Grenade launchers

[Paladin-X]

edit. was insta-posted


Paladin, if you want to do a quick fix for the weekend that is fine. Nothing against that. Past experiences tell me that this is not how I would do it, but it's your project

I hope you will find a solution to make the grenades more realistic in the long run. Good luck with that!

Well we are doing a fix for the 1.12 bf2 patch. I believe it was one of your clanmates that refused to play our mod unless something was done about the nade launcher, which stayed in my mind. Now that we are about to release a little patch, I'd like to try and address this issue and others if possible within the time we gave for release. Anything not done in time will be left out.

[{GD}geogob]

Ah yeah, I remember that snake posted that too. I think he was a bit emotional that day and I doupt he really meant it

[Rg]

I don’t like the idea of a nade just sitting on the ground like a sandbag when fired. Let’s say you fire at someone close range and it goes through or hits their body, will they die like they would from a shot of an AT rocket? (which needs to be fixed by the way, it’s used as a noobtube quite often)

Is it really such a bad idea to just get rid of the grenade launcher in this patch, to bring it back (fixed) in the next future patch?

On a side note, is there a way for the MP5 to be included in some class? Maybe if the nade launcher is taken out, give the assault class the MP5 as their side arm. NOW I’m talking out of my ***, lol, but can the MP5 be implemented in SOME class?

[Paladin-X]

If you hit someone with the 40mm round it will hurt/kill then blow up and hurt/kill anyone within its radius. Assuming of course it is a timed delay.

[dawdler]

On a side note, is there a way for the MP5 to be included in some class? Maybe if the nade launcher is taken out, give the assault class the MP5 as their side arm. NOW I’m talking out of my ***, lol, but can the MP5 be implemented in SOME class?

The US Spec Ops would fit nicely with the MP5. Bet THAT change will make alot of people... happy...

[Gunfighter34ID]

Is preventing the bunny hop and pop the only thing we're trying to do with the M203? Are we trying to fix other aspects of it as well? If you create class limits you can at least limit the amount of that stuff that goes on and admins can monitor the grenadiers more easily and warn the ones who are exploiting it. You could still address accuracy, sights, etc., I would think, but I'm not too sure what all you can do with them. The extent of my modding experience was making weapon damage and performance mods for MoH:AA, and that was a long time ago.

I guess the larger question is this: what do you mean by "Project Reality?" Are you trying to create a realistic mod that seeks to emulate the weapons and equipment actually used by the US military and the other forces in the game, or are you pretty much just trying to create some weapon mods and other enhancements that change the gameplay a little? If you're looking to do the first you need to change TO&Es by putting in class limits/squad limits, tweak the class loadouts, get rid of some of the kiddie toy weapons that none of the militaries in the mod actually use, etc. If you're doing the latter, just get rid of the radar and boost the weapon damage and tweak from there. I guess I'm just not sure what you're trying to do, and I'm not talking about for this hotfix patch, I mean long-term.

[BLind]

If you roll the SF and assault classes into one then the assault actually has a purpose. The SF class is, really, superfluous in a game like this. You've got all these conventional weapons and vehicles and unit types, and then you just throw in SF? Why?

For my two cents, I think you rename "assault" as "rifleman", give them the option of M4 or M16 (with appropriate tweaks to the weapons to make one more advantageous at short range with its full-auto rate of fire and one more advantageous at long range with accuracy). Give them grenades and C4. That way your basic infantry unit has some anti-armor capability and the ability to destroy enemy equipment.

You then change the SF class to "grenadier" and give him a 203 and a variety of grenades. If you can implement some of the suggestions above it becomes a much harder class to play effectively, but once mastered a good grenadier would be very useful to a team as he'd be able to take out light vehicles, blast troops through windows or in dead areas with plunging fire, and protect himself at close range or clear rooms even with "buckshot" rounds.

Sure, you lose some "unlocks" and special SF weapons, but so what? The US military doesn't use those weapons, anyway. And if the M16 and M4 are fixed (as well as the AKs) so they've got halfway decent stopping power you won't need the special "kiddie toys" to kill someone with consistently.

so we'd have ??

riflemen

m16/m4, c4, grenades

grenadier

m16 with m203, smoke


sounds gd to me although it might make standard infantry to powerful against armour in streets, so maybe just 1 pack so it requires a number of riflemen/team effort to take out a tank, maybe giving a few packs of c4 to the engineer class aswell.

[Gunfighter34ID]

so we'd have ??

riflemen

m16/m4, c4, grenades

grenadier

m16 with m203, smoke


sounds gd to me although it might make standard infantry to powerful against armour in streets, so maybe just 1 pack so it requires a number of riflemen/team effort to take out a tank, maybe giving a few packs of c4 to the engineer class aswell.

Yeah, the armor would become extremely vulnerable, but unsupported armor IS extremely vulnerable to infantry, especially in an urban environment, and the game is lacking a lot of the basic anti-armor tools that infantry units carry with them, like AT-4s or RPG-7s, for instance. Throw in the fact that the AT weapons available, and the tanks themselves, aren't modeled correctly, too.

The game has enough elements in it that you could make a pretty damn good infantry shooter if you got rid of the jets and remodeled the choppers and armor, but it will never be able to be much more than an arcade game as far as the aircraft and vehicles are concerned. So I think you have to go with your strengths and try and make the infantry component as realistic as possible.

Tanks and AFVs could still be extremely useful, especially at longer ranges, but tankers would really have to think twice about moving in urban terrain without infantry support to cover their flanks and rears. The capability of the C4 against armor would have to be toned down quite a bit, too, but I think if you put a bunch of them down you should still be able to take out a tank. It's not exactly realistic, but it would help balance it for gamplay purposes and keep infantry from being utterly helpless against armor while making the tanks, for their part, play as elements supporting the infantry unit, not stand-alone cap whores. If there was a way to implement mobility kills with the C4 instead of outright destroying the tank that would be the way to go, but I don't know if that's possible and I kind of doubt it is.

I like your idea of giving C4 to the engineers, too. I'd love to see a vehicle/aircrew class in the game at some point armed with nothing more than a sidearm and with no ability to cap OBJs. Make it so only those guys can operate AFVs or aircraft and that they can't capture the objectives and you'd see a lot more cooperation between armor, infantry, and tacair. I don't know if that would be possible, either, though.

[dawdler]

so we'd have ??

riflemen

m16/m4, c4, grenades

grenadier

m16 with m203, smoke

Uuuuuuh... Is it only me that see the slight flaw in that?

I mean like the rifleman being pretty close to a spec ops... And the grenadier being pretty close to the assault.

It might just be me though, I'm pretty sleepy.

[Gunfighter34ID]

Dawdler, the whole point is there would be no more SF class.

The assault class would get a rifle or carbine and C4, SF would be superseded by a grenadier class with an M203/equivalent, and SF would be done away with as it would be superfluous.

[BrokenArrow]

Give the new rifleman a rifle, grenades and maybe a claymore? I think the engineer should be given the c4 if anything at all. Although this sounds like a good amount of work swapping the kit layouts around but giving the c4 to a rifleman doesnt sound great to me. Aside from being a little unrealistic, (your average rifleman doesnt carry that do they?) it seems like too much firepower (as the Spectial Forces soldiers have now in my opinion). Giving a little more punch to the engineer class sounds like a good idea to me.

[{GD}geogob]

wow. if that is a lot of work... wow. good luck for your mod.

[Paladin-X]

Switching items around among currently existing classes is easy and takes seconds.

[{GD}geogob]

Ok that is reassuring to read.

[BrokenArrow]

my fault, not a coder ops:.

[ECale3]

Either remove them (the launcher) until they can be implemented properly or Change the round to a non-lethal one (smoke etc).

[CodeRedFox]

So Paladin...which way do you think your gonna go? Six pages should of shown you what we think, its just gonna get flamie after this

[Eddie Baker]

Gunfighter- we do plan on getting rid of the unrealistic weapons that the forces represented in game do not have (because some, like the Pancor, only ever existed as prototypes), making kit loadouts authentic to respective forces' TO&E and to include new grenade types. As for the special ops class, we are working on having unit specific maps, so one team might be represented by an SOF unit. But right now we're working with what we have.

Dawdler- the MP5 issue is for another topic, so let it drop.

Paladin- I posted my suggestion in the other thread.

[Cerberus]

Stardard USMC riflemen should carry an M16, a few M67s, and two smoke grenades.

The grenadiers should be given an M16, M203, and one smoke grenade

[CodeRedFox]

Any word of a fix...err.. correction of the snipers?