Page 2 of 6
Posted: 2005-11-24 15:02
by Mad Max
BTR-T's are great AA platforms. Old T55 hulls with dual 23mm auto-cannons. The range and firepower really makes up for the lack of armour. Those things are known to have taken on tanks and come out on top because of the extreme rate of fire, making the tanks shake around unable to get a good aim at the things. Plus because they're pretty small and often engage with the engines off they're quite difficult to pick up on radar or IR sensors by aircraft... unless you're looking for them that is.
The Russians also made versions with SA-13 missiles mounted on the same hulls and other BTR hulls. Those things are VERY deadly too. I think SA-13's are IR and Radar guided (to avoid chaffs/flares confusing them... unless both are deployed at the same time). I'm not 100% sure though but that's what I've heard. Unless I'm thinking of another missile.
Posted: 2005-11-24 16:01
by GRB
Doedel wrote:Remember, Stingers and SA-7's are meant really for low-flying slow-moving aircraft and helicopters, and have relatively short range. Although I do agree, you can't shoot a ****ing thing down with the AA in BF2, but I do have to say, you shouldn't. However I will also say that BECAUSE you shouldn't be able to shoot a MiG-29 at full speed with a Stinger, THEY SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED MORE LONG-RANGE ANTI-JET MISSILES LIKE RAPIERS/PATRIOTS ETC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I honestly don't see a problem with keeping Stingers the way they are (except, of course, making them man portable), except maybe make them a bit more effective vs. choppers. But please for the love of God include some heavier, more capable AA, especially on carriers and main bases. IMO every main base on large maps with jets should have some sort of heavy-duty SAM site.
EDIT: I would effin' love to see the A-10. That thing was an utter, utter beast in DC and I would love to go around chewing up things with 30mm DU miniguns.
While i agree that the range is fairly limited on the stinger, it is MUCH faster than a MiG at full speed. The Stinger missile travels at supersonic speeds. Its range however, is limited to about 8kilometers or roughly 5 miles. That is still way beyond any of the distances in even the largest of maps in BF2.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm
There is no need for AAA Battery systems such as SAM sites or PATRIOT attack systems. We just need some better missiles or like suggested multiple times before, make the missiles VERY deadly, one shot one kill (as they are IRL), then place them only at main bases. Then put in AA Emplacements such as the ZPU and such in roughly the same locations the stingers were located.
Again, no need to get outragous here..
Posted: 2005-11-24 19:03
by Tacamo
You know as well as I know that PR needs long range SA-5's with nuclear warheads.
Posted: 2005-11-24 19:16
by Eddie Baker
Mad Max wrote:I think SA-13's are IR and Radar guided (to avoid chaffs/flares confusing them... unless both are deployed at the same time). I'm not 100% sure though but that's what I've heard. Unless I'm thinking of another missile.
SA-13s are an improvement over the old SA-9s; they are all-aspect infra-red (i.e., they aren't just "tailseekers" like the 1st generation). No radar guidance, but radar is used by the SAM batteries for target detection and acquisition.
Posted: 2005-11-24 23:20
by goodoldxelos
Mad Max wrote:Strela's are your friend! Those things are great in reality and very effective against choppers and slow low flyers (like the A-10, although they take quite a beating being flying tanks and all). Another plus is flares won't work against them haha! They're radar guided, so no more of that 99% effective flare counter-meassure ****. Maybe add chaff CM's too? But give the pilots no indication of what has a lock on them so they'll either have to be lucky or have actually seen what/who is aiming at them, other wise they're up **** creek without a paddle.
Strela is just a russian designation and the strela usually refers to the IR guided russian sam systems. Osa usually refers to the radar/ command guided variants. Also please dont go saying things you dont know what your talking about. Also all IR missiles arnt defeated by flares easily. Can we please get this down pat.
IR guided missiles give NO MISSILE LAUNCH INDICATION!!
MOST RADAR guided missile systems give a launch indication!!
Incorrect info
Posted: 2005-11-24 23:24
by goodoldxelos
'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']SA-13s are an improvement over the old SA-9s; they are all-aspect infra-red (i.e., they aren't just "tailseekers" like the 1st generation). No radar guidance, but radar is used by the SAM batteries for target detection and acquisition.
The SA-9 is a all aspect IR sam system, the SA-7 MANPAD is a tail seeker.
Posted: 2005-11-25 00:02
by Mad Max
goodoldxelos wrote:Strela is just a russian designation and the strela usually refers to the IR guided russian sam systems. Osa usually refers to the radar/ command guided variants. Also please dont go saying things you dont know what your talking about. Also all IR missiles arnt defeated by flares easily. Can we please get this down pat.
IR guided missiles give NO MISSILE LAUNCH INDICATION!!
MOST RADAR guided missile systems give a launch indication!!
I meant in game terms. The AA missiles in the game act as though they're radar locking (like the lock warning) and yet are defeated by flares which is bull ****.
I wasn't too clear when reading it back, and I was a little mixed up in the guidance system. I was told they had a radar system on the launcher but the missile itself is IR guided.
Posted: 2005-11-25 00:17
by Beckwith
EA was to lazy to animate chaff
Posted: 2005-11-25 02:06
by Mad Max
'[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith']EA was to lazy to animate chaff
I don't think it ends there. I'd go so far as to say they were too lazy to finish the game, then gave us the pleassure of paying for the stuff they said we'd have before release.
Posted: 2005-11-25 08:10
by Doedel
Well, I agree with that a LITTLE, but there isn't really anything we can do about the size of these maps. No BF2 map is going to be bigger than 2 or 3 km at the most, which, technically speaking, should mean that an M1 Abrams should be able to knock out a tank from one end of the map to the other (or a T-90 should be able to nuke the US carrier from MEC main on Oman) but that obviously isn't possible. Will you still go for range realism depite that, or "factor down" ranges and performance and endurance because of it? Not to say the latter would be unrealistic, its a limit of the game engine, and quite frankly I'd rather have a Patriot with unrealistically small range on unrealistically small maps, than no Patriot at all. But I like the idea of SAM/AAM at each main base. What system? Rapier-style medium range missiles, or still only Stingers?
Posted: 2005-11-25 09:51
by Wolfmaster
'[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith']EA was to lazy to animate chaff
it's not so much a matter of lazyness as of making the deadline and getting it out asap to start making money. and besides, the didn't create radar guided missiles either did they? so why would you need chaff?
Posted: 2005-11-25 15:43
by goodoldxelos
Doedel wrote:Well, I agree with that a LITTLE, but there isn't really anything we can do about the size of these maps. No BF2 map is going to be bigger than 2 or 3 km at the most, which, technically speaking, should mean that an M1 Abrams should be able to knock out a tank from one end of the map to the other (or a T-90 should be able to nuke the US carrier from MEC main on Oman) but that obviously isn't possible. Will you still go for range realism depite that, or "factor down" ranges and performance and endurance because of it? Not to say the latter would be unrealistic, its a limit of the game engine, and quite frankly I'd rather have a Patriot with unrealistically small range on unrealistically small maps, than no Patriot at all. But I like the idea of SAM/AAM at each main base. What system? Rapier-style medium range missiles, or still only Stingers?
Many longer ranged sams like the patriot shouldn't be used because in real life they have a minimum range. Thats why you see short ranged SAMs like the avenger and the SLAMRAAM backing them up for close range combat. Or even manpad gunners.
Posted: 2005-11-25 18:44
by Beckwith
'[R-PUB wrote:Wolfmaster']it's not so much a matter of lazyness as of making the deadline and getting it out asap to start making money. and besides, the didn't create radar guided missiles either did they? so why would you need chaff?
do they actually qualify as heat seakers? if so there pretty damm useless ones
Posted: 2005-11-26 03:25
by goodoldxelos
'[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith']do they actually qualify as heat seakers? if so there pretty damm useless ones
Because a missile is a heat seeker doesn't mean its superior to a radar guided missile.
Posted: 2005-11-26 03:58
by ECale3
the in-game missiles behave very similarly to radar guided weapons.
Posted: 2005-11-26 05:44
by Heydude235
Well i want the a-10 in this game so lets get back to the a-10
Posted: 2005-11-26 16:54
by goodoldxelos
ECale3 wrote:the in-game missiles behave very similarly to radar guided weapons.
It depends on the systems really. Some do work similar to IR guided missiles in real life and some dont.
Posted: 2005-11-26 19:09
by Heydude235
goodoldxelos wrote:It depends on the systems really. Some do work similar to IR guided missiles in real life and some dont.
dude get back on topic do it now!
Posted: 2005-11-26 19:14
by Beckwith
Heydude235 wrote:dude get back on topic do it now!
id say youve made your point, this isnt the first time someones brought this up and each time its been for the most part agreed apon by the vast majority of the community
Posted: 2005-11-26 19:15
by BlakeJr
Heydude235 wrote:dude get back on topic do it now!
Sound advice but keep it cool huh?
Darn, instaposted.... Damn you Beck...
