Will there be hidden/unlockables in this game?

[unmerged(331487)]

Thats like saying a ME-262 wont always beat a Spitfire. Sure that nmight be that case, but the Me-262 would have a great/incredible advantage.


This is of course true. But a stealth fighter will stay hidden and engage you without you even knowing its there. Just like a submarine. The whole notion that a non stealth fighter will have much chance is redicilous, unless you make uop a scenario that caters the non stealthy plane. The stealth fighter will see you before you can see it, and if will engage you without you even knowing it. So by the time you are aware you are not alone, it will be too late. Stealth alters the battle field completely.All this talk about numbers and loadout is really irelevant.

Your first sentence already is full of error. It might be the case that an asset wont always win? You can count on that fact in warfare that it will never win all the time. Tiger against Sherman. Sure itll win most of the time, but a Tiger can be made a nonissue by a greyhound. And there goes the "always".

While you have at least retracted silly notions about US superiority, you still have some misconceptions about warfare.

War is all about changing the battelfield to suit you and not the enemy. Sun Tzu. The Eurofighter, if we want to stick with its European counterpart, will always try to make the warzone an area where stealth becomes a non-issue. You dont send conventional planes at the enemy head-on.

Numbers are the final arbiter in war. Please refer to how the SU beat the 3. Reich and simply coudlnt lose. Kill 10 T-34. Too bad there are another 100 right behind those 10.

If your stealth fighter has a kill rate of 2-1 against top notch conventional fighters, but the enemy possesses a 3-1 advantage, you are still going to lose.

Yes the stealth fighter is very impressive up in the sky on euqal footing.But down on the carrier or boxed in by multipe radar assets... Just to end this post with an adaption from Babylon 5.

 

[Brutoni]

Thats like saying a ME-262 wont always beat a Spitfire. Sure that nmight be that case, but the Me-262 would have a great/incredible advantage.

My original point was actually that stealth technology is quite new. It has many flaws. Untill those flaws are dealt with it is vulnerable. Like the original jet planes against non-jet planes.... A spitfire might not challenge a ME-262 but as I said in the Korean war the Sea Fury was more than a match for enemy migs. Able to disenage from bad situations, engage in good situations and shoot the migs down.

See the earlier referal to a friendly dogfight where F-15's could not get a lock on the F22due to stealth and manoverability.

To quote you... OHHHH a single report!!! Done by Americans against Americans... With American planes versus American planes... The F-15 is a good fighter but a single Eurofighter can trash multiple F-15's by itself. Not sure I'm following your point here. The Americans have gone the stealth route yes. But it's interesting to note many countries haven't... Eurofighter, SAAB Grippen or the Rafale.

Indeed UCAV's are naturally a better choice for a stealth mission anyway given the lack of having to house a pilot and other such systems

This is of course true. But a stealth fighter will stay hidden and engage you without you even knowing its there. Just like a submarine. The whole notion that a non stealth fighter will have much chance is redicilous, unless you make uop a scenario that caters the non stealthy plane. The stealth fighter will see you before you can see it, and if will engage you without you even knowing it. So by the time you are aware you are not alone, it will be too late. Stealth alters the battle field completely.All this talk about numbers and loadout is really irelevant.

Your showing ignorance here. Despite their stealth and danger submarines can run into trouble real quick. While remaining stealthy it is HARD to find someone. If you know they are there you still have to manouver in ways to avoid systems that can detect you which takes time. Time in which your opponent will change the battlefield.

The whole CONCEPT that a fighter will be able to take it's time using stealth to find and engage the enemy while the enemy does NOTHING is completely bonkers... While your doing that with your 100 stealth fighters I'll have 200-300 Normal fighters... They will be attempting to strike your ISTAR, AWACS and ELINT platforms reducing the picture you can build on my forces. Others will be in place to guard my assets because I have the numbers split my forces like that. Yet more will be striking your ground/naval assets increasing preasure further.

You keep saying a stealth fighter will engage 1 plane and then it will be too late... However as explained eariler a stealth fighter is likely to be up against 2-3 planes. Knowing the opponent has stealth they will deploy in formations to make sure you have to expose a variety of RCS's to the planes and thus with data link capability you are more likely to be detected. Due to the formation you won't be able to engage all 3 at once. Suddenly your in real trouble as soon as you engage the first plane... YOULL need that manouverability because you'll have multiple missiles launched at you at the same time my other 2 fighters vector in on your position.

It's not as simple as "I'll remain hidden and then hit what I want".

It is amazing. Its the undisputed king of air superiority. Traditional dogfights is a thing of the past. Visual range dogfights is increasingly also a thing of the past.

No it's not, it has potentially been beaten by the Eurofighter but the USAF won't come out to play to put that rumour to bed. It wasn't deployed in Libya for a NO FLY ZONE mission where Air superiority was clearly needed...

Dog fighting isn't just where manouverability comes into play... In any event the F-22 uses AMRAAM. I'll take METEOR over AMRAAM any day of the week... longer range, inbuilt 2 way data-link, more powerful sensors... Even one hint of your F-22 and I do a BOL (Bearing only launch) while 2 other Typhoons vector your position meanwhile that METEOR will re-engage you if it misses. It will be able to recieve new targetting data...

Finally the F-22 isn't even flying....

In Febuary 2010 fleet was grounded.
In May 2011 fleet was grounded
IN April 2011 fleet was grounded permenantly until further notice
In July 2011 fleet was found to have more problems including "Poisoning it's pilots due to toxic problems in the breathing aparatus".... Hmmm good one!

That and the stealthy tiles on the F-22 Raptor have a nasty habbit of falling OFF introducing high maintenence (Even more of a problem if your opponent outnumbers you)...

Coupled with the fact it's avionics and sensor suite is less capable than the F-35s then explain to my why the plane is undisputed?

It can't fly? When it has it's not flown outside the US on a real combat mission despite requests to the Defence seceratary to do so? It's high maintenence! It's got sensors and avionics that are rapidly falling behind the F-35 and Eurofighter! It's actually less stealthy than the F-35 as well.

 

[unmerged(331487)]

My original point was actually that stealth technology is quite new. It has many flaws. Untill those flaws are dealt with it is vulnerable. Like the original jet planes against non-jet planes.... A spitfire might not challenge a ME-262 but as I said in the Korean war the Sea Fury was more than a match for enemy migs. Able to disenage from bad situations, engage in good situations and shoot the migs down.


No it's not, it has potentially been beaten by the Eurofighter but the USAF won't come out to play to put that rumour to bed. It wasn't deployed in Libya for a NO FLY ZONE mission where Air superiority was clearly needed...

Just to (re?)chime in? The Me 262 (nothing between the letters and the number, its a German plane) suffered from various technical difficulties. Its like throwing a F-22 into the war a few months after the first test flight, which has been ...so far back it can be measured in decade(s) already.

Just to comment the Libya arguement. The US didnt want a too visible involvement there (eww pun), plus Libya hardly is an area where high tech is needed.

But.

Libya proves why you need an aircraft with a true multirole capability. More payload means better ground attack options to clear out ground threats. Less payload means you need more planes to deliver the same support to ground troops. More expensive planes is a nogo in these times though.

The US are trading away their capability of massive warfare and gain a superior handling of small scale, asymmetrical conflicts instead (stealth is king there). Which is good. I dont want to see a major war out there. But in this hypothetical discussions of two superpowers going at it, especially with less planes (more money per plane dictates a smaller air arm), with unproven technology (simulations only go half the way) when it comes to handling a symmetrical war.


Oh and to at least have any semblance of being on topic.

Reskins of various kinds for sucsessful completion of varying campaigns. But please no hidden stuff (i hate having to open up a walkthrough just to be sure if i got everything). Another possible unlock might be railguns or lasers for ships. Basically everything that falls into the category of: "nobody knows if its feasible and itll be in service by 2050 at the earliest". Another option is to add famous ships as unlocks. The Korean Turtle ship, the USS Missouri, im certain many would love to see Nelsons flagship in the game.

 

[Brutoni]

I have to agree with Kaloor on the topic of no really hidden unlockables... Even if there is just a screen where we can view the unlockables without being told how to get them I'm happy... Just as long as I know they are unlockable I'll find a way.... Having to use a game guide to find the unlockable is bad though

As for the topic of F-22 in Libya not being needed... I guess my argument is why should you use a lesser tool when you can use a greater tool. Given its claimed capabilities it would have also been a good place for testing...

Of course the main problem was that the F-22 was still grounded...

Stealthy it may be but while it's poisoning its pilots OR sat on the ground I'd take the Eurofighter any day

 

[unmerged(331487)]

Well there is no overkill, but there certainly is overexpenditure of money.

Losing AAA means no/less money spent on prestige projects and preference for cost-effective options.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

We have no specific plans for hidden unlockables, really, but who knows.

Expensive DLC, on the other hand... Just kidding. A bit.

 

[hitchens]

Your first sentence already is full of error. It might be the case that an asset wont always win? You can count on that fact in warfare that it will never win all the time. Tiger against Sherman. Sure itll win most of the time, but a Tiger can be made a nonissue by a greyhound. And there goes the "always".

And? The argument is is if the F22 is superior to the EF2000. It is.

While you have at least retracted silly notions about US superiority, you still have some misconceptions about warfare.

The US is the only global superpower, in the history of mankind. And the only superpower today. Silly notions?

Numbers are the final arbiter in war. Please refer to how the SU beat the 3. Reich and simply coudlnt lose. Kill 10 T-34. Too bad there are another 100 right behind those 10.

The argument is if the f22 is superior or not, the next time you butt into a debate, at least get your facts straight.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

It's a great discussion, folks. Hope we all continue to keep it civil, even though "my plane can beat up your plane" debates obviously arouse a lot of passion!

 

[imperialman]

The US is the only global superpower, in the history of mankind.

From the interwebz:

Superpower is a term first applied in 1944 to the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population at the time, and covered more than 33,700,000 km2 (13,012,000 sq mi), almost a quarter of the Earth's total land area (the economic influence of the British Empire affected every nation in the world I believe). As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.

I think it's safe to say that the US is not the only global superpower in history.

Also,

in the history of mankind.

reminds me of the intro to a certain first person shooter.

 

[safferli]

Pointless post deleted. Keep the discussion civil, and no trolling folks.

 

[Brutoni]

And? The argument is is if the F22 is superior to the EF2000. It is.

Funny every report mentioned seems to place the Typhoon as having beaten the F-22. Including when the USAF pilots said they "weren't ready and not running under stealth parameters". People keep saying it's just a rumour but despite the RAF offering to go up against the F-22 the US keeps declining.

A superior plane should also be able to fly... Currently the F-22 just kills its pilots. Or the Ejection seats rust... Or the Stealth tiles fall off after 1 mission... None of that hints at superiority. Especially when the F-35 is cheaper, more stealthy, has better sensors and actually does the whole stealth fighter fighting at BVR better than the F-22 which is just confused (Trying to be stealth fighter, air supermacy and dog fighter all in one).

The US is the only global superpower, in the history of mankind. And the only superpower today. Silly notions?

Lets see;
1) Ancient Rome conquered and held sway over more than America ever has...
2) The Soviet Union was arguably as powerful as the US alon hence why the US formed NATO and close relations with the EU and Commonwealth countries.
3) The British Empire lasted hundreds of years starting with the defeat of Napoleon and finally ending for good within about a decade after world war 2.
4) The British Empire controled the globe, a large portion of the worlds population
5) The British Empire determined things you probably haven't even considered. I would recommend you read "To rule the waves" by Arthur Herman it exaplins quite pertinently how the Empire has forged the system of democracy and trade today through the application of the idea that the worlds oceans are the free right of every man and it is his right to trade on those oceans without risk of piracy or assault from other countries. In effect whoever could secure this would be able to benefit the most from trade and other such things.... I recommend you read the book.

By comparison the US has lasted seconds in it's role as super power. It hasn't even been 100 years and the US is collapsing. China owns a large amount of the US Dollar. India is exploading in power. The US has pulled out of the space programs while India, China, Brazil and the EU are all forging ahead with joint or individual efforts. The US got it seriously wrong in so many ways. I wonder what history will really think of it. It's a shame considering the potential it had... Unfortunately for the world I fear we will never truly see that potential due to the debt it's people have built up.

The argument is if the f22 is superior or not, the next time you butt into a debate, at least get your facts straight.

Please be polite. The point that gentleman was making was simply that, to quote Joesph Stalin "Quantity has a Quality all of its own". If the Eurofighter is cheaper it can be built in greater numbers. Those numbers ensure you can be in more places at once. Those numbers allow you to weather "combat attrition" better. Those numbers allow you to deal with mechanical faults better. Those numbers allow you to overwhelm a superior opponent.

To put it in others ways; 187 F-22's will be ordered. 471 Euro Fighters have been ordered. I can get 2.5 Eurofighters for 1 F-22 if we compare every Eurofighter to every F-22. Furthermore the program cost, flyaway cost, unit cost for the Typhoon are all lower.

The Typhoon may not be quite as good as 1 F-22 but when 2 F-22's are fighting 5 Typhoons... It will go poorly for the F-22's.

 

[imperialman]

I would recommend you read "To rule the waves" by Arthur Herman it exaplins quite pertinently how the Empire has forged the system of democracy and trade today through the application of the idea that the worlds oceans are the free right of every man and it is his right to trade on those oceans without risk of piracy or assault from other countries. In effect whoever could secure this would be able to benefit the most from trade and other such things.... I recommend you read the book.

I'm on the last chapter in my second read through this year, fantastic book I must say. Marvelous account of how the British navy shaped the modern world.

 

[Brutoni]

I'm on the last chapter in my second read through this year, fantastic book I must say. Marvelous account of how the British navy shaped the modern world.

Indeed, I suspect I will read through it again before my Admiralty Interview Board just because of how good an account it is of the Royal Navy. Still I am confident our time will come again .

 

[hitchens]

From the interwebz:

Superpower is a term first applied in 1944 to the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

I highly recommend this book

 

[imperialman]

I highly recommend this book

I'll Amazon it, glad we've all cleared up the disagreement.

 

[hitchens]

Right. The UK was a major power, but not a global superpower. It balanced Europe, it did not dominate it. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, they all balanced eachother. There was no dominant force. Napoleon came close, but it took a whole alliance of major powers to stop him.

What I said about the US being the only global superpower is true. It is the only power who can dominate all continents(unlike previous powers), and it controll all the oceans. Western Europe and more and more of eastern Europe are vassals, and its influence is strong in most of Eurasia.

 

[unmerged(331487)]

And? The argument is is if the F22 is superior to the EF2000. It is.



The US is the only global superpower, in the history of mankind. And the only superpower today. Silly notions?



The argument is if the f22 is superior or not, the next time you butt into a debate, at least get your facts straight.

You disclaim any notion of an aircrafts usefulness as an overall force. I am not claiming on a one by one basis that the F-22 is a superior vessel. But on a airforce level that doesnt matter.

Second chanign the definition of superpower doesnt change the fact that the SU was on. The Commonwealth was one too. Brutoni has mentioned alot more.

Claiming that the SU didnt have enough T-34s? I did butt in yes. But i got my facts straight. Or you got quoting wrong.

I can understand you wanting to defend the F-22 until the end, but at least stop chaning around defintions so they obnly suit your needs. The Superpower one should be a hint.

 

[Brutoni]

Right. The UK was a major power, but not a global superpower. It balanced Europe, it did not dominate it. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, they all balanced eachother. There was no dominant force. Napoleon came close, but it took a whole alliance of major powers to stop him.

What I said about the US being the only global superpower is true. It is the only power who can dominate all continents(unlike previous powers), and it controll all the oceans. Western Europe and more and more of eastern Europe are vassals, and its influence is strong in most of Eurasia.

Okay, again you are incorrect. Did you not read the above facts.

By 1922 the British Empire controlled one quarter of the worlds land mass and population. It had influence in much more. Furthermore it was capable of fighting the next two largest countries and coming out on top... hence why the naval arms race started when Germany started playing shenanigans.

Napoleon was never going to beat Britain because he couldn't stop the flow of trade, the expansion of colonies away from Europe and he couldn't invade due to the supremacy of the Royal Navy. As a result Britain became a global superpower.

Control of all the oceans first belonged to Britain.....


So your definition of a supwer power is dominate all countries;

Britain did that as much as America does (who doesn't dominate China, and didn't dominate the USSR and Russia.... That's what the cold war was about remember?)

It controls all the oceans:

Britain did that better than America has it clamped down on pirates, monitored trade and such like far better... with less technolgical resources.

It influenced the world;

Britain did that more than America... The trade language is; English. The commonwealth countries are; ex-empire colonies (theres a lot of them). Britain through the Royal Navy basically set up free trade on the high seas.

The US is not the only global superpower...

Again Rome was one during it's time as nothing could equal it. It controlled the world. It influenced the parts it didn't control.. except for America and S.America but had it known about them I suspect the Romans would have matched any native country around at the time.

Britain was one

Russian was one (and why everyone was so worried during the cold war.)

The definition even includes RUSSIA and the BRITISH EMPIRE...

 

[hitchens]

You disclaim any notion of an aircrafts usefulness as an overall force. I am not claiming on a one by one basis that the F-22 is a superior vessel. But on a airforce level that doesnt matter.

Who has the better hardware. F22 or EF?

Second chanign the definition of superpower doesnt change the fact that the SU was on. The Commonwealth was one too. Brutoni has mentioned alot more.

I have not changed the definition at all. I think its time you start reading whats actually written. Global superpower>super power. There has only been one global superpower and thats the US.

Claiming that the SU didnt have enough T-34s? I did butt in yes. But i got my facts straight. Or you got quoting wrong.

No, you are basically making up arguments.

I can understand you wanting to defend the F-22 until the end, but at least stop chaning around defintions so they obnly suit your needs. The Superpower one should be a hint.

I have no idea who you are arguing with, its pretty clear you are not debating the same subject as me.

 

[hitchens]

Okay, again you are incorrect. Did you not read the above facts.

By 1922 the British Empire controlled one quarter of the worlds land mass and population. It had influence in much more. Furthermore it was capable of fighting the next two largest countries and coming out on top... hence why the naval arms race started when Germany started playing shenanigans.

In 1914, a few thousand British millitary personell and civil servant controlled 11 million square miles and 400 million people. Britan had global maritime domination, but it was limited to just that. And, it could not in any way single handedly dominate Europe.
Britan relied on an intricate of balance of power, diplomacy and eventually on an Anglo-French entente to prevent domination by either Germany or Russia.

The US is the only true global super power, and the first true global superpower in history as it controll all the oceans, and it can establish superiority on land any place in the world.

and no, Rome did not control the world, it controlled Rome. The same goes with China. China controlled China, not the outside world. The Soviet Union was perceived more powerful than it really was, through mass hysteria in the west. The Soviet was economically and technologically inferior to the US.