Confession and disadvantage....

[PedroTheGoat]

My confession... I'm a rotorhead.

 

If Lock On had a single helicopter to fly then it would be on my hard drive right now. I've still thought about buying it just to support ED... But none of it interests me. If it doesn't have a collective stick, then it doesn't interest me.

 

My question is... I understand that I am held to an extremely high level of realism and difficulty when I step into my Black Shark, and am willing to deal with it... But will I be at a HUGE disadvantage playing MP with Lock On players who are not exposed to the same amount of realism?

[sobek]

My confession... I'm a rotorhead.

 

If Lock On had a single helicopter to fly then it would be on my hard drive right now. I've still thought about buying it just to support ED... But none of it interests me. If it doesn't have a collective stick, then it doesn't interest me.

 

My question is... I understand that I am held to an extremely high level of realism and difficulty when I step into my Black Shark, and am willing to deal with it... But will I be at a HUGE disadvantage playing MP with Lock On players who are not exposed to the same amount of realism?

 

This is something that the mission designer has to take into account. E. g., it would be unreasonable to send a Shark out against hostile top cover without some fast movers covering his arse. You are at a HUGE disadvantage against fast movers anyway (simply by design), so if handled correctly, the difference in realism shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[159th_Viper]

As Sobek correctly stated, you are largely at the mercy of the Mission Builder/Designer.

 

That said - from what I have read/seen, mission builders are well aware of this and will tailor missions to suit all three Airframes. At the end of the day you are still in a Helo and as a consequence at the Bottom of the Virtual Food Chain - keep that in mind and Tailor your engagements accordingly: Your Helo is a 100% All-Terrain IFV as opposed to an Airframe - Treat it as such. And Yeah - Pre-Emptive Flare release/Nav Lights/Collision Beacons is a Magnet for a Toad/Fast-Jet/Enemy Helo......the list continues.

 

No Bother: As a dedicated Rotor-Head you'll no doubt be Fine :thumbup:

[MemphisBelle]

I think what sobek said in his first sentence is the most important reason. It´s very up to the storyline or the kind of a Mission.

It wouldn´t make any sense to send a KA-50 into an oprn field since the chance to get back safely while fighting against "fast movers" (nice definition btw), are nearly to 0. But it would if the KA-50 has to disable e.g. sam sites or other hardware, hided in the mountains, to clear the way for later following Fighter Bombers, so dedicated Rotor-Heads are, in my opinion, always pretty welcome, if the mission is considering that.

[Luke.S]

and remember as well when it gets up close and personal the chopper has the edge. You can turn 360 degrees in 10 seconds. He can't. You can stop and get behind him. He can't. You can use pretty much anything for cover.

[element1108]

They have defensive cover in a sense...but a fast mover will be out of firing range before you can get a good firing solution on him...although it is possible, i wouldn't call it advantage. You can't even tell if he's got eyes on you.

 

The SU 25 campaign has a lot of joint strike/chopper missions.

[sobek]

and remember as well when it gets up close and personal the chopper has the edge. You can turn 360 degrees in 10 seconds. He can't. You can stop and get behind him. He can't. You can use pretty much anything for cover.

 

AHAMMM, rotorheads are what fast movers eat for breakfast. You won't even know what hit you. Sad but that's the way it is. They fly circles around you, literally, fast turn all you want :(

Edited May 2, 2010 by sobek

[Feuerfalke]

and remember as well when it gets up close and personal the chopper has the edge. You can turn 360 degrees in 10 seconds. He can't. You can stop and get behind him. He can't. You can use pretty much anything for cover.

 

10 Seconds? :D

 

In 10 seconds the jet you want to turn behind travels 2.5km and is well out of your range.

[talisman]

You miss the point though. As was stated above an Attack Helicopter is a 100% all terrain Infintryman. You woulnt send infantry against a jet.

 

Helicopters have an alltogether different role. Most will function not as a chopper against jet solution - but as a mobile JTAC against ground forces or simply as spotters. No army in their right mind would send a chopper aginst fast movers. It is not their role.

Having a discussion about who could waste who in a fight is pointless - if a mission designer puts a chopper in direct conflict with a jet - he has failed.

 

The KA-50 is a special forces helicopter used when suprise is the best method of attack.

 

So - when your a 5000 feet and you locking up another jet and you think all is well and your winning!!

 

Ill be in the trees at 20 feet and shooting up your airfield. :) Try killing me when you cant get off the ground :D

[sobek]

[...]

 

Precisely :thumbup:

[MemphisBelle]

AHAMMM, rotorheads are what fast movers eat for breakfast. You won't even know what hit you. Sad but that's the way it is. They fly circles around you, literally, fast turn all you want :(

 

well, not at all. Considering you are flying in the mountains so your chances to survive such a touch are much better than over flat area...this is absolutely clear. But if you´ve the possibility to hide and if you´re respectivly armed, so you might have a chance, but not really much with KA-50, but AH-64 with A2A weapon loadout might have a chance gainst a Mig...may be.

[PedroTheGoat]

Okay, I think I need to be a bit more clear on my questions. I'm not here to try to ask if a KA-50 is going to own an F-15... That's just silly. I know that NOE flying and being as stealthy as possible are going to be my only defense during multiplayer...

 

I just don't know how "realistic" Lock On is? Is my NOE flying going to confuse a jets radar at times??? Are things reasonably modeled in LO compared to Black Shark? I just know that the level of realisim is quite high in Black Shark... I just don't want to be in my Black Shark against people who are flying HAWX on the other end of the server.

[talisman]

ahhh i see - i stand corrected. :)

[MemphisBelle]

OK, yes it might be that you feel like an enemy in an arcade game once FC2 and BS find together. The landscape in the LOMAC/DCS Worls is huuuuuge. There´re places to hide much not that much to get an advantage for chopper pilots. Basically I think that ech battle will end up bad for Chopper pilots. I dont know how much the realism corrospending to the Sensor ystems is.

[Grimes]

I think it will depend on the mission and the server. Sadly not every F-15 you see online is at medium or high altitudes where they should be. There is plenty of low mountain flying going on that could easily spoil the advantage of using an attack helicopter.

 

Also keep in mind that the main online gameplay mechanic is still "airquake." Most payers join fighters but a few do use strike aircraft and eventually the a2g targets destroyed. Very rarely do you see a concentrated effort to take out ground targets as part of an achievable objective.

 

Also one should note that the a2g target isn't always on the front lines. In the 3Sqn and 51st servers for FC2 the a2g target areas can be near the air combat but are also close enough to a friendly airbase that you have time to run to sam protection if needed. In the 104th the a2g targets are deep within friendly territory. So enemy air threats are even more significantly minimized.

 

In the end flying the Ka-50 with FC2 aircraft will be most fun working in cooperation with each other. Just seeing any combination of aircraft fly overhead to assist you will be a welcome sight. Having BS and FC2 together will be great in the head to head games, but the bread and butter of this combination will be in co-op environments where teamwork plays a more important role.

[BKLronin]

And Yeah - Pre-Emptive Flare release/Nav Lights/Collision Beacons is a Magnet for a Toad/Fast-Jet/Enemy Helo......the list continues.

 

So with the patch we finally get rid of the christmas tree shark pilots and we have use for the non collidable forests!

 

Try to find the needle in the haystack fast moving non rotators!

 

:P

[Luke.S]

Well if the worst comes to the worst. I'll drop my shark on your jet :lol:

 

when you plane is suddenly out of control missing a wing you will know my rotors just clipped your wings. and i've ejected safely.

[EtherealN]

On the whole realism thing, it is of course true that FC2 cannot be perfectly realistic, but in this case it actually works to the advantage of the Ka-50. For example, as far as I know the FC2 radars cannot model the doppler return of a spinning rotor disk, which "unfortunately" means that a fighter jet will not be able to lock onto a stationary, parked, helicopter with his radar in A2A mode as long as the rotors are spinning. (World's only A2A kill with a bomb was an LGB who'se guidance had been slaved to the F15E's A2A radar, which achieved initial lock while the Mi-8 was still on the ground at quite some distance out.)

 

In reality a spinning rotor (and two spinning rotors even more so) would be a nice beacon on any modern fighter's radar, but without modelling pulse-doppler hardware I don't think FC2 will do it. Any terrain (except trees) will of course also hide you, so NOE is also good. Aside from that - just don't fly to places where you find yourself having to wonder whether there's a radar missile headed towards you - same as you wouldn't fly into an S-300 or Patriot site coverage since you know you wouldn't get any warning.

 

And if in doubt: fly with CAP. Fighter jocks have a job to do, and often their job (in reality) is to keep you alive.

[GGTharos]

So - when your a 5000 feet and you locking up another jet and you think all is well and your winning!!

 

Ill be in the trees at 20 feet and shooting up your airfield. :) Try killing me when you cant get off the ground :D

 

Say hello to Mr. SHORAD.

[ericinexile]

Helicopters are no more designed to defend themselves against fighters than BMPs and APCs are. It's an airborne tank. The only way to share the battlefield is the way some MP servers are currently utilizing the Su25 and A-10: by sending them to waypoints in opposite directions from fighters. The helicopters would just be deployed at a FARP closer to that waypoint. Fighters can still come over to plink at mud movers but they will have to fly through a SA-10 barrage to do so.

[Grimes]

. The only way to share the battlefield is the way some MP servers are currently utilizing the Su25 and A-10: by sending them to waypoints in opposite directions from fighters.

 

 

I really dislike thinking of that as the correct "fix" to the problem. Because it is the easy way out. Its pretty much set up to coddle the players into having the "safest" environment possible. No A2G targets near bullseye means the A2G aircraft are protected by their own sam umbrella. Their A2A teammates actions/inactions have no effect on how they accomplish their mission. Likewise the bullseye area is cleared of sams for either side, the only threat fighters deal with are other fighters.

[EtherealN]

Yeah, "only way" is a strange statement to me.

 

The "only way" to make them share battlefield is for airquake players to realize that as fighter pilots they have a job to do - that job is to keep their own strike assets alive (through killing enemy fighters) and to keep their own ground assets alive (through killing enemy strike aircraft). Select a mission and do that mission. The other day me and two others in the squad went up on the 104th and did something I think most people have never seen - we escorted the AWACS that's part of the win conditions on the server. I would be curious to see the expression on that 4th (EDIT for clarification: 4th as in in addition to us three, not as in part of the 104th) Eagle we met at the KC10 when it followed us until it seemed to realize that "what the... they're forming up with the AWACS? BOOOORING!" :P

 

Yet that mission helped the other jets keep AWACS information flowing. Success isn't measured in kills vs deaths, it's measured in successful missions...

 

Saying that separating them is the only way seems defaitist to me. Just co-operate!

Edited May 3, 2010 by EtherealN

[sobek]

AH-64 with A2A weapon loadout might have a chance gainst a Mig...may be.

 

What A2A loadout? ;) Even if it had heat seekers, do you seriously believe you stand a chance against a platform that was designed to kill you, while yours is designed to kill ground targets? You indeed take an interesting side in this discussion. :)

[EtherealN]

Yeah, the thing people need to remember here is that even IF the AH-64 had A2A weapons (they don't), the fighter jets can detect, lock and engage the helo at 20-30 miles out or more and from angels 30. A helicopter survives in hostile skies through not being in said skies in the first place - be in the terrain and the jets will most likely be looking elsewhere; preferably at that friendly CAP of yours that just made their RWR go crazy. :)

[MBot]

Yeah, the thing people need to remember here is that even IF the AH-64 had A2A weapons (they don't) ...

 

Little nitpick, it should be "IF the US Army AH-64 had A2A weapons". Other nations Apaches do carry A2A weapons :)