CAS helicopters are OP

[40mmrain]

Gunships in project reality are overpowered. Tactics can be practiced that render them almost unkillable, and some maps that include them, especially ones with lots of armour, and 2 per side, the game's outcome depends massively on who wins in the sky, leaving armour out to dry. This thread does not address jets as they differ in certain mechanics. It is not uncommon to see skilled pilots completely dominate enemy armour over a game, resulting in massive ground advantage for their allies, and a huge ticket loss for the enemy overall. This dependence on one vehicle to win a game is imbalanced.

Firstly, there is zero hope for ground AA against a clever CAS helicopter. The short draw distances, ability to dive perfectly vertical with no trouble, lack of RADAR for AA weapons, and the inability to look straight up renders AA on the ground mostly defenseless, only hoping to get surprise attacks. Because of draw distance, and in general short ranges of lock on, cas choppers can fire on enemy AA before they can even lock, meaning even if the AA know CAS is about to show up CAS can fire before the enemy can, and because AAVs and static AA cant look straight up, a skilled helicopter pilot will never be in any danger at all, too. AAVs lack any kind of RADAR systems that could warn them about enemy helicopters, so its all up to eye, really, this doesnt really reflect reality. The only AA weapons that can look up are the handheld, but the strela is so neutered its not a very viable weapon. The strela should be made equivalent to the stinger, and static ground AA/AAVs should have longer ranges, or failing that, shorter lock times. Gunships themselves are the best gunship counter, and as a result, the battle in the air decides a lot of the game, which is a plain imbalance.

Secondly is the omnipotence of the hellfire, and equivalent. IT kills everything in one hit, and has a huge splash. This reflects reality, but a reflection of reality needs to be full for there to be balance. Because of draw distance and short AA range, a simply unstoppable tactic is to dive perfectly vertically on the opponent and quickly switch between LT and LG missiles proceeding to dump 8-10 missiles on a target area. A gunship flying by itself at ~1500m alt on a real battlefield would simply be annihilated, so at the same time we cant have absurdly powerful missiles on an unrealistic model. A way to curb this, would be to greatly lengthen missile reload times. An important feature that keeps attack helicopters in check, is their reload times, and constant need to resupply flares, creating considerable down time, and resulting in a lesser presence. Upping missile reload times by a significant factor would prevent missile dumping, and a complete domination of armour in general. Also, because of how useful the AT missiles are in chopper-chopper engagements, this change would also mean that using up all your missiles in a fight would not be as catastrophic to the enemy team because of how long you would have to resupply for.

In conclusion, the best weapon in the game (AT gunship missiles) is attached to a nearly uncounterable vehicle, if the right tactics are practiced. This of course is rather imbalanced and should be addressed by nerfing the missiles in one way, and making the vehicle less than invincible. However, despite what i've stated, there is an issue. The degree of overpowered that a gunship is, is dependent on the map. Shijia, and pavlovsk for example are very forested, and dont have nearly as much armour, thus less targets, and more challenging targets is what happens. In this case, a long missile reload time may make the gunships not particularly useful. MAps like black gold, kashan, iron eagle, and vadso the CAS is however far too dominant. So a reload time adjusting by map would be the best solution I think.

For evidence of overpowered gunships, observe the countless videos posted on youtube, and the PR forums of players executing vertical dives in helicopters, and racking up easy kills. I think virus has like 8.

[Rhino]

Some good points there 40mm and pretty much all of them we have been talking about and looking at address behind the scenes although can't say we will have all our ideas implemented for the next version, if ever, but we are looking into it

Secondly is the omnipotence of the hellfire, and equivalent. IT kills everything in one hit, and has a huge splash. This reflects reality

Actually it doesn't. The "standard" hellfire and equivalent missiles, have shaped charge warheads, designed to defeat tank armour with a direct hit. If one of these missiles was to hit the ground, most of the warheads energy would be focused into the ground, digging a big creator but not actually doing that much "splash damage" like our hellfires ingame do currently.

As such, we are "looking into" making these missiles only do damage to armoured vehicles with a direct hit, and also reducing splash damage radius vs infantry and soft skinned vehicles.

While there are also frag versions of these missiles, they are not anything like as commonly used as the shaped charge versions, and if we where to implement them ingame, it would only be on maps where there was no to little armour presence and these missiles would then really only be used vs infantry.

[ShockUnitBlack]

True. A lot of issues stem from Battlefield's poor helicopter physics.

[gijoe]

Gunships in project reality are overpowered. Tactics can be practiced that render them almost unkillable, and some maps that include them, especially ones with lots of armour, and 2 per side, the game's outcome depends massively on who wins in the sky, leaving armour out to dry.

UH...DUH. Any tank or tank column for that matter by itself, against a gunship should be killed. Thats kinda what they are made to do. Ive hardly ever seen a tank squad run AAV with them and thats their own stupidity for not taking along the best protection from CAS because they are armor whores.

This thread does not address jets as they differ in certain mechanics. It is not uncommon to see skilled pilots completely dominate enemy armour over a game, resulting in massive ground advantage for their allies, and a huge ticket loss for the enemy overall. This dependence on one vehicle to win a game is imbalanced.

Once again...unchallenged in real life and PR any gunship/CAS will tip the scales for that team. I dont see whats wrong with that? Would you prefer that all tanks be fitted with AA pods on the roof to balance it if the opposing team has shitty pilots?

Firstly, there is zero hope for ground AA against a clever CAS helicopter. The short draw distances, ability to dive perfectly vertical with no trouble, lack of RADAR for AA weapons, and the inability to look straight up renders AA on the ground mostly defenseless, only hoping to get surprise attacks. Because of draw distance, and in general short ranges of lock on, cas choppers can fire on enemy AA before they can even lock, meaning even if the AA know CAS is about to show up CAS can fire before the enemy can, and because AAVs and static AA cant look straight up, a skilled helicopter pilot will never be in any danger at all, too. AAVs lack any kind of RADAR systems that could warn them about enemy helicopters, so its all up to eye, really, this doesnt really reflect reality. The only AA weapons that can look up are the handheld, but the strela is so neutered its not a very viable weapon. The strela should be made equivalent to the stinger, and static ground AA/AAVs should have longer ranges, or failing that, shorter lock times. Gunships themselves are the best gunship counter, and as a result, the battle in the air decides a lot of the game, which is a plain imbalance.

Your whole issue with this is that you are expecting that AA have just as likely of a chance at killing a chopper as the chopper the AA. How does this make sense at all? If a chopper has a surprise attack on the AA why should the AA have a super short lock time because he was snuck up on? Just because the guy on the AA didnt know he was coming?

Inversely, if you increase AA range which is already absurd compared to some map sizes..all you are doing is allowing people to randomly scan the sky BEYOND view range and randomly lock and possibly kill helos. How is that that fair to the helo pilot? You are just lollin around at 1500 off the to side of the map and boom you are dead. That sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

Secondly is the omnipotence of the hellfire, and equivalent. IT kills everything in one hit, and has a huge splash. This reflects reality, but a reflection of reality needs to be full for there to be balance. Because of draw distance and short AA range, a simply unstoppable tactic is to dive perfectly vertically on the opponent and quickly switch between LT and LG missiles proceeding to dump 8-10 missiles on a target area. A gunship flying by itself at ~1500m alt on a real battlefield would simply be annihilated, so at the same time we cant have absurdly powerful missiles on an unrealistic model.

A chopper wouldnt be flying at 1500m in the first place because of AA. They fly low and take targets out from spots where radar and heat based AA cant see. The AA on most maps has a far enough lock distance a real life tactic like that is impossible, thusly making 1500m dives on AA's fittingly appropriate given the situation.

A way to curb this, would be to greatly lengthen missile reload times. An important feature that keeps attack helicopters in check, is their reload times, and constant need to resupply flares, creating considerable down time, and resulting in a lesser presence. Upping missile reload times by a significant factor would prevent missile dumping, and a complete domination of armour in general. Also, because of how useful the AT missiles are in chopper-chopper engagements, this change would also mean that using up all your missiles in a fight would not be as catastrophic to the enemy team because of how long you would have to resupply for.

If you are going to lengthen time between shooting missiles you may as well just ask the devs to build us a FCS then. Sometimes flying at full tilt hellfires can be misguided on a tank or AA(V) that a helo is attacking and increasing time between missiles is basically a death sentance. If you dive on an AA and miss it, it will have more than enough time to pop off 4 AAs before the helo can RTC and fire again. And increasing reload times at base is just stupid..you may as well increase reload times for tanks because they over power infantry..and you may as well increase reload times for auto rifles because they over power rifleman.

In conclusion, the best weapon in the game (AT gunship missiles) is attached to a nearly uncounterable vehicle, if the right tactics are practiced. This of course is rather imbalanced and should be addressed by nerfing the missiles in one way, and making the vehicle less than invincible. However, despite what i've stated, there is an issue. The degree of overpowered that a gunship is, is dependent on the map. Shijia, and pavlovsk for example are very forested, and dont have nearly as much armour, thus less targets, and more challenging targets is what happens. In this case, a long missile reload time may make the gunships not particularly useful. MAps like black gold, kashan, iron eagle, and vadso the CAS is however far too dominant. So a reload time adjusting by map would be the best solution I think.

The only thing you are going to do by nerfing missiles is force the helo to stay in a potentially AA covered area if you miss the hellfire. There have been times where ive dropped two hellfires right next to a tank that was on the move with little to no damage on that vehicle. There is very little splash damage to heavy armor like tanks and for what reason shouldnt a missile landing next to your humvee kill you?

Secondly, alot of helo gunner's reticules are proper shit. The havok is just a box...with no precise mark of where your rounds are going to land. Similar things with the second seaters in jets with weird *** "W" looking reticules. You cant seriously expect a person to kill a tank on the move while hes moving, with nerfed missiles, shitty reticules and NO FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM. Thats simply asking way to much. Thats like asking a rifleman AT to kill a LAV at 800m with a LAW rocket, its nearly impossible. All while expecting the AA to have increased view distance or shorter lock time.

Im genuinely surprised that you are asking this 40mm cause I see you in CAS just about every time a map with helos come up. You are basically fkin your self in the arse with suggestions like these.

For evidence of overpowered gunships, observe the countless videos posted on youtube, and the PR forums of players executing vertical dives in helicopters, and racking up easy kills. I think virus has like 8.

Its a montage of helo kills. I can make you a montage of AA kills on helos if you like and you can start a thread about how thats too OP too if thats how you are basing your argument off of.

[ExeTick]

For evidence of overpowered gunships, observe the countless videos posted on youtube, and the PR forums of players executing vertical dives in helicopters, and racking up easy kills. I think virus has like 8.

what should be done in my opinion is to fix the vertical dives so you CANNOT do a vertical dive. that is something that is not realistic at all.

that is a montage of him killing. if someone made 8 tank videos 5min each him just killing would it make tanks OP?

[ExeTick]

30mm cannon on cas helicopters are weak in my opinion.

if hellfires are going to be nerfed against infantry, that cannon should get a little bit better.
just my opinion

[|pr|kruemeltee]

30mm cannon on cas helicopters are weak in my opinion.

Totally agree. Especially the cobras gun feels like you have to him directly in the face... twice... until he starts taking damage...

For evidence of overpowered gunships, observe the countless videos posted on youtube, and the PR forums of players executing vertical dives in helicopters, and racking up easy kills. I think virus has like 8.

I can also show you videos or screenshots from tank/apc gunners with more than 50 kills in a round. There are also videos of snipers or ARs who run 20/30 kills per round. You just need to know how to use an asset or kit.

Its always the same in pr: Lack of teamplay (or rather lack of specific assets like AAs or ATs). If you have no air defense, the CAS will beat the shit out of you. If you have no ATs the tanks will teach you a lesson.

Balancing is fine in my eyes. Yes, they can dominate a whole round, but they can go down faster than anything else.

[Heavy Death]

Longer rearm time should be done for ALL vehicles. 2-3 minutes or something to reaload chopper/tank atleast.

[L4gi]

20/30 kills with AR is nothing. There is nothing to complain avout when it complain about when it comes to gunships. Imo they are too easy to take out, and im talking from the perspective of the guy taking them out. Its all about positioning. If you place the AA on the highest hilll, damn straight youll be lased and taken out. And to be honest when youre lased thats pretty much gamer over for you.

There is no need to make using AA any easier than it already is. The problem is the guy using the AA, not the emplacement/kit.

Dont rely on just one AA emplacement, "build" AA traps! One obvious AA position which is covered by another AA or an AA kit. There, now all CAS pilots are mad. I cant believe people are so stupid that instead of thinking a way to handle the situation, they whine and ***** for nerfs...

[Hokunin]

Yeah, there are some issues with the Attack choppers... If your team's attack chopper pilots are noobs - then you pretty much lost the game. And it doesn't matter whether you have brilliantly acting ground forces or not; you're just lost already.

[L4gi]

Not necessarily. If your inf sucks then you suck.

[Brooklyn-Tech]

i would increase the weapon reload time for choppers to balance this (think it should be an easy fix)

chopper reload time should reflect jet reload time. (time spent on decreasing speed, lining up on the runway, taxi-ing to rearm spot, rearming, taxi-ing back, starting off, being combat effective).

choppers are, IMO, a pain in the *** for the opposing team where with jets, it's not that big of a deal.

inb4 cas whores start to fanatically defend their asset's power.

[L4gi]

Jet is even more OP imo...

[Professorson]

Jet is even more OP imo...

Indeed, you've a far greater chance of killing a slow heli than you would killing a f16 dropping a bomb from 700 and killing you before you even know you're dead.

[Psyrus]

Indeed, you've a far greater chance of killing a slow heli than you would killing a f16 dropping a bomb from 700 and killing you before you even know you're dead.

True, but jets basically require ground-intel to be effective [happy to be corrected here] whilst CAS choppers can operate independent of lazes and direct intel [based on my personal observations], especially on desert based maps where they can go tank/fob hunting without horrible man-pad AA hiding in buildings.

[ExeTick]

True, but jets basically require ground-intel to be effective [happy to be corrected here] whilst CAS choppers can operate independent of lazes and direct intel [based on my personal observations], especially on desert based maps where they can go tank/fob hunting without horrible man-pad AA hiding in buildings.

cas helicopters can do that but then they are 1. running the risk of getting attacked by enemy cas. 2. taken out by AA. 3. taken out by enemy apc (thinking of mec apcs).

BMP can aim almost straight up, and its super effective against helis. my self have downed a few helicopters using bmp (trans and cas). even BTR60-70 with 14.5mm cannon can aim almost straight up. and that gun is also very effective against helicopters.

so flying low and hunting for targets without any laze or even any information about enemy armor is almost suicidal.

[VapoMan]

Jet is even more OP imo...

Ehhh no. I've seen both the attack helicopter and the jet version of Black Gold play out many times with very good pilots and the attack helicopters are at least 200% more bullshit than the jets.

Here are a few key points.

A jet can fly over and drop a bomb but you know you wont see it again for a while, but an attack helicopter can sit there hovering from up high constantly harassing you until it either runs out of ammo or meets some sort of resistance.

While jets pretty much NEED someone on the ground to direct fire and lase targets, attack helicopters can much more effectively do there own thing since they have much more accurate manual fire and fly closer to the ground. It might not be the safest way for a helicopter to play but its very effective.

Jets are take longer to land, rearm and repair and the landing process is much harder than helicopters.

They are just as vulnerable to AA if not more so due to their weak armour and if they manage to survive a hit they are much less likely to be able to return to base, land and repair successfully, while attack helicopters seem to be able to brush off most damage and easily escape back to base even when losing health.

While both jets and helicopters have their advantages and can do extremely well in certain circumstances I've been in many more situations where enemy attack helicopters have made me want to rage quit.

[nAyo]

You're saying that a CAS chopper can be OP if a good crew is manning it. Well what's the purpose of that, anything would be considered as OP if properly manned then, a tank is also overpowered if a very experienced and good crew is operating it?

Good pilots can do well with a chopper, people lacking experience can be killed easy. Isn't that the purpose of the game itself, having more experienced people for all kind of vehicle?

[ExeTick]

spot on nAyo

[Rabbit]

While there are also frag versions of these missiles, they are not anything like as commonly used as the shaped charge versions, and if we where to implement them ingame, it would only be on maps where there was no to little armour presence and these missiles would then really only be used vs infantry.

I do think the frag version should be used in insurgency as I believe that is what they usually delivered to us. Honestly I don't think it should be an "if" for insurgency, but a must.