Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets)

[Snazz]

What is it actually rewarding? Using AA is one of the easiest and least skilled aspects of PR, you just have to look in the general direction of an enemy aircraft and you've spotted them at range before you've even made visual contact. Shooting them down isn't a worthy challenge as you can fire lock-on missiles before they know about it, or let them try and flare and evade for a little while until their often-inevitable-death.

I am against lock on weapons in general, whether on anti-air or jets they just don't result in fun game play IMO. I get quickly tired of alarm noises and playing the flare timing game every time someone looks my way with AA or is glued to my six in a jet.

I was a massive fan of CE+BF1942+DC+DCon for their accuracy-rewarding dogfighting/AA, I was what you'd call a complete flyboy. In PR I tend to not even bother using aircraft anymore unless asked or if circumstances allow me to avoid AA/dogfights.

I know lock on missiles are a real life weapon and this mod is called Project Reality, but how realistic today is having manned aircraft (without radar or sensors) flying low around the same 16km2 that AA or enemy jets are present. To be fair we could question various other aspects of PR, I just wanted to point out that the 'realism' argument in this case isn't as solid as some would think.

Besides the questionable realism of the weapon in the scale of PR, there's plenty of real-life things that are left out of PR for game play reasons. This is one of those aspects that I think PR would be more enjoyable and balanced without.

Instead: Cannons & heavy machine guns, maybe 'dumb missiles' with/without close-proximity fuses.

[jbgeezer]

I can say I do agree with almost everything you say here, especially this

Instead: Cannons & heavy machine guns, maybe 'dumb missiles' with/without close-proximity fuses.

[Nimise]

If they took out all lock on aa missiles it would just be stupid, on maps like kashan it would be almost impossible to shoot down a jet. I don't think shooting inf with a apc is very "skilled" does that mean they should make it impossible for apcs to kill inf?

[Spieler]

Absolutely agree with Snazz. The air defence in PR must consist of cannons and mashine guns like ZU-23 on different platforms (ural etc.), 12.7 guns, Shilkas, vulcans & etc. I understand that it dosent look like modern warfire but there are lot of things in PR that arent realistic. Such air defense (without missiles) just will make PR much more intereting in aviation and operating air defence systems. Having atack chopper (Muttrah US) is very great advantage (must be so) but not now in PR. I dont even know word in english to discribe what atack chopper or jet is against PR air defense systems (avenger, strela, stingers, iglas). But it is realy bad word ))

[Snazz]

on maps like kashan it would be almost impossible to shoot down a jet.

I don't believe the majority of skilled PR players are actually incapable of hitting a jet without using lock-on weapons.

I don't think shooting inf with a apc is very "skilled"

Very circumstantial, but in any case the APC still has to aim at the infantry and does not get HUD boxes drawn around them for guidance.

It's also usually very obvious where the APC is firing from so an infantry squad can either avoid it or use anti-tank or request other support. Unlike when you're in an aircraft and you get a lock-on alarm that could be coming from anywhere around you.

[joethepro36]

I disagree massively with this.

There is a reason cannons and the like are used far less for anti-air duty these days and that is because cannons are not as effective as missiles. With cannons as you are preposing, we will have to lead a target travelling several hundred miles an hour that changes height and direction quickly in an engagement window of about 10 seconds.

Furthermore, with fast jets being so hard to shoot down, it gives them carte blanche to fly at low altitude and spot + engage targets independently. I realise in real life aircraft do this, but having aircraft be immune/have no aa missiles opposing them ruins things on a map like kashan.

I believe it was .6 (.7?) where I saw multiple times in the same round of an a-10 strafing mec main with 2 tungukas and two static aa launchers firing at it in each pass. As I said previously, leading a target that changes direction quickly at high speed is insanely difficult or impossible to do reilably. We tried using the cannons and got a few hits over time but a few hits isn't a kill which the missiles can do now, almost everytime.

Aircraft should be afraid of missiles at low alititude, they have immunity to them when flying above 1200m. And they can still drop bombs from up there.

[Snazz]

There is a reason cannons and the like are used far less for anti-air duty these days and that is because cannons are not as effective as missiles.

As I mentioned in my OP this isn't really about what is in real-life, it's about balance between ground and air in PR's game play. You can't just say "this is effective IRL, therefore it should be in PR."

With cannons as you are preposing, we will have to lead a target travelling several hundred miles an hour that changes height and direction quickly in an engagement window of about 10 seconds.

Furthermore, with fast jets being so hard to shoot down, it gives them carte blanche to fly at low altitude and spot + engage targets independently. I realise in real life aircraft do this, but having aircraft be immune/have no aa missiles opposing them ruins things on a map like kashan

Well you seem to be focusing on jet fighters, which are quick and agile but so is your mouse. If you hit it you'll be more satisfied having actually aimed the weapon.

Jet fighters are not immune because you have to actually lead them, they're just relatively more challenging to hit. I doubt pilots will survive long flying low and spotting on their own, as usual their situational awareness and accuracy will depend on spotters below.

Aircraft should be afraid of missiles at low alititude

Pilots would be cautious of being torn to pieces by explosive rounds or non lock-on missiles.

[Garmax]

i do believe AA is extremely effortless to use atm their always shooting down choppers and jets a lot easier then it should be im not saying to remove it but something has to be done MEC cant even get air transport because AA and the choppers are so slow and big

[joethepro36]

You're ignoring an important part of my post. I've basically played pr without effective aa missiles and it's horrible (although without the proxy rounds you're suggesting). Sure powerful proxy rounds would help but it's not effective aa. An aa emplacement or a vehicle with cannon alone cannot hit fast moving targets that are not pointing directly at you. In order for proxy rounds to hit, the proximity would have to be 10-15m at the very least to compensate for gunnery.

From what I've seen in combined arms they have an automatic aiming system/ If that was implemented into pr then by all means we should have more cannon available alongside missles.

And aside from this, aa missiles are not going to be removed from pr regardless.

[Snazz]

i do believe AA is extremely effortless to use atm their always shooting down choppers and jets a lot easier then it should be im not saying to remove it but something has to be done

It would be nice to boost the survivability and capability of aircraft to counter the relative effortlessness of shooting them down, but apart from some of the CA mod features (radar for eg.) I don't think the engine can really deliver on that.

It just seems far more simple to remove the lock-on system, which I see no value in game play wise.

You're ignoring an important part of my post.

I read it but I didn't find it important as you're retelling some story from an old version of PR that still involved lock-on missiles.

I've basically played pr without effective aa missiles and it's horrible

If lock-on weapons don't lock on properly of course they're going to be horrible. It kind of defeats the point of them locking on if you could aim them more accurately yourself.

(although without the proxy rounds you're suggesting). Sure powerful proxy rounds would help but it's not effective aa. An aa emplacement or a vehicle with cannon alone cannot hit fast moving targets that are not pointing directly at you. In order for proxy rounds to hit, the proximity would have to be 10-15m at the very least to compensate for gunnery.

You're still making the presumption that we can't hit fast moving targets with cannons and missiles if there's no lock on system doing it for us.

It's like you've never played another BF game/mod or have been playing vBF2/PR so long that you can't get your mind around aiming yourself.

[joethepro36]

It just seems far more simple to remove the lock-on system, which I see no value in game play wise.

The lock on system makes hitting horizontally moving targets easy to hit as opposed to bordline impossible. Also makes it so I can hit a fast jet after 2 seconds or so of looking at him while on the move.

The greatest disadvantage of cannon compared to aa is it's response time, if I see a fast jet moving at an awkward angle I have to think about compensating for lead which entails only a single short burst usually. A single aa missile will certainly hit (provded no flares) while a burst will get a few hits at best provided the aircraft is moving in a straight line. I'm basing this on the average 600-800m pass with an aircraft moving in a single direction horizontally and you are perpendicular.

It's too much to factor in speed, direction and distance into your head within 2 seconds of sight of an object in order to fire an accurate burst. I am not a computer and I typically sight the aircraft about a 1/3rd of the way into a pass past me.

[Snazz]

^So basically you recognize that lock-on weapons make it easy, but assume without them it's borderline impossible.

I respectfully disagree on the notion of it being borderline impossible.

It certainly would more challenging than it is now and that's what I'm interested in essentially.

Any thoughts on other aircraft (inc. helis), or dogfights?

[Peeta]

I agree with joe.

[joethepro36]

Borderline impossible because taking into account lead is extremely difficult in most passes. An aircraft taking you on directly is easy and everyone gets those fools, an aircraft at range flying in a loop the loop while firing rockets at a target on the ground, isn't going to get hit without luck.

Helicopters are fine, they get torn apart by cannons at the moment (even .50s) because of their lower speed and tendency to hover.

Dogfights are a little more debatable as the cannons do a lot of damage quickly, but they never really get used. I agree with air to air missiles being a little less useful to actually improve the whole dogfighting aspect. At the moment it's a bit point and click when you see them as opposed to tailing them and taking your time to get them at the right moment.

Ground forces do not have the luxury of engagement times longer than a few seconds so their aa should stay the same.

What I'm really trying to say through all this is that I think aa missiles are fine as they are, but there is room for cannons. The missiles should always have the primary role without a doubt but cannons on the aa vehicles should get proxy rounds in addition to missiles.

[Raic]

It's like you've never played another BF game/mod or have been playing vBF2/PR so long that you can't get your mind around aiming yourself.

Tell me another game/mod where air vehicles actually go with the same speed as in PR, you pretty much can't. Exception being simulations. And while your saying that its too easy to use AA how bout other way around? Without effective AA (and AA is going to be ineffective if we take rockets out) skill level needed to stay alive with choppers and jets is going fall down. And unless there is some damn badass guys in the AAs its going to be rape after rape.

And you clearly have not used the AA against pilot with half a brain, the flares work prefectly if you use them like they're designed to, only problem I'd say is that theres not enough and assets can't stay over hostile territory longer than some 30 seconds.

[Spieler]

Dont say that ground cannons arent effective against aircrafts. Russian pilots flying SU-25 in Chechnya had very big problems whith chechens shooting even from PKMs!! Not difficult to imagine what can do more powefull gun. So it is not question of efficiency, it is adout realization it in PR on BF2 engine. I think it would be very hard to do.

[Snazz]

Tell me another game/mod where air vehicles actually go with the same speed as in PR, you pretty much can't.

Both Desert Combat (BF1942) and Desert Conflict (BF2) have fast fighter jets and no lock on missiles, the fighter jets in those mods are also more agile.

And while your saying that its too easy to use AA how bout other way around?

Operating aircraft effectively is far more demanding then using lock-on AA, don't even bother trying to tell me it's balanced.

Without effective AA (and AA is going to be ineffective if we take rockets out) skill level needed to stay alive with choppers and jets is going fall down. And unless there is some damn badass guys in the AAs its going to be rape after rape.

What Joe's said in other words, which I still disagree with.

And you clearly have not used the AA against pilot with half a brain, the flares work prefectly if you use them like they're designed to.

I don't care what you preconceive of my experience, or how you use flares.

[0blivi0us]

i Agree with AA needing to be nerfed a LOT. It's way to easy. But eliminating missiles all together no.
It will have to be balanced out a lot mroe then it is now.

Flying a jet effectivly is hard even without the AA shooting your paperplane to shreds.
Either make the missles a lot less sensitive so they dont lock that well.
Or give planes more flares, i donno.

But yes i completly agree with the need for balance.
What you see now is that most servers take out the Jet Version of Kashan out of their list because when planes go up, they're shot down within minutess.

[Snazz]

Well not necessarily eliminating missiles, just eliminating the lock-on guidance.

Proximity fused weapons (shells and/or missiles) would be less difficult to score hits with, yet still be more demanding then lock-on weapons.

Then you just have to tweak the proximity.

[burghUK]

This just sounds like a rant from someone who gets owned by AA alot.

I really enjoy AA , figuring out the right time to fire to get a perfect hit n a heli,aircraft does require some skill. I disagree with everything you just said a dumbed down PR is frankly a sh*t PR.