Oh please no, the infantry small arms fire would shred the choppers to pieces...

_________________

To Wolve_NZ, you can actually do it manually in-game, and to Buck, learn to do it the Russian way.

Order your helicopters in over the target, once they've gotten up to speed and are nearly in rocket range, order them a couple kilometers away from the target in a manner they can quickly bank and they will quickly plaster the target area and escape with minimum amounts of harm.

When done right, it looks just like a proper turning strafe.

Also, it can't be done by queuing orders. It must be done by babying them. Apaches/Havocs do it the best.

_________________

Hmm, Never though of doing that, forgot about the order Que system. Would be nice if it showed the que's when a unit is slected, but meh

But thanks for that one Mate

A slight rof buff is a must yak-B armed Hinds.

_________________

You are partially correct but game say otherways:


The game is broken when it tries to follow reality by using realistic units, but giving them un-realistic functions.

In real life, WP and NATO vehicles has differences because different doctrines.
In game, WP and NATO vehicles has almost identical features because game has wanted to be in balance and accessible.

Realistic gaming experience demands game follows reality as much as possible.

RTS isn't same thing as simulator, as simulators are about players to get similar/same feeling as person who does that job/task in real life. Example helicopter simulator is about player being a pilot or gunner, not a air force captain assigning tactical missions for them.

RTS can not be simulator, but RTS can be realistic. And WG:EE says it (at least) tries to be as realistic.
Being more realistic (as possible), WG:EE would be much better RTS game than what it is now, still not sacrificing accessibility for beginners.

We don't need so accurate ballistic calculations etc that every unit needs to be even more closely modeled with every possible ways, but at least having weapons, armors, ranges, RPM's etc modeled correctly.
If one WP side ATGM can destroy targets over 5km but NATO only between 2-3km, then it is so.

So many whines are worthless because they are only based to un-realistic behaviors of "so called realistic units". When (if?) SDK is released and community can make their own modification to follow reality, then no one can not whine about units because they should first learn the real doctrines how to use such units effectively.

Here's one for you:



Generally, with the exception of flame tanks, I would say that most units were faithful enough to their real counterparts in terms of capabilities, except the M134s are a gross exaggeration.

If 1750m needs to be there, it should be on stuff like the Apache/Havoc with their 30mm cannons, not a gatling gun in a small-arms caliber.

Even the 20mm vulcan is more suited for the concept, just not the M134.

_________________

Wrong. You are expecting that a T80 is supposed to act like a T80 but that's what a sim is, not a game. It is your opinion that it's "broken" because you are expecting something where as others can plainly see it for what it is.

"My Honda Civic is broken because it can't do 300kph."
pssst...it's not a Ferrari...


Really? "Almost identical"? Name 5 and not LOG trucks please.


Guess you never played Harpoon...


You cannot make WEE uber realistic and expect a happy community as WP will just romp NATO every time, just as predicted in RL. And to make it realistic, at least in your eyes, you would have to include fixed-wing assets too.


No. Most people raise concerns about balance because they see WEE for what it is; a game. YOU slap the "unrealistic" label on things and then proceed to judge all of us that see this great game for exactly what it is...a great RTS. Eugen puts the word "realistic" into that quote you posted and you seem to do exactly what I said; take things to the nth degree...

Helicopters flight/attack behavior cries to be modeled correctly. Where Mi-24's are more for direct assault with huge firepower, NATO attack helicopters are more for being in cover and popping up to take target down and then back to cover.

- Helicopters should have three flight styles (fast and high altitude, direct and medium speed and then NOE = very slow and low)
- Helicopters (if designed for it) should do pop-up and strafe attacks from cover and then back to cover.
- Helicopters should have possible to do carpet attack, meaning they fly over the area and shoot what targets there are and go behind cover or out of enemy range.
- Helicopters should be more agile when at slow speed (NOE flight model) meaning they can quickly turn direction or go up/down. When flying faster speed than 40kph (non-NOE), their flight model should be like airplanes.

It would be great to have attack helicopters work like they should, making great threat for MBT's by ambushes instead just firepower. And AA could then be make realistic one with realistic ranges. And then MBT's could shoot their main cannon to tanks if just hovering or flying low, so helicopters would have harder time as well to destroy MBT's.

You are wrong Sir!
Game can be a simulator (simulator games like DCS: Black Shark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0utEsx4wVc) or Simulator can be a game (like Steel Beast Pro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDC5W8iHF6M)

RTS isn't simulator but simulator can be presented as RTS if its realistic. Eugen developers (or at least their PR department) has said that WG:EE has units what work like realistic counter parts. It is their words, not mine!

And game can be serious or casual (and other things as well). A definition of video game doesn't mean it can not be realistic. A video game is about that game is interactive on screen.

Is your definition of "game" that it is casual and simple what is only way to have fun game? In other words, simulator can not be a game?




Your car analogy does not work at all.



Check units firing ranges (example top AA missile units, BUK-M1 35km vs Chaparral 9km but "hey, lets give both same 4200m range!") and then how units are limited to same ammunition (example no way to change what to shoot against soft and armored targets) when they should have different types for different targets.
Like it is stupid that all modern MBT's are limited to same specific firing range when they could actually shoot much greater distances if they just have change to have fire control to give them target solution so terrain should be the limiting factor, not artificial "range" like 2275m. So with MBT's it is usually 1925m vs 2100m vs 2275m depending their era (not to forget the latest patch to lower medium tank ranges to 1575m).



Actually I have, but Harpoon isn't RTS but simulator of commanders and other naval officers how they fight the naval attack (it isn't today that you sail few hundred meters from enemy ship and fire your cannons and then get close to try capture the ship.). Harpoon has as well version (like Steel Beast Pro) for serious training use.



Yes, fixed wings would need to be added but that wouldn't be such problem if left limited.
And NATO didn't have comparable units what WP had in first eras of Cold War but later they had better units. Still, different doctrines will help a lot, not that you place same type unit against each other what happened in WG:EE, like when someone brought T-80, it was almost always best to bring Leopard 2A4 or M1A1 against it and then use little tactics because units has similar stats.

(there isn't "über realistic" as game either try to be realistic one or not. The "über realistic" would be the reality to realistic ones)



Sorry, but now I need to ask, are you idiot? (And that is just a question!). Most people don't understand that developers sells this game (and yes, I know it is a game, as it is so unclear for you) as RTS what has over 300 realistic units, what are not realistic at all but their features limited very widely to fit for very specific casual game what does not try to be realistic under "skin".
(And if you still wonder, "Realistic" doesn't mean that units needs to be physical or that game needs to be a simulator like if it is a RTS game what WG:EE is, it just means units has own features as it does in real counter part. Like if real counter part had missile what could destroy enemy vehicle from 5km, and other side didn't have anything like it, then it is so. You don't go and remove them or limit its features for "balancing reasons". Then you either drop the whole unit from game or you find other way to balance the game with realistic manners.)

Like what the thread is about, helicopters have unrealistic RPM's only for balancing reasons, not for following the realistic counter parts (what would demand that game engine can model different firing solutions per unit like 5-100 bursts)

I am not demanding simulator here, because WG:EE can not be a such but it can be realistic RTS and when developers say that: , game should be where their mouth is.
And here you are against what people expect game to be what as it is said to be by developers. WG:EE has (had if devs don't release SDK) change to be a great modern war RTS game with realistic behavior, but it demands unit follow as much as possible their counter parts in real life.

With SDK, those who want casual game of WG:EE could happily play it as it is. But those who want to have serious RTS game, could have modification of it for more realistic behaviors.

If still you are against that game should not be toward realistic behavior, then say to webmins that they change the game description to reflect game and not to dictate something else.
If game does not promise to be realistic one with every unit, then there is no reason to even discuss that helicopters should strafe, MBT's should have better range or correct terminology should be used because game does not try to be realistic but casual one so mistakes and un-realistic behaviors can be allowed in game.

And all that began from YakB mini-gun...

_________________

http://www.wargame.com.pl/ - Polska strona o WARGAME!!!
Air Force and AA defense of NSWP NEED URGENT FIX!!!