Project Reality Forums

One of the more unrealistc aspects of BF2, and PRM is the level of air-superiority that's so easily achieved and sustained in controling real estate.

With static SAM positions on a map that are easily viewable on the Tactical Map (and easily memorized even if they were not) it's pretty easy for the experienced pilot to circumnavigate and/or take them out -- further exascerbating the imbalance of ATG superiority.

Man-Portable SAMs, perhaps as an alternate load-out/weapon to the anti-tank weapon(s) could put more realistic balance back in the game, and make coordinated tactical gound manuver a more realistically survivable proposition in the face of relentless and overly effective a ATG superiority...

Δ

Manpad SAMs would definitely be nice, but I for one would like to see the jets done away with entirely and the flying tanks...er...helicopters brought back to reality. I think the problem with the SAMs is the fact that they can't add more classes, but maybe the solution is to make the SAM and the ATGM the primary weapon for the AT class (if that's possible) and then you can choose whether to be air defense or anti-tank when you choose that class simply by the weapon you pick.

Something definitely has to be done about the aircraft damage models, though. I've raked choppers from stem to stern and back with 25mm chain guns, the Vulcans on the ships, and I even got a main gun hit on one with a frickin' 120mm smoothbore tank gun that didn't kill it in one shot. I've noticed that when I go onto a sparsely populated server virtually always the first things taken are jets and attack choppers. They're capable of doing ridiculous amounts of destruction, which, granted, they should be, but they're also nigh-impervious to being destroyed themselves. Even tough choppers like Hinds and Apaches are still very vulnerable to ground fire. There's no way choppers would operate in real life like the way they're flown in the game.

I suggested something like that a while ago. Have the AT class renamed let the player choose between AT weapon or AA weapon. Perhaps have one (1) stinger rocket, but one that works reasonably well (e.g that doesn't behave like a broken first generation missile).

Of course I suggest to have only one in the kit because it's disposable an wouldn't want to carry many of these around... (Picture...)

Sorry missed your post {GD}geogob (did search though), that's exactly the weapon I'm suggesting, implemented exactly as I'd suggest it. If a disposable non-reloadable launcher was offered, and only one was equipped as part of the AA (Anti-Air) class option, then perhaps the AA option could offer a more functional rifle, perhaps duplicating the Medic's load-out in that regard...

Δ

Don't worry. it was posted deep into another thread. Don't even remember which one myself

I think it was one regarding tanks moving speed. Go figure.

I'd think even Pilots would like the more realistic challenge of having to adjust their tactics to dynamic threats.

Currently a lot of BF2 is so predictable that we have players flying and fighting along very consistent and predictable paths, with very predictable tactics.

Δ

Hoak has it exactly right, when you play Wake Island in BF2 and end up in the Cobra's gunner seat you can fire one of the missiles from a good distance out and you are nearly garunteed a kill on a tank trying (and succeeding) to mow down the boats that people try to get on the island with.

{GD}geogob wrote:I suggested something like that a while ago. Have the AT class renamed let the player choose between AT weapon or AA weapon. Perhaps have one (1) stinger rocket, but one that works reasonably well (e.g that doesn't behave like a broken first generation missile).

Of course I suggest to have only one in the kit because it's disposable an wouldn't want to carry many of these around... (Picture...)

Hey I love that idea! That would be very nice to see. DC almost had it with its AT/AA class, but being able to chose would be a really good idea!

I believe thats possible too, since PR doesn't plan on keeping the unlocks the AT class can be split between an AT weapon and an AA weapon. Good idea.

Put tactical SAM systems in the game!

MEC: SA-7/14/16/18 MANPADS, SA-8 Gecko ( old system but common and mobile/radar guidance), SA-13 Gopher (Capable mobile sam system IR guidance).

Recommend Russian manpads, SA-8 and SA-13 being the main sam systems used by the MEC.

PRC: QW-2 MANPAD , SA-15's (Very capable anti CAS aircraft and very mobile/ radar guided) and new TY-90(intresting new mobile PRC SAM system very mobile/ IR guided missiles)

Recommend if you do give the SA-15's to keep realism in mind put a long respawn on it and make the operator careful not to mess with it and get it killed.

USA: Stinger RMP Block I (Very capable manpad/IR guided) , Avenger missile system (Stingers on humvee/ very mobile duh), SLAMRAAM (Aim-120's mounted on HMMWV chassis / active guided missiles)

Theres 2 ways you could go with this, with all the systems stated for US Stinger, avenger and SLAMRAAM. Or you could go a differnt route we talked about commander calling in things and not really liking that idea.
How about the commander being able to call in a patriot strike? This way you could have just the stinger and avenger which is more common right now.

Yes there are plenty of realistic options to choose from, but even an intermediate one-size-fits-all solution like the current AT weapon just to get the feature in the game, and play tested would be a god send both to the quality game-play and I believe the popularity of the mod.

Just having a man portable SAM would give PRM it's first difinitive feature of something the mod actually has BF2 does not besides more realism that both adds more realism and dramatically improves game-play and realistic options to the player...

Δ

Gunfighter34ID wrote:...but I for one would like to see the jets done away with entirely and the flying tanks...er...helicopters brought back to reality...

Well, in reality, the side that controls the air usually controls the battles, it would be stupid to remove them only because they are hard to kill, how often does an F-18 get shot down while on a low flying mission from a missle at point blank? Doesnt happen, just have to adapt to the needs.

I agree USAF-Marshall, I'd just like the game to require a more to scale level skill in acquiring air superiority... And at least the possibility to turn that around when it happens (which is virtually impossible in BF2)...

Currently the jets can achieve substantial control with simplistic strafe and turn manuver, and an attack chopper loitering and putting the hammer down is more like a scene out of War Of The Worlds then contemporary combat...

Even in First vs Third World combat, helecopters and jets have to be a lot more careful and sophistocated in their air tactics then the do in BF2...

Man portable SAMs would definately change all that... As an intermediate step, cutting the current static surface to air launcher reload times in half might offer a one realistic means to more realism and sophistocation to STA/ATG combat...

Δ

USAF-Marshall wrote:Well, in reality, the side that controls the air usually controls the battles, it would be stupid to remove them only because they are hard to kill, how often does an F-18 get shot down while on a low flying mission from a missle at point blank? Doesnt happen, just have to adapt to the needs.

I'm not sure what battlefields you've been on, but the air space over most of the maps in BF2 is far too constricted for the employment of fast movers, particularly fast movers that take off from an airfield on one end of the map.

Aircraft don't get shot down on missions because they don't loiter at low altitude over heavy AAA most of the time. Strike packages are put together that contain all the essential elements to protect the strike aircraft, like SEAD, EW, fighter escort, etc.

Fighters, with the exception of the A-10, aren't armored to any serious degree. Multiple 23mm or larger cannon hits will kill virtually any fighter in our inventory. Intense small arms fire will kill virtually any fighter in our inventory. MANPAD SAMs, which generally have warheads in the 5-pound range, stand a good chance of killing any aircraft in our inventory. If you don't believe me, go find a fighter jock who has done some CAS and ask him how long he's going to loiter at low speed and low altitude in a one or two square mile box over an area that has AAA and IR SAMs, don't take my word for it.

In the game you can put dozens upon dozens of rounds of AAA into the fighter aircraft and they fly along blissfully unaware that they've even been under fire. You can hit them with two or three SAMs with the same result. That just ain't how it works. Those planes would be stacked up at altitude and be called in by FACs on an as-needed basis, hit their targets and zoom out again. One pass and they're gone to re-queue and the next flight goes on deck. The maps simply aren't big enough to allow for realistic employment of tacair, and especially tacair involving F/A-18Es and Su-33s. A-10s or Su-25s, maybe, but again it would be an ersatz thing.

Sometimes A-10s get used as scouts or to conduct armed reconnaissance, as in the campaign in Iraq in 2003, but they still don't make multiple passes over the same terrain over and over and over again like you see in BF2. They spot it, mark it, hit it if they have to, and get out.

This deal where you see Mach-2 plus strike/interdictor aircraft loitering at near stall speed over the BF2 "battlefield" is, frankly, patently ridiculous. If you took the jets out you could compensate for it by putting in more choppers, which would at least look far less nonsensical, but why cater to the purely arcade aspects of the game if you're working on something called "project reality?"

Excellent points Gunfighter34ID and discussion all around. It's unfortunate that Mod Developers often feel (and often actually are) constrained in making their work too radically different from the 'Mother Game' in hopes of attracting or sustaining Fans... It's especially difficult to make changes where doing so creates the superficial impression that they are sacraficing something, when in fact giving things up like magical player HUDs, and Jets can add a lot to game-play where the rubber meets the road, and go a long way to offering something really different and better that may ultimately be more successful.

Perhaps Jets could be incorporated more realistically in future releases by allowing them to fly literally 'off the map' and into the illusion of cloudcover or a simple sea and sky vista. While this may be impossible and require access to code assets, it was originally something intended for BF2 as part of a dynamic map system, and some functionality of that may remain. I'd love for Jets to be fly off the map at speed, and see them return to a realistic rats nest of SAMs headed their way -- but that just may not be practical or even doable.

Regarding damage to fast movers; one of the largest issues in making fast movers really fast (and destroyable) in a game of BF2's scale is net-code and entity scale issues; these are part of the game-worlds real physical limits, and cosmology, as much as physics is to ours. It's just not possible to have the range of realistic speeds represented by the range of vehicles offered in BF2 and at the same time have every weapon being able to hit, damage, and destroy (with scale damage) every moving entity -- the bandwidth and processing power just aren't here yet.

So, things either have to be narrowed to a more limited range of speeds, in this case slow, (which almost certainly looks better and more convincing then haveing player models move at .4 Mach) and limited as to what can destroy what. If the PRM Team attempts to break the practical limits of the net-code and map entities in these regards the game will get horribly laggy, and gross hit and damage anomolies will prevail -- in fact many already do as BF2 is already riding some of the limts. In the end you're probably right, removing the Jets in entire might be a very practical and realistic solution; but I'm sure there is concern for the negative reaction to removing something that's coveted by a large segment of the BF2 audience...

Δ

I have made an Mobile AA, search for my tread "AA as a weapon for anti-tank"

If you haven't already, take a look at the thread "Class Suggestion (LENGTHY!)".

It has a suggestion for a new class system. Feedback appreaciated.

Ya, the class thing was the best ideas yet.

To the best of my knowledge, the QW-2 has not yet been fielded in a MANPADS system, so far only being used on mobile AA like the PGZ-95. They use the QW-1A for MANPADS.

I like the Idea of Mobile AA but if something like that was implemented than with the lack of freecam in cockpit is is possible to add a threat indicator in the hud so Pilots have a chance at defense?