Wish list

bpwelch · Post by **bpwelch** » 2005-09-16 04:01

Here are some things I wish to see in this mod and at least discussed on the forums.

1. FARP Points and the idea of adding fuel to the game:
I would really like to see vehicles have fuel; not sure if this would work out or not. Even if the fuel idea didn't work, the idea of FARPs is still one I want to see.

2. CCTs instead of commanders:
I'd like to see the role of commander take a more realistic turn and not have him have sat. real-time imaging; instead make him more part of the battle and less part of a fictional command post with unrealistic sat. TV(tm).

3. Stinger or TOWs mounted on Humves:
Self explanatory.

4. Presistent capture points, or "captured areas":
I would REALLY like to see flags placed in more "importent" areas; part of that would be that two people would have to stay and "guard" or "hold" the capture point or it would return to neutral. This would allow for greater realism, since in no known battle I can think of would troops "grab" an area and then run away from it leaving it undefended. This would also mean that the "capture" area should be bigger, IE: if the flag is in the building which is a strategic point then the building is then the area of capture.

That's all I can think of at the moment, I hope to hear some feedback on those ideas.

-bp

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-09-16 18:38

aside from your third point, which im sure will be taken care of your fourth point is i think your best, you hit the nail right on the head with that one. though in game there would have to be points handed out for it, so it would keep the guards in place.

not bad suggestions.

bpwelch · Post by **bpwelch** » 2005-09-16 21:14

Very cool, I was hoping that people would like my 4th point since I think it would add so much to the game.

Glad you like it.

-bp

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-09-16 21:29

Yes, I love the 4th point too. Great, great, great idea.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-09-17 03:36

bpwelch wrote:1. FARP Points and the idea of adding fuel to the game:
I would really like to see vehicles have fuel; not sure if this would work out or not. Even if the fuel idea didn't work, the idea of FARPs is still one I want to see.

Outposts set up as FARPs are a definite possibility. In fact, a FARP would be very realistic as the only helo spawnpoint on a map because of the ranges / map sizes in BF2.

bpwelch wrote:2. CCTs instead of commanders:
I'd like to see the role of commander take a more realistic turn and not have him have sat. real-time imaging; instead make him more part of the battle and less part of a fictional command post with unrealistic sat. TV(tm).

USAF Combat Controllers are not the only troops who coordinate fire support operations (close-air support, artillery and naval gunfire) and that is just one of their jobs. Their primary job is to reconnoiter assault zones (drop zone, helicopter landing zone, etc.) and direct air traffic over them.

We do wish to at least partially remove control of the artillery from the commander and have players rely more on their other teammates to relay information and provide fire support.

bpwelch wrote:3. Stinger or TOWs mounted on Humves:
Self explanatory.

The Avenger Pedestal Mounted Stinger and HMMWV TOW carriers are very much a possibility.

bpwelch wrote:4. Presistent capture points, or "captured areas":
I would REALLY like to see flags placed in more "importent" areas; part of that would be that two people would have to stay and "guard" or "hold" the capture point or it would return to neutral. This would allow for greater realism, since in no known battle I can think of would troops "grab" an area and then run away from it leaving it undefended. This would also mean that the "capture" area should be bigger, IE: if the flag is in the building which is a strategic point then the building is then the area of capture.

This is a good idea and we have been working on something similar. I hope you'll enjoy what we come up with.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-17 03:39

i pwn in an avenger nuf said

Lev_Astov · Post by **Lev_Astov** » 2005-09-17 04:55

Yeah, I really love the 4th point you make there, bpwelch. I am rather tired of this standard BF capturing the magical flag type gameplay. I would also like to see more objective based maps, though I'm sure that's been discussed many times before. Maps where you need to blow up the building, level the town, or defend the armor column would be a very welcome addition to PR in my book.

Also, I am really really glad to hear Dev. Eddie say they want to make players more involved in fire support. I look forward to being a dedicated artillery crew.

bpwelch · Post by **bpwelch** » 2005-09-17 09:28

Thanks for the point-by-point response Edde, it is much appreciated!

I like everyone elses feedback also.

-bp

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-09-17 16:37

also (regarding your 4th point) i think that as soon as an enemy enters within maybe 50m of a capture area that area should go nuetral, or at least some sort of 'contested' stage. when this happens vehicle and troop spawns (if kept at flags away from main base) should cease, unless it is some sort of parachute drop into that zone.

{GD}Dr_Mucus · Post by **{GD}Dr_Mucus** » 2005-09-21 20:59

Capping flags just for the sake of having a different flag at the top of the pole is somewhat inane. Has already been suggested, proper objectives would be much more fun.

One objective type mission I would like to see is to rescue a downed pilot. The pilot could be placed randomly with in an area with minimal weapons, health and stamina and he would have to evade capture. A small Spec Ops group would then have to find him and extract him. The OpFor could be a larger size team, since the goal here is not necessarily combat (in fact the exact opposite), rather escape and evasion. Of course, this has the potential to be rather boring if the SpecOps side is good and can get the pilot out without ever encountering the OpFor.

{GD}Snake13 · Post by **{GD}Snake13** » 2005-09-21 21:06

I like the general premise of cap points becuase controling territory its a realistic objective for a large scale battle, I think it just needs tweaking so it better represents controling territory instead of just controlling a flagpole.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-09-21 23:43

i agree, thats what i was trying to get at. it needs to be a large area and as soon as enemies infiltrate the area it should be a contested area.

ive been thinking of how the commander can still be useful while not having scan UAV and hopefully not having thefull zoom. how about he sees a regular map, and every control point has a certain view radius (think RTS games with the fog of war deal where you cant see enemies unless theyre close to your unit or a building you have) and if an enemy goes within that radius, he appears as a blip (larger than seen currently so theres still a little mystery where he is) this way the commander can effectively direct a battle, which is his real job.
If enemies get too close to the capture point, the area on the commanders map no longer shows the enemies until the zone is recaptured/cleared out. and the commander can start marking areas for squads to clear or where to be in the event of an attack.

this would, i think, make the game slower and more strategic, attackers would have to employ false attacks to draw the defenders to one point while attacking with another force from a different side. also the deffenders would have to use air assets to point out these types of tricks.

i think it sounds like a good idea, feel free to add, take away from or scrap the whole thing

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-09-23 00:43

Beckwith wrote:i pwn in an avenger nuf said

I don't know if pwns the description I'd use. There was certainly some good driving involved, but most of the shouts were when I realised my 2nd in command had fecked off in a jeep to shoot Havocs and my Senior Sergeant had been sent to infiltrate the enemy base, leaving me with 2 cherries to defend a control point. It was quite amusing, how much your antics in the Avenger wound up our Mickeey, mind you, I think you did shoot him down a couple times on those sorties.

Also it may have been mentioned already, as it was a glaring error in the original game, but I would like to see the stationary artillery require a crew. Even if it is only one man to simulate the crew, I think artillery was a lot more realistic and fun to use, when you required a spotter and a Gunner. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the statics stay in the game as a destroyable resource, as well as seeing short range artillery like the MLRS introduced. At the moment the artillery is nigh on ineffective due to the massive deveation of the shells and even when they do hit, it never really feels very satisfying using a point and click system.

Oh and anti tank guns, I don't know if they still exist as a realistic peice of a modern armies arsenal and if not then too bad no AT guns, if they do however it would be nice to see. I loved my PaK in 42.