Removal of helicopter carried Anti-Air missiles

[Brainlaag]

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

Handheld AA weapons are a one hit kill if you know how to use them. I agree that manpads are not much of a use but you have 2 kits per team, which is more than enough to provide support for groundforces.

[Stealthgato]

Stinger MANPADS are very effective at killing any air assets (except transport helicopters but that's not the Stinger's fault).

The Strelas on the other hand are pretty crappy and more often than not they completely miss their target and have shorter range than the Stinger.

[40mmrain]

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.

I see what you mean, however the 1 missile loadout vs. no missile had good theory behind it, and is not obvious like the 2.

Also in regards to the strela, ive been told the coding of both it and the stinger are the same, I remain skeptical that it is that shit, or that good, could someone look at the code and post it here?

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.

so you dumped both, then? The thing is, a height advantage is a guaranteed victory with no AAMs, sorry you cant dispute this. YOu cant aim up with guns, missiles and impossibly with rockets. You cant gain alt without letting your enemy gain alt as fast, and if you stop to gain alt at max speed youre absolutely dead. I fail to see how a height advantage is a super skilled battle tactic.

Plus, if it's "not worth a test" why not do it? Then we could quantifiably prove this argument you make so easily right? Then this thread would be moot, and it would be incredibly obvious that changing to no missiles would be the best option.

[LithiumFox]

Well while your at it go ahead and take bullets away from everyone... since were suppose to be capping points or finding caches. The real world isn't fair so lets not use it in game is not a valid point in Project Reality. Sacrifices have to be made for gameplay but taking out a completely legitimate asset is kinda absurd.

But you know, the maps being limited to 2km x 2km or 4km x 4km is totally NOT a valid excuse to do ANYTHING "unrealistic".

If you want a mil-sim, go play Arma. If you want a realistic tactical shooter that pushes the gamer to do strange things in the glory of being realistic, then PR is for you.

The maps are simply too small, and the enemy knows that you have to be somewhere within a certain sized area.


Arma, you can be 1000km+ out in any direction if you wanted to be.

God forbid the Dev's change something to be more fun for once.

[SuperHornet]

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.

Wait, wait wait... Weren't you the person that suggested we add Leopard 2's and F-18's on Operation Archer?

[chrisweb89]

You can win a fight from below if you know what you're doing, fly below the enemy chopper while constantly spotting them and get below their gun, forcing them to move or dive on you, either of which evens the fight.

[40mmrain]

Wait, wait wait... Weren't you the person that suggested we add Leopard 2's and F-18's on Operation Archer?

I said F18s yes. Map's too small though, didnt realize this.

You can win a fight from below if you know what you're doing, fly below the enemy chopper while constantly spotting them and get below their gun, forcing them to move or dive on you, either of which evens the fight.

I dont see how this forces a dive, just a stalemate. If my enemy is under me, I'll just keep raising altitude, even if I lose him at worst all he can do is force some confusing, but if he's right under me, I dont think losing him is going to happen.

[tankninja1]

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.

One helo will get slightly damaged RTB and the fight will start again

[chrisweb89]

Or the choppers will let ground AA deal with each other as it should, people rely too much on choppers for AA protection, when thats not their job.

[CanuckCommander]

How about this? Give all att choppers radar that allows them to see all air contacts beyond the view distance or BVR (beyond visual range). Most important, radar should track beyond the range of weapons. At all times, choppers on both sides know where the enemy is, so they know how to keep away from each other and only engage if they have to, turning the game of cat and mouse into a more tactical game.

[SShadowFox]

^ nice one, like the vBF2 UAV but it's only for the helicopter and only shows attack air vehicles.

If don't put this and remove the AA, the helicopters will have 2 choices:

1 - Be scared and almost never fly over the combat to help the teammates because the other chopper will probably be there.
2 - When spot enemy chopper start acting like on vBF2, gunner user the gun and hellfires to shot down the enemy chopper while the pilot use the hydra.

[CopyCat]

I believe the same, Helicopter gunners will use 30mm rounds and hellfire missiles to take out each other - this will lead to a game play by CAS pilots on more passive pace. The fact remains that most of the time changes that are made are always possible to go around with, some ways are actually gets annoying or abusive, in worse case scenario exploited. Poor example would be BlackHawk, door guns that are only there for covered extraction/insertion but now used as CAS on some maps.

CAS (Close Air support) is more likely defined as vehicles that operate through Air-Ground, But as PR reflect irl combat scenarios where several factions are actually real time heavy armed forces/countries there is no doubt that any gunship that would go into hot zone (where intel tells of enemy air assets) without Air-Air missiles would be almost a suicide. Which means that as irl so is in PR when a faction battles another and both factions/countries has heavy armed forces there will be no underestimating each other.

Hope you get my point of view, so I would say keep the Air-Air missiles on gunships.

/CC

[chrisweb89]

For 1.0 if the AAs were taken out, and for whatever reason the gameplay wasn't good they could be added back in for the bug fixing release. We all know there will have to be a release soon after 1.0, so why not make a small test run?

[CopyCat]

That's what Alpha/Beta tests are for, and if DEVs believe that this might be ground breaking change for favor of teamwork and balance they might try it - but as it looks like right now, at this stage this is just a suggestion and probably one that is being/has/will consider. But most logical thing here is still the same, that any country going out to war in modern warfare will most likely be armed with all possible things to counter any situation. As they say in the military "No one likes surprises"

/CC

[Stemplus]

I don't undestand why you don't want them. Are you too big noobs to use them well? Or maybe you are raging on the ground that those "HERP DERP Pr0 CAS pilots" don't want to attack anything for 1 hour because they are searching for the havoc? That means that those pilots are either pu**ies, or that you have no air defence at all. I don't understand why they wouldn't attack something that is confirmed, lased, and important. Taking AA rockets won't stop those kind of players from searching for enemy chopper, even more, it will make them do it for longer because its harder to hit the chopper with un-guided rockets than a one-shot-one-kill heat seeking rocket. Normaly when 4 attack choppers meet then 2 of them die, 1 RTBs with his engine burning, and the third one stays in the air un-touched and spam the global chat with "HERP DERP you s*ck at flying woohoo I won the dogfight" If you would remove AA rockets then you wouldn't get air support AT ALL because they would constantly search for it other.

Thanks for reading,
Stemplus.

[Stealthgato]

The fact remains that most of the time changes that are made are always possible to go around with, some ways are actually gets annoying or abusive, in worse case scenario exploited. Poor example would be BlackHawk, door guns that are only there for covered extraction/insertion but now used as CAS on some maps.

Miniguns will be removed from Black Hawk, and if people still use them in the way you described they're just plain retarded, transport helicopters are big slow targets easily hit with an ATGM. I don't think this will be exploitable in any way, tbh.

Are you too big noobs to use them well?

It takes no skill to use AA missiles well. That's the problem.

Taking AA rockets won't stop those kind of players from searching for enemy chopper, even more

I disagree, without AA missiles attack helicopters becomes less of a threat to other helicopters and it will be less likely for them to actively search for each other, resulting in more response to CAS requests.

Normaly when 4 attack choppers meet then 2 of them die, 1 RTBs with his engine burning, and the third one stays in the air un-touched and spam the global chat with "HERP DERP you s*ck at flying woohoo I won the dogfight" If you would remove AA rockets then you wouldn't get air support AT ALL because they would constantly search for it other.

No. Just no.

[CopyCat]

You either gotta be ignorant or blind if you think that CAS choppers wont hunt each other with Hellfire/30mm, they will definitely do it - Tell me one Role in PR right now that never been used something different then it is meant for ?! It all comes down on the mind set you have for what kind of game play you will have. Having no AA cover or too many AA's to handle for me, I would never engage ground targets unless the team helps out taking them out with armored units or HAT/Recon squads. But if I got AA's in Infantry, FOB's and AA cover for our vehicles I would go all in for ground support as I wouldn't worry about enemy CAS - I'll force them to come down to me where I have my teams advantage of the battlefield and map control rather then hanging there to get shot down. It's not up to CAS crew how to handle this, they are support asset meant to support, by any means, covering the Air-Air or Air-Ground, after that it's what the team can do for the CAS crew, cover them, help them and support by any means.

[Stemplus]

It takes no skill to use AA missiles well. That's the problem.

That's like saying "Pff, it takes no skill to use a HAT. You just aim, wait 5 seconds and click. Let's remove it from the game."

BTW:
Could someone finnaly give me the reason WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE AA ROCKET? I've read the whole thread from the begginning and the only thing I see is people constantly argueing that it will be bad etc. But, why the hell would it be removed?

With the current system of anti-air missle armed attack choppers the fight most of the time ends after a few seconds and 2 quickly fired aa missles flying through the air

So what? Get over it. It is not suppost to take 5 hours to kill one chopper. On the other hand - If you are getting attacked by enemy heli and you somehow dodge the rocket then your job isn't to run away to the AA 4 kilometers away from you, you are suppost to fight back. If you dive then you are just a static target that is v. easy to hit with hellfire AGM.

[SuperHornet]

That's what Alpha/Beta tests are for, and if DEVs believe that this might be ground breaking change for favor of teamwork and balance they might try it - but as it looks like right now, at this stage this is just a suggestion and probably one that is being/has/will consider. But most logical thing here is still the same, that any country going out to war in modern warfare will most likely be armed with all possible things to counter any situation. As they say in the military "No one likes surprises"

/CC

Its not about using them when needed, it's just you can't use them while they're equipped with a Air - To - Ground loadout. Yes, I know there is exceptions such as the Cobra.

[chrisweb89]

You don't have to aim AA missiles, but thats besides the point.

PR itself is one big beta test, and the Devs and testers from my knowledge only test for bug and don't have the numbers to do gameplay tests.