Destroyers???

Vega · Post by **Vega** » 2006-12-23 23:08

dunkellic wrote:the point remains, that the parties ingame should remain balanced and mec+pla should also get kick-*** equipement, but noeone bothers to request something for them

There is one problem with what you ask. While I too believe in fair gameplay and each side having "kick-***" equipment, it isn't exactly realistic. Someone said this earlier, one reason why BF2 vanilla has an arcade-like style is because T90 tanks are being matched up against Abrahams (both tanks being virtually the same in-game). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't realistic, is it?

I've seen many suggestions shot down because it simply isn't how it's like in the military. That's how the game is. Such examples include napalm bombs, special binoculars for a tank gunner, carriers, etc. The suggestions are all out there. Note, I'm not saying any of these suggestions are bad, simply they aren't in the game due to them not being realistic (or at least not capable for the BF2 engine).

I really don't care which side I'm playing on when I play PR. I would love to add stuff to MEC and PLA but a lack of info makes it hard. Stuff like this doesn't help either;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKUG58s1J5g

Wow.....technologically advanced I say. I know this is an exaggeration simply because these guys look like insurgents and aren't backed up by government funds but you catch my drift. It simply isn't easy to find anything. Cool, you have an RPG......I have a freaking javelin that will blow a tank to pieces. Do you see my point? It's easy to say "US this! British This!" when we often see video clips of their advanced technology in action.

SGT.Collado · Post by **SGT.Collado** » 2006-12-23 23:27

Exactly on that Vegas. Returning to the topic on Destroyers in my opinion could be possible in the engine only they are hard to model. They could just be spawn points to whoever wants to use one and can go from there...To enhance teamplay, you could make it so only squad members could get in with the person already there. This would allow for VoiP communication. Saying that, the Destroyers has only 2 spots. 1 for the "captain" (driver) and 1 for the "weapon controller". It would be like driving a huge tank in the sea. I bet the engine can do that can it?

EDIT: The Destroyer could also have a range of weapons in it's arsenals. High capacity missiles would be just one thing. I don't really know much about military stuff but you can always go herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-12-23 23:32

SGT.Collado wrote:It would be like driving a huge tank in the sea. I bet the engine can do that can it?

It might be able to, but on a map with any kind of landmass, there aren't many places to pilot it. I think that any kind of large surface ship (well, greater than 100+ feet) would better serve as a static spawn point / launch point or an objective on which to fight. For example, its gun turret could represent the commander's artillery on a map, and if disabled would leave that asset unavailable.

SGT.Collado · Post by **SGT.Collado** » 2006-12-23 23:42

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']It might be able to, but on a map with any kind of landmass, there aren't many places to pilot it. I think that any kind of large surface ship (well, greater than 100+ feet) would better serve as a static spawn point / launch point or an objective on which to fight. For example, its gun turret could represent the commander's artillery on a map, and if disabled would leave that asset unavailable.

Umm, artillery in a ship is one thing you could add. We're talking here not a BIG map , but a map like Wake Island. Maybe it could be the modern version of Wake Island where the PLA is there. I think Wake Island 2 would be PERFECT for this type of ship. You said that there is no place to drive around it. Well, you really don't need to drive around it. The only thing it would be to drive around is if there are jets attacking it or something. This is why would would put surface to AA missiles. Although, J10s wouldn't even come close to a destroyer

. So what I'm asking is a Destroyer with 1 spot for the captain, 1 spot for the commander, and one spot for the weapon control.

Post by **Rhino** » 2006-12-24 00:25

add guess what, if you used the search button you would find a topic posted around a year ago from me suggest the same thing! amazing!

Post by **duckhunt** » 2006-12-24 00:26

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']add guess what, if you used the search button you would find a topic posted around a year ago from me suggest the same thing! amazing!

Yea, well I made one 2 years ago!

dunkellic · Post by **dunkellic** » 2006-12-24 02:25

Vega wrote:There is one problem with what you ask. While I too believe in fair gameplay and each side having "kick-***" equipment, it isn't exactly realistic. Someone said this earlier, one reason why BF2 vanilla has an arcade-like style is because T90 tanks are being matched up against Abrahams (both tanks being virtually the same in-game). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't realistic, is it?

kinda having a dejavu right now ^^
the t-90 is not a bad tank after all, also much cheaper (=greater numbers) and more all-terrain mobile than the m1a2 - also it got a better defence suit and it is able to not only carry a soft-kill defense system, but a hard-kill one, which would allow it to intercept incoming aa missiles (the first one would be the shtora system and the second one would be the arena system)
(but yes, basically the t-90 should perform worse than the abrams, but so should the lav compared to a btr-90)

Vega wrote: I really don't care which side I'm playing on when I play PR. I would love to add stuff to MEC and PLA but a lack of info makes it hard. Stuff like this doesn't help either;

true, info on chinese military stuff is really rare

Vega wrote: Wow.....technologically advanced I say. I know this is an exaggeration simply because these guys look like insurgents and aren't backed up by government funds but you catch my drift. It simply isn't easy to find anything. Cool, you have an RPG......I have a freaking javelin that will blow a tank to pieces. Do you see my point? It's easy to say "US this! British This!" when we often see video clips of their advanced technology in action.

i beg to differ, those are insurgents, but the mec is supposed to be a sophisticated well armed and trained army (also, i know at least one m1a2 in iraq that got taken out by a single(!) rpg-7 missile).
but if you want some javeling like, just look up the latest kornet missile types

Umm, artillery in a ship is one thing you could add

it woud not be an artillery barage like the one we already have in pr - rather would such a ship fire pretty accurate missiles on single targets

Post by **Rhino** » 2006-12-24 02:38

'[R-DEV wrote:duckhunt']Yea, well I made one 2 years ago!

oh ye? linkey plz

my one

http://realitymod.com/forum/showthread. ... ight=naval

Post by **duckhunt** » 2006-12-24 02:47

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']

Tomahawks nroamly carrie only noraml exsplocive warheads, only in a nuclar war would they be armed with the nucalr warhead.

wtf did you say???

my one:

http://realitymod.com/forum/showthre...ighlight=naval

anyway, seems like a much too big a task really for the result. So much extra work and I dont really beleive bf2 engine is capable of doing it well. Never know though.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2006-12-24 15:06

true, info on chinese military stuff is really rare

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp

SGT.Collado · Post by **SGT.Collado** » 2006-12-24 15:55

Hmmm, nuclear weapons in a ship is too much for a game like this. I bet one nuclear missile from the Destroyer would send bodies all over the place while singing *Let the bodies hit the floor*. Meh, if you can't pilot the ship then, just make it static. It's better than nothing because they aren't really supposed to drive around.

Vega · Post by **Vega** » 2006-12-27 14:01

Well Dunkelic you seem to know a lot about middle eastern and chinese stuff. YOU post some stuff regarding them