F-117/ B-2/ F-22/ FB-22 NOT STEALTHY ENOUGH

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Message
Author
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

#31 Post by Juergen » Jun 30 2005

"Do we know IF the stealth needs to be increased ?

Or is it simply that the hex spotting has to be turned down or even off."


I think its the hex spotting,this should be turned down.
This way only one value has to be changed.

The_Blind_One
Colonel
Posts: 388
Joined: May 28 2005

#32 Post by The_Blind_One » Jul 09 2005

Yeah I think so too.

They spot everything man!!! it's just wack lol

But if your country is modern I think that the planes should be easily spotted. Here in the Netherlands we have a goalkeeper and a 3d radar system (even u american dudies are jealious about that one :evil: becuz it's 10x more accurate as urs (fact)) and it detects any stealth radar with ease and shoots it down as if it was standing infront of them. That radar is wack because it can shoot at 50 targets a second! So I think that having enough technology should nullify stealth. It has been proven that the F-22 although having alot of stealth is still easily spotted on our 3D radar, it came up just as any other plane, our radar detects anything, even a single bird at 200 km distance. :-)

User avatar
haenkie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 596
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: Netherlands

#33 Post by haenkie » Jul 09 2005

When reading through the books of Tom Clancy i think the problem isnt as much as in detecting the aircraft but assiging them as threats. When something is detected as flying under 100 meters altitude and at a max speed of 70km/h then it is called natural and discarded. the trick is to circumvent this. And also i think the signature of the F117 is about an eagle, where a B2 has about the signature of a smaller bird (i forgot sorry)

And yes We Dutch folks rule !! :lol: (just not the world anymore, VOC anyone??)

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#34 Post by tkobo » Jul 15 2005

i would vote for a lower setting spotting str for hexs.

I might even vote for a NO spotting strength for hexs,it would make radar units and facilities much more needed.
And hence much more fun, as attackers would now have a reason to go after those units/facilities that they dont really have now.

In all the games ive played so far, i'd bet i can count the total number of radar facilities ive built on one hand.I think i should have to build more of these as they are very important in rl world.


Is hex spotting something we the players can change ?IE NOT hardcoded or too deep in.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Draken
General
Posts: 1162
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

#35 Post by Draken » Jul 15 2005

I might even vote for a NO spotting strength for hexs,it would make radar units and facilities much more needed.
And hence much more fun, as attackers would now have a reason to go after those units/facilities that they dont really have now.
I would vote for that too but spotting strenght is not only use to detect airplanes but land and sea units too... Would be nice to have 3 separate spotting strength attibutes .... Well maybe for the Gold edition....

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19931
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#36 Post by Balthagor » Jul 16 2005

having various spotting strengths means no more fog of war or 3 fogs of war. That drastically changes the difficulty level of the game...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#37 Post by tkobo » Jul 17 2005

Unlike many people on the forum (last time this came up) i wouldnt mind not being able to see a unit of any type IF i didnt have some type of added coverage to an area.

I have no problem with land units being able to travel deep into a regions land without being identified as enemy units IF the land onwer does not arrange for proper coverage of his region.

I have no problem with "things just blowing up" with no clear "why" to them.
If an enemy unit sneaks into a position undetected, and whacks something of mine,i have no issue at all if I dont know who or how the enemy took my unit/facility/etc.. out.

I think the omniscience(sp) is a bit high atm.I dont think we should see everything or know that a particular enemy is responsible for a particular thing as default.
I think we should have to build and stage our forces with detection and control in mind.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#38 Post by bergsjaeger » Oct 02 2005

well that's how modern armies are. If they don't have anything in the area then an enemy unit could slip in the country and blow things up. The new iraq war can be an example. US special forces were already in the country long before the war started.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#39 Post by Sebastiaan » Oct 04 2005

I might have found a sollution for the stealth problem. The key is not to increase stealth rating, but to reduce detection strength.

ozmono2005
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 538
Joined: Jun 01 2005
Location: Sydney

#40 Post by ozmono2005 » Oct 08 2005

bergsjaeger wrote: The new iraq war can be an example. US special forces were already in the country long before the war started.
Your not talking whole battalions though

It's good how it is, don't fix what ain't broke

OPPS :oops: I just realised that tkobo post preceeded update two

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#41 Post by tkobo » Oct 08 2005

Are you drinking :P

Because i just got to ask "What tkobo post" :P

:P
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

ozmono2005
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 538
Joined: Jun 01 2005
Location: Sydney

#42 Post by ozmono2005 » Oct 08 2005

July 18th,
tkobo wrote:Unlike many people on the forum (last time this came up) i wouldnt mind not being able to see a unit of any type IF i didnt have some type of added coverage to an area.

I have no problem with land units being able to travel deep into a regions land without being identified as enemy units IF the land onwer does not arrange for proper coverage of his region.

I have no problem with "things just blowing up" with no clear "why" to them.
If an enemy unit sneaks into a position undetected, and whacks something of mine,i have no issue at all if I dont know who or how the enemy took my unit/facility/etc.. out.

I think the omniscience(sp) is a bit high atm.I dont think we should see everything or know that a particular enemy is responsible for a particular thing as default.
I think we should have to build and stage our forces with detection and control in mind.
no I'm not drinking :-)

it's been rekindled since

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#43 Post by tkobo » Oct 08 2005

ozmono2005 wrote:
no I'm not drinking :-)

it's been rekindled since
I dont believe you :P Proably got a berr in hand right now :P

but at least i knwo understand what post you meant :oops:

Maybe I should have a drink :lol:
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

#44 Post by BigStone » Oct 08 2005

Well guy's..... CHEERS... :D

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#45 Post by Sebastiaan » Oct 12 2005

tkobo wrote:Unlike many people on the forum (last time this came up) i wouldnt mind not being able to see a unit of any type IF i didnt have some type of added coverage to an area.

I have no problem with land units being able to travel deep into a regions land without being identified as enemy units IF the land onwer does not arrange for proper coverage of his region.

I have no problem with "things just blowing up" with no clear "why" to them.
If an enemy unit sneaks into a position undetected, and whacks something of mine,i have no issue at all if I dont know who or how the enemy took my unit/facility/etc.. out.

I think the omniscience(sp) is a bit high atm.I dont think we should see everything or know that a particular enemy is responsible for a particular thing as default.
I think we should have to build and stage our forces with detection and control in mind.
Exactly, that why inteligence is so important. If you know where the enemy is and what he is planning, you basicly already have won half of the battle. Detection of enemy forces should therefore be limited to give ambushes and sneak attacks a chanse of succes.

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”