Jets make up for artillery?

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Indeed.

T-90 Timetable:

10:00
10:01
10:02
10:03
10:04

etc, etc, not counting the time taken for each person in the tank to do their run.

With jet's, if you're remotely competent, you know that the timetable is every 60 seconds, or possibly less. If you're incompetent, you know your own jet is going to appear in 60 seconds.

The difference is who's raping who.

If your talking spawn times then yes everything can be predictable to certain extent. I swear I can smell arty after I turn a flag. Or if I hear it go off in the distance, I have a good idea where it's going. Run like hell.

No I meant more of the angle of attack ,frequency and location of attack. You have no idea if where and when most pilots will attack. Not the good ones anyway. They can repeatedly hit you then leave for no reason, known only to them.

I think for the best pilots it's like a kid in a candy store. They attack something and it's fun for a while, then something else catches their eye, or some one spots a juicy tank for them and they get distracted.

I know where tanks can travel, we all know. We all know the barriers of the terrain that "funnel" other vehicles in certain directions and patterns.

But with jets you have to have your head on a swivel. At anytime they can be coming from any direction and any angle. Crappy pilots will try the same thing over and over, or the most obvious routes to targets. But the best pilots always keep you guessing.

To call jets "extremely predictable" in this sense is just ludicrous.

[Skaggy]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Have you ever noticed it's only the pilots who claim the AA works?

A vehicle that does not have any limitations to it's travel space, can traverse the the length and breadth of even the largest maps in a matter of seconds, travels at the highest rates of speed and to scale has the quickest 180 (two polar opposites) on top of that the only vehicle able to use the out of bounds with any effectiveness is........

Extremely predictable?

More predicable then artillery...yes I'd say that is true. But extremely predicable is simply wrong.

You're right, they have the potential to be unpredictable, but your average pilot is normally rather linear in the way he plays.

He will go straight from his airfield/carrier to his place of interest, whether it be the nearest tank, the flag that just turned grey or the the enemy's airfield/carrier. He will drop his load, and return to resupply.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

if you know how a pilot thinks i.e what kinda stuff he is going to bomb, then you know where to be to avoid the bombs.

I know how they think , I know the stuff they are going to bomb. Tanks, jeeps, APCs mobile AA, STAs, flags that are ours, flags that are white, flags that are his, ACCs, artillery and assets in general, jets that haven't taken off yet, points at which people spawn or are about to spawn, bridges, airstrips that don't have a spawn point, where RIBS spawn, where vehicles spawn, and sometimes where I am actually located.

I'll just avoid using or being in any of those places and I should be safe.

Thanks for the tip.

You're right, they have the potential to be unpredictable, but your average pilot is normally rather linear in the way he plays.

He will go straight from his airfield/carrier to his place of interest, whether it be the nearest tank, the flag that just turned grey or the the enemy's airfield/carrier. He will drop his load, and return to resupply.

I understand what your saying and I'm always the first guy to go "the long way around the barn".

Unfortunately turning flags or defending them is a big part of my game. I understand tanks, and expect to be a target once in one.

All this would be fine, as long as there were average pilots (past tense). However, where I play and I think in general because of the length the game has been out (and other reasons stated), an "average" pilot is becoming rare.

In fact I was on a popular server the other night which will remain nameless with my "crew" of regulars. The bombing runs were missing their mark, taking out half a tank's health or allowing us enough time to bale out of jeep. We commented, "wow these pilots suck". We were astonished having played against very good pilots for so long, we were shocked there were actually newer pilots playing.

I think that's the point where BF2 is at now. An average pilot is seen as sucking because the game has been out that long. Accelerating this was having pilots have longer and less fettered access to their vehicles via UCB rules, or so that's my theory.

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I think that's the point where BF2 is at now. An average pilot is seen as sucking because the game has been out that long. Accelerating this was having pilots have longer and less fettered access to their vehicles via UCB rules, or so that's my theory.

Its really funny you mention this. Pilots missing their bombing runs are so rare that when it happens Im actually surprised. Im sorry to say but even average pilots can do a decent job at dive bombing nowadays. Good pilots are nearly impossible to shoot down, let alone avoid.

[imported_Chubz]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Sounds like you may be a good candidate for project reality


www.realitymod.com

Seems neat.. I'll give it a shot. Thank you for the update.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Have you ever noticed it's only the pilots who claim the AA works?

Have you ever noticed that its the people who dont steo into a jet, have negligible time in jets and overall lack ANY understanding about the air aspect of the game- that *****, cry, moan the most?

I know with some very coordinated efforts you can keep air power in check. Against the best jet pilots even the most coordinated STA and mobile AA (which isn't on some air maps), it's just a minor nuisance for them.

Which is what has been the fundamental flaw in the procecutions case. Minor nuisance isnt the word. If 2 STA sites cover most of the map, you are effectively forcing the pilot to either "clear" the area before attacks, or force them to ditch their flares in an attack. Both of these actions add at least 30+ seconds to the time between two attacks. You can cap a flag during that time. And ground units win the game. Secondly, shooting through flares, correct shooting technique, proper timing and placement and the actual plan to using the Mobile STA are something that nobody ever does. People expect to lock on, fire two and get rewarded with a kill.

Theres a way to make the pilot destroy EVERY STA site before he jumps into bombing runs, and he can afford doing that for a moment, before the STA sites respawn again. Effectively, most of the pressure, AND deaths will be landed on the STA operators site. And flag hoppers galore then. And the team will win.

You make a pilot work hard, and he will do mistakes, tagret prioritization ones first hand, and you will get the kill. You get the kill, pilot will be pissed off, and he will target you. If you play your cards right, he will start tracking those empty (obviously youre not going to sit in them) STA sites for the remainer of the map.

But this is all teamWORK, with the word that ruins it heavily emphasized. Work is never fun, but I can see that b!tching is.

The fact that theres a competent guide to almost everything on the field except STA tactics/strategies means one thing- you can be successful as solo in almost any area of the field. But STA requires experience and "outside the box" thinking, aswell as teamwork, to become the PAPER to the ROCK.

And most people will never go that far, because its not fun. DICE designed STA sites to be no fun, which is their main flaw. Nobody wants to invest 1000 hours into STA because they are no fun. Mobile STA is a healthy exception here.

Once they realize your gunning for them they simply avoid you or target you first

Which is obviously where your lack of expertieze shows. If youre forced to do something else than bombing runs, STA has shown to be effective. If you get killed, or are chasing STAs for the most of your time, STA has won over you. The time wasted on chasing amart STA ops is a big deal.

Since the STA is static it's just a matter of memorizing runs at the same location and firing before they even come into sight or radar range. A skill yes, but once mastered a sure fire way to take out STA and not risk much danger.

Think about it. A pilot has to gun down all of the STA sites before going to bomb ONE target. A target that can possibly evade being killed. Tradeoff is in favour if the ground guys.

Mobile AAs simply get spotted by every one, commander included. I spot mobile AA more then anything else to keep my team's pilots fully aware if they are active. One they're spotted it's nearly the same as STA. A big target that can be taken out easily. Being mobile doesn't mean much if your being spotted constantly.

Youre confusing stupidity with inefficiency. Yes, in real life Mobile STAs move with convoys. In BF2, Mobile STA is the true definition to guerilla tactics.

I remember in '42 the pilots had the spots memorized and knew the angle of the flakguns couldn't point straight up. They'd divebomb you while you desperately hoped they would deviate from their path. The good one's never did and sniped you right out of the FLAKS, then dropped a bomb on them to take them out.

Is that wrong? Is it wrong to take your game onto the level where you have an advantage? Go play BF2142 instead. They have the ground to air relationship in favour to the ground. And even then , those whowant to master their game, have done so and walk away with 50 kills and a few deaths, if not 0 deaths.

Again, the fact that noone is willing to invest 1000s of hours into the pirahna, doesnt mean the pirahna doesnt have teeth. This just newbies talk to excuse themselves out.

Maybe some of you guys are not the pilots you think you are if you think AA can be effective. Because the pilots I play against don't seem to fear them, even when it's well coordinated. Does it throw a monkey wrench into their plan, yes to some degree, but it's a very weak deterrent.

Those that dont fear them, are suerior to them, which is where I should question your competence in STA. Perhaps your enot the guy who should even be talking about operating an STA?

The only thing I've found that works well is to have my team's pilots chase or "drag" the apposing pilots over an STA I'm manning. I stay out of it , then hop in it and try and get them while they are distracted by the dog fight.

Thats just one way to operate using teamwork. Just one. Get the pilot into VOIP, and together you can do just fine against enemy jets. Youre effectively being his wingman if you do so. Wingman the opposing pilot doesnt see.

Do people do this? Rarely, if ever.

The problem is it takes a monumental team effort to keep jet's down. But an individual pilot can wreak havoc. That's not the same with other vehicles. It doesn't take VOIP, good teammates and experience to take out even the best tanker. All it takes is a group of individuals recognizing the the threat and acting accordingly.

You can play the same game with tanks in any of the city maps where theres no air threat. A tanker, on those maps can easily walk away with a 40+:0 kill/detah ratio. And even with a "group of individuals recognizing the threat", a smart tanker will prevail.

Plus there's no hand held weapon a that can be used against jets.

Which is a damn shame. But done for a very good reason. DICE feared that a power of 32 STINGERS would ruin the air power, imagine choppers fate there. Mobile STAs, 1 per each offensive air uinit would suffice. Because it can be spotted out, it can be targeted. And its limited.

There's no piranha to the shark, no paper to the rock, that is jets.

There is, cut the crying. Pirahna is still a baby though, and the shark is in waters where it had to be adapt throughout many patches.

Add to all of this the E-penis point system and it gets even worse. I dare to bet with out the point system , many pilots would agree to separate if they are on the same side. I mean besides the frenzy for points, what fun is there in shooting fish in a barrel the whole round?

Youre not a pilot if you think that way. Its not done for the points. The WEAKER pilot knows he will not last in the dogfight, so he either switches sides, or doesnt engage and expects the stronger pilot to not to engage either. Next thing is- if both pilots want to attack ground units, its this pussyfoot diplomacy that prevails. Dogfighting and ATS combat are two very different aspects in fligh. So different that pilots can stay doing one thing and never do the other. As a parralel were talking about tankers who never engage enemy tanks and just kill infantry from distance, never entering flag cap radii. On the flipside, were talking about tankhunters.

Add to that a protected area where no one can attack in many servers and you've got a formula for a disaster in some circumstances.

The rule is good in theory, but with the jet inbalancies and such, is often indeed a nice formula to disaster.

I find it amazing that pilots are some of the first to call for UCB rules. As if the other team shouldn't be concerned that they get off the ground. It's just sportsmanship to let them off the ground they'll claim. Of course once in the air you'd think they'd give you the same courtesy? It's crush kill destroy whether you are ready or not.

Its the pilots who inhabitate UCB, are they not? Who else would be calling the rule?

And this kind of behaviour is presentin every game there is. Most famous is the "no camping" rule. Made up by the same people.

How good would people be in STA if they couldn't be attacked (by anyone) in the same amount of servers that have the same rule for ACCs and airstrips that are at UCBs? We'll never know, because the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Invoulnerable Essex.

Simply immortalizing the STA sites would be stupid. Coming up with alrenatives which make use of them fun, and thus increasing the time people would spend in them and thus making them a weapon with unlimited skill level thats actually being used- thats the goal to any skill based game.

If a jet pilot expects to be unencumbered till he takes off they he should agree not to target STAs. They're static and can't "take off" or "get going".

Its only a moral issue.

We all know it needs to be addressed Chris has some very sophisticated and learned examples of how he would do it.

Indeed. But Ive posted my point of views, nerfs and buffs way too many times, debunked too many arguments just to see that the same people post the same stuff inthe next topic. Its no fun, for a forum poster.

But I don't think it stands the community well to down play the biggest draw back of BF2, I personally think it's more of a distraction to a good round, then cheaters. I'm effected much more adversely by lopsided air power, then I am cheaters by far.

Only an idiot dies to a plane more than 3 times in a round, unless were talking about an unfortunate event such as USMC on Wake, or your team being on the carrier in any other map. The fact that you guys blindfold yourselves when I say jets are predictable is pathetically amusing me.

A vehicle that does not have any limitations to it's travel space, can traverse the the length and breadth of even the largest maps in a matter of seconds, travels at the highest rates of speed and to scale has the quickest 180 (two polar opposites) on top of that the only vehicle able to use the out of bounds with any effectiveness is........

You have 0 hours in a jet, and that smartass kid who commented on my claim has neither. Or if you do (havent checked your stats, but your words here are enough for me to judge you), youve spent them mowing the lawn on Wake.

Jets target 2 things and 2 things only.

1. HUD target boxes
2. Flag poles, spawnpoints around flags, flag areas

Teamworking pilots additionally target neutralized flags.

Apply this knowledge to your every day game, APPLY IT. And you will die to jets only if you ride a vehicle, or if you mess up at a flag.

Extremely predictable?

Extremely. Choppers are oh so much worse than jets its not even funny.

If jets are extremely predictable then I should be able to check a bus schedule to see when the next tank is coming.

As a matter of fact, you CAN. Which makes it so damn funny when you complain. Even a bus messes up being late or early. But if you understand what kind of a pilot youre dealing with, its piece of cake to count down seconds before it arrives. For example those pilots that only attack UCBs, youll never even see them.

You are so bound by the idea of seeing a jet before its coming and THEN reacting, that youre not even considering the option to not to endanger yourself not once in the first place. Which is exactly what you can do.

[proto]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I purposely miss targets depending on what it is. Just to scare them, stall them on their way. Then I'll come back around and finish them off with a MG run(if an APC, tanks take more than one run, which is why I use single drop, and I'm also trying to perfect accurate drops at high altitude). The only time I become linear is when I start base raping Airfield on Wake, or even the Airstrip on Oman. Even then, good pilots know the locations of every stationary threat, and I can even hit them through fog from 450+ meters.

The last time I played Oman, I swear every AA station was filled by the end of the round. Apparently they didn't like my wingman and my myself. Just for the mere fact that the two of us were Average pilots, 1 missile would hit, but 5 AA stations would be out of commission. I can understand the grievance in situations like these, but this game is all about adapting.

I keep ranting in every post...:/

Everything that he said...

You're an ufkin genius.

[disfigured]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Theres a way to make the pilot destroy EVERY STA site before he jumps into bombing runs, and he can afford doing that for a moment, before the STA sites respawn again. Effectively, most of the pressure, AND deaths will be landed on the STA operators site. And flag hoppers galore then. And the team will win.

That I believe, but you don't normally don't word it that way. I've seen you state things like "there's nothing wrong with them", or "your not experienced enough". This is the first time I've seen you mention that the goal in the STA isn't to knock jets out of the sky, but simply to be a blockade of sorts for buying time.

If you had just come out and said if every AA is manned the entire game it's enough of a deterant to be fairly effective through out the course of an entire round, but (and a big but), you will die a whole hell of a lot in the STA's. I doubt there'd be that much of a rebuttle on my part.

And most people will never go that far, because its not fun. DICE designed STA sites to be no fun, which is their main flaw. Nobody wants to invest 1000 hours into STA because they are no fun. Mobile STA is a healthy exception here.

There in lies the problem and makes your solution not very palatable to nearly 99% of the people playing. Sacrifice is my middle name when I play. I sacrifice every stat, even sacrifice "involvement" being a squad leader, but at least there's some participation in the game itself. Interaction with squad mates and yes even appreciation of the fact I duck dodge and hide my way through entire rounds so the team has a better chance of winning.

Being cannon fodder to slow the attack of jets to minimize their effectiveness is simply not a viable alternative, you yourself admit this, it's a game and people want to have fun.

So where does that leave us? The only solution is one that no one will execute on any regular basis? Is it really a solution or a valid point if by your own admission, no one will do it?

Hey I'm all for it, the problem is finding others to buy into the cannon fodder role.

The point in most FPSs is to kill not to die, as a way of winning. It is a foreign way of balance, to most dynamics in FPSs. With a kill to death ratio so far out of whack in STA vs. ATG, it's hardly the norm. People don't mind taking a beating to take out a more powerful weapon, but to die in nearly every exchange just retard their progress is a hard sell.

Youre not a pilot if you think that way. Its not done for the points. The WEAKER pilot knows he will not last in the dogfight, so he either switches sides, or doesnt engage and expects the stronger pilot to not to engage either. Next thing is- if both pilots want to attack ground units, its this pussyfoot diplomacy that prevails. Dogfighting and ATS combat are two very different aspects in fligh. So different that pilots can stay doing one thing and never do the other. As a parralel were talking about tankers who never engage enemy tanks and just kill infantry from distance, never entering flag cap radii. On the flipside, were talking about tankhunters.

Here I have to disagree with you that pilots are not effected by the points/rank system.

Not all , but many are completely driven by points and would rather fly along side another pilot then even up the teams and have an adversary (AA manned or not), mainly because of point totals.

The initiation of the point system in BF2 is untested waters, and does effect how people play the game, in tank, jet or even on foot. I think the fish in a barrel scenario on smaller populated servers would be far less it weren't for points.

You know, the smaller populated game that's going along fine (in relative terms) with maybe a couple of very inexperience pilots when all of a sudden the Red Barren joins an starts raining down hell. They'll always say "learn to fly" as their mantra. But really what's the point with no air adversary, unless it's purely to post numbers one can brag about (done here constantly).

I don't think you'd see as much of the "tough luck" attitude from many of these players it they weren't somewhat point driven. For me personally (not blowing my own horn but) since I don't care about points, I'm the first to suggest switching to the other team to "help out" or see if the very defense my team was putting up can be beaten.

I'm the first to say you can get off the AAC at wake (most times), with some great team work. I'm hardly a whiner when it comes to this game.

Quite possibly I was making assumptions from a point of ignorance about STAs. I will concede that point, but.......

If it was initially suggested that dying a whole lot in STAs was the route to their success I won't have questioned your opinions as much. Sacrifice has it's rewards, it's the amount of sacrifice that is the devil in the details.

From now on I won't expect much offense from the STAs but put my efforts in getting them manned and manned effectively.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Without posting a huge list, this is where I stand- STA and air (jets) are in an uneven position at the moment. But STA isnt useless. This is as simply as I can put it into.

As for points, trust me, its the challenge. The moment you engage a pilot, youre basically challenging him for a 1 on 1. And if you do so while being the worse pilot, youre going to have to work sh!tload to down him, IF you down him at all. And possibly simply get killed in the process. Points arent a factor here. Its the simple motion that youre calling a player out. Usually a better player.

[solofowaffles]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

aa isnt useless as long as you work as a team,but then again its bf2,so its worthless.

[-Shifty-]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Yes they do, especially bombers!

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

As for points, trust me, its the challenge.

I have to disagree with you Chris. While you may play for the challenge most play for points. Im not gonna sit here and be a hippocrite saying I never play for points. Lets face it points does affect our gameplay one way or the other. The amount of affect it has on someone varies from person to person but in the end we are all victims to the point system.

BF2 is the only game where my team can lose but I stll feel like I a winner because I got the gold medal. I mean how rediculous is it to have someone on the losing team win the gold medal? Its quite obvious that this point system was not well thought out.

Teamwork is affected by the point system as well. Squads tend not to stick together as much because of this. There have been many-a-times when I purposely did not spawn or run with my squad because....well.....they were too far away from the action / points. I know what I should be doing but still there are those times where points matter more to me than teamwork. Now multiply that thought by 100,000 players and what do you get?

Whats even funnier is DICE creating a game that is supposed to encourage teamwork but has rewards that require lone wolf time. WTF??

A huge flaw imo was dices decision to reveal the point and rank system to the public. That and the fact that the entire system seems to have been put together over night by some idiot.

Points should not be revealed until the round ends just like the commander. Points should be determined by scenerio, i.e. more points awarded to pilots taking out other pilots, ground troops taking out armor, armor taking out armor...i can go on and on but you get the idea. By not revealing the point system it would help players to focus more on achieving their goal (which should be winning the round) instead of point whoring.

To help deter imbalance and help insure that vehicles are used the way they are supposed to, fewer points should be awarded for misuse of equipment. Armor and air should get less points for taking out infantry and more points for taking out armor. The same goes for infantry, reward them for taking out a formadable opponent such as an airplane or helo.

In the end BF2 does not do a good enough job of rewarding sacrifice and teamwork. Instead it awards you for all the wrong reasons.

[imported_Chubz]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

Chris, I highly disagree with most of what you've said.

The fact is: jets are overpowered and extremely hard to take down on the ground unless the pilot is a moron. Believe me, I've seen some good and some bad ones, and the good ones are nigh impossible to take down because they'll avoid you like the plague if they know you're sitting in an AA turret, trying to take them down.

I notice that you say helicopters are more of a pain .. This is totally not true. Helicopters can easily be shot down by rockets, most vehicles, and even TANKS for crying out loud. I've shot down several helicopters by using machine-guns on jeeps (of course, not a smart thing to do if the helicopter is nearby and can spot you) and I've also shot down a few by using the tank's main cannon. Jets are so fast, NONE of these options will work. They can outrun most if not all ground fire and can just fly back over their airfield, repair, and come back without any chance of being harmed.

The only time helicopters generally pose a problem that's tough to deal with is when they have a gunner; a gunner is quite rough on both infantry and vehicles (I hate TV-guided missiles) and the helicopter's firepower alone makes a combination of the two a very dangerous foe, but even still, they're MUCH easier to deal with than jets. They can be avoided, they can easily be shot down, and they are very vulnerable. As I've said a million times: Jets are vulnerable in terms of their armor, but they're so damned fast, who's seriously going to HIT them? Most if not all of the time: nobody - unless they're in the air with them.

I also notice that in one part of your post you said that ground targets have a "chance" of getting away. Sure, they do, but that chance is like a hundred to one - very rarely have I ever escaped being bombed when a pilot spots my vehicle. In fact, I can't even REMEMBER the last time I got away from a bombing unharmed. The bombs cover such a wide area, if they drop them near you, you're a goner, it's a simple as that.

I stand by my whining.

[Maverick2201]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I'm going to put in my $0.02 on this issue... personally, I believe there are a few things that could really balance the STA sites/vehicles and the Phalanx guns on the Essex.

1.) For god sakes, give the Phalanx more armor. It should have at LEAST as much armor as a tank... no way that a pilot should be able to wipe out a Phalanx from across the map w/ machine guns only as easily as they can. I'm a horrible pilot but finding that static target and coming in guns a'blazin and taking out the Phalanx is pretty easy... too easy...

2.) Give SAM sites (or at least the Phalanx) some sort of radar or advanced warning system so they can at least figure out which way to look. I find it odd that getting into a SAM site, you stand no better chance of seeing from which direction the jet is coming. The Phalanx has that giant dome on it and of course the Essex would have some sort of radar.

3.) Position the Phalanx on the end of the Essex so that when firing across the Essex, the missiles do not slam into the bulkhead of the boat. I always find that rediculous that they sunk the Phalanx lower than the rest of the boat so from certain angles, you shoot missiles right into the carrier.

4.) Make the missile lock happen a bit sooner... there's nothing more agonizing than sitting in a sam, seeing the jet first, waiting for a lock as you're being pummeled with MG fire and dying before even getting a rocket off...


5.) Give mobile AA a good deal more ammo. I get in a mobile AA and start ripping up jets and helis and am out of missiles way too soon. I think the balance of mobile AA is very good and they have just the right amount of firepower and armor but they need more ammo. These are certainly (in my mind) the most powerful deterrant to enemy aircraft. I have, on countless occasions, gotten sick of the air power, jumped into a Mobile AA and just ripped enemy air power to shreds -- for about 5 mins until I run out of missiles.

On a side note, I believe there is a GIANT flaw that EA built into the physics model w/ the jets... there's no way a jet ought to be able to slow down to ungodly slow speeds, bomb & shoot at will and then recover w/out stalling & crashing... WAY TOO MANY pilots exploit this flaw to their advantage slowing to 100-200 (mph?) to perfectly bomb or MG their way to points nirvana just to back up to 800-900 (mph?) within seconds... its absolutly disgraceful that EA/DICE would allow this in thier physics model as anyone knows thats simply not possible.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Jets make up for artillery?

I have to disagree with you Chris. While you may play for the challenge most play for points. Im not gonna sit here and be a hippocrite saying I never play for points. Lets face it points does affect our gameplay one way or the other. The amount of affect it has on someone varies from person to person but in the end we are all victims to the point system.

Are we talking about the point system, or the reasons why one pilot doesnt engage the other? Because Im talking about the second one, and youre completely off topic. Or at least youre responding to me without actually responding to my points.

If youre a pilot, youd know how much truth is in my statement. If youre not, you should get some hours, get some blood lust and vendetta in your flight. Or check my dogfighters guide where I touch the subject, or at least explain as good as I can how the mind of a dogfighter works.

ATA between pilots is NEVER about points, avoidance of ATA engagement is all about being a coward and not having the guts to engage the other side, whether or not theres plane disadvantages involved.

Chris, I highly disagree with most of what you've said.

That of course, is your constitutional right

The fact is: jets are overpowered and extremely hard to take down on the ground unless the pilot is a moron. Believe me, I've seen some good and some bad ones, and the good ones are nigh impossible to take down because they'll avoid you like the plague if they know you're sitting in an AA turret, trying to take them down.

1. Jets arent really overpowered, they are just way too multifunctional and too effective in all of their areas. Introducing a series of nerfs to make them anti-vehicular, more than anti-everything would make all the difference.

2. Jets arent "extremely hard to take out" unless youre doing a solo effort, and even then its mostly about how you hunt them and how much experience youve got in your particular field. You can make a jet run, you can help your pilots, you can annoy the enemy pilot. You dont understand this, but you have to appreciate the lock on tone if youd be a pilot.

And whats wrong with avoiding you like a plague, isnt that exactly what being an effective STA operator is all about? Making the jet run away?

I notice that you say helicopters are more of a pain .. This is totally not true. Helicopters can easily be shot down by rockets, most vehicles, and even TANKS for crying out loud. I've shot down several helicopters by using machine-guns on jeeps (of course, not a smart thing to do if the helicopter is nearby and can spot you) and I've also shot down a few by using the tank's main cannon. Jets are so fast, NONE of these options will work. They can outrun most if not all ground fire and can just fly back over their airfield, repair, and come back without any chance of being harmed.

Bull. Sh!t.

Get a competent helicopter crew airbourne, and its over for the enemy team. A helicopter maintains a constant presence over the enemy airspace, it can take out all enemy armor and STA in less than 2 minutes and thus giving their team a chance to rush to the flags with armor support. Combining infantry pushes with helo support, its possible to lose all flags in less than 3 minutes just at the start of the game.

There is no jet pilot in the game that can push the USMC forces off the ground on Oman in less than 4 minutes. Ive seen a Havoc crew do that constantly, on a regular basis. Record Ive seen was just under 4 minutes. And that was a 2000 ticket game, with a fair ammount of regulars (experienced) players on both sides. Thats 4 minutes for the MEC control, and 1.5 hours of rapage following that event.

No jet pilot can do what a helo crew, or even soloer can. The difference between them is that a helo pilot can be harassed and is eaten by jets, while the jets arent really harassed by something bigger than they already are.

I would go as far as saying that a helo is a surgical tool to weed out all, all enemy forces with pure visual contant, while a jet is a blunt instrument.

The only time helicopters generally pose a problem that's tough to deal with is when they have a gunner; a gunner is quite rough on both infantry and vehicles (I hate TV-guided missiles) and the helicopter's firepower alone makes a combination of the two a very dangerous foe, but even still, they're MUCH easier to deal with than jets. They can be avoided, they can easily be shot down, and they are very vulnerable. As I've said a million times: Jets are vulnerable in terms of their armor, but they're so damned fast, who's seriously going to HIT them? Most if not all of the time: nobody - unless they're in the air with them.

You can take down a helo crew if they mess up or if they are newbies, thats the same thing that can take out jet pilots.

I also notice that in one part of your post you said that ground targets have a "chance" of getting away. Sure, they do, but that chance is like a hundred to one - very rarely have I ever escaped being bombed when a pilot spots my vehicle. In fact, I can't even REMEMBER the last time I got away from a bombing unharmed. The bombs cover such a wide area, if they drop them near you, you're a goner, it's a simple as that.

Hear a lock warning, pray youre near cover. If you anticipate a jet attack, immediately reverse. Go get some bombing practice, youll see that avoiding getting killed by a jet isnt impossible. Its impossible to evade a competent soloers TV missiles though.