Project Reality Forums

Why not take the Apache, out of Karbala, put it on archer.

limit archer to 1 huey.


Limit Karbala to 1 LB, and a atk lb.


I like what you did with ramiel. Although I would rather have the apache on ramiel, than karbala any day of the week.


Archer needs air support, it just does... and limiting to 1 huey, balances, having the apache.


p.s.

Why don't the russians get an 8 seater on Kozelsk? WTF over?

devilorchestra wrote: p.s.

Why don't the russians get an 8 seater on Kozelsk? WTF over?

Alittle hard trying to land in the forest and when the chopper first finds a place to land its a big target for a RPG.

no. Archer is to open and plain and an apache would just rape and make it unfair.

Well, Archer's going Canadian, so it wouldn't last, anyways. Karbala's good, it just needs adjustements, but then it it would be complete win.

Indeed, Op Archer is Canadian. So the strongest you will get is a Griffon mounted with rocket pods. Maybe that, but a dedicated Attack Helicopter would be too much to handle for talibans. It would also detract from the gameplay and just become a rape-or-be-raped type of game.

IRL, its the attack choppers that keep our troops in afghanistan alive mostly. Taliban hide in high mountains, they see you, you dont see them.

All the air support in A-Stan is under the same command structure. You get whatever is available regardless of the parent country.

no matter what map, if you suggest attack air assets like gunships and jets on insurgent maps everyone goes "OHH NOZZZ THAT WOULD BE U4ER RAPEAGE TO INSURGENTS!!!111" nevermind the fact that troops using planes and choppers for close air support is what they do in real life.

In real life there is few insurgents out of the civilian population and most of the time is spent patrolling around.

Hell since he wants that lets add in that our character must sleep for 5 hours and must spend the majority of time patrolling in a desert all day.

charliegrs wrote:no matter what map, if you suggest attack air assets like gunships and jets on insurgent maps everyone goes "OHH NOZZZ THAT WOULD BE U4ER RAPEAGE TO INSURGENTS!!!111" nevermind the fact that troops using planes and choppers for close air support is what they do in real life.

IRL ins see a chopper and GTFO, leave, go home, put weapons down, fight another day... all of which are not possible in game.

See this is why we need a surrender button.

CAS_117 wrote:See this is why we need a surrender button.

And Mumble.

If we had bigger maps, and gas usage i would agree with adding more attack choppers to insurgency, but the way it is, a chopper could do a circle of archer in about a minute. Its very unrealistic that the helicopter would be staying so close to the ground troops for such an extended period of time as they do in PR. In RL your helipad usually isnt 500m away from the front lines.

Id rather see an A10 be added, at least it requires some form of teamwork to be effective. The Apache is just too much of a death machine.

badmojo420 wrote:If we had bigger maps, and gas usage i would agree with adding more attack choppers to insurgency, but the way it is, a chopper could do a circle of archer in about a minute. Its very unrealistic that the helicopter would be staying so close to the ground troops for such an extended period of time as they do in PR. In RL your helipad usually isnt 500m away from the front lines.

Id rather see an A10 be added, at least it requires some form of teamwork to be effective. The Apache is just too much of a death machine.

Thats like the biggest contradiction in terms ive heard ina long time, good job badmojo

Robbi187 wrote:Thats like the biggest contradiction in terms ive heard ina long time, good job badmojo

ummm what

I said the attack chopper it too lethal in PR. The A10 requires assistance from ground troops, therefore it gets used in a more realistic way. How is that a contradiction.

In real life the attack chopper gets called in to strike a target, in PR the apache just roams around the map blowing up everything it sees.

In real life the A10 gets called in to strike a target, in PR the A10 usually flies in circles until someone lases a target or give a grid to strafe.

Therefore the A10 is used more realistically and would be less devastating to the insurgents or taliban.

Mojo, he's only saying you ranted about small maps, and how it's unrealistic for Apaches to be considered because they're only 500 meters from base, and you then suggested that the A-10, a fixed wing jet, be implemented instead.

Not that he's criticizing, he's just saying it's a funny contradiction

And helicopters can be rearmed very close to the front, so it is feasible to have a helicopter being reloaded 500 meters from the front.

sigh, i said *USUALLY* in bold for a reason. I know they can be rearmed anywhere flat. But does that happen often, i doubt it. While re-arming they are very vulnerable, the US military isnt going to land their choppers in range of an enemy RPG or sniper on the front line. Sure there are times where fighting happens close to the helipad, but the whole idea of a chopper is to reach out and touch someone from afar, when needed by the troops on the ground, not to drive up and blow the shit out of everything like your a freakin IFV.

Actually in Afghanistan I've read that pilots often put down just outside of a combat zone to do field repairs, remove bullets, reconnect some wires, and go back in again.