F-117/ B-2/ F-22/ FB-22 NOT STEALTHY ENOUGH
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
-
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: May 28 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 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.
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 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.
- haenkie
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 596
- Joined: May 27 2005
- Location: Netherlands
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 !! (just not the world anymore, VOC anyone??)
And yes We Dutch folks rule !! (just not the world anymore, VOC anyone??)
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
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.
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
Chuckle TM
-
- General
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Jul 14 2004
- Human: Yes
- Location: Space Coast, FL
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....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.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
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.
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
Chuckle TM
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
I might have found a sollution for the stealth problem. The key is not to increase stealth rating, but to reduce detection strength.
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Jun 01 2005
- Location: Sydney
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Jun 01 2005
- Location: Sydney
July 18th,
it's been rekindled since
no I'm not drinkingtkobo 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.
it's been rekindled since
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
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.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.