kokan v.97 feedback

[Kain888]

Agreed on the fields needing some roughness. It would help with the lower graphics settings also, you can basically see people crawling through the crops on the lowest settings. It feels like cheating.

As for the technicals at the quad cannon, why can't we have a temporary spawn point there at the start of the round?

Two very valid points.

Kiowas on map are not balanced, although imo two most irritating things present are the options for blufor to just stay out and blow cache with jdam and/or C4 rush, which sucks and is cheap gimmick. :/

[rodrigoma]

i agree with the removal of the stinger, it would make it much more fun and chalenging to take down the kiowas, and make them more useful and interesting to work with when leading an infantry squad,
the only complaint i have about this map is it size though, its a shame its only half of the 2km it would be the a perfect map if it used the whole area

[Stealth Clobber]

Last night I encountered something that could be an argument for the removal of the stinger.

On Hardcore it was 27v27 and I decided to do some blackhawk trans. I'll let you know a cache spawned in D5 (very close to the US Main). So I believe some Hardcore guys (saying this cause of their reaction) got an AA kit, locked on to the Kiowa and the Blackhawk from that cache, launched a missle and killed the Kiowa on the pad closest to the Blackhawk. The missile had to have cleared at least 50 trees and the HESCO barrier. Then they proceeded to get another one and shoot my Blackhawk, but it's armored better so it didn't kill. Honestly you can say the Kiowas ruin gameplay on Kokan, but getting locked on with AA from D5 and getting killed on the pad by a missile that manages not to hit anything in its path, really ruins somebodys fun with PR that day.

[SShadowFox]

^ This.

Sometimes the BlackHawk don't survive the shot, and if they are flying it can lost the rotor power and start to fall, I don't like when that happen.

[SShadowFox]

^ This.

Sometimes the BlackHawk don't survive the shot, and if they are flying it can lost the rotor power and start to fall, I don't like when that happen.

[badmojo420]

On Hardcore it was 27v27 and I decided to do some blackhawk trans.

Were you the one that tried landing on the cache building beside the river?

I managed to RKG that blackhawk and killed the only survivor with my AK, right on top of the cache. Fun times.

[speedazz]

If a Taliban Sapper know that a chopper will land on certain position, he will put IEDs and stuff, if the chopper don't land, it still can be used against enemy armor/light vehicle turning a little bit better for the sapper and harder to the coalition.

Makes sence, but I mean you can add little bumps on fields, not the big ones, which can make chopper so hard to land

[SGT.Ice]

Project Reality: BF2 v0.96 Map Image Gallery
says there its 2km.

and i know the engine can simulate the sound....but can it physically impact a vehicle's speed?

and yeah it would make landing choppers a little difficult but they could just hover, land on a road, or do a water drop. but in real life a chopper wouldnt land in a field where they could not see the ground to ensure its flat or would be scouted out before hand and designated as an LZ
its not that blackhawk is not good in altitude, its that it cant carry as many troops as the chinook. chinook is used primarily for large troop transport for army and marines and blackhawk is used primarily for small teams and medivac. i could see 1 blackhawk, 1 chinook, and 1 kiowa being on u.s. army in kokan.

Actually anderson the BH's have been having problems at high altitudes in the mountains, I don't have a video off hand but I heard about it some time ago where they didn't have the power or something like that. The chinook with it's dual rotor system however has a lot more power and that's a big reason why they use them at higher atltitudes.

The terrain suggestion sounds good to me, as well as sounding like a valid reason. Put's more emphasis on clearing/patrolling roads to keep them clear, thus more teamwork.

Also makes it's harder for sappers to mess up everything.

Agreed with the OP, add a tiny bit of noise to the fields in the .raw and it should end up being pretty bumpy.

Not too much though, just enough to make roads nicer.

Since I know nothing about the engine are you talking about sound or something like disturbace, etc?





Some villages on the E side of the map where it's baren & prone to FOB/Stryker overwatch would be nice, gives the taliban more areas to:

A) attack from
B) spawn (Hideout)
C) defend from
D) maneuver?

[40mmrain]

the hydra kiowas lend themselves to blind cache strafing. in kokan there are three uses for the kiowa.

1) patrolling, to pick off vehicles, and taliban moving around the map
2) Close air support, attacks called by infantry on specific targets
3) Indiscriminate cache attack

the third option is what a lot of pilots, including myself do, and I understand why it would be desirable to have the pilots focus more on the first two roles. The third option requires no patience, teamwork, second man, is the situation where youre most likely to die, and it helps the team the least. I think this situation is caused actual weapons the kiowa is equipped with. Of the three weapons a real OH-58D can have fitted on it's pylon each, coincidentally, or perhaps not are the most useful for each of these three roles. The gun pod is the most useful for patrolling, and taking out light vehicles, it's accuracy at long range, and it's ammo capacity allows you to stay out in the field for long periods of time, unlike hydras. Many kiowa pilots on ramiel, and karbala agree that the gun is very useful. The Hellfire missiles lend itself to CAS for infantry the best. The Zoom, lock ability, thermal sights, and precision should make this obvious. The ability for the co-pilot to get on target with hellfires and be precise is much faster, so attacking enemy aa, and AA vehicles is much safer. Finally, the rockets are the best for the strafing runs. No need for cohesion between co-pilot, and pilot, as soon as the cache is in sight, let them fly, really. Fourteen explosions are better than the two you'd be able to get off with hellfires.

I suggest the kiowas on kokan all have gun pods, and at least has a gun pod, and 2 hellfires instead of hydras.

[Stealthgato]

I suggest the kiowas on kokan all have gun pods, and at least has a gun pod, and 2 hellfires instead of hydras.

This would be nice actually, but there should be only 1 Kiowa then and the Hellfires shouldn't be able to damage caches for obvious reasons.

[Murphy]

Last night I encountered something that could be an argument for the removal of the stinger.

On Hardcore ......

Please don't use this server as an example to rebalance a map, their rules encourage camping and raping blufor main. On Karbala the Kiowas rarely get to lift off because techies can literally see them spawn on the pad. The Stinger should not get removed because once the technicals are blown up is it the only reliable way to counter the Kiowas.

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

remove the trees around u.s main. no helicopter base would have trees surrounding the pad.

[Deer]

remove the trees around u.s main. no helicopter base would have trees surrounding the pad.

I know, trees are there to make it more difficult to baserape and to shoot out of the base, dont want ppl camping in main shooting. Could adjust the trees a bit, to make it easier to land.

Problem with rough fields is that it first makes blufor use roads, but then because of it, taliban would figure out that by ambushing roads with Mines, IEDs and RPGs gets you alot of kills now, instead of defending caches some of them would go and ambush roads, then when US gets killed all the time and doesnt make it to the cache area so often, cache defenders gets bored and starts attacking instead of defending because enemy is attacking the cache more rarely.

Also US would quickly learn that its no point using the roads because you get almost certainly ambushed, so they would use the fields again, but this time driving on the fields is only frustrating and annoying. 2nd thing they would start doing is attacking those ambushers instead of caches = cache defenders gets bored.

So effects on gameplay are very negative, it adds frustration and turns attackers and defenders upside down.

[40mmrain]

I know, trees are there to make it more difficult to baserape and to shoot out of the base, dont want ppl camping in main shooting. Could adjust the trees a bit, to make it easier to land.

Problem with rough fields is that it first makes blufor use roads, but then because of it, taliban would figure out that by ambushing roads with Mines, IEDs and RPGs gets you alot of kills now, instead of defending caches some of them would go and ambush roads, then when US gets killed all the time and doesnt make it to the cache area so often, cache defenders gets bored and starts attacking instead of defending because enemy is attacking the cache more rarely.

Also US would quickly learn that its no point using the roads because you get almost certainly ambushed, so they would use the fields again, but this time driving on the fields is only frustrating and annoying. 2nd thing they would start doing is attacking those ambushers instead of caches = cache defenders gets bored.

So effects on gameplay are very negative, it adds frustration and turns attackers and defenders upside down.

you could always pull back the US main to the farthest north and west reaches of the map right on the river, leaving it out of draw distance from the closest taliban cache, and making that one less of a "too close to main cache"

[Anderson29]

Deer;1793963']I know, trees are there to make it more difficult to baserape and to shoot out of the base, dont want ppl camping in main shooting. Could adjust the trees a bit, to make it easier to land.

Problem with rough fields is that it first makes blufor use roads, but then because of it, taliban would figure out that by ambushing roads with Mines, IEDs and RPGs gets you alot of kills now, instead of defending caches some of them would go and ambush roads, then when US gets killed all the time and doesnt make it to the cache area so often, cache defenders gets bored and starts attacking instead of defending because enemy is attacking the cache more rarely.

Also US would quickly learn that its no point using the roads because you get almost certainly ambushed, so they would use the fields again, but this time driving on the fields is only frustrating and annoying. 2nd thing they would start doing is attacking those ambushers instead of caches = cache defenders gets bored.

So effects on gameplay are very negative, it adds frustration and turns attackers and defenders upside down.

i think your wrong. now im suggesting this without taking dbmod into account.

opfor complain of getting their asses constantly kicked (w/o dbmod) by blufor ..would this not even things out a bit, being able to set up better defenses.....heaven forbid opfor from setting up ambushes on roads.. and blufor having to fight through them...like they do in real life.
i dont know which way the mod will go in the next version in regards to 1 cache vs 2 i just hate seeing the fields driven on more than the roads....seems "upside down" to me. and im not saying make the fields so rough that they are un drivable...the fields just shouldnt be the preferred route....

[R-DEV] Deer's signature>
Its hypocritical to demand some idea to be implemented because its realistic, thats because of if you think about it nothing in this game is realistic and therefore its impossible to compare it to real life, its a game based on teamwork and fun gameplay rather than realism. Realism in games is only an illusion caused by your own lack of knowledge and ignorance.

first of all, we (non devs's) are not demanding but simply offering feedback, simple remedies and solutions in a forum of a game that seems to want and has been made better with such feedback and idea's.
"nothing in this game is realistic"????? realistic by definition is "resembling or simulating real life." while this game might not simulate real combat down to a T, it damn sure resembles real combat. ie soldiers carrying guns, the look of the soldiers, weapons, types of weapons and their vehicles. even the environment resembles what we can find here on earth. that certainly falls with in my definition of realistic...according to your sig the only thing that can be realistic is the matrix or something like it.

ur sig implies that u, all knowing dev, is far above any of our intellect and we are simple ignorant gamers, which is complete bullshit, because that is why people like you(game maker/designer/whatever) that actually get paid hire subject matter experts to provide feedback to make a game, not realistic as you put it so let us say authentic...in order to produce realistic situations and outcomes in regard to someone who will never see the combat scenario this game puts in front of them in real life.
while your sig may or may not be directed towards me, i on behalf of every forum member here that has posted in the suggestion and feedback thread find it offensive and ignorant on your behalf to insult the core audience for which this game/mod is made for.

in my opinion for your sig to be meant as anything other than an insult the whole zoom system would need to be redone and scaled down to the view distances and not based on real life capabilities of scopes and optics. it would be scaled down for "fun game-play" rather than realistic-ness...lol but whatever i lack knowledge and im ignorant right....

[Pronck]

Ohh no if the fields aren't really drive able we need to use the roads whom are mined and IED'ed! Well, shall I tell a little secret: EOD and COMBAT ENGINEER. They are not there to only blow up compounds and Taliban, they are also there to clear roads. Although we still need a tool in the mod to clear up command detonated IEDs, I think the road should always be better than the fields. And for the BLUFOR getting from ambush into ambush, it is realistic, and what is far away from realistic is how they act now, rush trough the lines, c4 the compound and rush back. They have helicopters to do their work far away in the south side of the map and maybe they'll start doing convoys for once. Maybe it is just me, but what I find fun about insurgency isn't only blowing caches as BLUFOR but also fighting my way trough their lines and fighting out of ambushes and with the current mindset of some people this will never happen because they prever rushing trough and c4 ***** everything.

You need a way to make sure that you can talk of Taliban controlled areas and BLUFOR controlled areas and with the fields now allowing BLUFOR to rush trough the Taliban areas you can't speak of it.

Pff I am done now, it is no way I can make this more clearer than this at the moment. I just want to make it slightly more realistic than it is at this moment.

[KillJoy[Fr]]

If they use the field as a road then mine it

[Pronck]

;1798970']If they use the field as a road then mine it

That is not a solution and it is nearly impossible to make a minefield with them having thermal vision, air support and a lot of re-spawning humvees. And since every meter in the map can be rushed there is no way you can make a field temporary safe to make a minefield or IED ambush that can affect enemy vehicles all over the field.

[KillJoy[Fr]]

That is not a solution and it is nearly impossible to make a minefield with them having thermal vision, air support and a lot of re-spawning humvees. And since every meter in the map can be rushed there is no way you can make a field temporary safe to make a minefield or IED ambush that can affect enemy vehicles all over the field.

Its depend on wich map you played, most of insurgency maps are able to do some cool stuff with mine and ied.

[Pronck]

;1799023']Its depend on wich map you played, most of insurgency maps are able to do some cool stuff with mine and ied.

But this is about Kokan and by the way Karbala is also shit for IEDs since you can just camp and shoot every room and go CAS rape.