air combat (a2a, g2a)

[Blades]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

If I wanted 'real' jet simulator type combat I would play LOMAC.

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

well real jet combat was stretching it, i just think that the current build of air combat in the game doesnt really do justice to the basic principles of modern air combat as applied to anti air missiles.

[HAWK503]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

If I wanted 'real' jet simulator type combat I would play LOMAC.

Yeah Lock On Modern Air Combat is AWESOME

i was flying an A 10 and the AGM-65D is absolutly deadly, but when you fire those from the second seat in the F 15 they have nowhere near that power.

sad really.

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

Yeah Lock On Modern Air Combat is AWESOME.

crap, and here i thought putting these posts in my sig would lead to some healthy discussion about the topic.

[HAWK503]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

crap, and here i thought putting these posts in my sig would lead to some healthy discussion about the topic.

yeah, i know i know. It would be really unbalanced if this were the case in BF2, but it's fun in the flight sims like LOMAC.

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

plz explain, what wouldnt be balanced about my original post?

[IDC-Shorly]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

Unfortunately aerial combat has become more statpadding and bombing, then it intentianally was meant for. Really cant call much for aerial combat and jetfights, cause they mostly are handled as bombers. Only maps including the F-18 removes the two missiles and instant death on the US pilots.

The aircrafts are simly too advanced to get used too. To many fly too many different jets, messing up the advantages of the different ones, and like that almost always make speed/manouverabilty to decide which jet survives.

As for AntiAircraft-Vehicles; They really should be to fear, and as posted above, this might be unknown how to dodge. Wrong usage of vehicles does not make them less dangerous in the right hands. Helicopters can and should be aware the presens of these enemies, and should also fly thereafter. There are no reason why jets and choppers should break the frontline alone, and not be exposed to deadly enemy hardware.

This frontline is unfortunately mostly underestimated in public gameplay.

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

thats cool and all but what do you think about my opening post, would it fix air combat or do you not see a problem?

[IDC-Shorly]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

thats cool and all but what do you think about my opening post, would it fix air combat or do you not see a problem?

Still, without complete success, I do believe I am getting closer to the right techniqe for the missiles. As for this, that acctually means that there will not be a short fight between the jets, acctually, It takes time, for both attacking and evading. But there are ways for both jets to do this (J10 vs F35).

The missiles are tricky, thats it. They do hit, and they do damage.

For the LGM, I could agree, as most pilots dont know where their targets are, and lining up is difficult enough anyway, Daqing Oilfields is AAV-heaven, and when one team has all the flags with AAV-spawns, their team have a huge advantage. Beeing able to track enemies at a longer distance could work. But, I still dont find Aerial hardware to become even more powerful. I must admit thats some of the reasons I like them.

I do most in this game, acctually everything. But going armor on Dragon Valley with superiour choppercrews or soloist on oposite team is the useless. Armored combat really lacks in BF2. I dont find the bombers to become even more lethal for that reason.

The only thing I dislike, is the ability to dodge to easily when in a J10. Specially from the Essex-gun.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

My input.

-anti air missiles that are properly lead and are on target should not deviate on some airframes. (j10)

Creating a missile system that is based on "keeping the target in lock-zone" a´la WarRock requires a new set of code, while I agree this system is great, this cannot be done.

What can be done is creating a missile system which relies on perfect shot opportunity and longer lock-on procedure. Missiles have a short "pre-tracking" period. Basically, when you shoot a missile, it waits a moment before it starts tracking the target. Right now its set to 0.01, it was in 1.0, 0.3, I assume its in seconds.

If you choose the most optimal number, itl will create a situation where you can still evade the lock of the missile in its pre flight stage, by leaving its lock-angle, field of view. You can also increase the time it takes to lock on to a target, successfully boosting up the need for maneuverability skills in dogfighting.

-on some airframes, flares should be intercepted by anti air missiles when the flares are in the anti air missiles flight path (f35)

This is purely an issue with wrong flaring technique. Please refer to my flare guide.

-anti air missiles range should be just out of max visual range (for all platforms)

Maximum visual range is really something that varies a lot. So this solution doesnt hold water. What you can do is lower the range for the ATG radar, so it picks up targets from lets say... 200 feet? While the STA can pick targets further than that. This way, you TRULY have to know the positions of AA emplacements, and you can aim yoru shots using the ATS radar when youre already in the lock radius of the STA site. This would also increase the need for spotted armor, instead of approaching armor from halfway across the map. Granted, this will do no good for pilots who rely on their machine gun a lot to down APC/Tanks, however, this can be worked out, for the sake of balance- heres how.

Smaller ATA lock range for bombers/ bigger ATS range for bombers
Smaller ATS lock range for fighters/bigger ATA range for fighters

Right now ATA standing at 375 (assume its feet) this could look like this-

Fighters 375/200
Bombers 300/400

First figure showing ATA, second showing ATS

-the laser guide on the bomber should be able to lock onto targets just out of visual range

Better solution would be to decrease the lock time for the LGM. Because its unreal that you should be able to take out ALL enemy armor in one pass. This is actually pretty damn balanced right now. No need to change.

-instead of blowing up when the tv guided missile runs out of time, it should keep flying forward unguided.

I agree and disagree. Choppers are desgned for close-in air support. So taking potshots across the entire map is silly. Jets cant do it, why should choppers?

- a lowered turn radius on anti air missiles

Missiles start going "uber" at 5/5 turn factor. In pre 1.2 they were set to 3/3 I believe. The might and power and most of all, most important tweaks of the missile lie NOT in turn capabilities, but within other factors.

-radar on all anti air based weapons except stinger.

A better balance between distance capabilities is a better solution

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

so you dont mind that jets can slaughter aa sites far before they can get a locK? and that aa missiles cant really be dodged because of thier large turn rate? (right now missiles arent really dodged so much as "deflected", for the majority of time) pulling hard shouldnt be the ultimate answer in a jet.

My input.

thanx so much, i will digest it and rework the thread.

[Jungles]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

The static ground-based AA are fine as they are, IMHO. But vehicular AA and the Essex AA need to be beefed. At the moment, they are no more fearsome as static ground-based AA.

Increasing the lock-in distance (say by 50%) for vehicular and Essex AA should be good enough. Also, giving the Phalanx (the Essex AA gun) more damage would be good too - they are supposed to be 6-barrel 20mm gatlings that fire up to 4,000 rounds per minute, not pea-shooters.

The number of times I've seen the Essex get rampaged by J10s is appalling.

Also, reduce the ground radar range on jets so they are not seeing targets half-way across the map. I don't mind them seeing armour, but static AA should not be seen on radar. On maps like Wake, Clean Sweep, and Oman, this will give jet pilots more to think about.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

The static ground-based AA are fine as they are, IMHO. But vehicular AA and the Essex AA need to be beefed. At the moment, they are no more fearsome as static ground-based AA.

Increasing the lock-in distance (say by 50%) for vehicular and Essex AA should be good enough. Also, giving the Phalanx (the Essex AA gun) more damage would be good too - they are supposed to be 6-barrel 20mm gatlings that fire up to 4,000 rounds per minute, not pea-shooters.

The number of times I've seen the Essex get rampaged by J10s is appalling.

Also, reduce the ground radar range on jets so they are not seeing targets half-way across the map. I don't mind them seeing armour, but static AA should not be seen on radar. On maps like Wake, Clean Sweep, and Oman, this will give jet pilots more to think about.

Ground radar works for all ground units the same. I think you can disable radar signature for the AAs, but otherwise jets treat them all the same.

[$kelet0r]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

chris' idea has impressed me lots - i mean it's perfect for this game
the whole issue revolves around the near impossibility of dodging AAMs, well take that out of the question all together

Chris Redfield's AA combat

- the pilot must maintain lock for a full 2 seconds before firing off a missile that will hit 100%
- missiles have a reload time and can only be single fired

Perfect.
That way you are always outmanouvering a human opponent not an aimbot equipped AI missile - the real test of skill.
If the hunter still has maintained full lock after 2 seconds then you have lost and take a full hit which should either be a kill or down to 4 bars of armour, simple as.

GJ Chris

[Roger Smith]

Re: air combat (a2a, g2a)

Creating a missile system that is based on "keeping the target in lock-zone" a´la WarRock requires a new set of code, while I agree this system is great, this cannot be done.

actually what i was reffering to was the fact that either the hitboxes or the aa missiles are screwed up in regaurd to jets. if they have the right angle of turn, some jets like the j10 can avoid missiles that are on cource to hit them. the missiles flying up to the engine and then miss, this isnt dodging.

What can be done is creating a missile system which relies on perfect shot opportunity and longer lock-on procedure.

if the missiles turn rate was lower, wouldnt that create a "perfect shot oppertunity" scenario?

Maximum visual range is really something that varies a lot. So this solution doesnt hold water.

a pilot that knows where all the static aa is, and where the essex is, can cannon it far before the aa platform gets a lock, decreasing the a2g radar range, would not help the situation. where as if aa had long range, they could effectivly combat those pilots. what i meant to say by maximum visual range was basically that if a jet pilot can see me, i want to be able to lock onto him.

I agree and disagree. Choppers are desgned for close-in air support. So taking potshots across the entire map is silly

the modern attack chopper is designed to be a long range anti-armor missile platform. it would simply be fufilling its role.

Missiles start going "uber" at 5/5 turn factor. In pre 1.2 they were set to 3/3 I believe. The might and power and most of all, most important tweaks of the missile lie NOT in turn capabilities, but within other factors.

um im lost, i dont understand what you are saying, why isnt the turn rate the most important thing again?