Project Reality Forums

If only more people started using CAS. Every time i hop in a inf squad while there is CAS no one uses it.

I dont mean like its unmanned. The squads dont requests any help at all, even after i suggest the squad-leader to call in air support.

Squad leaders really have to use the soflam way more often and call in air support. Of course not while aa is right at the side of the target.

If only people did this (and right) the attack choppers wouldn't have such a hard time.

Zoddom wrote:this. , @titan:
i got the feeling you dont know what youre talking about. you cant do EPC LULZ HELI BATTULES like in vanilla.
thats why they introduced the AA pods.
i thik we should test to reduce the amount of missiles to 1 at first, then we would see if its necessary to remove them all.
(perhaps attach an ECM pod to the pylone where the 2nd missile was befre, so it doesnt look unbalanced xD)

You can do epic close combat dogfights. You get so close that the AA has no time to get a solid lock and keep rotating/diving around your opponent while your gunner tries to get off some rockets and cannon.

ZAR2PRO - Xfire Video

For example, this is from a clan match a while back. My teams pilot is in the Apache. Notice how many WTF rolls and random backflips he does (Looks retarded, but it works as it breaks the AA lock quickly) And then goes and shoots down the Havok chasing him and kills the eurocopter.


@ the discussion. CAS is only as good as the team its operating on. Expect to die if you never get told in teamchat where enemy AA/FOBs/APCS are. Going out to find your own targets/doing CAPS is a risky business. The only solid way of doing CAS imo is get a target, ask for a laze (Optional) line up your dive, dive on target, gunner goes for the rocket kills, Pilot for spread with Hydras then exfil low and fast using terrain/buildings to break AA locks. As you gain so much speed from the dive you should be back on the pad before the enemy team can really react.

Mora wrote:If only more people started using CAS. Every time i hop in a inf squad while there is CAS no one uses it.

I dont mean like its unmanned. The squads dont requests any help at all, even after i suggest the squad-leader to call in air support.

Squad leaders really have to use the soflam way more often and call in air support. Of course not while aa is right at the side of the target.

If only people did this (and right) the attack choppers wouldn't have such a hard time.

Finally someone that understands me and my night mares, thank you!!!

Zoddom wrote:this. , @titan:
i got the feeling you dont know what youre talking about. you cant do EPC LULZ HELI BATTULES like in vanilla.
thats why they introduced the AA pods.
i thik we should test to reduce the amount of missiles to 1 at first, then we would see if its necessary to remove them all.
(perhaps attach an ECM pod to the pylone where the 2nd missile was befre, so it doesnt look unbalanced xD)

Mh .. no sorry have to disagree. As long as a gamer can see a way to kill, he will take the oportunity. As soon as you take away the AA pods, they will fire whatever they have (they even do now).
They will fly high and nosedive like a Stuka to unload there Hellfire, Hydras and Cannons on the enemy chopper who just tried to bob up behind a ridge... of course it woulnd look like the "EPC LULZ HELI BATTULES like in vanilla" but the result will be the same... flying high will make you the hunter instead the pray and nothing will change, plus beeing even less realistic.

Dont get me wrong i am absolut fine with removing the AApods, but i just dont think you would solve the problem just by doing it.
Ithink the only way would be to balance the map asymetric( only one side with choppers and the other side with AAs) or to make it easyer to shoot up than to shoot down.

Titan wrote:Mh .. no sorry have to disagree. As long as a gamer can see a way to kill, he will take the oportunity. As soon as you take away the AA pods, they will fire whatever they have (they even do now).
They will fly high and nosedive like a Stuka to unload there Hellfire, Hydras and Cannons on the enemy chopper who just tried to bob up behind a ridge... of course it woulnd look like the "EPC LULZ HELI BATTULES like in vanilla" but the result will be the same... flying high will make you the hunter instead the pray and nothing will change, plus beeing even less realistic.

Dont get me wrong i am absolut fine with removing the AApods, but i just dont think you would solve the problem just by doing it.
Ithink the only way would be to balance the map asymetric( only one side with choppers and the other side with AAs) or to make it easyer to shoot up than to shoot down.

well, its not unrealistic, im pretty sure irl, if all fails you will unload all your rocket pods on helis and even enemy jets.
and im sure that this WILL change something. cause its not true that every palyer will still be HUNTING helis. they wont stop because we removed the AA missiles, but because its far more diffictuly and risky to hunt and engage enemy helicopters than enemy ground targets, which are, in fact, the true targets of CAS.

edit:
@tim: i meant the especially the Anti Aircraft Hellfire.

'[RIP wrote:-Chido312;1483389'] the US army and marine corps attack heli plots still train and use the tactic even today.

I never said it was an unrealistic tactic, all I was saying was it just doesn't work in PR because of all the reasons people have highlighted throughout this thread:

.Low view distance forces you to fly within 1000m of your targets whereas in reality, targets can be engaged up to 8km away (way out of tank cannon range).
.No radar system- you are forced to fly in blindly without knowing where enemy armour/threats are. This problem is made worse by view distance because of late target acquisition- enemies can hear you coming before you can even see them.
.Enemy attack helicopters being able to dive right on top of you and kill you without any way to defend yourself, which is again, made worse by view distance as you can't see them coming.

In combined arms for example, you really are forced to fly low because you can be spotted from across the map and engaged by AA from huge distances, but in PR- it's usually better to fly higher because of several reasons, mainly the fact you have the ability to nosedive and quickly gain speed after being engaged, which you dont have the option to do if you're flying low.

TLDR: In ArmA, yes, DO fly low. In PR- don't, it doesn't work.

PatrickLA_CA wrote:FYI I've killed 4 at once on Iron Eagle from Havoc , all with 4 HFs no more

was the chopper diving into them? i think not

'Andy[EEF wrote:;1483695']

In combined arms for example, you really are forced to fly low because you can be spotted from across the map and engaged by AA from huge distances, but in PR- it's usually better to fly higher because of several reasons, mainly the fact you have the ability to nosedive and quickly gain speed after being engaged, which you dont have the option to do if you're flying low.

never played CA. whats with the view distance??? i thought 1000m would be max of the engine oO

Zoddom wrote:never played CA. whats with the view distance??? i thought 1000m would be max of the engine oO

Up to almost 3000m is possible with no problems on something like kashan, but not all maps can take it without performance issues.

It improves gameplay considerably when thing are adjusted to this view distance, but unless there can be a medium between maps there would need to be a duplicate of assets (long range ones vs short) etc...

Titan wrote:anybody remember the Bf2 chopper fights? Dodging Hellfires and killing with hydras?
not exactly realistic.

Hellfire can be and has been successfully used against slow flying aircraft. An Israeli Apache shot down a suspect light aircraft in 2001. Unguided rockets also made air-to-air kills from World War II up to Vietnam.

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker;1483795']Hellfire can be and has been successfully used against slow flying aircraft. An Israeli Apache shot down a suspect light aircraft in 2001. Unguided rockets also made air-to-air kills in World War II and Vietnam.

well but it was not optical guided i guess. or at least not like "click to target" like.... i think.

just implement greate vis range, i see in CA it works very nice. and you can take even more from CA like the tank aimbot and much more ! ..

Zoddom wrote:well but it was not optical guided i guess. or at least not like "click to target" like.... i think.

just implement greate vis range, i see in CA it works very nice. and you can take even more from CA like the tank aimbot and much more ! ..

Maybe you should go play CA so you can really enjoy OP vehicles hmm?

Psyrus wrote:Maybe you should go play CA so you can really enjoy OP vehicles hmm?

no and there are many reasons why not:
-noone play it.
-its old (last version is for pr 0.87)
-its a beta-test mod imo
-its too mod like (bad textures model etc)
-FOR THE SAKE OF PR



why cant we have such simple things like that tank gunner aimbot or whatever in PR too.
[/offtopic]

another solution would be to increase laser draw distance.

Psyrus wrote:Maybe you should go play CA so you can really enjoy OP vehicles hmm?

come now mate, lets not be like that eh?

play nice gentlemen

just implement greate vis range, i see in CA it works very nice. and you can take even more from CA like the tank aimbot and much more ! ..

erm...sorry to disappoint but we already push the VD out as far as we can without destroying performance for the less beefy computers. I know several maps which are already playing with the limit of performance on that.

the tank aimbot is just locking on to the lazer thats on every vehicle in CA, its not actually an aimbot afaik, and that has problems as its that which allows the jets and choppers to lock on without assistance in CA. Now, I agree its more realistic, however given player limits etc etc, blah blah engine limitations its not desirable.

The attack helis are a tool, they are there to assist and be assited by ground forces, yes they are more powerful IRL, but things are put to scale in PR given the max mapsize is 4k etc etc etc.

I'm more in favour of more maps that are asymmetrical in the air to avoid CAS air battles instead of removing stuff from the choppers tbh.

e.g. Burning Sands 32 has got 1 apache vs 2 gazelles, perhaps it could have been 1 apache vs a mec team with extra AAVs and BMP3s. Given the British lack of a TOW APC I think that would be reasonable.
If people aren't happy with what happens when choppers with realistic loadouts come together in PR...then the vehicle loadouts should be set up so that they don't come together at all I think.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:I'm more in favour of more maps that are asymmetrical in the air to avoid CAS air battles instead of removing stuff from the choppers tbh.

If people aren't happy with what happens when choppers with realistic loadouts come together in PR...then the vehicle loadouts should be set up so that they don't come together at all I think.

I do know you have very capable MA's for development, but the helicopter loadouts just aren't realistic. Like I said before, all the gunships in PR are currently equipped with six harpoints to accommodate for the AA missiles in addition to the full A-G arsenal, while barring the Apache Longbow's limited wingtip capacity none have more than four hardpoints in reality. That's a rather hefty 50% increase in available external munitions, so the problem isn't that the choppers are carrying "stuff" for air combat, it's that they're doing so far in excess of their capabilities.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rudd;1484136']
The attack helis are a tool, they are there to assist and be assited by ground forces, yes they are more powerful IRL, but things are put to scale in PR given the max mapsize is 4k etc etc etc.

I'm more in favour of more maps that are asymmetrical in the air to avoid CAS air battles instead of removing stuff from the choppers tbh.

e.g. Burning Sands 32 has got 1 apache vs 2 gazelles, perhaps it could have been 1 apache vs a mec team with extra AAVs and BMP3s. Given the British lack of a TOW APC I think that would be reasonable.
If people aren't happy with what happens when choppers with realistic loadouts come together in PR...then the vehicle loadouts should be set up so that they don't come together at all I think.

hm i also saw a CA video with a 8x8km map ... ^^
but lets stop that offtopic now.

hmm i dont think you can change the loadouts so that helis wont (be able to) engage one another. they will always meet somewhere and will have to defend themselves, as i said even with hydras if necessary. You just have to give them weapons, or systems, which can best (only) be used defensively.
it might help to reduce the scan range and -angles.
I actually dont think that its that unrealistic to remove AA weapons, cause theres always friendly AA on the ground on every map to do this job.
qwhen i think about this it also comes to my mind that increasing general view distance would only enforce heli 1on1's, since they would see each other across the map :/
but i noticed that on kashan (coop) the lasers visible range is slightly higher than the normal visrange, so increasing the lasers a range even more would help a bit i think.

asymetrical maps arent a solution imo. it would end in highly frustrated heli pilots, cause they get AA warnings all over the map.

Gotta disagree with you on your last point Zoddom. Asymmetrical balance is the best long term solution, as it's the closest option to reality. Right now PR operates on the absurd logical fallacy that a fictional "Middle East Coalition" would be able to come toe to toe with the United States in both Airpower projection and Armored power projection, or that the Brits of all people would be stupid enough to get into a land war with China.

Not that these matchups aren't fun, but in their own way, they're really kind of boring. Qwai was awesome back when both sides had to play differently, and is starting to get there again. There should be a meaningful choice in what team you want to play with, not just cosmetic differences in how the rifles or assets look, and this is one of the precious few things insurgency still has going for it.

Zoddom wrote:hm i also saw a CA video with a 8x8km map ... ^^

Off topic: 10kmx10km Map - Combined Arms Forums
bricks will be shat.

On topic:

mat552 wrote:Asymmetrical balance is the best long term solution, as it's the closest option to reality. Right now PR operates on the absurd logical fallacy that a fictional "Middle East Coalition" would be able to come toe to toe with the United States in both Airpower projection and Armored power projection, or that the Brits of all people would be stupid enough to get into a land war with China.

Not that these matchups aren't fun, but in their own way, they're really kind of boring. Qwai was awesome back when both sides had to play differently, and is starting to get there again. There should be a meaningful choice in what team you want to play with, not just cosmetic differences in how the rifles or assets look, and this is one of the precious few things insurgency still has going for it.

Agree with all these points, more maps should be like this IMO.

'Andy[EEF wrote:;1484633']Off topic: 10kmx10km Map - Combined Arms Forums
bricks will be shat.

On topic:



Agree with all these points, more maps should be like this IMO.

OLOLOLOL
i really shat brix oO
well i dont understand how to generate under- and overgrowth on a static :/
[/OT]

hm okay, probably asymetrical maps arent that bad, but dont vary too much with the team assets, we sould keep it like qwai, apc vs tanks, or silent eagle jets vs helis. that would work will imo.

Big maps like 8x8 or more will cause extreme z-fighting issues. The more you get away from the center the worse it gets.

Its already pretty bad on 4x4 maps.