Anti-Aircraft Guns

[Kylee!]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

KC-10 to the rescue...

Not only does the A-10 use 30mm depleted uranium rounds - the M61 Vulcan is a fighter jet cannon - the A-10 uses the GAU-8 Avenger.

The Vulcan shoots at 6000 RPM, IIRC the Avenger is now locked at 4800 RPM - the RPM toggle switch was removed in later A-10 versions.

Now, back on topic.

I concur Kyle - in my expert opinion, the problem is not the POWER however.

It is the NUMBER of ack-ack guns, as well as their positioning. They have been positioned in such a way that they make the ENTIRE map a no-fly zone. Add to that, the fact that they have an extreme reaching capability.

This is ESPECIALLY prevalent on Wake.

As it stands, the ack-ack on the carrier can be used in an OFFENSIVE fashion, when it should ONLY be used for DEFENSE.

I suggest that DICE remove an AA gun from the carrier. And they should remove an AA gun on the FAR side of the carrier - that is, the side furthest from the island or the other carrier. This will reduce the range and limit its effectiveness as an offensive weapon.

The fact that the carriers are so close to the island (and each other, on Wake) does not help.

At the same time, I recommend reducing the range slightly for land, and sea based ack-ack.

I also concur about the explosive radius and power of the bombs. I witnessed two bombs land RIGHT in front of me - and yet I took no damage. They landed maybe three feet in front.

Haha guess the internet was wrong when it said 7200 RPM.

Anyway, I agree. :)

[KC-10]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

Yeah, I was wrong with my figures on the fire rate of the GAU-8 too. It's locked at 3900 RPM now, 4200 RPM was a fire rate that the pilot could select, previously.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

Wow, so they made Wake 1943 the antithesis of Wake 2007, with Wake 1942 being what they got right the first time and have yet to achieve since. I guess you just can't improve on perfection.

[-Shifty-]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

:rawr

But it's impossible to avoid them, if you fly low they just shoot above you and still blow you up. It makes sense from a balanced point of view though, so okay.

But the bombs... the bombs still suck.

You think the AA in WW2 was harmless? Dude it killed thousands upon thousands of allied airmen and parachuters who didn't even get out of the planes. It's not that complicated too, they have 4 heavy caliber barrels shooting at like 1000+ RPM. All they have to do is follow the tracers and adjust. That's why they bombed the crap out of places at night.

As for bombs, they do seem weak. But who wants nukes anyway? Just learn to be precise. I overcame the weaknesses of the F35B and Doragon in BF2 and 2142 and was great. Practice makes perfect.

Edit: Here I searched this for you I bet it will help Have fun, good luck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zea4lvMBGjM

[KC-10]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

You think the AA in WW2 was harmless? Dude it killed thousands upon thousands of allied airmen and parachuters who didn't even get out of the planes. It's not that complicated too, they have 4 heavy caliber barrels shooting at like 1000+ RPM. All they have to do is follow the tracers and adjust. That's why they bombed the crap out of places at night.

As for bombs, they do seem weak. But who wants nukes anyway? Just learn to be precise. I overcame the weaknesses of the F35B and Doragon in BF2 and 2142 and was great. Practice makes perfect.

Edit: Here I searched this for you I bet it will help Have fun, good luck!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zea4lvMBGjM[/media]

So, you are saying that the AA should be modelled to its true capacity, but the counter to the AA (bombs and .50 cals) should not?

If the AA guns are going to be this effective against airplanes, I want the airplanes to be effective against AA guns. One bullet from the airplane's .50cals should kill the operator. A bomb within 10 meters of the gun should destroy it.

[-Shifty-]

Re: Anti-Aircraft Guns

Oh no, I didn't mean that.

I think the two should be as real as possible but since we know Dice that most likely won't happen. I'm just saying make due with what you have.