Removal of helicopter carried Anti-Air missiles

[MaSSive]

IN REAL LIFE HELICOPTERS DO NOT CARRY SIDEWINDER OR ANY OTHER AIR-AIR MISSILES.

And yes, those pictures of the Kiowa and Cobra, and no, they are not used like that operationally.

If you disagree, prove it. I can't be arsed to disprove it unfortunately, however I remember the arguments on the Eagle Dynamics forums regarding the issue, and firmly know that IR AAMs aren't used operationally in real life. The helicopters just make do with cannon and secondary capabilities of the AT missiles.

Not quite true. Some versions of some helicopters are carrying different kinds of Air to Air missiles.

Some examples are








I agree with removing them from any attack helicopter in PR, just for one reason. It will be harder to spot and engage enemy helicopter, and I think this is fair fight, and balanced between realism and gameplay.

Take Kashan desert for example. Apache does not have any Air to Air missiles ( IRL ), its purpose is to take out armor from safe distance. That's why its built. Havoc on the other hand has improved versions which are carrying these missiles. By these I mean Igla or Strela missiles. But lets disregard that fact and use mi28 and ah64 no Air to Air missiles versions of helicopters.

It will be harder to counter jet attack, but chances are that if a jet spots you, he will gun you down before you even blink. I wouldn't use gunships and jets in same time on a map ever.

Super cobra is another gunship that has sidewinder missiles, but on maps where this helicopter is used they are useless pretty much ( Muttrah )

[ExeTick]

Apache does not have any Air to Air missiles ( IRL )

apache helicopters can be manned with sidewinders if they need it. right now down in afghanistan and iraq they have no use for sidewinders because they are not facing any enemy helicopters.

so removing air to air missiles on Havoc/apache/cobra and other aircrafts will be unrealistic.

AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter

[saXoni]

apache helicopters can be manned with sidewinders if they need it. right now down in afghanistan and iraq they have no use for sidewinders because they are not facing any enemy helicopters.

so removing air to air missiles on Havoc/apache/cobra and other aircrafts will be unrealistic.

AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter

Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

A sidewinder type AAM missile can be fitted to anything it just needs the fixing points and a small electricity supply to launch.

In the Falklands war they were even fitted to Nimrod's.

I don't think a UK Apache has ever had them fitted in an operational role, all the silly promotional shots showing possible weapons loads are void.

[Rhino]

I don't think a UK Apache has ever had them fitted in an operational role, all the silly promotional shots showing possible weapons loads are void.

The main reason for this is they have never been deployed in a situation where they might need them. If they where deployed in a theater where there was the very possible encounter of an enemy air asset, being a chopper or fixed wing, I'm sure they would have them fitted.

One interesting load out for the Z-9WA is this:


That is 8, TY-90 AA missiles its got on it. This is in fact the only weapon load-out I didn't make for the PR version of the Z-9WA (although note, it could easily be made later, just needs the rack and missiles making, strapping on and then coded) as I didn't see any real purpose of having just an AA chopper ingame, but this is a pretty common load-out for the Z-9WA in r/l.

[Ron-Schultz]

Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

PR: Realism > Gameplay, my friend... Realism > Gameplay.
Bf3: Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

[saXoni]

Uh, no? First priority is always to make sure the gameplay is acceptable. If something realistic is going to be added but it will ruin the gameplay, it won't be implemented to the mod. Realistically Blufor would have had a lot more aircrafts on Insurgency maps so they could take out every cache without even having to send in any ground-troops, but they don't because it would ruin the gameplay.

[Xander[nl]]

I don't think a UK Apache has ever had them fitted in an operational role,

Isn't that just because they have never been deployed into combat against an enemy that actually has air power?

[Souls Of Mischief]

PR: Realism > Gameplay, my friend... Realism > Gameplay.
Bf3: Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

This is incorrect, my friend.

Oh and, pretty much what saxoni said.

[Rhino]

Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

PR: Realism > Gameplay, my friend... Realism > Gameplay.
Bf3: Gameplay > Realism, my friend... Gameplay > Realism.

Uh, no? First priority is always to make sure the gameplay is acceptable. If something realistic is going to be added but it will ruin the gameplay, it won't be implemented to the mod. Realistically Blufor would have had a lot more aircrafts on Insurgency maps so they could take out every cache without even having to send in any ground-troops, but they don't because it would ruin the gameplay.

I always hate when people try to claim what is more important to PR, gameplay or realism and what at the end of the day makes the underlying choice for PR....

TBH its ever neither either or gameplay or realism that determine the choice of anything we do. Its a careful, calculated discussion of the best of both. So really its Gameplay = Realism in terms of PR, "my friend"....

Neither has overall priority. If we only went for gameplay, then we would end up like vBF2/3, as they strive to make the most popular type of gameplay for the masses. If we only went for realism, we would end up with a military simulator, that wasn't fun to play other than people who find simulations fun. With having a good balance of both, we have ended up with PR and not having any dominant priority.

So please next time any of you try to beef up your argument, don't use this "Gameplay > Realism or Realism > Gameplay" argument as it just doesn't fly.

[40mmrain]

Gameplay > realism is the ultimate cop-out phrase to fallaciously argue that any assertion that something realistic could be implemented is bad, because obviously gameplay is obviously mutually exclusive to realism.

Saxoni, do shut it.

Anyways, I promised I'd organize an event to test out theory of the nature of helicopter combat in PR, and missile numbers vs. skills required. Both these values are easily quantifiable, and well, quite fun to test, and now that im back to playing if this thread is revived a bit ill organize this.

Test values should make it clear what we should do

[saXoni]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but what I'm trying to say is that people should stop thinking 'oh my God that's not realistic so we can't add that'. Guess what? There are so many things in this mod that aren't realistic, and you should appreciate that considering this mod would've been fucked if it went for realism only.

I'll never shut it.

[40mmrain]

seee youre doing the exact opposite which is just as wrong, because all you say is instead of it's realistic so it's good, you say it's realistic so it's bad.

Each point needs to be individually examined.

[saXoni]

No that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the first priority should be to make sure the mod is playable without any flaws or injustices caused by the realism. If you can have the same gameplay and make it even more realistic that's great, but if you're exchanging the gameplay with realism that would be wrong as the mod wouldn't be as enjoyable.

[40mmrain]

i know what youre trying to say, but it is different from you do say.

whenever says we should implement something because it's realistic, this is instantly a moot point because "gameply > realism". Now I know you dont believe this, however, the way you use it, you might as well because you dont really articulate your arguments.

[Rhino]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say

Basically neither gameplay or realism takes priority in any of our decision making and are both classed as equally important values, with the outcome trying to get the best from both.

[Stealthgato]

Gameplay > realism is the ultimate cop-out phrase to fallaciously argue that any assertion that something realistic could be implemented is bad, because obviously gameplay is obviously mutually exclusive to realism.

Saxoni, do shut it.

Anyways, I promised I'd organize an event to test out theory of the nature of helicopter combat in PR, and missile numbers vs. skills required. Both these values are easily quantifiable, and well, quite fun to test, and now that im back to playing if this thread is revived a bit ill organize this.

Test values should make it clear what we should do

I remember you were wanting a test to see if it took more skill to kill with or without AA missiles. There is really no test required. It should be beyond completely obvious it takes more skill to kill with unguided rockets than to press a button and have a missile guide itself towards your target.

I do hope AA missiles are removed from attack helicopters.

[chrisweb89]

Not even worth the test, almost every chopper pilot already knows the answer. I have been in the most tactically lopsided fights, fights where my position was horrible, and the enemy had the clear advantage, but I just popped my nose up and shot AA. That shouldn't be how the fights are, but it is.

[tankninja1]

Only thing is that if AA is removed from attack helos (accept from Cobra on Muttrah) then the attack helos would either be useless because they are always dogfighting with the other attack helo or be constantly wrecking all ground forces, because lets admit it most ground to air AA kills are just lucky

[Stealthgato]

Only thing is that if AA is removed from attack helos (accept from Cobra on Muttrah) then the attack helos would either be useless because they are always dogfighting with the other attack helo or be constantly wrecking all ground forces, because lets admit it most ground to air AA kills are just lucky

Ehm... What? How will removing AA missiles make them fight the entire time? They'll fight for 1-2 minutes max until one kills the other... Or if you mean they'll spend much time looking for each other that won't be any different from now, will it? I would actually be much more comfortable engaging ground targets with the enemy helicopter up if it doesn't have AA missiles.