Realism or balance

[Shadow NX]

I had an long long discussion a few minutes ago and now i want to hear what the community thinks about that topic...

The point is, do we really need 100% realism or would it kill the gameplay balance?

Were working on an new east attack Helo wich is almost finished.
Now one of the makers wants to add the infra red feature so you would be able to see soldiers on your radar screen.

He says thats realism noone asks if the DKM Commanche is overpowered or why the BAS Kiowas have Stingers and can easily down an hind.
If i can see soldiers on the radar where is the balance?
It wouldnt even be possible to sneak into an bush and down the helo with an stinger cause he knows youre there anyway.

So tell me what do you guys think about that, personal i think its more important to keep the game balanced but maybe im wrong...

[Wright]

Given the option I think I'd leave soldiers off of the radar screen. As one man against a chopper you don't have many opportunities but at least this way you could use stealth to your advantage.

[Suchey]

Much of the "balance" of a mission is left up to the mission designer...you can try your best to "even-up" an addon with its perceived counterparts, but in the end its the mission designer that comes up with creative ways to balance the sides. If in doubt, make it a mission editor selectable option to either have or not to have the infra-red.

[####]

I'm all for realism personally. What has to be done though as well is for AI soldiers to engage aircraft with small arms more often. Even a well armoured heli such as a Hind or Apache can be easily downed by small arms fire.

[LaPoi]

Well isn't that the point, being out gunned. Both sides get high tech helicopters and both sides ground forces are screwed. By the way, what chopper are you making because you could just make it's fuel tank (option) easier to blow up.

[Sigma-6]

Absolutely realism. That's what it's all about. If it's difficult, it's difficult. The mission designer ultimately decides anyway, not the addonmaker. Not giving the mission designer the option of realism to begin with is a cop out.

Besides, there's still a 'skill' slider, isn't there? Or should everything be easy? I mean, if you need a vehicle for a mission that requires a less-deadly vehicle, use a less-deadly vehicle, don't make the dangerous ones less realistic. That's silly.

[Wick_105]

I would like to point out that a .50BMG will go through the sides and rear of most apc's

yet in the game I can hammer away all day long at a BMP and not much will happen.

I'll get killed but other than that not much will happen

[Hellfish6]

I think realism is vastly more important. However, I don't think making personnel visible on radar is a realistic thing. Yes, an Apache or Havoc could probably spot thermal images of people thousands of meters away, but not if they were in combat.

For example, if I was flying this mystery helicopter of yours (I'm guessing it's a Havoc, which will make me pee my pants with joy if it is) I'd probably be a lot more concerned about killing tanks and air defense systems than hunting down individual soldiers.

I can imagine that it would be a case of information overload - if each infantryman on your radar screen looked just like a tank or other vehicle did, then what's the point? If you've got one tank and nine infantrymen, you'll have to do a whole lot of target cycling to actually get the tank in your sights.

[LaPoi]

It could be a Ka 60.

[[CCCP]Stalker]

It IS Havoc. So pee in your pants (I hope there won't be any floods in Europe )
Back on topic:
I think that that realism you are talking about is useless. But other realism ( ) must be on a high level.