Comments - k0m1ssar

Is this editing method Saved games compatible? Aftering editing the export_descr_unit file, I get CTD when I try to loading to a campaign save but have no problem with new campaign games.

Take Trantio and you can recruit more Grudgebringer Cannons; take Miragliano and you can recruit Bronzino's Galloper Guns.

As far as I can tell, the Empire recruitment buildings don't do jack. So you might as well just demolish them for cash.

It seems that every time I come on Moddb you guys got some new toys for us to play with. Many thanks!

I'm still a bit confused about how the SEAD strike work: is it automatically triggered when the JTAC calls a strike on Heavy SAM site?

Off-topic: is there a way to circumvent the role number limit (3 per each role)? An all-air game would be pretty funny to play and to watch.

I'm seeing US infantry AI using the Stryker IFV named as Mechanized Infantry, yet when I play an Inf I only have trucks in the Infantry selection and Bradley and AAV from the Armor selection. Is this normal? Because it would be good if the infantry player has access to transport that runs fast and have decent survivability under fire.

4. Air: this is the main difference in strength: U.S. have absolute superiority in the air. With the F-22 shooting down all incoming aircrafts and posing serious threats to Russian choppers (and most of them, except the 2001 Havoc don't even have warning system), the A-10 providing CAS despise heavy AA fire, the F-16 conducting SEAD mission against all SAM sites, the Russian counterparts are inferior in every aspect. Maybe it's because I'm playing against bots but they seem to be able to call down air support everywhere on the map even without having JTAC nearby. A-10's cluster munitions and Mavericks just rain down on Russian columns like nothing at all, while the Russian aircrafts can't do **** because of the F-22 presence. I know that this is realistic but it's a bit upsetting. A good method to balance this would be increase the time for aircraft respawn on the U.S. side, so they would think twice before throwing CAS and SEAD on heavily guarded Russian positions.

Loving the FLINT SAM and jet missiles. Now the air players have a better chance at dodging them.

But there're still issues with the game balance, the U.S.'s arsenal is more advanced compared to the Russian's, yet there's not really a difference in price.

1. Infantry: pretty balanced since it's the grunts hiding in bushes trying to find each other first on both sides. But the smoke grenade ability doesn't seem to be working, so maybe give that a fix?

2. Armor: US's M1A2 owns the Russian T-90 with no problem at all. Like someone pointed out earlier the APFSDS should guarantee 1-2 shot kill on both sides, yet in reality 1 M1A2 can take on 2 T-90 even without using smoke screen+ infrared. T-90's missile sounds nice but it takes way too long to shoot and has no range advantage over normal tank rounds. Even when it manages to hit enemy target, the TROPHY system can reduce the damage to nothing. This is even without mentioning the crucial difference in gun accuracy.

MGS and T-80's price should be even lower (about 650-700 should be ok). If they don't have the price's advantage there's no point using them instead of the heavier tank, especially when they lack APFDS.

3. Support: U.S. needs a better short-range missile interceptor than the PIVADS. The intercept ratio difference between the PIVADS and the Pantsir is quite large. So maybe give the U.S. a land-based Phalanx (even if it's immobile)?

Some humble suggestions:

1. Maybe bump down the T-90's price a bit? That thing is really no match for the M1A2. Even without the smoke advantage, 2 M1A2s can easily take on 3 T-90s. Maybe it's because of the APFSDS? The Russians can only hope that T-80s swarm can get into knife-fighting range before the US flyers tear them to shreds. An alternative would be a more powerful T-90, I'm thinking T-90MS?

2. The US JTAC does not need better survivability as it is. That thing can stay hidden in cover and just call down air strikes with impunity while the Russian JTAC has to advance with friendly armor column to even hope to call down air support before being destroyed. Maybe get Russian Spetnaz infantry JTAC instead?

3. Russians should get even cheaper artillery (or US should have more expensive ones) since Soviet combat doctrine is heavily based on artillery support rather than full air support.

4. Discard Mi-28N's rising effect when firing ATGM. That thing bugs more than it helps.

5. Is it normal that US's F-22 keeps shooting everything down? At one point I could swear that it shot down cruise missiles like nothing. On smaller maps the Russian Su-27 can't even stay in the air because of F-22.

First off congratz on fixing that Spiral attack angle: in 2.5 that thing would hit the ground every friggin' time. However, the Mi-28 is still bugged and vastly inferior compared to the Apache.

Bug 1: the automatic raise of altitude when firing the Spiral AT missile bugs after the craft just finished firing a volley of rockets. The helicopter start shaking in midair and won't fire the missile.

Bug 2: the midair "drifting" from 2.5 remains: sometimes after firing the Spiral at mid altitude, the helicopter just switches direction in midair, facing away from the target, resulting in missile self-destructs after losing laser guidance.

Is there a way to balance out the heavy gunship of both side? Like making the Havoc a bit cheaper (so Russian air can field 3 instead of 2, not that it makes a difference). Because of the bugs and lack of Longbow radar on the Havoc, you will have more success flying a fleet of Mi-24 only using rocket barrages.

And can someone please explain how the jet/spotter system work?