71 blackbird) but that's not the point of this current thread. I do agree with the other doctrines for the A-10 Warthog. This shows that it is very possible to create such a weapon in the game and should be added.

    • Teburu wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      CoN is a game, not a simulation.
      If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
      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.
      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.
      Arguing semantics while entirely missing the point, Good Job!If CON truly was aiming to be a simulation, then you’d have a lot more updates actually focussed on the accuracy of stuff (iirc there are unit pictures/models/names that are wrong and still not corrected?); as it is currently CON could at best be described as taking the real word as an inspiration for it’s game design and units. In that sense CON is as much of a simulation as COD or Battlefield are.


      Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
      No, not entirely. Games often omit features in other games just to make a paycheck. If it isn't a simulator, or using real troops types to fit their own agenda then I have one message. Stop trying to use real life weapons in a game not made to be life like. It is a dishonor to the history behind many of these magnificent military inventions and to the service members who fought and died in them. You can't fake the troop types and I have voiced many times, with many CON alliances agreeing with me on discord servers that this game should take action to make it more realistic. If you're going to use real life weapons, then they would need to be accurate to what they can do in real life. For ex: If you were to make a game about superheros, you would want to make the hero's capable of doing what they have been depicted to do by comics, movies, etc. Same with this. If you want a game depicting real life weapons and troops, then it should do it's best to a) make the weapons capable of what they can do in real life in order to honor those who have actually had to fight wars with them. and b) still try to make the gameplay fun.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Its always nice to see that pointless discussions manage to derail threads
      touché!
      CoN is a game, not a simulation.

      Teburu wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:


      If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
      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.
      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.
      Arguing semantics while entirely missing the point, Good Job!If CON truly was aiming to be a simulation, then you’d have a lot more updates actually focussed on the accuracy of stuff (iirc there are unit pictures/models/names that are wrong and still not corrected?); as it is currently CON could at best be described as taking the real word as an inspiration for it’s game design and units. In that sense CON is as much of a simulation as COD or Battlefield are.


      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
      touché!
      Sorry for honoring those who died in wars for their country by trying to at least make the weapons they used to be more accurate.

    • Job_ee wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      CoN is a game, not a simulation.
      If the game's goal is to use real life troop types, then it should be done correctly.
      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.
      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.
      robert downey.jpg
      What's wrong? Don't want to add more good content to a game that a) can make the game more realistic and b) many people have already voiced that they want?
      Not at all. First of the eyerolls was for you failing to do a search and see this has been suggested 4,327 times before. And the second eyeroll was for the uber corny, utterly non convincing line of : "Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff."
      *** 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.
      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.
      Really? Are you a service member?
      In my career I've both simulated and built stuff, and I enjoy games.

      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.
      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.
      Really? Are you a service member?
      In my career I've both simulated and built stuff, and I enjoy games.
      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
      ... Take it from someone who works with this type of stuff.

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee 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.
      Really? Are you a service member?
      In my career I've both simulated and built stuff, and I enjoy games.
      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
      I work with some of this stuff in real life...

      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
      Correct, it is one of many reasons I feel that this game should always strive to be accurate. Especially after it claims to use real life weapons and attempts to make it accurate.

    • 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
      Yee 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
      I'm not sure you know how an AC-130J gunship works. The new and improved gunship moves at 416 mph, which is 100 mph more than previous generations, and currently has an operational range of 3,000 miles. It is armed with 25mm gatling guns (firing 200 rounds per minute), 30mm cannons, 105mm howitzer cannons, GBU-39 small diameter bombs, Hellfire missiles, and it's latest upgrade a laser cannon, capable of taking out AA missiles and their batteries. It is the definition of the saying " armed to the teeth " with weapons. It is by no definition "weak." It has been used since the Vietnam war and upgraded versions are still being used today. It wouldn't be used if it was weak. As I said, it was used in the Vietnam war, where we know they had SAM batteries because they used them all the time to try to shoot down the SR-71, yet the gunships survived. It was made to decimate *any* threat, for the exception of nukes, that is very literally. Yet, here we are with new drone swarms instead, which have never been used in combat, only in testing. As you can see with my extended knowledge of military aircraft and military history, you can see my frustration. Here is an episode from the Infographics Show to learn more about what type of warcraft we're talking about here, which CON often sponsors btw.

      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
      I'm not sure you know how an AC-130J gunship works. The new and improved gunship moves at 416 mph, which is 100 mph more than previous generations, and currently has an operational range of 3,000 miles. It is armed with 25mm gatling guns (firing 200 rounds per minute), 30mm cannons, 105mm howitzer cannons, GBU-39 small diameter bombs, Hellfire missiles, and it's latest upgrade a laser cannon, capable of taking out AA missiles and their batteries. It is the definition of the saying " armed to the teeth " with weapons. It is by no definition "weak." It has been used since the Vietnam war and upgraded versions are still being used today. It wouldn't be used if it was weak. As I said, it was used in the Vietnam war, where we know they had SAM batteries because they used them all the time to try to shoot down the SR-71, yet the gunships survived. It was made to decimate *any* threat, for the exception of nukes, that is very literally. Yet, here we are with new drone swarms instead, which have never been used in combat, only in testing. As you can see with my extended knowledge of military aircraft and military history, you can see my frustration. Here is an episode from the Infographics Show to learn more about what type of warcraft we're talking about here, which CON often sponsors btw.
      Source Citation: Infographics Show. (2020). The Angel of Death - Ac-130. YouTube. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from youtube.com/channel/UCfdNM3NAhaBOXCafH7krzrA.
      You misunderstood what I meant by weak. Of course the offensive capabilities will be excellent. I mean weak as in low HP, because they are generally vulnerable. Though seeing how heavy bombers are also vulnerable and sport high HP one could argue that it would be acceptable to have high HP either way

      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
      Yee Haw

    • 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
      I'm not sure you know how an AC-130J gunship works. The new and improved gunship moves at 416 mph, which is 100 mph more than previous generations, and currently has an operational range of 3,000 miles. It is armed with 25mm gatling guns (firing 200 rounds per minute), 30mm cannons, 105mm howitzer cannons, GBU-39 small diameter bombs, Hellfire missiles, and it's latest upgrade a laser cannon, capable of taking out AA missiles and their batteries. It is the definition of the saying " armed to the teeth " with weapons. It is by no definition "weak." It has been used since the Vietnam war and upgraded versions are still being used today. It wouldn't be used if it was weak. As I said, it was used in the Vietnam war, where we know they had SAM batteries because they used them all the time to try to shoot down the SR-71, yet the gunships survived. It was made to decimate *any* threat, for the exception of nukes, that is very literally. Yet, here we are with new drone swarms instead, which have never been used in combat, only in testing. As you can see with my extended knowledge of military aircraft and military history, you can see my frustration. Here is an episode from the Infographics Show to learn more about what type of warcraft we're talking about here, which CON often sponsors btw. Source Citation: Infographics Show. (2020). The Angel of Death - Ac-130. YouTube. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from youtube.com/channel/UCfdNM3NAhaBOXCafH7krzrA.
      You misunderstood what I meant by weak. Of course the offensive capabilities will be excellent. I mean weak as in low HP, because they are generally vulnerable. Though seeing how heavy bombers are also vulnerable and sport high HP one could argue that it would be acceptable to have high HP either way
      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
      Uh, much of their content has proven to be very accurate. I would love to know which ones they aren't accurate about. The guy making this video was in the military. How would he *not* be a credible source of information when it comes to military related content? Also considering today's political climate, it would be best *not* going to the CIA for information.

      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 ().

    • 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? . . .
      Because CoN is a game, and not a simulation.
      What the point of playing a game that isn't realistic? Only little kids would ever play them. My alliance also agrees that it's a crappy unit. What needs to be done is at least fix units that are already in this game with a current thread requesting the aircraft carrier to be redone, for example. As someone who has more experience in this game, it would be appreciated if it was fixed and added more real life weapons.

    • 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?
      That would be the drone swarm. It's very useless as it can be very easily taken down by aa and any unit that can take on an air intercept role, and doesn't do nearly as much damage as many units that behave like it, like missiles for example. The game should be focusing on fixing the units that are useless that shouldn't be like the aircraft carrier and then add weapons that *do* exist and have been used in modern combat.

    • 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?
      And yet, there's enough realism to draw players to this game. No one would play this if it was 100% unrealistic. As an active member in the CON community, there are some very high ranking players that see the realism in this game appealing. In order to draw a crowd above the age of 12, CON should have a little more effort on making it even slightly more realistic.