Air maps?

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-26 12:41

Heck, I'd like to be able to "shoot down" any missile. And you're right, the Phalanx system wastes anything in range.

China definately has an aircraft carrier. According to NATO classifications it is a "heavy aircraft cruiser" or a light carrier sort of ship. It should be finishing construction soon and would definately be at sea by the time we have this magical conflict.

...

I can't wait until a B-2 squadron blasts it to pieces at the outset of a Taiwanese crisis. I'm also very glad I live in the midwestern United States where they don't bother to aim strategic missiles.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-26 20:44

Hopefully it doesn't come to that!

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-01-26 20:53

=PL=POLSKA wrote:i like that idea... sounds fun...

however i think that just a basic map with 2 carriers, one for each team (could say china stole one, or made one what ever), with 2-4 flags in the air... would be enough... with like 3 plane spawns that respawn in like 10secs so people dont have to wait to get up in the air...

I agree something simple is all that is really needed, i do like the ideas that others suggested though.

Originally Posted by MonkeyNutz
I hate the planes in vanilla BF2, I would hate to play a crappy arcade flight sim in the middle of a more realistic mod for BF2. They will never be even close to semi realistic (they even are out of context with in the BF2 universe) so they just seem like something included to keep the flybois happy. I'd much prefer AI air strikes with the use of Target Designators then seeing something that can do Mach 2+ turn in the space of a football field.

Planes flying around at scale speeds of what seams to be 200 mph completely destroy any immersion factor. I would suggest making a different mod along the lines, Top Gun 2K6: Flight on the talentless.

well hey, i agree with you that planes in this mod cant be entirely realistic, but neither can the tanks, im sure its more complicated to drive a tank in RL, same with a helicopter. PR cant make every single vehicle 100% realistic, but it seems no one suggests taking them out, its always the planes the people want to see leave or make them something along the lines of a commanders asset.

I have plenty of Flight sims, so one might ask why i want planes to stay in the mod even though i know they arent realistic, well its simple, i just love to fly, and its always cool seeing an intense battle going on below you, then a tank comes up, killing you allies, then you come in blow up the tank, saves the day. Every time i get a kill, i never think "yes another kill" I always think "good, thats one less guy for my team to worry about".

I love aircraft, and im sure they will stay in the mod.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-27 08:28

NikovK wrote:Heck, I'd like to be able to "shoot down" any missile. And you're right, the Phalanx system wastes anything in range.

China definately has an aircraft carrier. According to NATO classifications it is a "heavy aircraft cruiser" or a light carrier sort of ship. It should be finishing construction soon and would definately be at sea by the time we have this magical conflict.

...

I can't wait until a B-2 squadron blasts it to pieces at the outset of a Taiwanese crisis. I'm also very glad I live in the midwestern United States where they don't bother to aim strategic missiles.

We need to add a radar to th CIWS the curant targeting range is useless

MonkeyNutz · Post by **MonkeyNutz** » 2006-01-27 11:11

FlyBoy wrote:I agree something simple is all that is really needed, i do like the ideas that others suggested though.

well hey, i agree with you that planes in this mod cant be entirely realistic, but neither can the tanks, im sure its more complicated to drive a tank in RL, same with a helicopter. PR cant make every single vehicle 100% realistic, but it seems no one suggests taking them out, its always the planes the people want to see leave or make them something along the lines of a commanders asset.

I have plenty of Flight sims, so one might ask why i want planes to stay in the mod even though i know they arent realistic, well its simple, i just love to fly, and its always cool seeing an intense battle going on below you, then a tank comes up, killing you allies, then you come in blow up the tank, saves the day. Every time i get a kill, i never think "yes another kill" I always think "good, thats one less guy for my team to worry about".

I love aircraft, and im sure they will stay in the mod.

Yeah true. It's not really the lack of realism that grinds, let's face it BF2 isn't trying to be realistic, just the fact that planes are just "out of place" with in BF2.

Everything needs to follow a basic set of rules or scale to find it's place in a gaming universe. For example heavy armoured vehicals are slow but resilient and pack a punch but are easy targets. Light vehicles are fast and great for quick insertion but more then a fart in the general direction leaves them as nothing more then a skid mark on the landscape.

This is where planes grind for me (it might change post patch):

You have a weapons platform that is hard to hit due to speed.
At the same time you can fly slower then a WWII fighter plane
You have more destructive capability then any other vehicle, made easy by the fact you can carpet bomb at 100 mph.
I've died more times by getting suicided into (where Billy the human missile decides his life Vs full Blackhawk is a good trade off) then getting shot down.

So basically it's the balancing more then anything.

Post by **Saobh** » 2006-01-27 12:37

One thing that bothers me with all the air thing is, in reality do jet fighters and such take of and just roam around the battlefield and blow up anything they like ?
they may have a bit af liberty in their actions but i beleive they are pretty there and ready in an objective kind of way.
a squad has come against a hard point , be it armor , a well positioned sniper, or a well entrenched enemy squad. they call on the air support who comes and crushes that position.
In order to do that you should be able to pinpoint to the pilots ( jets or helis ) the location that needs taken care of. be it laser marking ( sniper/scout ? ) or by colored smoke grenades (new use for the assault guy ).
air power must be powerfull, they must have the means to uterlly crush the enemy position. but for the rest they should be pretty discreet.

I know that it entails all lot of modifications on its workings ( problably be difficult to implement the laser/smoke marking for the bombers or helis )
but i beleive it would bring a much greater realism to the game.
Because as of now people in the air are much more the ultimate Lone wolfs of this game, we have to get them back into the teamwork frame, and that should benefit us all.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-01-27 15:23

basically, once the mod is fleshed out planes would have a proper role and a more focused action. this will happen after several of the ideas already mentioned in other threads come together, for instance someone suggested that landing to be a necessity for rearm to happen, others suggested the idea of the laser designator for marking targets for aircraft, another suggested commander's air strike. it will take some time to work out how to integrate these points (if we do in the end decides to include them) but hopefully once they are all set, there'll be no more lone wolves cruising the sky and blowing random targets to his heart content.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-01-27 15:50

I've died more times by getting suicided into (where Billy the human missile decides his life Vs full Blackhawk is a good trade off) then getting shot down.

Yep.

A suggestion I posted a while back would help fix this:

Losing more tickets for higher end gear.

Basically, tanks will lose, say 10 tickets each death, APCs 5 each death, choppers 15 each death, jets 20 each death, etc.

SO, when Billy takes the 300 million dollar jet on a cruise into the 100 million dollar Blackhawk, Billy's team is gonna feel the pain. Oh, and I don't really know the exact prices of those vehicles, but I'm pretty sure a jet is more expensive (to build and maintain) than a helicopter

.

Tzefanya · Post by **Tzefanya** » 2006-01-27 16:39

Brilliant idea beta. I love the tickets being tied to vehicles.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-27 20:16

I think then more tickets would have to be added, just for the sake of a long game, using your equipment stupidly would still result in bad losses.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-01-27 20:32

The ticket idea is nice, wouldnt mind to see it implemented

I've died more times by getting suicided into (where Billy the human missile decides his life Vs full Blackhawk is a good trade off) then getting shot down.

Im not going to deny that some pilots do this, i have seen it myself, but i never ever suicide someone, there has been a couple of accidents though

This is where planes grind for me (it might change post patch):

You have a weapons platform that is hard to hit due to speed.

well thats true in real life isnt it

At the same time you can fly slower then a WWII fighter plane

I agree this is something that really needs to be fixed, but with a enemy plane flying this slow to you, any AA or tank or apc should be able to take it out.

You have more destructive capability then any other vehicle, made easy by the fact you can carpet bomb at 100 mph.

Well planes in Real life do have more destructive capability than any other vehicle, alreay touched on the speed thing.

I Can tell you have had a bad experience with pilots who employ these " "cheap tactics" This is where the bad pilots give the rest of us a bad name

, especially with the team work part, anytime i play a match and im in a plane, I always work for the better of a team, when i played on the heli war map and i got in the F-18, my team needed someone to destroy the bridge but everyone who tryed to do it was gunned down, so i bombed the bridge for my team, i didnt get any points out of it, i did it for the team.

Why?! · Post by **Why?!** » 2006-01-28 15:46

MonkeyNutz wrote:At the same time you can fly slower then a WWII fighter plane

I fly a lot of Falcon 4.0, and close in dogfights do take place at WWII aircraft speeds. A close in fight with a MiG will usually have you using guns with speeds varying between 200 to 350 knots. Of course the thing that WWII planes cannot do is accelerate from 200 knots to 500 knots in only ~15 seconds, not to mention being able to rocket straight upwards without losing too much speed. Not too hard considering that the F-16C Block 52 engine generates 28,500 lbs of thrust in afterburner, and the plane itself only weighs ~18,000 lbs.

The thing that would save planes in BF2 is to make them much less maneuverable. Honestly, the speed they fly at in BF2 is fine considering how small the maps are, but they are just too maneuverable. In my opinion FH had the best balance between fighters and ground vehicles. Those planes took skill to fly because they were faster, and nowhere near as maneuverable as they used to be.

One other thing that may be considered, although unrealistic, is to have dedicated fighters and bombers. These days even a dedicated fighter craft like the F-16 can still be a considerable ground pounder. One possible loadout in F4.0 uses 12 Mk.82 dumb bombs, insanely overkill in the BF2 world. In BF2 it is possible to make fighter craft dedicated fighters, and make the fighter/bombers dedicated bombers. DC did this. (I think, never really ever played DC) The primary anti-ground craft was the A-10, and it was supported by the fighters such as the F-16. Also, it would be good to have only one of the bombers/attack planes at once, and have several fighters as escort.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-01-28 17:48

Not sure if it's possible, but wouldn't mind seeing some G force loading effects on pilots as a way of reducing manouverability. I'd be surprised if the engine had any notion of g forces tho.

egg

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-28 19:31

Why?! wrote:I fly a lot of Falcon 4.0, and close in dogfights do take place at WWII aircraft speeds. A close in fight with a MiG will usually have you using guns with speeds varying between 200 to 350 knots. Of course the thing that WWII planes cannot do is accelerate from 200 knots to 500 knots in only ~15 seconds, not to mention being able to rocket straight upwards without losing too much speed. Not too hard considering that the F-16C Block 52 engine generates 28,500 lbs of thrust in afterburner, and the plane itself only weighs ~18,000 lbs.

The thing that would save planes in BF2 is to make them much less maneuverable. Honestly, the speed they fly at in BF2 is fine considering how small the maps are, but they are just too maneuverable. In my opinion FH had the best balance between fighters and ground vehicles. Those planes took skill to fly because they were faster, and nowhere near as maneuverable as they used to be.

One other thing that may be considered, although unrealistic, is to have dedicated fighters and bombers. These days even a dedicated fighter craft like the F-16 can still be a considerable ground pounder. One possible loadout in F4.0 uses 12 Mk.82 dumb bombs, insanely overkill in the BF2 world. In BF2 it is possible to make fighter craft dedicated fighters, and make the fighter/bombers dedicated bombers. DC did this. (I think, never really ever played DC) The primary anti-ground craft was the A-10, and it was supported by the fighters such as the F-16. Also, it would be good to have only one of the bombers/attack planes at once, and have several fighters as escort.

you should see me dogfight on JSF i kick *** i have a unique style of flying so to speak

Post by **KingofCamelot** » 2006-01-28 22:07

I'm not 100% sure, but I think its possible to make "out-of-bounds" areas that only affect one team or the other. So, you could create an "out-of-bounds" over each team's airfield, and set the time allowed "out-of-bounds" quite low. This way its not possible for jets to rape the enemy airfield without taking damage.

Just throwing it out there.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-28 23:13

'[R-DEV wrote:KingofCamelot']I'm not 100% sure, but I think its possible to make "out-of-bounds" areas that only affect one team or the other. So, you could create an "out-of-bounds" over each team's airfield, and set the time allowed "out-of-bounds" quite low. This way its not possible for jets to rape the enemy airfield without taking damage.

Just throwing it out there.

It is, but last time I tried it screwed up. Seems that the possibility is there, but BF2 doesnt really support multiple out of bounds areas. But I didnt really dig deep into it.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-29 13:25

have a go if it works i'll love you for ever airfield rape is really bad taste and crude.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2006-01-29 17:36

'[R-DEV wrote:KingofCamelot']I'm not 100% sure, but I think its possible to make "out-of-bounds" areas that only affect one team or the other. So, you could create an "out-of-bounds" over each team's airfield, and set the time allowed "out-of-bounds" quite low. This way its not possible for jets to rape the enemy airfield without taking damage.

Just throwing it out there.

Sort of like an agreement to a "No-Fly Zone" which is a Rule of War present in the Geneva Contracts...

Could make for some interesting map story-lines.

Szarko · Post by **Szarko** » 2006-01-29 22:41

would be cool to do that if it was possible.... the out bounds areas just for one team...

so is anyone going to make this map or what???

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-01-29 22:56

I have to admit, I have rammed full blackhawks before, but it was always an accident. The problem is, people don't believe it's an accident the third time it happens on one server... I, and I'm sure many other honest pilots, just get over zealous with the cannon. This hopefully won't happen too much if the missles actually become usefull.

Also, I posted this on a B-52 thread, but it's appropriate here aswell.

Reading about the B-52 I just thunked up myself an idear. There could be an air map where the U.S. fighters has to escort a B-52 against enemy fighters. If possible, the B-52 should be impervious to ramming(I know this isn't realistic but ramming would be too easy). The map would have to be huge and the B-52 pretty damn slow. The map wouldn't have to end when the B-52 bombs it's target or is shot down as this would make very short rounds. Maybe this would allow the U.S. to spawn near the opposing enemy flags or something.