[Suggestion] this game would be objectively more fun for a majority players if A2G ESF's were toned down.

I personally think that that's a great idea. Lock ons aren't too weak or too powerful in terms of damage, but they are very situational (you don't normally use it when you are surrounded by trees or buildings because they are best used in the open). We could do with an alternative AA weapon that is accurate and doesn't need a long lock on time to use it.

I'd rather ground based AA vehicles to receive an indirect buff like the radar proposed which requires teamwork and some thinking in order to use it effectively, rather than just a plain nerf.

Fun is never objective. There are ways to measure it objectively, but the fun itself is freaking objective.

Detail does not dilute the concept.

Any enemy that has control of the air will attack the ground with their air assets.

You want to be rewarded for allowing the enemy airplanes to control the skies. No. You will not learn until you are punished.

And AA will attack the air.

You want to be rewarded for flying into AA.
No.
You will not learn until you are punished.
(You are not "controlling" the skies when there are several sources of AA around. 'AA is a deterrence' is a bad joke)

I have concluded that you have never heard of AA. I can say with confidence that there are at least 10 AA pieces for every aircraft in the USAF, the largest and best funded air force in the world. Every one of these AA pieces could take any of the planes in our inventory with great consistency, many of them can strike from well over the horizon.

This doesn't even include infantry portable stuff like MANPADS that everyone loves to hear about when they shoot down some US helicopter in middle-of-nowhere-stan. Real life AA is deadly, affordable, and everywhere. Don't pretend that some fourship of expensive fighter bombers is gonna faceroll an armor column that has a 95% chance of having deadly AA in it.

There is only one deterrent weapon in real life and that is a nuclear deterrent. PS2 AA is pitiful at best, cheesy at its worst (muh frames).

#themoreyouknow

What does an air force do once they control the air?

You are not controlling the skies if the several sources of AA are ineffectual.

What will the AA do if they are defeated in the air battle?

What if that AA is defeated by enemy ground forces?

Would you re-think the tactics in context of the battle, or will you scream for mercy?

They continue to control the air until air control is lost. Aerial superiority means very little if your enemy can shred your aircraft without having to rely on their own aircraft. If you are basing your ideals of aerial superiority against some extremists in tents I think you have a deluded sense of what a modern combat scenario between AA and aircraft would look like.

If PS2 was based on modern combat, there would be around 2-4 ESFs per faction per continent, one liberator per faction per continent, and maybe 2 galaxies running supplies between continents for each faction. Meanwhile on the ground, there would be around 20-40 vehicle based AA pieces per faction per continent. Each one of these AA pieces would be more than capable of killing any aircraft the other factions could field. The AA would be well protected behind the armor, with very few methods of taking it out not involving large armor pushes (which would be supported by AA ).

Air in real life is situational at best and hardly the top of the food chain. Ground and Generals are what win wars, aircraft is just a nice tool to have (see: strategic bombing).

While I do not doubt that modern AA weapons can annihilate flying threats quite efficiently I can't imagine that they are so easy to counter.
I mean, aren't the USA incredibly proud of their aircraft carriers? That seems a bit stupid to me if the only thing they can effectively attack are targets that aren't covered at all.
And what about those stealth bombers? Did I miss some invention that made them 100% visible on a radar every AA emplacement is fitted with?

Anyway don't bring modern weapons here. I want artillery, which I can't imagine a modern army would'nt have, but let's not delve deeper into topics that are only remotely connected.

So this guy is complaining about Air-to-ground ESFs, yet he is a spandex-scrub who has access to the Scythe PPA? What is he/she complaining about? TRs like myself are the ones who have the weakest damaging individual rocket pods and a now nerfed banshee. It is sickening that the NC and VS would even bring this topic up, as their PPA and AH respectively are OP.

Please, come on now.

Good point, we need to keep any balance related ideas in relation to Planetside 2.

The point of aircraft carriers is to have a mobile air base so you can have air superiority in a convenient to go package instead of on a 10 year lease with option to buy (airforce jokes anyone?). Stealth fighters are pretty effective at dodging radar and are probably why its still important to have some sort of airforce, but I have no doubt radar is gonna catch up in a year or two. Offense is almost always is one step ahead of defense :|

I'm no expert (or American) but I'd hazard a guess that it's because planes have much greater effective range than ship mounted guns.
They also serve as mobile military bases wherever you may need them. Saves you the hassle of building/maintaining land-based bases all the places you may want to have some military presence.
Take Iraq as an example, what is safer and more efficient? To build a large base on land, or to have a carrier + escort out in the Persian gulf? You would have to abandon the land base eventually given the situation while the carrier can just be moved by sea to the next place you need them.

None of these things matter in PS2 however. Map is too small (heh - so technically the WG could be all you really need) and you don't need a physical command and control centre to manage your military operations as you would in the real world.
Just a few possible reasons for why the US military loves their carriers.

They can "insta" kill you but you can't "insta" kill them.
The amount of damage/suppression a single ESF can do is bizarre.

AA is intended to deter not destroy.

Previous nerfs (Rocket Pods, PPA and the Banshee) haven't made it better, just highlighted even more of how big of a problem
A2G presents itself.

ESFs can easily break AAs line of sight.
They can "insta" kill you but you can't "insta" kill them.

No one uses AA because it's boring and generally ineffective.

I could've worded this better but I'm a ******.

Sure we could all use AA maxes, turrets, launchers etc but then we would need to make it a full-time job.

The US is proud of their aircraft carriers because they provide a vast amount of force projection. Some Nations aren't all buddy-buddy with the US and would never allow them to operate an Airbase in their country, which means the ability to park an Airbase off the coast of the country incredibly useful.

Not everyone believes the end-all-be-all of the game revolves around racking up Certs and easy kills. Come back when you finish 6th Grade.

ineffectual AA in-game would be an issue of game balance in game.
ineffectual AA irl can have several causes.

contrary to hollywood, re-thinking "tactics" during battle is often a bad idea.
AA can't really slip away after being locked-on; AA that does slip away basically abandons the rest of the ground.
A2G missiles tend to fly faster than ground vehicles drive.
So any good AA is pre-planned.
You adapt tactics to enemy action; but that is more implementing the learned tactic appropriate for the situation.
The dudes operating the radar don't tend to invent new tactics on the fly.

AA not defended by ground forces? Bad planning.


I do want to stress some issues: not every country has numbers of AA;
some of the longest ranging AA is still "anti-bomber" or anti-transport, anti-radar aircraft etc. In some cases anti-cruise missile defense; so "400 km range" russian AA: those are unlikely to hit an F22 for example. Then, some of Iraq's AA actually wasn't "too bad". However, they deployed it in fixed emplacements (viewed by satellites..), the crews weren't very well trained.. no tech is going to help you if you don't learn how to use it, and keep focused on using it properly. Also, letting an enemy with plenty of cruise missiles and glideboms and ranged A2G missiles know where your radars are is a baaaad idea.
fighter aircraft are the hardest to hit; small, fast, loaded with ECM & flares, and manoevring.
In game, liberator and galaxy are ridiculously tough vs all weapons.

anti-stealth radar:
longer wavebands are an answer; radar waves scatter differently vs objects approaching their wavelength. So far, not really enough to achieve a target lock. However: you use a long wavelength radar to detect "aircraft in this area", then a more shorter wavelength to pin-point it; because you now know which area of the sky to look for, you can invest a lot of power into that area.
AESA radar and more controlled radar signals tend to be better vs noise, giving them better performance vs stealth aircraft too.
Basically all stealth does is reduce a radar's effective range.

BTW: Swedish pilots repeatedly managed to lock on to the SR71, by being "cued" to the SR71's location by Swedish ground radars. (no Swedish pilot was ever stupid enough to launch a missile afaik).

One russion claim was that their infrared system for the T50 would be able to detect the F22 in 100 or 200km.
Probably slightly exagerration from a journalist ; but infrared is improving.
and on the ground, you have a lot of room for a big infrared detection system, vs a small one in an aircraft.

AAandAGandGA are about as balanced as they can be right now.

What the? You just assume that you 1. know me and 2. are deluded in thinking that I am in "6th Grade" (I am in 10th grade you stupid d**che bag). God damn NC use their un-nerfed air hammer all bloody day. Why don't you tell us what BR you are? You are probably a BR10 big-head who thinks that he knows it all. Please amuse me son...

i think he had you pretty much figured out.

would you like to return all the certs you made with the pre nerf banshee?

He's BR100 with 60 days played, but I'm gonna respect his anonymity.