One thing that annoys me (admittedly not too much), is that there's no cranking; if you fire a FOX-1 or a Phoenix they will continue to charge directly at the contact instead of maneuvering to keep them tracked by radar while minimizing the amount that they're closing. The AI isn't particularly good at pressing the attack so it's not fatal (usually), but it is annoying. The Phoenixes also aren't particularly reliable, and aren't capable of acquiring targets on their own once they lose contact with the F-14 when a target is at roughly the same altitude and within the seeker cone (at least I haven't seen it and I swear I've been trying). I only have ~18 hrs in the game though, and the nature of having no save system means I've had to replay stuff over and over again to eventually finish a mission due to circumstance, so it's quite possible that these are just skill issues on my part.
@jacobmartin1100 well like I say in the video, they will crank when they fire an IR missile but not with radar missiles. And IRL the AIM54 requires mid course updates until it gets within i think 20 miles of the target, then it turns its own radar on. The C model added the ability to track if lock is lost from the parent before this, but with the A the missile goes dead otherwise
so I think the hypothetical for the navalized Mig 23 was that the Mig-29k and the Su-33 wouldn't be in service for another two or three years at this point. (this is roughly early 80's with the latest being 86 because the upgrade packages for the USN after '86 are not exactly fun to go up against (look at the NTU mod to see what I'm talking about)) so making a Navalized version of an already in production airframe would be a... decent stopgap. it's better than having no carrier based fighters. and the lighter airframe would make the process less challenging.
@bohba13 yes I have the NTU mod, it does make the USN pretty over powered. I see what you mean. However the PL42 and the other attack plane are totally made up of course and not based on any other airframe
@ColdWarriorGamer fair. However knowing what I do about ship building, if the order to make them was issued before the carrier officially started construction, then I can imagine that those would be easier to ready, (this likely would have been early in the development of the Mig 29 and Su 27, Orell was ordered '76, and production of the two fighters didn't start until 81 and 82 respectively. And the K variants weren't ready until 87 for the flanker and 88 for the fulcrum.) Assuming the VVS had first dibs on airframes, that would delay the K variants. As for the other airframes, I _believe_ those would have a less intense procurement cycle due to being slower aircraft and not needing the exacting standards for supersonic flight. But I'm not sure how those procurement cycles would go, nor if they would suffer complications. (Something the AWACS would be likely to suffer as the first flying radars the Russians had were not shielded)
@bohba13 yes the time frames make more sense. However the Orel was never produced because Marshall Grechko died and he wanted a blue water carrier. Ustinov wanted the half cruiser half carrier instead and he ended up getting that
With regards to the drop tanks, I believe the game has a debug menu on one of the higher function keys that has a set of special debug options, with one of the options is the ability to disable the automatic dropping of tanks that units will sometimes do.
Btw, the circle on that map represents endurance at present conditions (altitude, speed, drop tank status). Planes have the highest range when at cruising speed at 37,000 ft*. SSKs also have the range circle thing but I've never actually had it be relevant
it genuinely isn't, though that may be the hyperfixation talking. It's no dwarf fortress, that's for sure. I'd watch a few hours of full gameplay before making that call, but don't be discouraged
welcome back!
One thing that annoys me (admittedly not too much), is that there's no cranking; if you fire a FOX-1 or a Phoenix they will continue to charge directly at the contact instead of maneuvering to keep them tracked by radar while minimizing the amount that they're closing. The AI isn't particularly good at pressing the attack so it's not fatal (usually), but it is annoying. The Phoenixes also aren't particularly reliable, and aren't capable of acquiring targets on their own once they lose contact with the F-14 when a target is at roughly the same altitude and within the seeker cone (at least I haven't seen it and I swear I've been trying). I only have ~18 hrs in the game though, and the nature of having no save system means I've had to replay stuff over and over again to eventually finish a mission due to circumstance, so it's quite possible that these are just skill issues on my part.
@jacobmartin1100 well like I say in the video, they will crank when they fire an IR missile but not with radar missiles. And IRL the AIM54 requires mid course updates until it gets within i think 20 miles of the target, then it turns its own radar on. The C model added the ability to track if lock is lost from the parent before this, but with the A the missile goes dead otherwise
I served in the US Army from 1997 to 2007, but I've always been fascinated with Naval tech and I'm loving this game so far.
@@decodeddiesel that's cool! Thanks for watching!
Love the commentary, very thorough
so I think the hypothetical for the navalized Mig 23 was that the Mig-29k and the Su-33 wouldn't be in service for another two or three years at this point. (this is roughly early 80's with the latest being 86 because the upgrade packages for the USN after '86 are not exactly fun to go up against (look at the NTU mod to see what I'm talking about))
so making a Navalized version of an already in production airframe would be a... decent stopgap. it's better than having no carrier based fighters. and the lighter airframe would make the process less challenging.
@bohba13 yes I have the NTU mod, it does make the USN pretty over powered. I see what you mean. However the PL42 and the other attack plane are totally made up of course and not based on any other airframe
@ColdWarriorGamer fair. However knowing what I do about ship building, if the order to make them was issued before the carrier officially started construction, then I can imagine that those would be easier to ready, (this likely would have been early in the development of the Mig 29 and Su 27, Orell was ordered '76, and production of the two fighters didn't start until 81 and 82 respectively. And the K variants weren't ready until 87 for the flanker and 88 for the fulcrum.)
Assuming the VVS had first dibs on airframes, that would delay the K variants.
As for the other airframes, I _believe_ those would have a less intense procurement cycle due to being slower aircraft and not needing the exacting standards for supersonic flight.
But I'm not sure how those procurement cycles would go, nor if they would suffer complications. (Something the AWACS would be likely to suffer as the first flying radars the Russians had were not shielded)
@bohba13 yes the time frames make more sense. However the Orel was never produced because Marshall Grechko died and he wanted a blue water carrier. Ustinov wanted the half cruiser half carrier instead and he ended up getting that
And soviet awacs was poor. The TU126 has numerous problems with its radars, not a pound for air to ground has a good video on it
@@ColdWarriorGamer yup. Wasn't even a true AWACS. more an AEW.
And I watched that vid.
With regards to the drop tanks, I believe the game has a debug menu on one of the higher function keys that has a set of special debug options, with one of the options is the ability to disable the automatic dropping of tanks that units will sometimes do.
@@theflyingfish66 i have heard about this, it needs to be in the right click menu
Btw, the circle on that map represents endurance at present conditions (altitude, speed, drop tank status). Planes have the highest range when at cruising speed at 37,000 ft*. SSKs also have the range circle thing but I've never actually had it be relevant
@@jacobmartin1100 that makes sense
Yeah but can you put Boots on the Ground?
Seems like a cool game but too hard for me to learn
it genuinely isn't, though that may be the hyperfixation talking. It's no dwarf fortress, that's for sure. I'd watch a few hours of full gameplay before making that call, but don't be discouraged