Project Reality Forums

Well,

I sincerely do not understand why Anti Air placement is so unusual in the maps. Typically, you want to get the highest most unobstructed view of the skies, not put the AA in a ditch surrounded by high rise buildings, so all it can shoot at is office buildings and hotels.

In Iraq for instance, Anti Air Guns were placed on the highest rooftops, they were placed out in a flat area to maximize its range.

This is project reality, so I think it would be appropriate to change the locations of many anti air guns, particularly in Al Basrah.

Some pilots will whine, and I'm waiting for Vikingo in particular to protest. But in all reality, talented pilots can easily avoid the AA guns. Right now the A10s are flying too low and slow, they are doing so with impunity. I don't understand why there would be AA guns at all in such ridiculous locations. They must be placed to target enemy aircraft.

Some may argue, oh balance this, balance that. But Look at the immense air power of the USMC. One single TV missile can knock out an Anti Air gun from way out of range. One good strike from an A10 can also completely destroy the Anti Air gun. Some infantry can also blow it up.

Anyways, please let me know what you guys think, because as it stands, AA placement is stupid and non nonsensical. It's unrealistic AND unbalanced.

Guerra wrote: Anyways, please let me know what you guys think, because as it stands, AA placement is stupid and non nonsensical. It's unrealistic AND unbalanced.

In a similar vein, I wish map makers would test the location of AT Missile emplacements a little more carefully as well. Both Steel Thunder and Greasy Mullet have emplacements that kill the user.

Guerra, I agree that some rooftop AA would be nice (as the one east of market is in Sunset city). But the ditches do protect the AA gunner from attacks from tanks and the like. It also prevents them from being employed as anti-infantry weapons.

I agree on the AA placement. I never understood why you would put the AA in such a limited place.

As for the AT launchers, I have not played those maps enough to know.

I did notice both of these problems in VBF2 way back when I played that. How many times were the AA nests surrounded by the immortal trees of Gaia and such?!?!

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:Guerra, I agree that some rooftop AA would be nice (as the one east of market is in Sunset city). But the ditches do protect the AA gunner from attacks from tanks and the like. It also prevents them from being employed as anti-infantry weapons.

Why would you want to prevent them from being employed as Anti-Infantry weapons?

Well, I'm not sure, but I doubt that happens IRL.

AAA Guns are commonly used as anti-personnel. Probably the most known example if the Quad .50 Cal mounted on a truck. Amazing AAA weapon, but very useful for killing infantry too. Also, if i remember right the Russians classify their mobile AAA guns as Anti-Air/Anti-Material.

There is a new PR map for 0.6 that has anti aircraft guns and no aircraft, used only on infantry.

Its quite common that people use AA guns on infantry. High rate of fire and splash damage.

It's the insurgents' fault they put the AA in stupid places on Basrah, not the map maker's fault ... Anyway, how would you put AA on a roof in real life? Do you bring it to the roof piece by piece? I'm just asking...

I agree with you Guerra. Check out my thread about aa, that would be the best solution imho but might not be possible.

WIth mobile AAA I always saw films of the ZSU 23/4 being used in concealment in wooded areas in the european theatre. They were shielded and used specific moments of aircraft interception to avoid them appearing on radar and IR acquisition capabilities of opposing forces.

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:Guerra, I agree that some rooftop AA would be nice (as the one east of market is in Sunset city). But the ditches do protect the AA gunner from attacks from tanks and the like. It also prevents them from being employed as anti-infantry weapons.

Make them destroyable by normal weapons, and problem solved.

DrMcCleod wrote:Make them destroyable by normal weapons, and problem solved.

They are....I blew up the Construction Site AA gun on Muttrah with an AT4 from a rooftop at Mosque...well, not really, I think, but it did kill the guy manning it...

i think right now they are deployed as anit air guns and not infantry engagement weapons...

should they be used for infantry engagement?? IMO damn right...i have a gun a nice juicy enemy meatsack...let the lead fly...

one problem with having them in more infantry "friendly" positions is that they are very efficient infantry killers due to high ROF and splash damage...

TBH though...if we did put them on the roof tops in albasrah i dont think they would last very long.. first thing US would smoke and they dont respawn i believe...

also rooftops wouldnt allow them to engage infantry as those AA guns cant aim below horizontal (well a little but)

'[R-DEV wrote:IronTaxi']
TBH though...if we did put them on the roof tops in albasrah i dont think they would last very long.. first thing US would smoke and they dont respawn i believe...

Well, as soon as you hit an A-10, his next pass is coming for you as it is. So it would just make things more effective. Sure, as a more effective plane killer you'd be a hotter target, but that's just how it goes.

They don't respawn. But you can repair them. Unfortunately whenever you do, every American hears "artillery is back up and running".

Gameplay Balancing Issues

Balance is stupid and unrealistic.

Sorry if that sound rude, but it's exactly how I feel about it...

El_Vikingo wrote:Gameplay Balancing Issues

What a dumb response. Keep things realistic and leave the balancing to the mappers.

Its kinda simple why they are in such "crappy" locations. The main reason is if you put them in a to useful location then they just become so obserdly powerful and tottaly throw off the blance of the maps.

good exsample would be when there was a AA Cannon next to the docks flag on muttrah, had a really good view over the sea and could really engage most targets as soon as they managed to get off the carrier. I put it there at the time thinking along the lines "if the USMC looses the docks they deservr to get raped by it" but then every one on the forums started complaing alot about it which is kinda understanble after it was really hard to take the docks at the begging with the really long chopper warm up times, the flag cap time etc even if you took a boat by the time you got to the docks a MEC squad was already there opening the champain

Raniak wrote:Balance is stupid and unrealistic.

Sorry if that sound rude, but it's exactly how I feel about it...

if the game was not blanced, you would not be playing it cos it would not be fun.

You can have other ways to counteract well placed AA. Simply dumbing down their existence is what BF2 did (only to a much greater extent).