Forum Overview :: Battlefield 2 :: Previous response brought to you by vodka; disregard

[quote name="Entropy Stew"][quote name="Fussbett"][quote name="Entropy Stew"]Aircraft: INVULNERABLE to anti-aircraft fire. Why did we spend so fucking much on stealth, anyhow?[/quote] The Jets are invulnerable to AA? What? And to the part about stealth... What?[/quote] [quote cite="Fussbett Recap"]I don't know what that means, but I'll address your title: Contrary to the way you want to play, it actually IS acceptable that a jet with BOMBS and MISSILES and a helicopter with TWIN MINIGUNS dominates kevlar-wearing sacks of meat.[/quote] What my reply meant: No, aircraft <i>do not</i> automatically dominate infantry. If they did, the US would never send in ground troops. Jets are great at taking out strategic targets (artillery, uav shed, base raping) and maintaining air superiority, and are decent at providing close air support. <i>They are vulnerable to AA fire</i>, which is why you have stealth bombers and shit going in and taking out the AA first thing in a war. Helicopters are great anti-tank, good anti-infantry, and very mobile troop transports. Annoyingly, they are <i>vulnerable to both AA and small arms fire</i> (see: Black Hawk Down). When the game does not match up, you have imbalances. Pre-patch, the heli was vulnerable to small arms in the barest sense (I would expect an anti-tank round to put up big numbers against a heli), and aircraft simply could not be hit enough to warrant manning an AA site. I think I've done more damage to aircraft with my fucking sniper rifle than with missiles. You look at your target, it locks on, you fire, the plane drops flares, the missile misses, and the plane is gone. WTF? Against a decent pilot, I could hit maybe once per half-hour. -/ES/-[/quote]