Re: Aircraft landing in quinling and kashan!

Delta*RandyShugart* · 12-01-2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Aircraft is clearly a target until they land per the rules as the OP noted, claiming a valid tactic is lame is not good sportsmanship.

It's like saying a golf club is a useless emergency device when trying to get someone out of a crashed vehicle, which is completely not the case, and it works very well on large SUV's that have crashed and left the driver helpless.

If you linger up in the air long enough while trying to properly align yourself to land on a runway you will cause attention, mostly unwanted attention, and if your nerves don't cause you to slam into the hesco barrier or careen off the runway into another plane or hangar, then a AA device of sorts or rapid machine gun/AP shells/AP Gun Fire will.

**daveyjonesjr** · 12-01-2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Conventional armies bomb planes on the runway so doing it during takeoff and landing should be no big deal.

but are you suggesting that we could bomb planes on the runway and such?

Project reality might be a nice games and a lot closer to reality then vbf2 or any others mods, but it still a a game and the bf2 engine limitation plays a huge burden on gameplay, maps are way too small for modern warfare and others limitation.

Dont forget that in a modern warfare campaign, if a mec coalition would exist and they were fighting against the US they would most likely get bomb on the runway indeed, while the US airbase would be protected by a very hight tech aa system.

But Pr is trying to be balanced between the teams, so such example doesnt really make sense.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 12-01-2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by daveyjonesjr

but are you suggesting that we could bomb planes on the runway and such?

Project reality might be a nice games and a lot closer to reality then vbf2 or any others mods, but it still a might a game and the bf2 engine limitation plays a huge burden on gameplay, maps are way too small for modern warfare and others limitation.

Dont forget that in a modern warfare campaign, if a mec coalition would exist and they were fighting against the US they would most likely get bomb on the runway indeed, while the US airbase would be protected by a very hight tech aa system.

Both Pr is trying to be balanced between the teams, so such example doesnt really make sense.

There are plenty of servers that allow attacking of Main bases/bombing of runways. It looks good on paper or forums that attacking/bombing of main bases and runways is a fun way to play the game, but in reality its horrible and what ends up happening is that you get players who commandeer armor/air assets to solely attack your main, and not the flags needed, furthermore the infantry is left in the open with their genitalia shaking in the wind with no help in sight.

If this were modern warfare I'd call in some B-52's and do a redux of Arc Light, or I'd call up my captain friend who is in charge of a Aegis Missile Defense Destroyer and launch a few hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles.

However,
Modern Warfare and a video game modification are 2 completely different things, and frankly this thread has gone off completely off course, the only thing missing is a kanye west rant, and someone complaining about how pilot kits don't have knives or a pistol.

**Spitfire14** · 12-01-2009, 12:48 PM

Yeah, we could always go for the super real text book coalition situation and knock out the airfield and strafe the hangers.

**mat552** · 12-01-2009, 12:50 PM

If this were TRULY modern warfare, we'd have all kinds of tactics and assets that PR either cannot or will not replicate. This is wildly swinging into conjuncture at this point. Perhaps we are just better off saving aircraft for special occasions.

Also, it's just a game. I say we hold to some civility

**Spitfire14** · 12-01-2009, 01:01 PM

And then it comes full loop. For the 300,000th time. PR is a video game. Rules are there to make it fun due to the limitations. Etc. Etc.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 12-01-2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by daveyjonesjr

but are you suggesting that we could bomb planes on the runway and such?

No, he's not. He's responding to this, which is from you:

Originally Posted by daveyjonesjr

Waiting for jets to take off and or land at the end of the runway doesnt seems like a real life tactics to be honest...

We've both given examples of real-life instances, recent ones at that, but we could go back to through the history of modern conflicts since WWI when airplanes were used as war machines to give you examples supporting placing AAVs near a known flight path of hostile aircraft to shoot them down.

Originally Posted by daveyjonesjr

on the subject of the chechens ambush on fools road, I always though real life tactics were accepted

You seem to acknowledge that we try to support real-life tactics here so long as they are within the guidelines of the rules.

Bottom line is this:

The tactic of placing AAVs away from the enemy main but in a position to shoot down planes trying to land has been the focal point of this discussion.

During this discussion it should be clear that this tactic is valid and legal so long as the AAV is not in a position to baserape. A very clear definition of the rule is available in this post. To be clear, placing an AAV 1000m+ away from the enemy main or having an AAV at or near a flag that is currently in play, and that happens to be near the landing path of enemy aircraft, is not illegal.

Therefore, the tactic being discussed per the OP is not illegal. Sporting or not? That's been the majority of this discussion, and since it is personal opinion as to the "sporting-ness" of this tactic, there is no right or wrong answer.

A side debate over the legitimacy of said tactic has also taken place in this thread. I think it's been shown that it is a legitimate and valid tactic to attack enemy aircraft near or at their airbase in reality. The legality of the attack is defined per the rules.

Is there really anything else to be said at this point?

[EDIT]
Well, there's this:

Originally Posted by Spitfire14

And then it comes full loop. For the 300,000th time. PR is a video game. Rules are there to make it fun due to the limitations. Etc. Etc.

Now I think everything that needs to be said has been said
[/EDIT]

**snooggums** · 12-01-2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

Aircraft is clearly a target until they land per the rules as the OP noted, claiming a valid tactic is lame is not good sportsmanship.

It's like saying a golf club is a useless emergency device when trying to get someone out of a crashed vehicle, which is completely not the case, and it works very well on large SUV's that have crashed and left the driver helpless.

As the king of random comparisons I really don't get your comparison of sportsmanship to rescue usage of a golf club, so I give you a cookie for your creativity!

If you linger up in the air long enough while trying to properly align yourself to land...

So don't linger. When I fly choppers on Archer I come in hot for a landing. I know that jets can do the same after seeing some videos so it may take practice but it is possible to make a quick landing in most air vehicles.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 12-01-2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

It's like saying a golf club is a useless emergency device when trying to get someone out of a crashed vehicle, which is completely not the case, and it works very well on large SUV's that have crashed and left the driver helpless.

However, it can be used to kick your husband's ass if you catch him using his putter on another course's greens...

**Celestial1** · 12-01-2009, 01:26 PM

I just vote that neither Kashan or Quinling 64 are played on the server. Ever ever.

The unrealism of jet deployment ingame and map layout causes a hassle. Let alone the fact that everyone fights and moans and groans over who gets them.

(If the F16 and counterparts had SEAD/DEAD strike capabilities, this would be a moot point, because the wingman could fly over the landing zone and lock onto enemy air radar, then neutralize the threat before the A10 comes screaming past for landing. But we can't do that.)

**orpal** · 12-01-2009, 02:54 PM

The unrealism of jet deployment ingame and map layout causes a hassle. Let alone the fact that everyone fights and moans and groans over who gets them.

Haven't seen much of a fight lately though ...

**daveyjonesjr** · 12-01-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by orpal

Haven't seen much of a fight lately though ...

exactly, Im not the kind of people who will fight over an assets that certain, Ive pass this stage a long time ago already, I might fly a lot indeed but ill almost never make a firs squad an wait until 2 or 3 squad are already made, Like i said before sometimes I even join a game 10-15 min late and theres no "CAS" squad, even when i make a squad before anyone else ill always keep it unlocked so everyone can join, I had a lot of new guys recently some who never even flown one of those and it was a pleasure to teach them.

Im not the assets whore Locked squad some people seems to think....

**Mix0lydian** · 12-01-2009, 03:55 PM

May 2009
During a kashan round I drove an AAV to the hill South East of North Village-on the western face of the hillside there (close to the top of the ridge but still 1000+ meters from the US Airfield and definitely not within visual range. Not sure as I was not the gunner, but i think we did have enough elevation to hit aircraft very soon after takeoff.

My gunner shot down a F16 after taking off. The pilot or the CAS squad complained, and I got a PM from an admin warning me that this behavior is "near-baserape" and "unrealistic".

I regret having placed the AAV there as I view shooting down jets after takeoff or in bound for landing as not sporting.

So according to my experience shooting planes after takeoff and in bound for landing is against the rules, being a warnable and therefore kickable offense.

Unless there have been new additions to the baserape rules with regards to conventional vs conventional that I am not aware of.

**Namebot** · 12-01-2009, 04:04 PM

There are distinctions in the current rules between landing aircraft and taking off aircraft.

**Mix0lydian** · 12-01-2009, 05:21 PM

Ah I see.
Sorry, feel free to delete previous post.

Thread Tools

Display