Corona 1-1

Is this not the thread for the HAFM mod ? Because I encountered what seems to be an issue with it as I described so I thought this thread to be the appropriate one to seek clarification.

Curious as to an issue: The AGM-65s on the F-35B and F-16 don't seem to work. They're visually attached to the pylons but when cycling through weapons they're not available even after manual fire is enabled for the dual seat F-16.

I'd like to take the time to thank @CaptainDawson AKA Kestrel for his tireless efforts in creating dialogue and formulating suggestions. I'd like to offer input of my own. Seconded. I'd further add that instead of distributing the AI throughout sectors and creating a hide-and-seek, station them at key prefrabricated points. Mainly, creating checkpoints and defensive positions through objects in the editor located along major ingress routes ( roads ), with manned turrets. This should apply to the major towns alone. I think it prudent to raising the CP gain for such towns with the increased challenge. Concurred. I'd like this to be a feature of remote locations. Small outposts with towers, but with the additional benefit of providing free, high value assets. Say, SAM launchers or radars at locations like Vikos Outpost, Pyrsos Outpost, Pefkas Outpost, to name a few regarding to the conventional Warlords starting positions with NATO in the SW and CSAT in the NW. For NATO's side they should also benefit from the USS Freedom's defensive armaments as statc emplacements, which should not only be attributed to said outposts but be available to NATO as defensive items in the purchase menu. Of course, what sectors that should confer this benefit must be tailored to the starting configuration. I'm very much a fan of Kestrel's rotational base concept. For the aforementioned implementation to be sensible it'd have to be based on the basis of each base configuration, such that only remote locations with respect to the starting base be given such high value assets. I don't think it necessary to have them start from airbases. Rather, bases should innately have the capacity for spawning helicopters and VTOLs. It makes quite a bit of sense since these aircraft don't need large flat spaces to land. I'm not keen on using AAC as a starting location at all because it doesn't have any rough positional symmetry with a possible starting location for the opposite side that'd give it sufficient spacing. Starting from the small airfields is fine, but not from AAC. In general all bases should have helicopter and VTOL holding capabilities. I say allow for fast travelling to locations provided that they have a continuous chain of captured points to form a land bridge of sorts. This basically covers a water divide issue. Assume for example that from CSAT's base in the NE I have a continuous chain to Neochori, but my sole link to it being the Airfield SW gets captured. I no longer have a continuous chain and fast travelling to Neochori should be prohibited. Additionally waterborne vessels should only be allowed to be spawned within the radii of coastal capture zones under one's own control as opposed to any where like it is currently, at least that's how it is to the best of my memory. Great thing about these configurations is that each pair is spread across nearly the entire width of the map. Additionally each pair should be randomized as to which faction gets what to minimize repetition.

Still, can the jet costs retain their original costs because the current 17.5k for the Gen 5s and 12k for legacy jets along with 10k for radar and 7.5k for the SAM is incredibly steep. I believe 5k for the radar to be appropriate. I know not what is precisely subsumed under " exploit " here but I'll raise what's uncontroversially an exploit. The price adjustments do nothing to correct airfield camping and giving one side a stranglehold on air presence as the change log only reflects If anything I think price adjustments definitely need to be made, but not this way. But I think a compromise can be reached by amalgamating different proposals without taking a wrecking ball to the current economy, if you'll excuse the term. Yeah, and some of what I list will just be repetitions of my aforementioned but bear with me. Making all supply trucks 1750 each, but offer discount prices when bought together, say 4200. Adjust the rearm times such that they're reasonably related to payload. So arming an MGS would take some time, say 90s, and a Gen 5 jet say 180s. Scale drops on coordinate prices by increasing the price of a coordinate drop itself by making it a linear function as a distance from the nearest friendly sector. Forbid coordinate drops after a certain distance from the sector has been reached, say 3.0km. Measure distance from the nearest point of the sector's square perimeter ( solves airfield camping issues via the ground ). If scripting jets to have airborne and remote spawns to be not an elected option, apply invincibility during the entire landing process and for the entire duration the jet is on the ground for the period just after landing, or extend a timer instead that gives a pilot a near assured chance of at least lifting off without getting swatted out of the sky. Same applies for helicopters. Perhaps an even simpler implementation would to have the jet just spawn on the ground with the interface much like the placement of static defenses where you can see a projection of where it'll be then confirm it to avoid disasters. Within the confines of airfield zones of course. Extend view cap to 4.0km. ( Makes SPAAGs more lethal to aircraft ). Increase SPAAG costs to 5k. Increase Gen 5 jet costs to 10.5k Increase CAS jet costs to 8.5k. VTOL costs adjusted to 8k. Radar 5k, launcher 7.5k. MGS to 5k, MGS UP 5.5k ( I find the 7k equivalence between an MGS and T-140 to be a rather unfair pricing decision ) Airfield camping more or less taken care of. Spamming somewhat managed by increasing inter-strike duration. Prices still relatively stable. THANK. YOU. Feature extermination bat. No thanks. Not a dig at you, but just my take on the anti - MGS lobby. Refer to my meme. The fact that people who rarely if ever touch the forums are here to discuss this game mode makes it quite clear to me that Warlords Protocol has a committed base and I really do hope that mutual dialogue between players and developers can expand upon the viability popularity and longevity of the Protocol. This game mode is something I believe that A3's sorely lacked for years, it's quite literally a manifestation of A3's full vanilla potential done in a PVP context.

I express concern at making Warlords less " Warlords-esque " by trimming vehicular combat to achieve pseudo balance. It's a shallow approach merely making economic tweaks and slapping CP increases across a wide range of vehicles. CP accumulation is arduous, combine that with large asset cost increases and you've killed a lot of the focal point of Warlords by slashing the potential for combined arms, and I highly doubt everyone people play Warlords just to do infantry. You don't balance anything just by making items more expensive, you do so by altering relative costs of counters. The jet dominance issue can be solved with the introduction of comparatively affordable long range SAMs whose launchers can rearm off ammo trucks. Increase the view cap to something like 4.0km to give the SPAAGs some actual lethality. Script jets such that they spawn in the air away from the main map with the player in it. Oh and please give the F/A-181 the AMRAAM double racks so it has a similar kill potential to the To-201, this is an issue of major contention. NATO's jet is a fair match for CSAT's but having to land to rearm for every kill given the appalling PK and low missile count unduly hinders NATO's air contention capability contrary to competitive merit to which outcomes should mostly be contingent upon. CSAT's Molos AF is fairly remote and secure and CSAT has 2 airfields on their half of Altis while NATO's only AAC AF is exposed and vulnerable. Kavala should give NATO access to a carrier west of Kavala which can serve as a point for all aircraft to even the playing field. The MGS " issue " is an interesting one. Removal of asymmetrical ( arguably balancing ) elements and forcing purely symmetrical engagements which clearly favor CSAT is a terrible proposition. Instead just script the rearms so it takes significantly longer to do so off a truck. Extend this to all vehicles so you don't end up with a 1 jet conducting a solo Operation Rolling Thunder. This way the high power assets retain their full capabilities but are forced to engage more discirminately and be forced to incur opportunity costs for decisions made. All this without actually tweaking price points, how great is that. It's great, simply put. Exactly. People have a proclivity to whine about the MGS, call it OP, and demand its removal. It's like yeah, you say that, but no, that's a palpably false claim. This with my aforementioned would be superb. And of course I had to bring up scripting. Isn't there a way to ban scripters based on their motherboard IDs instead of this impotent kicking? I know nothing of code but something like this I was informed would serve such a purpose.

Would suggest 2000 CP for the radar, 5000 for each launch unit, and reduction in the Tigris and Cheetah costs to 3250. Instead costs of AA assets should be reduced to offset jets. Increasing asset costs excessively saps enjoyment. Warlords Protocol is supposedly about much larger engagements. People want to use the assets, and use them often. Multiple simultaneous aircraft engagements are entertaining and the window of opportunity for that shouldn't be decreased. Additional suggestions: Just a few recommendations to improve the game mode. Thank you to the attending staffers at Bohemia Interactive as always.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127605

https://pastebin.com/qDVjCNtB