Commanders UAV

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2005-06-16 16:03

Right now we have 2 unrealistic things in game, both part of the commander mode. First is the UAV mode currently present. A UAV gives a picture to the commander, it doesn't use a magical people detecting radar and broadcast it to every single person on the battle field. Secondly is the commanders god view, in 3x zoom he can see everything on the battle with the exception of inside buildings.

My thought was to combine both of these features into 1 realistic tool for the commander. The UAV would be for the commander eyes only, giving a need for people to communicate and form squads so they could get rapid information. The commanders god view, 3x zoom, would be removed. Instead of the UAV using radar or whatever it would give the commander this 3x zoom. In the time that the UAV is up, a minute or two, the commander could move it around as he pleased.

Psycho_Sam · Post by **Psycho_Sam** » 2005-06-16 16:16

The uav is meant to symbolise the commander looking at an image from the satellite and radioing the information to his troops. This is represented as a radar showing postions of the enemy instead of him having to tell everyone what he has seen.

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2005-06-16 17:19

Ummm... a UAV is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. It has nothing to do with a satelite, wich by the way is what the Satelite Scan ability would be. A UAV is a big remote control airplane with a camera that flies up and streams video to the commander. It's used for aerial reconisance. A person would not have a radar signature large enough to be noticed if one could even be detected at all on a battlefield.

As for it representing something. Why must it represent it, we have VOIP and text. It is a case of DICE over simplafying. The entire idea is to encourage a need for communication between the commander and his team, not eliminate it.

m0ldym1lk · Post by **m0ldym1lk** » 2005-06-16 18:07

Because no one would use it if you have to radio it to your troops. The satellite scan would be whored all the time, because majority of people really don't feel like relaying every sighting. This is why DICE simplified it, so more people could use it effectively.

But on another note, I do agree with your idea, it's just matter if everyone else does :S

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2005-06-17 02:03

Let's just put it this way:

The whole commander mode needs to be revamped. Sure its good gameplay, but its not realistic at all.

Magic boxes that appear out of thin air and heal and repair and rearm things...

A sattilite scan that makes it seem as if players have radar signatures...

A UAV that does the same, but for longer...

An always present zoom, magnification...

And the arty.... well thats pretty close to realistic, I think. Just needs people working the artillery, modeled bots or not. Maybe just go back to 42 style spotting, just from the commander's birds eye view.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-17 07:19

And the arty.... well thats pretty close to realistic, I think. Just needs people working the artillery, modeled bots or not. Maybe just go back to 42 style spotting, just from the commander's birds eye view.

and arty that doesnt shoot 90 degrees into the air!

I agree with a new commanders mode and i like Ugly Ducks ideas.

Also maybe we could add a range to artillery... like use mortars instead or just have a way so you cant main base rape people with artillery strikes, maybe not, just a thought.... even though it is realistic that you would bombard an enmy encampment before moving in... but that jsut means battles would be about which commander could arty the other first off quicker.

SGT-Kwint[75thR] · Post by **SGT-Kwint[75thR]** » 2005-06-17 10:05

About the UAV, Give that live feed of a designated area for about 4 to 5 seconds. But keep the Zoom x3.

Post by **Wolfmaster** » 2005-06-17 11:03

1 no zoom

2 uav should provide this zoom and shouldn't stay in one place

3 people not relaying their sightings shouldn't play project reality.

4 arty angle needs fixing. no 90 degrees unless the artillery crew want to kill themselves. (maybe make it variable, like different angle for different range)

5 supply drop needs to be more realistic

6 supply drop shouldn't repair vehicles

7 if the health/bleeding system won't be changed healing from supply drop is ok. (emergency kits etc.) if real bleeding will be added it should only stop the bleeding.

GABBA · Post by **GABBA** » 2005-06-17 11:16

I think that the arty has to be in that 90 degree angle. ..i know you couldn't do that in reall life or else people would die and blah blah blah.......I think that there would be more flame for the arty if they where at a 40 degree angle and they blew up a target 10 metre's away...so just put up the arty or if you must then just don't look at them.......

you really dont stand there during a game looking at the artillery just waiting for them too shoot so you can prove how unrealistic they are, i dont.....

Dowding · Post by **Dowding** » 2005-06-17 14:42

It would practically have to be 90 degrees given how far the artillery is firing - at most only 1km away. I don't think it looks that unrealistic.

The commander is an abstract concept - he would have a whole staff around him in reality. But realism shouldn't be about modelling the tea-boy surely? BF2 puts the focus firmly on the actual combat - I don't think that should be forgotten. The team's finite resources would be best spent focussing on the glaring combat issues with BF2, as is - and getting the British kit in.

IMO, of course.

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2005-06-17 16:38

I think we need a different form of artillary. The maps we see in game, sadly, are still only 1-2 square miles. Real artillary is fired from a few miles behind the battle field. Maybe some mortar batteries, since they are used for high angle firing when the target is close.

A few 81mm mortars would do a good enough job, and be reason enough to spread out the area of effect on the artillary. Not to mention adding a max range, so that people aren't having their artillary lobbed across the battle field at the enemy main base for a few quick kills.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-06-17 21:49

for the US when its possible the artillery should come from a ship, otherwise i think the artillery would be better to put way behind the lines, maybe not even in the map, although you wouldnt be able to destroy it it would fix the 90 degree problem, mortars are also a good idea but they dont have the range to reach out to the whole map right? or (lots of ors) how about replacing artillery with an airstrike? have planes fly over and drop some bombs or something.

Just trying to throw some out of the box ideas out there, no idea if any of them are practical.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-18 03:07

I like broken arrows idea with the airstrike, just like they did in RTCW. Have a smoke grenade like... a red one drop and then have the plan go by.

Is there something between a howitzer and mortars?

Post by **Wolfmaster** » 2005-06-18 06:53

btw what really sucks on the demo map is that if the mec hold all control points on the mainland the USMC have to go a long way to protect their artillery while the MEC have it right on their main base. tell me, is that fair?

Psycho_Sam · Post by **Psycho_Sam** » 2005-06-18 11:27

Yes, nothing is fair in love and war

Plus many server I have been on it is rare that MEC get all the flags but usually the other way round and so MEC get spawn raped by tanks,apcs, helis, jets and arty

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-06-18 17:08

still, the US wouldnt put their artillery on a little sand bar that is pretty out of the way to defend, and as said before it wouldnt be that close to the lines, so as for US artillery, when possible, put it on ships, if not, an air strike.

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2005-06-18 17:12

Well, from what fortnight said in the media section the devs are already coming up with a system for artillary. I guess we'll figure it out when the time comes.

Post by **Wolfmaster** » 2005-06-19 09:43

true. lets just hope it turns out well.