Project Reality Forums

If you were to do something as crazy as remove the lock on AA systems you would have to also remove the whole laser target system as well. With the way the game is now, if you use teamwork, and coordination, any AA threat on it's own is defenseless. Get a spotter to get eyes on the AA, come in from way up high where they can't usually see or lock you, lock on to your lased target, or just drop your bomb on an attack marker. Less skill involved(after learning to fly) in flying that mission than running any AA system in the game. And less danger.

But, i wouldn't mind seeing a change from AA vehicles and emplacements, to more portable AA launchers and cannons/50cals. It would not only remove the crazyness of flying around in the same 16km2 with a vehicle that pops out so many AA missiles in a split second.(not to mention thousands of rounds) But, it would also encourage vehicles to stick around infantry. Right now, there is a tendency on big maps like kashan, for armor groups to travel with an AA vehicle, and drive off into the sunset. Which leaves the infantry, transport and logistics chain to be ambushed at will, while the tanks have an epic tank battle in the corner of the map somewhere.

I know AA vehicles are realistic, but how many do we really need on a map like kashan? They should be valued assets, not the left overs that can still be one manned without a squad. I love doing AA and dedicating my time to shooting down aircraft, but these things are counter productive to the game play PR tries to encourage. At the very least they need to be made like the tanks, and require a driver present to operate the gunners seat. And their numbers on maps like Kashan should be cut in half, if not more.

Also, It would be nice if the firebase emplacements could be changed to cannons. Or better yet, a .50 cal on a tripod, with full 360 movement. That could easily engage ground targets and air targets simultaneously. On maps with fast moving jets, you would still have an AA vehicle to counter them.

I feel the AA kits are the most overlooked kit of PR. They need to be respected in the same manner as the heavy anti-tank kit. But, they're not, because we don't have a bunch of tow humvees and tow emplacements on every map and at every firebase. So the HAT kits are needed, where as the AA kits are just a luxury. The only time i'll ever have problems requesting an AA kit is on Op Archer. Those taliban love their SA7s Also on Karbala since the patch, it's a pain in the *** trying to snag one. People just grab them thinking they're RPGs i think. Because theres at least two in the map i know forsure. But whenever i try to find one, nobody on our team has one, and they're not on the ground. I suggest either re-add a couple, or perhaps move them to where people don't impulsively grab the kits and go off to be killed. Maybe at the mosque door.

Lock on weapons FTW

Snazz wrote:The lock-on system is dumbed down, doesn't get much easier than auto-spotting and auto-aiming.

That's hardly all there is to using AA, especially if using it against a decent pilot. Sure its not the most difficult thing on the battlefield, but there are certain things you can do that increase the chance of you missiles hitting that brings a bit of skill in to the equation.

Snazz wrote:You may be an awesome pilot who's got a good tactic for AA evasion, but if you're spotted by AA first they can fire a missile at you before you even hear that tone.

At the moment an aircraft has to be in your envelope for a good long while to get a lock, and thats without flares involved . Further, on Kashan ceratinly the manpads cannot engage to the edge of visual range even, but I think the AAVs and deployable IGLA/stinger sites have a longer range.

Also, your team should be letting you know about where AA is located so you can avoid it and wait for them to neutralise it. Its like complaing that you stumble in to a tank no one has told you about in a AAV and it kills you with one shot without any warning.

If you travel in an area thats not been scouted you run the risk of threats being there, that goes for whether you're in a plane, tank or on foot.

Snazz wrote:What the BMP can hit is irrelevant as I never suggested using them as AA and their cannon is nothing like an AA cannon.

I'm willing to bet that the BMP's cannon will kill a plane on the ground in the same time as one of the MEC quad cannons, so in that respect they are the same, you point it at where the plane is going, shot and hope it goes boom.

For that matter, the times I've seen the AA guns in use at the main bases they've been singularly ineffective, probably for the reasons CAS explained.

Snazz wrote:Previous versions? Are you talking about the dodgy lock-on missiles?

How do the missiles that an AAV fires affect the gun in any way? Its irrelevent and my point stands.

Snazz wrote:The Tunguska's the easiest of all AA weapons, you just have to spend some time in a populated Kashan training server to see how effortlessly one can deny airspace.

Key word there is training, training servers are populated on the whole by idiots who barely know one end of the plane from the other and are as likely to plow in the ground on take off/ landing/ attack runs or suffer mid air collisions as get killed by enemy fire.

The tunguska is far better against helis as they often fly low and slow enough to hit, but vs jets it take a Stormer anyday.

Snazz wrote:No, You're forgetting the skill and teamwork involved in keeping the aircraft operational and armed, whilst accurately bombing targets. It's nothing like sitting on your *** in AA spinning the mouse around till you pick up something.

Well, it takes one person to keep the jet operational and armed, compared to the driver and gunner in an AAV. The teamwork comes from communciating with a spotter to get the lases in the right place at the right time, which does take alot of teamwork and good comms, however, the actual attack itself post lase is even more of point-click-die procedure than the AA.

Snazz wrote:If they're unchallenged yes, but they're rare in PR and good pilots are even rarer. There's a lot to counter the jet's power as it is without giving the other side such an easy way to shoot them down.

Its not even that you have to be that skilled a pilot in terms of techinical ability to avoid AA, engaging targets intelligently and patiently will make you an extremely difficult target to kill as others such as CAS and Outlawz have said. Air to air combat is in my opinion a great threat, which is often alot more difficult to evade once you get on the back foot against a decent pilot.

CAS_117 wrote:Google "SEAD".

I'd love to see something like this in PR, but I feel the scale of the maps would be far too small for this, let alone the coding issues that would probably arise.

Tactics involving when and where to turn on air search radars, missiles that remember the last position of radar emission or even deploy parachutes and wait for the radar to be turned back on would add a whole new dimension to A2G and A2A combat.

To be honest, I have a hard enough time trying to hit my target with AA. Timing, and flares make it all too difficult.

I wonder why it's the opposite when I'M on the receiving end.

badmojo420 wrote:Right now, there is a tendency on big maps like kashan, for armor groups to travel with an AA vehicle, and drive off into the sunset. Which leaves the infantry, transport and logistics chain to be ambushed at will, while the tanks have an epic tank battle in the corner of the map somewhere.

I think it's more fun when the armor does the same thing but drives into cities and vallyes instead

NOT

Zoddom wrote:Why do you want to take out "lock-on" weapons??? WHAT?

I know it seems radical after using them for the last 4 or so years. Personally having played DICE games and BF mods since Codename Eagle (99) I'm from the perspective that lock-on weapons were a step backwards as far as game play.

Zoddom wrote:it would be at least as unreal as Unreal to have a jet without guided weapons.

Again, as I said in my OP that realism argument is flawed because PR is already unrealistic when it comes to aspects like aircraft capabilities and scale. Of all the things PR has left out/removed for game play reasons this is one I'd happy live without.

Zoddom wrote:the trick is to use flairs BEFORE somethin locks on you.

I'm not after advice on using flares but thanks anyway.

Logaritm wrote:here is how not to get shot down by AA:

DON'T GO THERE

I doubt the average pilot knows where enemy AA is all the time and can do their role without risking being within range. By your logic we may as well not fly on most maps due to AA cover. Ideally teammates on the ground would handle it, but you know how it is.

Regardless, if the AA was unguided but remained effective you'd still get shot down going close to it. Main difference is you won't hear a warning tone.

Logaritm wrote:i'm getting really feed up at people thinking that just by getting in a tank/plane/heli you will be harder to kill

That's kind of the point of those assets, they're meant to be survivable enough to have an impact on the battle. If they're supposed to be vulnerable and expendable in PR then they shouldn't take upto 20 mins to spawn and often require ground spotters to engage effectively.

Logaritm wrote:there is weapons out there that's made with the only purpose to kill that tank/plane/heli your driving, so why would not that weapon do it's job

I don't want it to be near impossible to take out a special asset, I just want it to take more skill than it does now. I'm not saying the weapon shouldn't do it's job, I'm saying it's far too simple to use in comparison to what it's defeating.

badmojo420 wrote:If you were to do something as crazy as remove the lock on AA systems you would have to also remove the whole laser target system as well. With the way the game is now, if you use teamwork, and coordination, any AA threat on it's own is defenseless.

Mmm I don't believe it is crazy, that's just narrow-minded conservatism IMO. Unguided AA shouldn't necessitate removing the laser system, which demands teamwork and patience.

badmojo420 wrote:Lock on weapons FTW

I like your ideas of using more HMGs and Cannons at least on the helicopter maps but I don't get your reasoning behind your support for lock on weapons in general.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:That's hardly all there is to using AA, especially if using it against a decent pilot. Sure its not the most difficult thing on the battlefield, but there are certain things you can do that increase the chance of you missiles hitting that brings a bit of skill in to the equation.

True there are various tactics to increase your effectiveness and survivability, I recognize that. Whether or not you are a complete novice or highly skilled, when you're using lock-on weapons you're being assisted by automation both in acquiring targets and engaging them.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:At the moment an aircraft has to be in your envelope for a good long while to get a lock, and thats without flares involved.

That's not what I observe though. Just the other day my squad used a fixed AA emplacement on Kashan to take out a good pilot in an F-16 that was flying fast and low, using cover around the ridgeline. Our AA fired at it so quick the F-16 didn't even know what hit it.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Also, your team should be letting you know about where AA is located so you can avoid it and wait for them to neutralise it. Its like complaing that you stumble in to a tank no one has told you about in a AAV and it kills you with one shot without any warning.

I never complained because the AA is effective or suggested not needing teammates to spot them. If I had things my way the AA would still be formidable, more so when you consider there being no lock on tones to warn pilots.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:I'm willing to bet that the BMP's cannon will kill a plane on the ground in the same time as one of the MEC quad cannons, so in that respect they are the same, you point it at where the plane is going, shot and hope it goes boom.

Obviously the existing cannons would need to be tweaked, I never said 'keep them as it is they're perfect.'

IAJTHOMAS wrote:How do the missiles that an AAV fires affect the gun in any way? Its irrelevent and my point stands.

You didn't say guns. Regardless, I don't care if the existing (let alone previous version) weapons are ineffective as they can be recoded.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Key word there is training, training servers are populated on the whole by idiots who barely know one end of the plane from the other and are as likely to plow in the ground on take off/ landing/ attack runs or suffer mid air collisions as get killed by enemy fire.

Generalize much? I'm not just talking about noob pilots I can tell the difference thank you very much.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Well, it takes one person to keep the jet operational and armed, compared to the driver and gunner in an AAV.

I'M NOT TALKING STRICTLY ABOUT JET FIGHTERS AND AAVS, THIS IS ABOUT ALL AIRCRAFT AND ALL LOCK-ON WEAPONS.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Its not even that you have to be that skilled a pilot in terms of techinical ability to avoid AA

More so then it does to shoot down aircraft.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Air to air combat is in my opinion a great threat, which is often alot more difficult to evade once you get on the back foot against a decent pilot.

Well I'm glad you thought of dogfights as they're also under the topic of lock-on weapons.

Delete this post please.

i agree its easy to nail a chopper if you know how, but in defence of the AA kit, it takes freakin forever to pull the damn thing out. and lets not forget the flares can be deployed like every 5 seconds in PR so waiting for it to use it's flares then shoot isn't the best option.

also talking of aircraft capabilities, i do believe they are planning to import alot of the aspects of CA into the next release, which includes all the stuff which you've mentioned which flaws the realism argument. ie radar etc.

Honestly, the game needs better Pilots, not harder to use AA.

Sitting in a Tunguska on Kashan Training, its easy to see the difference in aircraft survivability when one is being piloted by an amateur as opposed to by someone who has put in the hours of practice. Low flying A-10 with no idea where I am? Easy to rip apart even with the cannons, much less missiles.

Experienced pilot who waits for a spotter to mark me out so he can strafe me quickly and efficiently, that's damn hard to counter.

I don't think it's about AA being too easy to use, it's about people not using assets properly. I actually like the fact AA is easy to use, as it penalizes a team for NOT using their aircraft effectively.

What would be good is giving the aircraft and attack choppers a Shrike anti-radar missile.
Basically, it could be that once an AA locks onto and fires at the enemy aircraft, his position is discovered due to the radar signature his heat-seeking missiles give off.

So if the pilot is skillful and survives the attack, a laser target will then appear on his screen showing where the enemy AA is so he can engage it.
The pilot should only have one missile, as to avoid cheap and easy kills against noob AA.

This rewards both sides.
If the AA gunner is good, he can kill the aircraft with his first shots.
If the pilot is good, he can avoid the AA and then counter with his own precsison attack.

Snazz wrote:Mmm I don't believe it is crazy, that's just narrow-minded conservatism IMO. Unguided AA shouldn't necessitate removing the laser system, which demands teamwork and patience.

I'm not a narrow minded conservative just because I don't share your opinion on this subject. Removing a realistic weapons system, just because of it's ease of use, is crazy. Especially when its' intended target gets to retain it's own lock on ability. Because the laser requires teamwork and patience? In most cases AA requires teamwork and always requires a lot of patience. Also using a weapon system isn't everything in combat. There's a difference between busting off rounds at the range and doing it for real. Using AA systems usually has you near the front line or even behind enemy lines sometimes. There are great risks, but also great rewards for careful stealthy approaches and staying hidden until your target is presenting itself. Doing AA requires a little more skill than just hopping in a truck, driving to the tallest hill and sitting there spinning around in circles, while you smoke a cigarette reading the newspaper.

Snazz wrote:I like your ideas of using more HMGs and Cannons at least on the helicopter maps but I don't get your reasoning behind your support for lock on weapons in general.

You talk about lock on weapons being a step back. But, i see them as a step forward. These are realistic weapons systems used in the real world today. You can't just dismiss them in this type of game. It's a different thing when we have to sacrifice realism in order to accomidate the the game engines limitations. Like in the case of turret stabilization for example. But this was part of vbf2 already. IMO removing it would be a huge step back. Back to the WW2 generation of flak guns and large caliber machine guns shooting down aircraft. Sure, you could have an epic D-day night map where A10s come flying through loads and loads of flak guns firing up randomly. But it'd still be a huge step back.

At PR speeds, you may have it fine, but for people like me there is absolutely no way that my cannon hits will register. I have put rounds after rounds onto a flying jet from my cannons and they just don´t register. At least the missiles perform somewhat similar for most people.

Failnets today.

Nemus wrote: A jet IRL doesnt strafe for hours over an area with AAs. And doesnt make "epic doghfights" when its EWS is full of threats. It makes its bombing run fast and disapears faster.

Yes if it is possible they dont do that. But imagien that the Jets dont actually take off in a near by air base, but come from miles away and are there to cover their infantry and armour.

Assuming that the PR story line is 3rd world war then some things you just have to do

I totally agree!

While I understand where you are coming from, Snazz, and that atm the use of AA holds none of the necessary strategies or knowledge and commmunication as they do IRL, it's not a problem with all guidance based missiles in general.

For one, aircraft can evade all AA just as easily as AA can operate say on Kashan training.

While changes such as increased VD, AG radar, AA radar, reduced flare efficiency and such require both AA and aircraft to change their tactics, you'll still not be able to get the same type of radar detection and such forcing players to use their radar sparingly and tactfully. However, you will make communication and cooperation more vital for both AA and Aircraft to operate without dying early on.

Elektro wrote:Yes if it is possible they dont do that. But imagien that the Jets dont actually take off in a near by air base, but come from miles away and are there to cover their infantry and armour.

Assuming that the PR story line is 3rd world war then some things you just have to do

Have you read all my post?

I mean this part

Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

And this

PR is not a simulator in every part of it. Infantry, tanks, jets etc. Many features are (and must be) simplified. Many assets are just "too big" for the maps. If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

Now tell me which part is in disagreement with your post.

Have you read all my post?

I mean this part


Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

You can have loads of fun, by flying in the currently 4 by 4 km maps, and yes IRL you cant even land on it but on PR you can so thats just how it is. Why take away the fun? We cant have 100 by 100 km maps and 300 people on each team but thats just how it is

And this

PR is not a simulator in every part of it. Infantry, tanks, jets etc. Many features are (and must be) simplified. Many assets are just "too big" for the maps. If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

I dont see why a tank, or a plane is too big for kashan or quinling. Teamwork by lasing, working with AA squads diving into them when there is an enemy on ur back. Pretty much it takes allot of creativity and teamwork to fly and its great, and no we cant make it to perfection but if you want that then join the airforce.

Now tell me which part is in disagreement with your post.

All i sayed was that in real life you have to deal with hard situations you say that planes are too big well gues what i disagree with you.

Elektro wrote: You can have loads of fun, by flying in the currently 4 by 4 km maps, and yes IRL you cant even land on it but on PR you can so thats just how it is. Why take away the fun? We cant have 100 by 100 km maps and 300 people on each team but thats just how it is

Where exactly do you see that i am saying to remove jets or fun?

Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

I dont see why a tank, or a plane is too big for kashan or quinling. Teamwork by lasing, working with AA squads diving into them when there is an enemy on ur back. Pretty much it takes allot of creativity and teamwork to fly and its great, and no we cant make it to perfection but if you want that then join the airforce.

Did i asked for a simulation?

If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

All i sayed was that in real life you have to deal with hard situations you say that planes are too big well gues what i disagree with you.

Dont be confused by some videos on youtube showing a pilot against some Egyptians who where still with "four fingers" (Bf-109's favorite attack :mrgreen tactics. In a modern warfare an EWS blip means that sortly you may have a dozen missiles towards you fired with "buddy fire" (No warning).
You take advantage of you jet engine and bring the dogfight where the situation is at least balanced.
Of course in PR we cant have this. But we live with what we have.

Removing Lock-On munitions is not a solution, it simply doesn't fare well with gameplay.

Due to the high speed of jets, dumb-fired munitions (guns, dumb-rockets, etc) will not suffice; a jet flying past your view while at 800ft on Kashan will likely be in your view for less than 10 seconds. Many players don't grasp the concept of leading (they may understand it, but not have a firm understanding of HOW to utilize it). Not to mention, AA guns can be fired quickly and have a large supply of ammunition at hand to allow for lots of firing in a short span to get a wall of fire in front of the jet. Dumb-rockets would only be able to fire a few at a time (2 for stationary AA, 1 for a man-launched missle platform, and small number by any faction's AAV), which allows a lot less leniency for missing the first shot and allowing you to readjust.

Due to the high speed of jets combined with BF2's dodgy hit-detection, at times it can be very hard to hit the actual jet. The server will show you where the jet is 'supposed' to be, but it may not always be THERE (bad ping on both ends can contribute to this problem). You can fire, leading properly, at a jet on an attack run, but the actual jet's hitboxes may be a bit farther back and cause issues. How obvious this would be reflected in game is of course only determinable by testing, but how often due you 'miss' a moving infantry target with your rifle even though the shot should have hit dead on?

Removing Lock-on munitions will likely cause a lot of frustration for AA users, and will cause a lot of free-reign for the Pilots, as not many AA weapons could be used efficiently enough to take them down during a flight. Helicopter pilots, however, may fear dumb-fired Anti-Air munitions. With no lock and the helicopters much slower speed, it would be a very bad scenario to go into air-space that has not been checked. In this same token, the helicopter pilots could be a bit more 'stealthy' since the AA could no longer just look around in the sky and lock from over 800m away.




I think that instead of REMOVING lock-on munitions, that they should be tweaked to require a bit more skill and thought to use efficiently. For instance, removing the lock-HUD on some weapons (like some hand-held launchers) where it is realistic to do so (no more lock box; however, the lock on ranges would remain the same and the tone of lock would remain as well). This allows you to lock onto targets you can see visually as well as continue to hold the lock as they exit your viewdistance to fire off that final missle, but will make it less frequent that helicopter pilots will be locked from unseen ranges (no more 'aim here' marker for them to begin locking at obscene distances... they can still lock, but it is less likely they will just magically know where the helicopter is since they would have to rely on sound or previous visual sightings of the helicopter to determine where he should be).

Manning the AA would also require some skill, because you would also now have to judge whether or not you should fire based on visual cues rather than the HUD telling you "okay, now's a good time". Aircraft may pop flares when you are ready to fire, but if you are within visual distance of it you can judge whether you should fire or not depending on the flare-frequency (if they are just about to release flares or just have, it could be a good time to fire since the proximity detonation of the missle will likely occur even if it doesn't hit directly). Once they are out of visual range, you may still have a lock if you were following them while they left. If you still have a lock tone, there is a good chance you could hit the helicopter if you fire; however, you have NO notification of whether the aircraft is releasing flares, and you could waste a missle on nothingness.



And perhaps with AA that does have a HUD to indicate locks, that all non-locked targets would have no symbol surrounding them. This would work like the previous method except that when you are locked on to the target, you get a lock-on symbol over the aircraft (just like when you lock on now) but all the flares and other targets on screen will remain 'invisible' unless they are locked directly.

This would make AA more of a skill-based fair while still keeping the basic interface of 'Aim, Lock, Fire' but adding in 'Wait for break in flares' and other basic cues as to when to fire for the best hit chance possible.

Also, perhaps slightly smaller 'lock' areas on weaponry would be acceptable. Instead of the entire circle being able to lock onto the target, perhaps a smaller circle near the center would initiate the lock, and the outer circle would be the limits of the lock being maintained (this way, it would take a bit of aiming and keeping aim on the target to lock, but then after the lock has been established there is a bit of leniency in holding the lock, as it now has the target identified among other elements in the air).



I'm not sure how realistic most of this is, seeing as I've never been in the military or experienced the use of Anti-Air weaponry first hand, but I think it may help a bit with gameplay.

I kind of like the idea of having no hud for portable aa. But you couldn't do it with the limited ranges of those weapons in pr. The real range of the SA7 for example is 3700m now the range in game is under 500. Judging if an object is withing 3700m of you is pretty easy. So you don't really need a computer to tell you that in real life. But in a video game, judging if something is 400 or 600m away, is really hard. Especially when it's in the sky and moving. Maybe keep the distance to target, but put it at the bottom, instead of on the box like it is now.