Project Reality Forums

ok heres what i suggest, and why later:

fighter-bombers should be abolished.

fighters and bombers should be completely seperate.

First thing, afterburners are not realistic, a plane with 2 jets should have an afterburner from hell compared to a single jet plane.

second: fed up with all the aprant balance, planes should have obvious weaknesses and advantages, ie. make the mig really fast but less manuverable. Make the us planes more agile at a cost of armour, chinese planes (if theyget added) to have only 'maintain lock missiles' but more of them etc.

the load outs bug me too because as they are, they just promote base raping, i would change them to:

fighters loadout:

MG

2 fire & forget missiles,

4 fire and you 'have to keep the enemy plane in full lock until they hit' misiles

1 cluster bomb, like 20 bomblets each as powerful as a 1/3 of a nade? spred out over 20m.

bombers=

MG

gunner tv missiles,

6 normal dumb bombs,

1 carpet bomb, drop and everything 50-100m in front of you gets blasted maybe some tanks + apcs withstand it?

i just think that everythings too balanced and the usage of fighter-bombers promotes base rape, if you had sole fighters and sole bombers then things would be a lot more interesting. Pilots would have to look out for the bomber pilots instead of raping an airfield and letting the other plane get shot down.

its been discussed that jets are yet to get their pr overhaul, to be expected in a later version if im correct

Cluster bombs with each bomblet as powerful as a nade would be awesome. But there is no balance in real life so

all in good time, all in good time.

v0.3 and before was mainly work on the infantry side, in v0.4 and v0.5 we worked alot more on the vehicle side of things and a little on the choppers.

in v0.6 and probaly v0.7 also we hope to get some work done on the jets

hey desert fox ive been meaning to ask you, did you play poe2? because i swear you were in the toruney on 2ukr...

yeh well i hope the mods at least take the afterburners and no bombs on fighters idea, would liven things up.

edit: just saw rhinos post, cant wait,

Engineer wrote:Ejection seats god damnit!

hehe, not possible in the BF2 engine. 1 of the many, many things we would love to do

really? it seems like having the vehicle eject the player at a certain % of health would be something do-able

@ subject: Yeah .. agreed .. matter of time and priorities and benefits for effort expended.

jackal22 wrote:hey desert fox ive been meaning to ask you, did you play poe2? because i swear you were in the toruney on 2ukr...

yeh well i hope the mods at least take the afterburners and no bombs on fighters idea, would liven things up.

edit: just saw rhinos post, cant wait,

yeah thats me

thought i remembered your name, used to be in your squad. shame all the germans droped out of the tournament =(

i agree with your statement:

fighters = no bombs

i think fighters should be strickly air superiority, and not engaging ground targets. Yes IRL alot of fighters are now converted to ground targets because there is no real air battles anymore, however in PR it just translates to bad gameplay.

i think fighters role should just be air superiority (target priority: enemy fighters, then enemy bombers, then enemy attack helo, then enemy transport helo)

i think bombers role should be ground bombing (target priority: enemy tanks, enemy APCs, etc)

Id like to see spawned jets and helos invulnerable untill they get manned. which leaves 30 seconds of risk being attacked during the warm up.
imo i believe any mainbase attack in reality is just unrealistic. a jet that deep in enemy territory is bound to get caught by radar, and therefor to be shot down.
and for the fighters.. I could live with only airtoair missiles and mg. the mg cracks up apc's and tanks easy enough.

I wish I had enough RAM to fly and then I would join the list of people who want better flight characteristics.
But hopefully by the time .7 comes out I will have the RAM to be a mediocre but attentive pilot again.

Instead of TV missile for the co pilot in the bomber, I like the laser designated missile (maverick missile, I believe), which could lock onto ground targets that have been identified with those fancy laser binoculars. SOFLAM or something? Someone correct me.

I'd say maybe reduce warmup time to 20 seconds? Or maybe even slightly less, so there still is the ability to base rape and not have someone fly right away, but it's still alittle low.

i like the idea of air vehicles being invunerable until manned because that would simulate real life, you would have to be seriously stupid to go solo into an enemy airfield and bomb up their planes wihtout a load of planning and backup.

yay a mod agrees with me on the no bombs thing!

I'd have to disagree, migs are more manueverable, F15s and such arent as manueverable but have better avionics.

I have to disagree with the whole "vehicles = invulnerable unless manned". There are loads of flaws with that. Just to name a few:

It would totally take away the ability to completly ground the other teams airforce (yes I know people call it base raping but in RL the runways would just get bombed and the planes would be unusable anyways)

People could park helos in the middle of heavily used roads creating a very effective invulnerable road block.

And perhaps worse, if the chopper is invincible when no ones in it, whats to stop pilots from lining up a nice target with the heli, and then simply bailing out to destroy it. After the target's dead, just rinse and repeat.

jackal22 wrote:
fighter-bombers should be abolished.

fighters and bombers should be completely seperate.

the load outs bug me too because as they are, they just promote base raping, i would change them to:

fighters loadout:

MG

2 fire & forget missiles,

4 fire and you 'have to keep the enemy plane in full lock until they hit' misiles

1 cluster bomb, like 20 bomblets each as powerful as a 1/3 of a nade? spred out over 20m.

2 things Id like to question here. 1: If you dont want "fighter bombers" why are you suggesting to give the fighter cluster bombs.

And 2:The current load outs promote base raping? And what, cluster bombs (which in real life can contain anywhere from 3 to 3000 bomblets in each bomb) don't? One bomb over any flag would kill every single person in that zone. I know your suggesting 20 in each with a "spread" of over 20m, but what happens when the pilot divebombs? Thats the equivalent of (assuming your 1/3 nade dmg is implemented) around 7 grenades all exploding within a very small radius.

I don't think that the load outs of the fighters/bombers should be changed. The one big problem with having fighters being strictly air-to-air, and bombers being strictly air-to-ground, is that it nullifies many interesting air combat situations. Ex. If one teams fighter goes down, but their bomber stays airborne, the opposing teams fighter would have (unless they were a horrible pilot) no trouble at all taking down the bomber as there is no other airborne threat (considering the bomber would have no AA missiles). All that the team with the fully operational fighter and bomber would have to do, is kill the fighter whenever it tries to take off. There would never really be any threat to them. In the current version if a team is spawn camping the airbase, and the bomber manages to take off, it at least has a chance at taking care of the situation.

Sorry the post was so long but this was the 1st time I read this thread.

Can't most Russian jets easily out fly western jets? I think the best balance would be Russian jets accelerating faster, having a higher top speed, and being more maneuverable then western aircraft. The Western aircraft though should be able to lock on quicker and at a greater distance then Russian jets.

edit*
Shouldn't this be moved to the "suggestions" forum.