Irongator

[zombie-yellow]

Why not use the Irongator Essex static who is in BF2:SF ? You could replace the normal Essex static by this one and get an LHD with full interior and better textures (from what I remember).

This could be fun, if, for expemple, in Muttrah city, MEC forces captured the docks, take RHIB, and go board the carrier =)

Or why not a Nimitz class carrier in future 16km maps (like Falklands, but not Falklands, because it's historically inaccurate).

Just askin'...

[tankninja1]

the Irongator Essex static would do some serious damage to a maps performance if I had to guess.

As for the Nimitz class carrier it wouldn't make any sense because Marines don't launch amphibious assaults from a aircraft carriers but a amphibious assault ship, generally because it would be theoretically possible although unlikely to be launched from a carrier, not to mention it would take a long time to make a Nimitz static for no real reason.

[Rhino]

- Moved to the suggestions topic, please don't post suggestions outside of the suggestions forum.

There are a few good reasons for why we haven't done this, but the biggest reason, for the reason that your suggesting is that "assaulting/boarding" an enemy carrier/assault ship is totally unrealistic and would be very bad for gameplay to allow the enemy to get to the enemy ship and destroy the aircraft on the deck and spawn rape the players, even if the flag was cappable which there would be no way of stopping it either when it wasn't...

For the other reasons I suggest you search the forum for the other topics that have suggested this but off the top of my head, worse for performance with no real gain as players don't need to walk around the engine room etc, in order to lightmap the object the LMs would have to be done though max which not all mappers know how to do and the vBF2 Essex is more actuate to the real one than the BF2 SF one.

- Locked for re-suggestion.