Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

LOL WHAT????? The L-159 is a Russian Trainer.......the F-35 is..............Well Ill let you put 2 and 100,867 together.

Cool story bro, but in the ArmAverse we're limited to 0.80 Mach speeds, which is the RL maximum for the L-159 - the aircraft is lightweight and carries the same armaments as the F-35. Unless you can prevent the F-35 showing up on the radar, it's going to be a close call.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca#Specifications_.28L_159A.29

Empty weight: 4,350 kg (9,590 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)

Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf)

Never exceed speed: 960 km/h (518 knots, 596 mph)

Maximum speed: 936 km/h (505 knots, 581 mph) at sea level, clean

Stall speed: 185 km/h (100 knots, 115 mph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_.28F-35A.29

Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)

Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)

Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)

Empty weight thrust-to-weight ratio is 0.66 for L-159, and 0.95 for the F-35; loaded: ~0.44 vs ~0.55

The L-39 in Op Arrowhead is competitive, the only downside were: the engine, lack of ATGM/AA missiles and no missile launch warning system.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Can we please close this thread ?!

We have clueless players,Ragequitters, people who have never quit the editor and its scientifically perfect environement,and people who are stuck in "freedom fighters" talking about tunguska,MP players,closed 8 firends community players ... talking about a very important matter which balance in multiplayer !

I feel your pain, but Celery is on our side, Qaz ya nab. :p

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

44 rockets and 12 ATGM vs 24 rockets and 4 ATGM (8 ATGM's Max, But with some items removed?) That's seem extremely unbalanced.

Heh, not to mention the cargo space for infantry. :p And that missile 4+2 layout on each side is very arbitrary, since the whole aircraft is fictional, the number could be reduced to 8 missiles at a whim. I understand that they want to have a heavy-hitter against Blufor tanks, but there's a Merkava in the game and who knows what other AT.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

The video hints at Gaia being on our side too...

[-Coulum- 35]

I think pretty much everyone is on your side. As long as the weapons themselves aren't totally unrealistic, who cares what side has them. Nothing can go wrong with each side having relatively balanced equipment.

[PvtHudson 1]

Will Arma 3 have a aiming dead zone?

[HKFlash 9]

Will Arma 3 have a aiming dead zone?

Off topic much?

[BasileyOne 10]

for "balance" you [looking into]bought WRONG game, pal. pick chess or football, instead. WARgames mean WAR and NOTHING was fair on war, trust me !!

[chortles 263]

Page 1 called, they want their post back... and ARMA isn't even a war game, not when the Editor gets involved. Then again, as others have said in this thread, sometimes realism is its own kind of balance, and the "balance problems" stem from ARMA not being realistic in simulating those aspects...

[dmarkwick 261]

This is like Groundhog Day.

[Madeon 6]

This is like Groundhog Day.

Haha yeah there are a few Ned Ryerson types here lol.

EouKQBPkD-g

[rye1 21]

Haha yeah there are a few Ned Ryerson types here lol.

Hahaha. You finally think the argument is over and then...

- New user comes in and asks a question that's been answered.

- A regular user posted something [usually a misconception or misunderstanding] that has been answered 2 pages ago, just because they didn't read [trolol] or don't agree.

- Another topic argument spills over to an entirely different, or even slightly similar, topic which turns into another 20 page essay.

- Someone posts new BIS/ARMA3 information on a topic which feeds more repetitive posts.

I should know I've done it!

[froggyluv 2130]

This is like Groundhog Day.

LOL -pretty much sums up the entire Arma 3 thread for the past month. *Hibernates into RL until further real news* :popup:

[bensch 1]

Arma don't need balanced... if you need a balanced multiplayer part, then create a mod!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Arma don't need balanced... if you need a balanced multiplayer part, then create a mod!

Shouldn't it be the other way around to get max profit? :S I R konfused.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

BTW, is the Oshkosh M-ATV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_M-ATV) NATO vehicle in ArmA III? Given the specs and configurations,

It is designed to provide the same levels of protection as the larger and heavier previous MRAPs but with improved mobility and it is intended to replace M1114 HMMWVs.[4]

Weight Curb weight: 27,500 lb (12,500 kg)

Gross weight: 32,500 lb (14,700 kg)

Crew 4+1 gunner

Armor Plasan composite

Main armament:

1× 7.62 mm (.308 in) M240 machine gun,

1× 40 mm Mk 19 grenade launcher,

1× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning heavy machine gun, or

1× BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missile launcher (not in operational use; MMV prototype only)[4][6][7]

Speed 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) (electronically limited)

It's going to fit nicely in multiplayer, seeing as none of the crew are exposed, TOW and MG/GLs are operated from inside the vehicle via the RTT display, much the same way as the M2/Mk19 Humvee CROWS. Hope it can hold a low-yield RPG blast.

The Fennek APC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek) is similar to the Vodniks in ArmA II, though whose side are they on?

[enforcer4100 10]

Fennek APC[/url] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek) is similar to the Vodniks in ArmA II, though whose side are they on?

Fennek is a nato vehicle (IRL), but note that the vodnik is a combat vehicle while the fennek is used for recon.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Fennek is a nato vehicle (IRL), but note that the vodnik is a combat vehicle while the fennek is used for recon.

Well, it then could be compared to the BRDM-2. Fennek looks like it's on the Iranian side, silly Germans exporting military armaments to the enemy. :icon_mrgreen:

Patria AMV is the new Stryker platform for NATO; Namer APC is Iranian, so we're still missing a heavy APC for NATO and a Stryker-LAV equivalent for OPFOR. Although, both teams can do perfectly fine as it is, BTW, it's just that Patria AMV will have a lot of configurations, including a 105 mm Stryker MGS-type main cannon, or a 30 mm autocannon , while Namer is restricted to .50 MG. :(

Edited September 22, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

Arma don't need balanced... if you need a balanced multiplayer part, then create a mod!

The worst part about this post is that it's right after a post about ARMA 3 threads having devolved into Groundhog Day-style repetition.

[i76 1]

well that's cute guys, the response from this community and how it was worded is dreadful to say the least, same thing i saw on the BF3 forms and COD before hand. let me break this to you, Arma is a bit away from being a Mil Sim, Il2 is a SIM, DCS is a Sim, cliffs of Dover is a sim. seriously this whole i r mil sim gobktocod is whats draging this down. ACE brings it closer, but about ten tons of items are missing in terms of "Mil sim" in "Il2" my plane has wight, my gun can be shot off, a million things can go wrong, in DCS my helicopter as complex engine management, proper and correct weapon systems firing procedure. Arma has group hit points, right click lock kill weapon systems, infinity range IR scopes. and in vanila u can have a solder with 3 thousand machine gun rounds and an AT for good measure.

Can Arma be balanced? yes, hell yes, war is balanced on a whole huge amount of variables. i play warfare and i assume the OP is using that as a starting point. and this game is probably the easiest to balance b/c of 1 important game play element and that's cost. the whole war is not balanced when it comes to pvp crap does not fly, its sad and lazy to say otherwise, and this is why its hard as hell to get a game going. that exact mentality.

+1

Its a sim in my eyes, sure its not perfect, we all know the imperfections... sure it may not be as detailed a simulator as the ones you mentioned but can they do half the stuff thats possible in Arma? i dont know, i never played them! but i know ive never seen or heard off a game that gives me the same possibilities as arma can..

Closing your eyes and wishing it to be a simulator DOES NOT make it so.... thats called delusional.

BI just need to listen to the PvP community as much as they do the tacticool coop (yer not real soldiers ya know!)... as it is PvP is completely neglected by BI and they have never ever responded to anyone who makes this statement or asks the question.... cause they know its true like I do.

Edited October 4, 2012 by i76

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just show or list at least some military assets which could be possibly balanced and those which are not but keep the different BLUFOR, OPFOR, (INDFOR?) military doctrines, priorities, funding and domestic R&D + production in mind. Of course it can be a lot easier, faster and cheaper to develop a mediocre and superbalanced shooter instead of a awesome game with somekind of authentic/realistic gameplay standards.... Overall A3 needs to be and stay stable on its own feet, with its own features & content from the first step! :)

[chortles 263]

"military doctrines, priorities, funding and domestic R&D + production in mind"

ARMA doesn't simulate these because it's not a simulator. In the real world, there's "balance" in the sense that certain vehicles have drawbacks to go with their upsides... here's the problem: what do you do then when ARMA 3 ISN'T being realistic in simulating those drawbacks uniformly? :)

i76, Gaia has already weighed in the subject of balance as I previously mentioned, in a video he suggested that the choice of OPFOR and near-future warfare -- or as I'd describe it, mostly-modern warfare with a some fictional gear for existing roles* -- would allow (or was intended to allow?) "comparable assets" type balance.

* i.e. the MX rifles, that one Mi-48 (?) helicopter and the SDAR 6.5mm (although there are real-world underwater rifles, the one in ARMA 3 uses the physical appearance of a Kel-Tec RFB without an optics rail)

Edited October 5, 2012 by Chortles

[agent556 5]

"military doctrines, priorities, funding and domestic R&D + production in mind"

ARMA doesn't simulate these because it's not a simulator.

uhh, a simulator is what we in general wish for it to strive for. I don't see why they shouldn't simulate at least military doctrine. Soviet doctrine involved high speed attacks. The main thing that comes to mind right now is how the Hind has relatively heavy armoring, yet has a high top speed. It isn't that agile by any means, and that lack of agility can be seen as a weakness. However, because it has top speed, it can move into a support position faster than an apache, can chase an apache if it needed to, hell it has troop carrying capability and can bring ground support giving it a potential strategic advantage by being able to deploy troops, possibly speeding up troop deployment.

Another example is the low profile T-72, T-80, T-90 etc. They can hide themselves behind terrain better than an M1A1. Sure the M1A2 has superior target acquisition compared to the T-72 and T-80, but the M1A1 definitely will stick out more and will need to work a bit harder to find terrain to hide its gigantic hull and turret behind. The M1A2 would have also have to maintain situational awareness, using its thermal optics to make sure it doesnt get caught in a trap by T-80s using their low profile.

They can use Iran's military doctrine and equip Iran's military in a fashion that supports that doctrine. Like the Hind and high speed transports of the Soviet Union supporting their high speed deployment doctrine

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

In the real world, there's "balance" in the sense that certain vehicles have drawbacks to go with their upsides... here's the problem: what do you do then when ARMA 3 ISN'T being realistic in simulating those drawbacks uniformly? :)

I'd like to know more about what you meant by 'uniformly' here, but it's almost like you're looking for just what NoRailgunner and quite a few of us absolutely don't want which is merely having near-copy paste configs, having tanks that perform almost exactly the same, having to utilize pretty much exactly the same tactics as the opposition to use. I'd prefer something like one side's tank has a clear advantage in speed and profile while another has the advantage in target acquisition. If this leads to one side having a weaker tank force compared to the other, beef up its air capability. There's no need for each side using the same tactics as the other. The tactics SHOULD be different based on their different equipment's strengths and weaknesses.

Looking at http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-military-doctrine

It appears that at least Iran's defensive land doctrine would be to have something similar to insurgency, except they have more modern equipment. It would make sense for them to have lower profile equipment that would be easier to carry around that perhaps wouldn't be too high-tech because they'd be looking for robustness, or otherwise something that will definitely work in not-so-ideal conditions. Their land doctrine looks to concentrate on ambushes, and they'd need to be low-profile to achieve this.

i76, Gaia has already weighed in the subject of balance as I previously mentioned, in a video he suggested that the choice of OPFOR and near-future warfare -- or as I'd describe it, mostly-modern warfare with a some fictional gear for existing roles* -- would allow (or was intended to allow?) "comparable assets" type balance.

* i.e. the MX rifles, that one Mi-48 (?) helicopter and the SDAR 6.5mm (although there are real-world underwater rifles, the one in ARMA 3 uses the physical appearance of a Kel-Tec RFB without an optics rail)

Personally I'd definitely hope that "comparable assets" is closer to one side being more specialized to a certain way of combat, whether in be insurgency or conventional. Just because a futuristic Iran has more technology doesn't necessarily mean that their form of warfare needs to be conventional. They can have futuristic equipment that's made FOR their insurgency style doctrine.

In order to address air and air defense, current Iran has problems with air defense capabilities, but it would seem more likely that Iran would develop more in air defense than it would acquire better aircraft. This can be reflected with an effective SAM site or mobile SAM weapon that has realistic values and weapon capability. Hints back to the Tunguska apply here. If I remember earlier, Myke modified the tunguska's missile's config to give it a more realistic flight profile, which caused it to be less lethal than it used to be in vanilla ArmA2. If we can keep realism on the weapon systems, it should balance itself out relatively speaking. For example, let's not have 20mm autocannons destroying MBTs in ArmA3.

If anything Iran's military can be more mobile and more low-profile, be it some form of cooling jacket being worn to lower the effectiveness of thermal sights, similar technology on tanks while the blufor equipment is more of what we call "conventional". If you used the opfor equipment and used in a way as if gonig for conventional warfare vs conventional warfare, the opfor should have a disadvantage. By the same token, if you have blufor equipment and tried to use it in insurgency vs insurgency, blufor should have a disadvantage.

This may be a stretch, and forgive the reference to an unrealistic RTS, but its balance was pretty solid:

Think of starcraft. Zerg, Terran, Protoss. Three races that all played very differently and had their own strengths and weaknesses. They all were balanced against each other but required a different playing style depending on your race vs the other race.

Reading through the thread, it seemed like this is the kind of balance that NoRailgunner is likely looking for but words it terribly.

---Added

Cool story bro, but in the ArmAverse we're limited to 0.80 Mach speeds, which is the RL maximum for the L-159 - the aircraft is lightweight and carries the same armaments as the F-35. Unless you can prevent the F-35 showing up on the radar, it's going to be a close call.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca#Specifications_.28L_159A.29

Empty weight: 4,350 kg (9,590 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)

Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf)

Never exceed speed: 960 km/h (518 knots, 596 mph)

Maximum speed: 936 km/h (505 knots, 581 mph) at sea level, clean

Stall speed: 185 km/h (100 knots, 115 mph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_.28F-35A.29

Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)

Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)

Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)

Empty weight thrust-to-weight ratio is 0.66 for L-159, and 0.95 for the F-35; loaded: ~0.44 vs ~0.55

The L-39 in Op Arrowhead is competitive, the only downside were: the engine, lack of ATGM/AA missiles and no missile launch warning system.

This is one "solution" I don't want to see in ArmA3 because it would be almost completely asinine. The F-35 definitely has higher capabilities than the L-159 due to avionics, V/STOL capability, target acquisition (linking back to avionics). Thrust-to-weight ratio becomes near worthless once you start reaching higher speeds as air resistance is a larger limiting factor to maintaining speed of the aircraft than weight. A dogfight would/should be close only if the F-35 pilot didn't realize that he should use his superior engine to drag the L-159 into a higher speed where it can't compete due to its much weaker engine. The F-35 would likely also be able to engage at a much further range than the L-159 would be able to.

Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)

vs

Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)

Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)

The L-159 will definitely be more agile. But if that alone makes it superior or "comparable" to the F-35 due to unrealistic limitations like being limited to mach 0.8, then this is definitely not a proper balancing solution.

something more like F-35 vs MiG-29 would be a slightly better matchup, each having their own tactical advantages. The MiG-29 would have higher top speed and acceleration ability while the F-35 can take advantage of its stealthy design and coating and aim for the first strike after taking off from a clearing in the forest.

tl;dr: balance through differences in the specific equipment's usage, tactics and doctrine, not in 1 = 1 "comparable" equipment.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Agent556
added an example

[chortles 263]

uhh, a simulator is what we in general wish for it to strive for.

We fundamentally disagree; ARMA 2 is a game, not a simulator.

They can use Iran's military doctrine and equip Iran's military in a fashion that supports that doctrine.

Thing is that it appears that BI set the game in the future specifically so that they can ignore current Iranian military doctrines and thus not need to hold OPFOR back so far.

If you used the opfor equipment and used in a way as if gonig for conventional warfare vs conventional warfare, the opfor should have a disadvantage.

Looks like

:

All of this, of all we can see now in single player, is available in multiplayer as well. Both factions I mentioned Iran vs. NATO, as opposed to ARMA 2 when there was really high-equipped NATO and more guerrilla forces, locals, now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat will be more balanced.

We also fundamentally disagree on the idea that either faction should have a "play style" markedly different from the other. If anything, the previous discussions on the campaign (i.e. from InstaGoat at Gamescom) have suggested that it's the OPFOR who are meant to have the "conventional force" while the BLUFOR will dip into a more "insurgent" style in parts of the campaign.

The L-159 will definitely be more agile. But if that alone makes it superior or "comparable" to the F-35 due to unrealistic limitations like being limited to mach 0.8, then this is definitely not a proper balancing solution.

For your proposed F-35 vs. MiG-29 "asymmetric balance" to work, Real Virtuality 4 would have to simulate things like the MiG-29 being able to exceed Mach 2 (oh hey, authenticity at work) and greater acceleration, so simulating air resistance in a way that advantages the MiG-29, while the F-35 would have to have radar cross section and other aspects of "stealthy design" simulated, i.e. no "Tab targeting"... so what do you propose when the engine can't simulate either and "Tab targeting" is back?

Honest question there, because I haven't seen anything (ever since the old L-159 screenshots and F-35 in flight video) from BI on fixed-wing aircraft at all to suggest that the realism of the simulating has increased... the realism which could allow for asymmetric balance to be authentic/realistic, otherwise your proposals are just as artificial as you believe "comparable assets" to be.

In practice, StarCraft stands out because it's one of the only RTS out there to achieve "asymmetric" balance... which was then subject to constant tweaking ever since, meaning that said "balance" was a constantly-patched thing... I can imagine such an arrangement breaking so, so many user-made missions if used in ARMA 3.

P.S. Even if I'm charitable about NoRailGunner's intentions, his personal attacks on the integrity of other members didn't help his case, and you believe that he merely worded a desire for asymmetric balance terribly... I read his wording to mean that he doesn't believe in even that.

[Tonci87 163]

uhh, a simulator is what we in general wish for it to strive for. I don't see why they shouldn't simulate at least military doctrine. Soviet doctrine involved high speed attacks. The main thing that comes to mind right now is how the Hind has relatively heavy armoring, yet has a high top speed. It isn't that agile by any means, and that lack of agility can be seen as a weakness. However, because it has top speed, it can move into a support position faster than an apache, can chase an apache if it needed to, hell it has troop carrying capability and can bring ground support giving it a potential strategic advantage by being able to deploy troops, possibly speeding up troop deployment.

Another example is the low profile T-72, T-80, T-90 etc. They can hide themselves behind terrain better than an M1A1. Sure the M1A2 has superior target acquisition compared to the T-72 and T-80, but the M1A1 definitely will stick out more and will need to work a bit harder to find terrain to hide its gigantic hull and turret behind. The M1A2 would have also have to maintain situational awareness, using its thermal optics to make sure it doesnt get caught in a trap by T-80s using their low profile.

They can use Iran's military doctrine and equip Iran's military in a fashion that supports that doctrine. Like the Hind and high speed transports of the Soviet Union supporting their high speed deployment doctrine

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

I'd like to know more about what you meant by 'uniformly' here, but it's almost like you're looking for just what NoRailgunner and quite a few of us absolutely don't want which is merely having near-copy paste configs, having tanks that perform almost exactly the same, having to utilize pretty much exactly the same tactics as the opposition to use. I'd prefer something like one side's tank has a clear advantage in speed and profile while another has the advantage in target acquisition. If this leads to one side having a weaker tank force compared to the other, beef up its air capability. There's no need for each side using the same tactics as the other. The tactics SHOULD be different based on their different equipment's strengths and weaknesses.

Looking at http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-military-doctrine

It appears that at least Iran's defensive land doctrine would be to have something similar to insurgency, except they have more modern equipment. It would make sense for them to have lower profile equipment that would be easier to carry around that perhaps wouldn't be too high-tech because they'd be looking for robustness, or otherwise something that will definitely work in not-so-ideal conditions. Their land doctrine looks to concentrate on ambushes, and they'd need to be low-profile to achieve this.

Personally I'd definitely hope that "comparable assets" is closer to one side being more specialized to a certain way of combat, whether in be insurgency or conventional. Just because a futuristic Iran has more technology doesn't necessarily mean that their form of warfare needs to be conventional. They can have futuristic equipment that's made FOR their insurgency style doctrine.

In order to address air and air defense, current Iran has problems with air defense capabilities, but it would seem more likely that Iran would develop more in air defense than it would acquire better aircraft. This can be reflected with an effective SAM site or mobile SAM weapon that has realistic values and weapon capability. Hints back to the Tunguska apply here. If I remember earlier, Myke modified the tunguska's missile's config to give it a more realistic flight profile, which caused it to be less lethal than it used to be in vanilla ArmA2. If we can keep realism on the weapon systems, it should balance itself out relatively speaking. For example, let's not have 20mm autocannons destroying MBTs in ArmA3.

If anything Iran's military can be more mobile and more low-profile, be it some form of cooling jacket being worn to lower the effectiveness of thermal sights, similar technology on tanks while the blufor equipment is more of what we call "conventional". If you used the opfor equipment and used in a way as if gonig for conventional warfare vs conventional warfare, the opfor should have a disadvantage. By the same token, if you have blufor equipment and tried to use it in insurgency vs insurgency, blufor should have a disadvantage.

This may be a stretch, and forgive the reference to an unrealistic RTS, but its balance was pretty solid:

Think of starcraft. Zerg, Terran, Protoss. Three races that all played very differently and had their own strengths and weaknesses. They all were balanced against each other but required a different playing style depending on your race vs the other race.

Reading through the thread, it seemed like this is the kind of balance that NoRailgunner is likely looking for but words it terribly.

---Added

This is one "solution" I don't want to see in ArmA3 because it would be almost completely asinine. The F-35 definitely has higher capabilities than the L-159 due to avionics, V/STOL capability, target acquisition (linking back to avionics). Thrust-to-weight ratio becomes near worthless once you start reaching higher speeds as air resistance is a larger limiting factor to maintaining speed of the aircraft than weight. A dogfight would/should be close only if the F-35 pilot didn't realize that he should use his superior engine to drag the L-159 into a higher speed where it can't compete due to its much weaker engine. The F-35 would likely also be able to engage at a much further range than the L-159 would be able to.

Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)

vs

Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)

Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)

The L-159 will definitely be more agile. But if that alone makes it superior or "comparable" to the F-35 due to unrealistic limitations like being limited to mach 0.8, then this is definitely not a proper balancing solution.

something more like F-35 vs MiG-29 would be a slightly better matchup, each having their own tactical advantages. The MiG-29 would have higher top speed and acceleration ability while the F-35 can take advantage of its stealthy design and coating and aim for the first strike after taking off from a clearing in the forest.

tl;dr: balance through differences in the specific equipment's usage, tactics and doctrine, not in 1 = 1 "comparable" equipment.

^this post summs up all it takes to make good strategic MP. It is long but read it!

[katipo66 94]

Closing your eyes and wishing it to be a simulator DOES NOT make it so.... thats called delusional.

I'm not wishing, to me in my eyes I play it like a simulator, i guess its not a case off wether the humvee has the correct tyre pressure for example but more the ability simulate combat on a large scale as realistically as possible... Thats jets, helos, armour and infantry, if that's delusional then I'm happy in my little sandbox

[pathetic_berserker 4]

uhh, a simulator is what we in general wish for it to strive for. I don't see why they shouldn't simulate at least military doctrine.....

Kind of, I think ArmA2 is kind half way. What your talking about requires people to actually know the doctrine and use it. It aslo requires a specific style of gameplay that is difficult to convey and a mission design that requires systems like VBS to do them true justice. Take agood look back through the thread and you will see that balance via creative asymetry has already been mentioned and fails to respond to the OP correctly

Arma is game that I think can be grouped with mil sims, but will fail as a true tactics sim vs VBS and will forever let those wanting a true sim down, depending on thier poison, be it infantry, armour, fixed wing, ships or whirly birds coz those boots are simply too big. But at the end of the day Arma2 is still the best option if you want all these things at a playable level.

\/ But Rye sums it up better!

Edited October 8, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[rye1 21]

Simulate doctrine lol. Isn't that what tacticool tactardation clans are for?