1 Tank, 2 Choppers, 10 Missles and a Mice.

{GD}geogob · Post by **{GD}geogob** » 2005-11-18 04:46

The title might sound somewhat original and absurd. Well, it is... but the subject is nonetheless important (although a bit philosophical).

The ballistic used for the main cannon of the MBTs is very interesting. It makes tank very deadly, both again ground targets and… air targets. After play around a few hours, I came to the conclusion that the most effective AA weapon is a tank. Odd.

Ballistics seems fine (at first sight), speed also. Where’s the bug then? When did tanks become more effective then AA missiles too shoot down both slow moving choppers and fast moving jets?

The big problem is, in my experience, trying to push realism without thinking about the draw backs of a system. This is been a major issue with another mod (Infiltration to name it) for which I have been coding. I came to the think that it is nearly impossible, in a realism-base game, to remove the “balancing features” (for example exaggerated ballistic drop, lower speed, higher recoil) of any given system without incorporating the “defects” and “flaws” these systems have in real life.

Sometimes you need to think a lot about it, but often a few simple well place question help to find the solution. For example, one could ask “why don’t we see tank shooting down planes and chopper in real combat?” or to a tank gunner “why couldn’t you shoot down a chopper, if you can, why don’t you do it?”

Maybe it will turn out that there is nothing wrong with either the tank, the ballistic, the aiming system nor with the choppers, but maybe with something else in the game (like the average range of engagement for example).

Any thoughts?

USAF-Marshall · Post by **USAF-Marshall** » 2005-11-18 05:55

O.o

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-18 06:00

In real life aircraft rarely fly as low as they do in BF2, they also fly faster and would be gone before a tank could target and fire. Helos, especially the attack helos have a much further view distance, fog of war does not exist as it does in BF2, therefor they would have seen the tank on radar or had it painted by troops on the ground and bam! the armor is toast. The maps in BF2 are just too small and the view distance means that in a helo, or other aircraft you have to be on top of the armor before you can effectively target it. This means that in game a tanker who is quick witted and accurate can put a round into the helo taking it out usually with one or two shots, this coupled with the fact that in puby servers many people still use the helos without a co-pilot gives the tank a huge advantage; without those guided missiles being used accurately it takes numerous hits from a helo to even hurt a tank in any serious manner.

The helos also don't turn well, which allows a tanker to adjust and fire or repair enough to sustain a second assault especially if the helo is being flown poorly or is being engaged bu other ground based weaponry. That's my 2 cents, make of it what you will.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2005-11-18 06:08

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm

My 2 cents

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-11-18 16:52

DAWG pretty much said it all.

Another significant drawback to the scenario you brought up Snake is the way that helicopters aim in-game.

In real life, any attack helicopter seperates the combat system of the chopper from the flight system of the chopper.

An example of this is going very high in the air and wanting to take out some enemy armor down the road. You would have to tilt your chopper forward (making it move forward) to aim

Yes, the gunner is there for the job... but his reload time sucks and the cannot won't really do much for armor.

It would be nice if the pilot could just be the pilot and the gunner can do all the shooting. That way, the choppers would be more effective and true to life... as you could fly high and at the longest distance possible, still eliminating your target.

{GD}geogob · Post by **{GD}geogob** » 2005-11-18 17:21

interesting.

Thank you for the link JS.Fortnight.A.

I am not really bothered by planes. For various reasons, I think they should be removed, and DAWG pretty much resumed the main reason.

I am sure that you can shoot down an helicopter with a tank shell. I have no doupt about this. As I said at the end of my initial post, the problem is not that you can shoot them down, but how it easy it is. And I'm not saying there a problem with the tank... the problem might very well be with the chopper and the way they are or can be used in game.

Another thing that was troubling me is that stinger missiles is less effective then tank to shoot airial vehicles down vehicles. Those AA missles are pretty neat piece of technology. They pack IFF, very accurate IR sensors. It's also pretty fast... They are slower then HEAT rounds being fired from a 120mm main gun of a tank, but they are still supersonic.

So how often would a stinger actually miss it's target when it's, lets say, a stationnary or slow moving helo?

That's where this title actually comes from. One tank shoots down 2 choppers in 2 shots, while it take roughly 10 stingers to shoot down one. (the mice was just nonesense

)

OAKside · Post by **OAKside** » 2005-11-18 19:30

{GD}geogob wrote:So how often would a stinger actually miss it's target when it's, lets say, a stationnary or slow moving helo?

That's where this title actually comes from. One tank shoots down 2 choppers in 2 shots, while it take roughly 10 stingers to shoot down one. (the mice was just nonesense )

'Mice was just nonsense'

Exactly what I've been wondering: when some of this stuf would/could be fixed.
BF2's stingers are useless against jets, and underpowered and unreliable
against attack helis. Only thing worth getting into is the LBacker with its
chain guns, then you'll get bombed easilyby jets which you cannot bring down. :/

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-11-18 19:55

I loved the way DC did it. Planes were troublesome when there was a good pilot, but they weren't unbeatable.

I think stationary emplacements should not seeking missiles, those things are really expensive and aren't plastered all over a country.

Instead, they should put 2 seeking missiles at each main base for protection. They seeking missiles should be a near-garauntee when locked on unless countermeasures are deployed or the pilot does some crazy maneuvers (like ducking under a large bridge or something).

All other AA emplacements should be guns like the Shilka has. I dont know much about them as I haven't done my research yet, but I think they can be pretty effective based on the altitude planes & choppers fly in BF2.

{GD}geogob · Post by **{GD}geogob** » 2005-11-18 20:05

I think stationary emplacements should not seeking missiles, those things are really expensive and aren't plastered all over a country.

Indeed. I would rather see the stinger a player class option. Replace the AT by an Anti-Vehicle class and let the player choose between SRAW or Stinger.

OAKside · Post by **OAKside** » 2005-11-18 23:20

Oh, that would be interesting.

I like the idea of fewer stingers that are more effective also.

I see Artnez you are a PubRelations now, nice!

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-19 00:00

'[R-PUB wrote:Artnez.com']
I think stationary emplacements should not seeking missiles, those things are really expensive and aren't plastered all over a country.

Instead, they should put 2 seeking missiles at each main base for protection. They seeking missiles should be a near-garauntee when locked on unless countermeasures are deployed or the pilot does some crazy maneuvers (like ducking under a large bridge or something).

All other AA emplacements should be guns like the Shilka has. I dont know much about them as I haven't done my research yet, but I think they can be pretty effective based on the altitude planes & choppers fly in BF2.

Very good point...I like that idea..I like it a lot!

Main bases need too be much more, impenetrable, if you will...As of right now, its WAY too easy to waltz into an enemy fortification and start blowing stuff up and shooting people that spawn.

In regaurds to the AA emplacements, thats our solution right there Art...

-Remove those POS tube launched missles from the actual combat zone, place them at the main bases, make them EXTREMELY deadly to aircraft(one shot one kill, unless counter measures are used of course.), then simply add in stationary AA Cannons...Brilliant!

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-19 02:20

DAWG wrote:In real life aircraft rarely fly as low as they do in BF2, they also fly faster and would be gone before a tank could target and fire. Helos, especially the attack helos have a much further view distance, fog of war does not exist as it does in BF2, therefor they would have seen the tank on radar or had it painted by troops on the ground and bam! the armor is toast. The maps in BF2 are just too small and the view distance means that in a helo, or other aircraft you have to be on top of the armor before you can effectively target it. This means that in game a tanker who is quick witted and accurate can put a round into the helo taking it out usually with one or two shots, this coupled with the fact that in puby servers many people still use the helos without a co-pilot gives the tank a huge advantage; without those guided missiles being used accurately it takes numerous hits from a helo to even hurt a tank in any serious manner.

Umm the AH-1W has a Forward Looking InfaRed (FLIR) scope on it. You basically use it when using the TOW missle. The pilot can track heat sources and lock their missles onto it. You think you could add the "vehicle box" tracking thing that the planes have onto it? Not the lock feature that the LGB's on the 2 seater has, but just the "theres a heat signature of a vehicle right here" box that you get in the bombing mode of the planes. That might help a bit!

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-19 03:00

Noetheinner wrote:Umm the AH-1W has a Forward Looking InfaRed (FLIR) scope on it. You basically use it when using the TOW missle. The pilot can track heat sources and lock their missles onto it. You think you could add the "vehicle box" tracking thing that the planes have onto it? Not the lock feature that the LGB's on the 2 seater has, but just the "theres a heat signature of a vehicle right here" box that you get in the bombing mode of the planes. That might help a bit!

Good question...

Im curious if this is possible too.

They should lock on and track too! If they can get the squares, they can get them to lock on and track. That way we can give the gunner REAL Hellfires...That would be so freakin amazing.

Technically it should be possible..But coding wise it may not be because it might require core coding in the game engine, which is not possible..

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-11-19 03:05

it should be, if it's in there for one vehicle then it should definitely be possible in another. i would assume (having no background in coding) that this sort of 'transplant' if you will is much easier than creating totally new weapons systems.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-19 03:48

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']it should be, if it's in there for one vehicle then it should definitely be possible in another. i would assume (having no background in coding) that this sort of 'transplant' if you will is much easier than creating totally new weapons systems.

Oh yea without question. I have some familiarity with the coding. Back in PoE days I changed A LOT of vehicle physics and suspensions in an attempt to make a small Realism Mini-Mod..BF2 came out before I had a chance to compile anything..But a lot of "transplanting" was involved with quite a few things.

It may be possible to attach the coding lines for that bomb, into a different object. (Missle obviously) Hell if i know. I havnt messed with any of that before.

I hope its possible hows that?

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-19 03:51

Sounds good and I think it is possible with some tweaks.
PS- Wolf if you read this I pmed you.

ECale3 · Post by **ECale3** » 2005-11-19 19:49

The missiles on the choppers should also go where the crosshair is (in real time, not this point click point click point click nonsense) because the crosshair would represent where the choppers laser designator is pointed.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-19 20:34

If you mean the ones the pilot fires then nah. They're unguided FFAR's.

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-20 01:45

hehe, just a little piece of fun info, the currrent aiming system for FFAR rockets in a huey is......... tape or dry erase markers on the window. Seriously. The pilots make you walk out a certain distance when you are on the ground, then put the "bullseye" on top of your head. Or right on your face if you're tall like me.

On another note, I'm not sure how the hellfires track. I think it's IR, so that would be like the 2nd seater on the planes. But I'm worried about the balancing issues that would go with a slow moving and steady (read that as "accurate") 1 shot 1 kill on the tanks.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-20 02:18

Well in reality attack choppers will hover a few miles away and pop off tanks beyond their (the tanks) weapon range. So, unless there's some way to up the view distance about 400% along with map sizes without causing a system melt down, I think realism here (well realism to the n'th degree) is out of the window.

Oh and Hellfires are IR guided. The gunner keeps a lock on the target... or they can lock onto a laser designator beam "painted" by ground forces or recon choppers (like the Kiowa, they have a laser designator for missiles and GBU's).