Jump to content

cancan69

Member
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by cancan69


  1. Ok so I came up with some solutions to make the DLC even greater

     

    1) visibility bar DEDICATED to Air vehicles, which means you will be able to boost the air vehicles objects showing further away without compromising your fpses when in a plane

     

    2) I would suggest a kind of script (for low specs computers) that allowes you to decrease significantly the details on the ground and focus at 100% on air targets/visibility which is necessary for flying..i don't know if this is possibile but the arma engine is being pretty editable so I hope there won't be any problems

     

    3) I would suggest a realistic stall system, together with flutter effect, g-forces 

     

    4) one more thing...camera shake when shooting with a freaking 20mm air gun..that's...NECESSARY. 

     

    5) I also suggest a much cooler pilot helmet featured by NAVY Pilots on the actual F-18s

    https://goo.gl/images/AJFV2I

     

     


  2. Thats because the A3 Dagr is unrealistic and overpowered ...

    Yep, that's what the whole discussion is about...

    IF they will ever add stub wings and 2 additional armament pylons to the Blackfoot it would be probably better to think about the weapon balance first (solutions can be add only FFAR to the attack version, or just nerf the actual DAGR rockets).

    This would make the Blackfoot more balanced AND more realistic.


  3. You are the one who asked me if I think it is OP. I merely explained the basis for that opinion, and somehow you got upset. If you don't want someones opinion, don't ask for it. ;)

    I didn't ask your OPINION but a clarification of what you previously wrote, the fact that, using the AH-99 is difficult in order to create a balanced mission; that question came from your speech as a clarification.

    ""Currently, all an AH-99 crew has to do is extend view distance to 12km, rise to 1km altitude and suddenly there is no point for opposing force to use ground vehicles.""

    And again, if you want to tell BIS how the AH-99 Makes "NO POINT" for opposing force to use ground vehicles then you should pretty much send a ticket to them and discuss about it there and not here.

    The title says "upgrade - second variant" of the AH-99, it doesn't say anything like "make it stronger", the point is "upgrade", "second variant", of course a so called "second variant" will be BALANCED together with other factors, or, at least, we PRESUME it will be balanced since we presume that every factor in that game can be balanced in order to ensure a good and substantial game experience.


  4. All you have to do is spawn a T-100 and an AH-99 4km from it within LOS.

    Elevate to 300m and fire DAGR at T-100. Crew will dismount and T-100 will be out of the fight, in a vanilla scenario.

    Causing a crew to dismount is categorized in military terms as a mission kill*.

    Next, get out your trusty calculator and multiply that outcome by the number of DAGR the helicopter has.

    Hint: 24.

    Not going to waste my time demonstrating something so obvious.

    I was also quite clear that my concern was that this can all be done from up to 5km away, not that it can be done at all.

    * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mission_kill

    mission kill (plural mission kills)

    (military, slang) An attack or damage inflicted by a weapon that does not destroy a military vehicle but results in it taking no further part in its intended mission.

    Military Kill or not, if DAGR are op you should whine about it to BIS Developers, not here.

    Of course an HE rockets shouldn't be able to tickle an heavy well protected tank, but HEY, THAT'S THE GAME, can I do something against it? no! Go and type to some developers.

    We are talking about an attack variant and maybe we can solve your problem about "editing missions" and stuff like that, by simply giving to the attack version the FFAR and actually nerf the DAGR so that the recon version will only be able to take down light targets.


  5. MDCC, I'm trolling? Why would you say that....Everything I said is a fact about the blackfoot. I play mostly BECTI which is one of the most demanding mission modes on heli pilots and the blackfoot is king. Only way to take it down is by an ambush from a shoulder fired aa or buy a jet. Like I said the heli is a tank buster, aircraft buster, and infantry buster (given they don't have AA). These are facts about the blackfoot and frankly if you feel different you're just not using the heli correctly.

    I think he was referring to me...

    Yes the AH-99 is an omnipurpose helicopter BUT it's not specialized at ANYTHING, it's good for everything but specialized in nothing. An other version of the AH-99 would make it specialized in something (just like the Mil-48)


  6. Go park your Mi-48 out 4.9km from targets and tell me how many tanks you take out with it at that range :)

    Also, a 'kill' is not required to disable a tank. Vanilla unscripted crew will disembark from a T-100 after one rocket from an AH-99 at 5km.

    That makes 24 'disabled' MBTs with one AH-99, all done 5km from the target(s). Any type of APC is a kill, so it makes 24 APC kills from 5km.

    Mi-48 only has 8 rockets effective at that range, so stuck at 8 vehicle kills from 5km, compared to 24 by AH-99 ... 30mm cannon is good but there is a much greater element of risk in its use, in that the operator must be reasonably close to the target to have any effect. The 38 FFARS you keep mentioning are pretty much useless against MBT beyond 500m, I have to wonder if you are trolling.

    Total firepower is irrelevant to me, as I clearly stated it is relative to risk in using the system.

    AH-99 is incredibly low-risk in every mission that doesn't have huge numbers of AA infantry or stacks of jets.

    Mi-48 considerably higher risk if it wants to use the 30mm or your precious FFARS.

    Oh, here I go again, whining ;)

    ---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 18:57 ----------

    He is trolling, I would suggest disregard.

    24 DAGR For 24 MBTs? Show me then

    Post here a video, I want to see you "disabling" 24 T-100s with 24 rockets on an AH-99

    Go ahead


  7. I'm confused...currently the Blackfoot is the deadliest helicopter in the game. Fully loaded, it can take out the Kajman with it's AA missiles and pops the heaviest of armor with 3-4 AT DAGR missiles at a distance of 4-5km. Gun runs with the Blackfoot are often suicide tactics as it makes you very vulnurable to shoulder fired AA. I'm not really sure why we need another "variant."

    The Blackfoot is not overpowered at all.. It becomes overpowered only when engaging ground targets from up close BUT engaging a ground target at close range means getting destroyed instantly (everything on the ground will start shooting you, armor is very weak on the AH, so you get quickly destroyed)

    You need 5-6 DAGR rockets to kill an enemy tank from a decent distance, without being seen / engaged, so it makes a total of 4-5 tanks that you can destroy. The AA missiles are a good defense, but that makes the AH-99 "good" at everything and "specialized" in nothing... also don't forget the Kajman has flares like every other thing that flies...

    The Anti-tank Kajman helicopter has

    - 8 AT Missiles

    - 38 FFARS

    - 30 mm machine gun

    Not counting the ammo piecing machine gun that makes at least 15+ enemy heavy tanks destroyed.

    All right, no Air defense BUT, we are looking for a NATO tank hunter, not an "omnipurpose-not-good-at-anything-specially" understand what I mean?


  8. The thing would be if the AH99 had some Stealth function as its looks suggest. That would balance them ( as the Mi48 is logically better armed, as its mean to be a full gunship not a stealth/recon helo ).

    All right I can understand, but what's the sense if Stealth is not changing anything Ingame?

    And also, the hypothetical external pylons would reduce the stealth capability, and this would bring the AH at the same level of the Mi (not counting of course the transport capability)


  9. In context of realism it is hard to say. It is enjoyable vehicle to fly.

    In context of designing a scenario with variety, my opinion is yes, the vanilla AH-99 is quite overpowered. I can and have scripted some solutions (removeweapon, setvehicleammo, fired event), but that is fiddly. What separates the AH-99 from the other air platforms is the quantity of HE-AT it possesses. 24 is a huge number and represents potentially 24 disabled MBTs or 24 destroyed lighter vehicles. All this can be done with very little risk to the operators.

    I stand corrected re the unlimited range. Seems it is limited to ~5km for DAGR HE-AT.

    To break the issue down re AH-99:

    - A lot of low-risk vehicle-killing power, perhaps the most in the vanilla game.

    - Radar system. Depending on view distance, potentially all vehicles in the scenario are visible to the AH-99 crew.

    - Radar system again ... The only solutions to 'hide' vehicles from it is urban area or increase noise by putting more vehicles in the scenario simply to spoof the radar.

    I cannot find the idc of the radar in order to manipulate it.

    ...

    Solutions?

    - 4-8 DAGR HE-AT and 16-20 DAGR HE, instead of 24 DAGR HE-AT.

    - The ability to manipulate the vehicle radar, to protect scenario vehicles from the all-seeing eye.

    - vehicle camo nets should hide vehicles underneath from radar (example: "CamoNet_BLUFOR_big_Curator_F")

    On testing I think the range of the missiles is fine.

    Personally, I would like more risk for the operators, since 5km range represents a 25km area around a target in which to introduce risk for the operators. That is too big an area to adequately simulate risk to the operators in a scenario, given engine/network/cpu constraints. There are cheeky ways (spawning stuff under/near them) but that sort of scripting turns players away from a scenario. The 2km ceiling for shoulder-fired AA limits ground-based risk to AA vehicles which are 1-shot-kills for the AH-99 and can't practicably hide anywhere from the all-seeing eye. Only real threat to the AH-99 is another air vehicle, but that is outside the scope of this post.

    If you seriously think that the AH-99 is OP against tanks you should just forget what the MI-48 is able to do with:

    8 AT MISSILES

    AP-HE 30 mm turret

    38 FFAR Rockets

    It's WAY more a tank hunter than his NATO counterpart

    So I assume you are whining about the whole "helicopters" game, even though I have to say, well not the AH but the MI48 in particular, it's called TANK HUNTER and that's not just a combination, don't you think?

    I agree that they should give us more different DAGR (IF we want)

    But currently, considering the 20mm front cannon that is NOT comparable to the 30 one of the Mil-48, considering that you need 5-6 rockets to kill a MBT if you are lucky

    This makes

    - the Comanche able to destroy totally 4-5 tanks with the only DAGR

    - the Mi-48 able to destroy 8 tanks with missiles + 6-7 with rocket pods + Few more tanks with the 30 mm so let's say 14-15+ tanks

    So what is op? The AH-99 or the MI-48?


  10. This.

    It takes quite a bit of extra work fiddling with scripts to manage the overpowered air platforms, what with their omniscience radar system and unlimited-range 1-shot-kill rockets.

    There is quite a huge loss in mission design flexibility when -- short of fiddly scripting -- I have to decide between having an AH-99 or enemy armored vehicles anywhere on Altis.

    It is one or the other. There simply isn't a point in having a vanilla AH-99 and enemy armored vehicles in the same mission. A vanilla AH-99 without its Omniscience Radar System, and with the ability to equip limited-range DAGR HE (rather than DAGR HE-AT) suddenly re-balances the entire scenario and a mission can accommodate both AH-99 and opposing vehicles.

    Currently, all an AH-99 crew has to do is extend view distance to 12km, rise to 1km altitude and suddenly there is no point for opposing force to use ground vehicles.

    I don't quite understand what you mean... do you think that the AH-99 is overpowered?


  11. Pretty good idea, never knew that the Comanche had pylons that could be taken off for stealth operations.

    Hopefully, if John Spartan and Saul's FA18X black wasp wins MANW in the addons category, then Bohemia could use the service menu on all of it's aircraft? Now THAT would be quite something.

    Maybe we better call Saul, and just tell him to put the service menu on every aircraft as well...

    I'm pretty sure that a lot of people, if not the GAME DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES, didn't know about a possible combination of RAH-66 and External Pylons; that's why we are trying to let them hear us


  12. Perhaps try it without the mod.

    Somebody else told me that even with vanilla weapons it took a similar amount of DAGRs, so I am going to conduct more tests. My test was executed from 100m away at 5m elevation, directly to the engine compartment.

    EDIT: Been testing a bit more, and it does look like it takes more DAGRs if firing from longer ranges (for some reason). However, this is essentially beside the point. HE rockets should not be capable of destroying a main battle tank. But for some reason, in this game they are configured this way. A DAGR delivered amidst a group of infantry does not kill anybody, even if a man is within 3m of the blast. The rockets are labeled "HE," and yet can't kill an infantry without hitting him directly. Theoretically, the DAGR should be identical to the DAR rocket in terms of damage behavior, as the DAR is supposed to roughly represent an M151 Hydra 70, which is the rocket used by Lockheed Martin to make the DAGR. But it seems the DAGR are set up in some sort of odd HEAT configuration, perhaps replicating the M247 HEAT warhead for the Hydra 70.

    My point is that we need dedicated anti-tank missiles, and change the DAGR back into plain old guided HEDP missiles. Perhaps one half of them could be Flechette anti-tank missiles, for added effectiveness against MRAPs and light armor (ATGMs are overkill for these, HE is too weak in many cases).

    that is an unbalance problem with the game itself, and to be honest, as I read you tried to blow up an EMPTY T-100, who is so fool to approach to a fully operative T-100? the only MG can tear you apart instantly... an helicopter should be DISTANT from his target, come out from a hill, shoot an High AGM missile and go back to cover, at least 1km away or even a light vehicle can destroy you with a couple of shots


  13. It's really quite a big problem right now. I don't think people understand how much it needs to change. Right now it carries 24 DAGR missiles.

    DAGRs are a system developed by Lockheed-Martin which consists of a kit that can be used to turn the commonly used M151 2.75" Hydra 70 rockets into Semi-Active Laser Homing missiles.

    The M151 is a 10lb HEDP warhead, the standard and most commonly used warhead for the Hydra 70 rocket. It is a simple impact-fused warhead which carries 1kg Composition B-4 HE explosive charge.

    Now lets look at the DAGR in game: It is a light, highly maneuverable off-axis tracking missile. Because they are so small, they are carried in quantities of 24 per AH-99. A simple test reveals that one single DAGR can take out a T-100 Varsuk MBT.

    1 HEDP rocket taking out a whole tank? I'm not talking about forcing the crew to bail - a shot to a T-100 causes the tank to explode within several seconds. All 7 of the A-164's AP (yes, they are actually Armor Piercing for some odd reason) rockets can't even get close to doing this. Point blank to the rear, these can at most knock out the engine and render the cannon broken. Something is off here.

    What we need is for the DAGR missiles to be changed drastically - they need their nonexistent indirect hit damage and range to be significantly boosted to properly simulate a high explosive general purpose warhead, and they need their effectiveness against all armor to be significantly reduced (down to the damage of DAR rockets, which should have the exact same damage properties since they are based off of the same rocket). Perhaps do this to 1/2 of the missiles, and change the other half into a Flechette Anti-Armor warhead type, for added effectiveness against light armor such as MRAPs and light IFVs/APCs.

    Once DAGRs have been fixed, we need the heavy attack variant that is being discussed here, with at least several AGM-114 hellfires or equivalents. It's simply ridiculous being able to kill 24 main battle tanks without having to rearm. I have yet to see a mission where 24 main battle tanks are even used by one side. As much as I hate to say this, it's not at all fun or fair for this to happen, and some balancing (yes, I know..) has to occur. Imagine if you drive a tank half way across altis, slaughtering the enemy, only to get killed from 2km away by a weapon that you have absolutely no defence against. If suddenly tanks had Goalkeeper CIWS on top or Active protection, it would ruin the game for the helicopters, just the way that the tank crew's games are being ruined by the AH-99's magic DAGRs.

    I agree with you, I didn't test it but if you say that one DAGR can take down a whole T-100 then they should be nerfed, maybe keeping the locking on ability but making them drastically less powerful, as they should be (it would be like shooting FFARs to an enemy tank)

    Once this is done we can proceed with an attack version of the AH, with AGMs for anti-tank role

    -----------------------------

    EDIT: Just checked, but with Real Armor Mod, looks like you need at least 6 DAGRs to kill a T-100, looks pretty balanced no?


  14. I've always preferred the blackfoot over the kajman. While it's not the tank that the Kajman is, it is much more of a multi-role gunship, while the kajman is really just a re-imagined hind.

    Would it be for somebody a problem if that helicopter we are talking about has something more, making it more "versatile" in different situations? is it too much to ask? I don't think so, and if it's not balanced you can always add more weaponry to the Mil 48

    ---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

    I just posted an other Ticket, under "Feature Request"

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=20929

    Let them hear our voice!


  15. We're never going to get a "RAH-66", cancan. Never. IF we get anything out of this, which I highly highly doubt, it will be another version of the Blackfoot, same name, more ordnance.

    I know what you mean, it was just an idea to name the attack version in a different way just not to make confusion... I mean the 2 choppers are basically the same, only the name changes due to (I don't know why, maybe licenses?)


  16. For all those who don't agree with this new contenent...

    Think about it guys, the idea is cool, we are NOT looking for a single Blackfoot version but actually 2 variants as follows

    AH-99 Blackfoot - fast, agile, useful for any type of recoinassance mission, able to take down light targets and infantry

    RAH-66 Comanche - heavy, well armored, able to take down both air targets and heavy ground units, slower than his brother and less agile

    We are NOT talking about REMOVING the current helicopter and make a new one with external pylons, we are talking about being able to CHOOSE between the 2.

    Some people can say "hey, the RAH-66 will be OP compared to CSAT", then! Give something else to Russia aswell, maybe an other helicopter or maybe the same helicopter with a different weaponry, or a MAYBE add the cool feature to change the equipment of the helicopter, assigning the weapons we want in each "STRONG POINT"...there is a sea a solution BUT!

    But sending a cool helicopter like the Comanche to fight with no pylons is a CRIME OF WAR!

    And, talking about the effort... I really think it's somethig easy, I mean they worked on a brand new helicopter and they can't add 2 surfaces of the same color to the Blackfoot and name it Comanche?


  17. Will we be able to see an enhanced version of the RAH-66 Comanche in this new DLC?

    The Chopper we have right now is not comparable to the CSAT MiL chopper, so what I was wondering is...why not adding a new type of Comanche, the Attack version with external pylons?

    Here some examples:

    PC100010-1.jpg

    tumblr_n5tz58K4o31txx6x7o7_1280.jpg

    LP0023.jpg(148 kB)

    As you can see there are EXTERNAL PYLONS carring more weapons... the ideal can be a combination between FFAR, AGM-114 and A-A Missiles, but an other good idea can be the simple fact to keep the other "lighter" version for more "recoinnassance" missions and add this new version for attacks (just like a modernized version of the AH-64 Apache to let you understand).

×