Air to Ground Munition Selection

[Kipper]

I saw a reference to guided AGM in another thread, figured we hadn't really seen any mention of it and wondered what peoples thoughts were on it.

So, I present to you a selection of air to ground death dealers, which would you like to see implemented - tick all that apply!

Machine/Chaingun: You can fight other aircraft with them, or you can strafe with them, likely to be pretty crappy vs armoured targets but plenty of ammo stores.

Heavy cannon: A meatier gun with a larger, heavier caliber. It has a much shorter range with a higher rate of bullet drop, but will damage armour or take down aircraft more quickly if you get close enough.

Iron bomb: High explosive but unguided, the laws of physics control the descent of the iron bomb which is designed to be dropped from medium/high altitude, it no guidance systems once dropped, but you'll get the benefit of a bomb aiming reticle on the HUD. Hitting anything unless flying pretty much straight and level at a constant speed won't be very easy though.

Retarded bomb: Like an iron bomb but with retardation to slow descent, designed for low/medium altitude attacks, giving the aircraft time to vacate so that it isn't destroyed by its own weapon but putting it at risk because of its low altitude. If dropped from on high, its likely the target will have moved on by the time it lands.

Cluster bomb: A primarily anti infantry weapon that ejects lots of little bomblets over a large area (determined most likely by the launch altitude or a pre-launch setting). Friendly fire casualties are likely if dropped on a battle in progress, but great if there's a bunch of enemy infantry massing somewhere for an attack. Maybe the option to add in a few mines too?

Dumb-fire Rockets: You aim them at a target, you fire them, and they fly straight and true directly from the aircraft to the target with a resultant explosion. Whether you kill anything or not depends on how well you aimed, and whether what you aimed at moved out the way. No guidance systems allow this rocket to pack more warhead, cheap to buy.

Wire/TV guided: A wire or optically guided missile. They can change direction in flight, but the pilot or gunner controls them directly, otherwise they act like a dumb rocket and just fly straight. Likely to be of more use over a longer distance given the speeds involved. Lower yield because of guidance systems, more expensive than a rocket but cheaper than a more elaborately guided missile.

Laser guided: The first lockable ordnance on offer, but you must maintain the lock - you need to either have a clear line of sight to target and keep a lock until impact, or you need a ground unit to be painting it with a laser designator. If at any time during the missile's flight the lock is lost, it reverts to dumb-fire (but will attempt to correct if you can re-acquire and there is time to adjust). Good chance of hitting, but more expensive, and you can carry less before needing to go back to base to re-arm.

Fire & Forget - Radar/IR guided: The creme de la creme of missile technology, you acquire a lock with the missile and fire, and it tracks and adjusts automatically, as soon as you launch, you can turn away or go find a new target. The only way this is going to miss is if its launched too close to the target, shot down by defensive guns/missiles, distracted by appropriate countermeasures or blocked by another object (which it will duly slam into). Again, very expensive to obtain and few can be carried on an aircraft so re-arming often is key.

Anti-Radar: A defensive guided missile that locks onto the source of radar emissions, can be evaded by er.. turning off the source of radar emissions. Used as anti SAM. Obviously can't track the source of a heat seeking missile or flak gun, etc. Medium cost, more of a deterrent unless the target is stupid enough not to break his radar lock....

[Stardouser]

I voted for all but radar/fire and forget missiles. Air to ground missiles would not be radar, and air to ground should not be fire and forget. Well, let me clarify: If you are firing a missile at a laser designated target, it should be fire and forget as far as the pilot is concerned, but the infantry on the ground doing the lasing should have to keep his laser on target. Aircraft should not have any lock-on air to ground weapons except those which require laser designation by a teammate. Exception: Anti-radar lock on missiles are OK, as they are ONLY going to work against ground targets that have anti-air radar(though, do we even know if the game is going to have true "radar"?)

And that's another thing: Laser designation should be similar to how it is in real life, NOT how BF3's SOFLAM is. It should work like this: You point a laser at the target, and a friendly launches the missile or bomb, and it goes to exactly where you point the laser, whether that's a tank or whether that's into an open window in the enemy base. If you move the laser before the missile hits, the missile will try to change course to where you moved it. And if you die before the missile hits, well, it might never hit the right target.

[Figment]

Before I vote, I'd like to know if you mean as alternatives in one aircraft?


Heh.

[Knocky]

If I cant have napalm, I suppose I will have to make due with cluster bombs.

[Rbstr]

I like the idea of bombs existing for the light craft. They should be simple dumb-fire things and have a decent bomb drop-prediction reticle thingy. Aim for a sort of dive-bomb kind of thing.

I've always thought that the Reaver should have some kind of heavy railgun/cannon type of thing instead of rockets for anti-armor shooting. Perhaps even charge-fire Lancer style.

Keep things dumbfire, except, perhaps, some kind of designation from in-squad infantry. SOFLAM-esque works for me. Making it a pin-point laser thing is too nitpicky. Make it a hand held tool. Infantry points at vehicle, aircraft sees box, locks on, launches, infantry has to maintain point until the missile hits or else it goes dumb-fire and continues in a straight line.

[Stardouser]

I like the idea of bombs existing for the light craft. They should be simple dumb-fire things and have a decent bomb drop-prediction reticle thingy. Aim for a sort of dive-bomb kind of thing.

I've always thought that the Reaver should have some kind of heavy railgun/cannon type of thing instead of rockets for anti-armor shooting. Perhaps even charge-fire Lancer style.

Keep things dumbfire, except, perhaps, some kind of designation from in-squad infantry. SOFLAM-esque works for me. Making it a pin-point laser thing is too nitpicky. Make it a hand held tool. Infantry points at vehicle, aircraft sees box, locks on, launches, infantry has to maintain point until the missile hits or else it goes dumb-fire and continues in a straight line.

It's not nitpicking, it's utility. Battlefailed 3's SOFLAM only locks onto vehicles, and cannot therefore be used for anything else. It needs to work like real lasing so that it can be used to blast snipers out of their holes and other various uses.

[Kipper]

Before I vote, I'd like to know if you mean as alternatives in one aircraft?

I mean just available at all ... what can launch them and in what quantities very much dependent on the role of the aircraft (i'd like to see a one-man aircraft launch a TV guided missile and direct it without crashing his plane tbh!)

The basic question is - how smart is too smart for a planetside A/G weapon?

[Figment]

I prefer two men aircraft over single crews IF they get any type of smart or high damage weaponry, tbh.

Or perhaps three. (Lib).

[ringring]

I voted for everything, simply because all would be fun if there were proper balance.

How to get proper balance, no idea!

Remember, galaxies will be the spawn point, hopefully the main spawn point and if they are too easily destroyed then balance is doubtful.

[Kipper]

I think the dumb bombs would work best on the ES fighters myself; but you don't get to keep so many of them.

Either a full AA loadout with guns and AA missiles, or a choice of bomber roles, in all cases i'd be tempted to still give two 'wingtip' AA missiles for defence, but then either rocket pods, dumb bombs, or guided bombs, or a mixture. As a general rule of thumb, the dumber the missile, the more of it you can carry - so rocket pods with 30 rocklets in each one say, as opposed to 2 or 3 guided missiles.

I think what started me thinking was in the TB video, the mosquito clearly has wing pylons like todays aircraft, so it stands to reason you should be able to customise the loadout like 1990's flight sim... those were the best ;)

[captainkapautz]

All taken from real life, /yawn.

Okay genius, come up with one weaponsystems that isn't just an upgrade of an existing one WITH LAZARZ.

[Satexios]

http://i45.tinypic.com/2w5jegy.jpg

All I need is that ^

[Figment]

Okay genius, come up with one weaponsystems that isn't just an upgrade of an existing one WITH LAZARZ.

Telepathic missiles?

[Stardouser]

Every time I watch Star Trek I always want to beam a bomb into the enemy ship with the transporter, there's a weapon!

Also, cloaked cruise missiles.

[ringring]

Okay genius, come up with one weaponsystems that isn't just an upgrade of an existing one WITH LAZARZ.

Flux Disintegratorz?

[Biohazard]

Okay genius, come up with one weaponsystems that isn't just an upgrade of an existing one WITH LAZARZ.

A shaped charge frisbee launcher. That fires little shaped charges that detonate over tanks and vehicles. :cool:

[Figment]

Bears with parachutes fired from big artillery cannons.

[captainkapautz]

Telepathic missiles?


Every time I watch Star Trek I always want to beam a bomb into the enemy ship with the transporter, there's a weapon!

Also, cloaked cruise missiles.


Flux Disintegratorz?


Bears with parachutes fired from big artillery cannons.

You all discribed weaponsystems that can still be classified just like existing ones.


A shaped charge frisbee launcher. That fires little shaped charges that detonate over tanks and vehicles. :cool:

Except you, you described one that was already in development awhile ago.

There really isn't much from the ground up "new" you can do with weapons, is what I'm saying, it's pretty much all just an upgrade.

[Stardouser]

I think we're not going to think of any more fun weapon types.

However, if we ever had FTL in an MMO and an appropriate physics engine, pointing your ship at something, turning the safety off and engaging the hyperdrive to initiate a light-speed ram would make for a very interesting result.

[captainkapautz]

I think we're not going to think of any more fun weapon types.

However, if we ever had FTL in an MMO and an appropriate physics engine, pointing your ship at something, turning the safety off and engaging the hyperdrive to initiate a light-speed ram would make for a very interesting result.

Meh, still just a big, fast dumbfire rocket. ;)

P.S.: Please don't misunderstand me, my 1st post was just as a reaction to the "herp to much modern weaponz needs future derp" arguement, which imo just didn't work for the reason I posted.

[Toppopia]

Why didn't you add napalm to the list? Purely anti-infantry but can cut and area off so that buys your team time to rethink and reload or can trap enemies in a base or trap them out. Would be awesome to see.

And i voted for all of them because we need lots of variety or else it will be the same thing over and over again, i want to see an aircraft and think "Oh god, what does it have equipped, is it anti-vehicle or anti-infantry. Huh, i see a black shape coming from the bottom, looks like a bomb. Oh dear..." *Boom!!!

*Dead*

[Kipper]

Can only fit 10 options on the poll :-/ napalm is a good call tho, I'm pretty sure they said something about flamethrowers....

[That one noob]

Okay genius, come up with one weaponsystems that isn't just an upgrade of an existing one WITH LAZARZ.

Nanite Repossession Warhead.
High Cost.
Nanite Repossession, 'nough said.

[captainkapautz]

Nanite Repossession Warhead.
High Cost.
Nanite Repossession, 'nough said.

Nope, still just a different kind of munition, same as if you said Vortex-Implosion-Refractalator-Triunobtanium Warhead.

[Ohaunlaim]

Yep and everything is simply an upgrade of the thrown rock.

[Toppopia]

Yep and everything is simply an upgrade of the thrown rock.

Not a rock. A stick.

"You call that a rock, this. Is a rock."
"Thats a stick."
"Ah.. i see you have played rocky sticky before."

[Mechzz]

Not a rock. A stick.

"You call that a rock, this. Is a rock."
"Thats a stick."
"Ah.. i see you have played rocky sticky before."

Scissors would complete this awesome armoury.

[Kipper]

Right, if I can steer the thread back to the actual topic.....

There seems to be more love than I thought for all kinds of different weapons, both guided and unguided.

I hope we do get some unguided free-fall bombs as a variant for the ES fighters, but what's slightly interesting is that there's much less interest in a retarded variant that can be dropped from a low level... too OP?

[Stardouser]

Right, if I can steer the thread back to the actual topic.....

There seems to be more love than I thought for all kinds of different weapons, both guided and unguided.

I hope we do get some unguided free-fall bombs as a variant for the ES fighters, but what's slightly interesting is that there's much less interest in a retarded variant that can be dropped from a low level... too OP?

I suspect that Battlefailed 3's removal of bombs from jets is behind PS2's removal of bombs.

Battlefailed 3 CANNOT have powerful bombs because it uses things like unlimited ammo(which is a failed decision all on its own). This is why you have to be careful when taking inspiration from another game, because there are reasons why that other game does something.

[Kipper]

Battlefailed 3 CANNOT have powerful bombs because it uses things like unlimited ammo(which is a failed decision all on its own).

Really? That's dumb. Anyway though, PS2 should definitely not have unlimited stores and therefore is free to have some more powerful weapons balanced by the amount you can carry / length of time to reload / aircraft handling.

[Mechzz]

...but what's slightly interesting is that there's much less interest in a retarded deviant that can be dropped from a low level....

*Quote changed for comic effect*

So which member of these forums would you put forward as the first to be dropped from a Reaver flying below 100ft?
(jk)

[Stardouser]

Really? That's... dumb. Last BF I played with jets was BF2, I remember it took a little bit of time and skill to go back and sweep over the runway (you didn't have to actually land) to get repairs and rearm. Why would you not have that?

It sounds like it's going too far away from 'sim' into 'arcade' territory.

BF3's devs have been pursuing a sweeping policy of lowering the threshold, their new philosophy is best described as lowering the threshold, making the game easy to play, hard to master. The problem is that the hard to master bit really only has anything to do with getting used to the game's movement and everything, there are hardly any squad tools, communication tools, complex weapons systems, none of that to learn really. Commander was removed as part of this philosophy, for example, and when the Armored Kill expansion brings artillery, the artillery will almost certainly be fired by a VERY easy minimap firing control system that lets you simply point at red dots and fire. (and remember that in BF3, people don't just appear on the minimap if spotted manually by another player, but by simply firing their weapon too)

TL;DR: DICE is lowering the complexity of the game making it so easy for everyone(regardless of whether that ease is actually necessary). Bombs are one of the casualties of this.

[Sledgecrushr]

BF3's devs have been pursuing a sweeping policy of lowering the threshold, their new philosophy is best described as lowering the threshold, making the game easy to play, hard to master. The problem is that the hard to master bit really only has anything to do with getting used to the game's movement and everything, there are hardly any squad tools, communication tools, complex weapons systems, none of that to learn really. Commander was removed as part of this philosophy, for example, and when the Armored Kill expansion brings artillery, the artillery will almost certainly be fired by a VERY easy minimap firing control system that lets you simply point at red dots and fire. (and remember that in BF3, people don't just appear on the minimap if spotted manually by another player, but by simply firing their weapon too)

TL;DR: DICE is lowering the complexity of the game making it so easy for everyone(regardless of whether that ease is actually necessary). Bombs are one of the casualties of this.

Or maybe they are just trying to get away from super powerful air based aoe weapons.

[Stardouser]

Or maybe they are just trying to get away from super powerful air based aoe weapons.

The only reason that would even be necessary, however, is:
1. Small maps allowing you to blast mercilessly. And even on BF3's so called large maps, the flags are packed tightly, which means that even on large maps, players congregate.
2. Unlimited ammo


Also, just like jets have been nerfed to the stone age by loss of their bombs, while infantry have been given Stingers, they are hardly powerful. In the current version of stingers, the lock range is so small that half the time you won't get a shot off and if you do, it will be long gone before a second shot(and your first shot is inevitably blocked by flares).

Basically, neither can rape the other.

Note, however, that this doesn't apply to helicopters, they retain some ability to rape.

[Kipper]

Anyway... back on topic.

For PS2.... My thoughts:

1. YES to a wide variation of weapons (not just for air, but for all) to increase tactical variety and lessen the chance of "this is the way it must be done" and increase the chance of "what new way of taking this area/facility can we think of?"

2. NO to carrying unlimited ammo (you can have more, just go back to a friendly base and land to get it) to reduce farming/carpet bombing and promote use of well targeted strikes.

[Marinealver]

Wouldn't mind seeing them be adjusted to say empire charastics. For example the NC libs would have TV guided Tank busting bombs while the TR would have say multiple rocket pods.

HARM I really couldn't say would fit into the game as well there is no real RADAR or better said everyone has radar with the mini map. Jamming and countermeasures would be better. Say chaf/flar or mabey even a holographic decoy.

[DaPope]

BF2142 working as a pilot/gunner team is without question one of the best times I have had playing in any game. The ability to work as a team to spot, target, and destroy targets is unmatched! Please, please, please let that happen!!!

I love having the option to outfit your aircraft as you see fit. Some might prefer to have a very fast machinegun, where others would prefer a slower firing cannon, still other want a wide spread rocket pod, if you keep the damage done from these similar it will make for some very interesting attacks packages and allow the pilots to tweak their load outs based upon expected targets and opposition.

[Anderz]

BF2142 working as a pilot/gunner team is without question one of the best times I have had playing in any game. The ability to work as a team to spot, target, and destroy targets is unmatched! Please, please, please let that happen!!!



Agreed. 2142 had fantastic air battles!

Personally, I'd LOVE to see TV guided missiles as an option for the Liberator gunner. Does anyone have any information on what customization options there will be in that regard?

[CutterJohn]

I'll take one of each please. More weapons = better. With possibly the except of the TV missile.. Depends on how its balanced. If you lose control of it if you lose line of sight with the missile for more than a second or two, I'd be fine.

[Envenom]

checked all. More options the better

[Zekeen]

Ok, this post was made on the 23? How the hell did I miss this? It covers everything I wanted, and starts off with what I wanted more than anything, guns instead of rockets! I wanted to be able to outfit a Reaver with 5 chainguns so I could strafe run and do more in depth dog fights with other aircraft. I gotta say, that ALL the weapons CAN work, depending on the vehicle.

Guided missiles should be Liberator only, it CAN be overpowered, it's the freaking Liberator. I won't complain when blown to bits by one.

We DEFINITELY need some basic bombs, I'll miss em from PS1, and no, I didn't hate being a bomber, cause you got ALL the freaking kills. Just give the bomber a chain gun with the bomb deck to keep him from being bored.

Basic bombs for basic aircraft as well! Imagine being able to have some large bombs, like one for each weapon slot, with super high power, so you gotta reload after dropping. Give us that WW2 feel.

Laser guided is a definite. But no SOFLAM type devices, make it all user pointed, more interaction and teamwork then.

Altogether... I love this poll!

[Alderego]

Voted for everything but the fire and forget missiles.

But there should be restrictions though:
1) laser guided would have to be constant guide by a ground squad. It would go to wherever they point the laser: so no auto-locking on vehicles with the marker, it would be like aiming the missile yourself, only the aircraft fires it.
The laser signal would be interruptable with any kind of smoke: dodge behind a burning vehicle and that smoke would block the laser if it goes through, same with the grenades and stuff.

2) anti-radar: only works on some sort of gadget/upgrade that actively reveals the sky/ground. If you hit with it it either scrambles their signal for a bit (aka, making everything that it detects be displayed 10 times or so) or the unlock gets destroyed with some splash damage on the vehicle. The unlock would be unrepairable after it's destroyed, leaving the vehicle at a serious disadvantage with 1 less upgrade. (for which it already probably sacrificed something else if we can go by what Highby said that the upgrade/side-grade system would be like)

[maradine]

I want an unguided bomb that flips all landed Galaxies onto their backs in a 2km radius.

Do this for me.

[TeaReks]

I would like retarded bombs, but more importantly I think infantry should get a few colors of smoke grenades. Maybe 1 faction specific color and 2 others so that you could mask your intentions. Nothing that would block huge amounts of los, just something that could mark the ground for air to ground support.

A FO could mark the position with colored smoke and then you could have a few reavers fly NOE until the last second, pop up, lay into the smoked area and fly off.

This would allow the reavers to avoid most of the AA fire on the approach, but be balanced by the fact that the enemy would see the smoke so they could take cover or scatter.

This could add another layer of depth to the game without horribly unbalancing anything.

[meiam]

Well problem is the aircraft seems to be much closer to helicopter than to jet plane, this brings two big problem for bombing:

1) low flight ceiling, it's way too dangerous to send an aircraft do a bombing run when every single foot soldier can shoot at it with there hand gun. I know the ceiling is around 1000 M, but that seems to be from an arbitrary ocean level, so if you try to bomb something that's already at 400-500 M, you don't have a lot of room. Although this could always depending what the actual range of weapon.

2) Similar too 1, slow speed, the aircraft look like there exceedingly slow again, can't risk doing bombing run if everything is gonna be able to take you out. but in exchange they gained maneuverability, which mean there really more suited to be gunship.

Expanding on this is the fact that the world is non destructible, so dropping a blind fire bomb in tightly packed area won't much impact if it's an area with lot's of wall, since somebody even right next to a bomb going off but behind a wall will be unscratched.

I think a way to fix both problem would be to have dumb fire missile that would carpet bomb in a straight line and drop a very large amount of very small bomb that would scatter and hit a large area. You would just fire it, and the missile would fly a straight line and drop a bunch of bomb, so no real threat to yourself. Might seems cheap, but otherwise bombing would be high risk low reward.

Napalm would be cool if the fire would actually persist for a little while but could be taken out, maybe by running over it with a ground vehicle/max.

[meiam]

I'm just saying that, unless you can bomb with relative confidence that you were going to come out of it alive, bomb are pointless since you'd get better results just going kamikaze. Since the flight ceiling is based on arbitrary ocean level and the infantry/vehicule/turret anti aircraft weaponry as a range that ignore the altitude, you'll often get in situation were doing a bomb run is just too dangerous and just going gunship mode is much more efficient.

And when I say slow, I'm comparing to this:

FA-18 "Super Hornet" Breaks Sound Barrier - YouTube

I've yet to see any footage of aircraft from the point of view of infantry, but I doubt it's like that.

Like everything, without actual number, all of this is just speculating, and it could all work just fine but I'd rather them spend time on feature that have an actual impact on game rather than stuff that's neat but ultimately pointless and ignored by all.

[Runlikethewind]

I'm fine with bombs, I remember the epic liberator runs from PS1. I just don't want to see bombers way up at ceiling where nothing can touch them. If a pilot can cert for a bomb load then ground troops should be able to cert with increased AA range or ground to air missiles or something to be able to counter them.

In any event they way the cert system looks having a bomb capacity will mean a nerfed main weapon or no weapon at all or less armor or slower max speed etc. On top of that a bomb cert would probably be an expensive one, 50-100 cert point say, as a one time thing and would also require a large amount of resources as well. This would restrict just how often someone could actually use such weaponry. So yes if you want to have a reaver with laser guided 1000 lbs bombs I can live with it, but it'll cost ya. And if anyone wants to get an AA weapon capable of stopping you, that'll cost them too.

[TeaReks]

You could have the bomb cert require a bomb bay where the gunner's weapon is and a bomb sight where the pilot's weapon is. Or make it so that without the bomb sight the bomb scatter is so big it makes it ineffective as a precision weapon. Imagine bombing from a lib with no sight yet stuck in first person.