Why is Anti Air placement so absurd?

bobfish · Post by **bobfish** » 2007-04-22 19:09

If, I was to place AA on Basra, I would have some one on the roof north of facility, one on the roof south east of facility, one near industry, one near palace, one south of village.

Like the three on the west side of the map would be destroyed pretty quick, but they are good positions to have them. Imo.

Lucid Nightmare · Post by **Lucid Nightmare** » 2007-04-23 10:57

if you have the luck of hit something at more than 40 m , also rpg would be limited in .6

Where have they said the rpg gunner will be limited? They've said the Light AT class will be limited, but as far as I know, insurgents have no such class.

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-04-23 11:00

bobfish wrote:If, I was to place AA on Basra, I would have some one on the roof north of facility, one on the roof south east of facility, one near industry, one near palace, one south of village.

one problem with that, at the time when ducky placed the AA guns there was a bug with them where you could not enter them when they where ontop of an object. that bug has been fixed now but was an issue before

Lothrian · Post by **Lothrian** » 2007-04-23 12:04

bobfish wrote:If, I was to place AA on Basra, I would have some one on the roof north of facility, one on the roof south east of facility, one near industry, one near palace, one south of village.

Like the three on the west side of the map would be destroyed pretty quick, but they are good positions to have them. Imo.

Hmm, but would that not give the insurgenmts back the major advantage? It would be like 0.4 Basrah again, basically, the USMC can never take village. If the AA was so badly placed, then the US would always win, yet 90% of the time the insurgents are victorious. In reality, the air supremacy only tackle those silly enough to be in the open and armour ... but insurgents fight dirty and rarely use armour ... so they win more.

Its a pretty even map right now (although maybe to even when it comes to facility and mosque)

That said, on the plus side, it would mean that there would be less people waiting at the airport ... a good thing.

Guerra · Post by **Guerra** » 2007-04-23 14:15

They should really make some kind of formalized lineup to get into choppers and blackhawks, maybe like a commander election. Would be good.

Only reason the insurgents win about 70-80% of the time is because USMC is disorganized with all the air goodies.

I also think once facility is taken, it shouldn't need defending, just uncappable as village.

Would be nice to see no ticket bleed for Basrah, only a time countdown. So an hour, hour an a half, whatever the devs like. If USMC doesn't conquer Palace by the end of the map, they lose, but they don't need to defend previous flags, just keep moving on.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-04-24 02:36

Lothrian wrote: If the AA was so badly placed, then the US would always win, yet 90% of the time the insurgents are victorious. .

no, US lost becasue they are DUMB , they are always in the airport waiting for a f*king chooper or a10 , they dont play like a REAL army they play like idiots , i was in devfile and ALWAYS are like 10-12 pilots at airport (2 a10 , 2 cobras,2 BH = 8 pilots, NO 10 ) . devs *think* than making insurgents more crappy than now would fix that , but they cant fix the mind of the players , so that map would be the same (untile they remove the a10 and cobras .)

PD: i dont want the removed planes

Shining Arcanine · Post by **Shining Arcanine** » 2007-04-24 14:58

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:Guerra, I agree that some rooftop AA would be nice (as the one east of market is in Sunset city). But the ditches do protect the AA gunner from attacks from tanks and the like. It also prevents them from being employed as anti-infantry weapons.

In his book, War As I Knew It, General George S. Patton writes that anti-aircraft guns should be where the enemy cannot see them. If they are placed on roof tops, some sort of wood should be placed around the edge of the roof (with a few holes in it to allow for water run off for realism) so that the enemy cannot see the antiair emplacements. Perhaps the wood could be destroyable (like the wood in Call of Duty), such that it could be shot through and blown apart and also be repairable, along with the antiaircraft emplacement, so that mechanics have something to do.

Guerra · Post by **Guerra** » 2007-04-24 21:36

WWII is a lot different from modern combat.

Most of the AA in WWII was in open flat ground. Unlike today, there were not many high rise buildings in Europe.

bobfish · Post by **bobfish** » 2007-04-25 06:48

Stick a few sand bags around them, but with the low flight ceiling the AA gun can't afford to have a lot of shielding around it.

And having them in the positions I suggested wouldn't be unbalancing, because it will take two rounds tops before the USMC know exactly where they are and the first wave of aircraft either destroy them or hang back long enough for some spec ops to take them out. Though it would remove stupid pilots from the equation as the Insurgents have a good angle of fire to take them down

It's better than them being ignore completely.