Few Ideas for PR

[MarineSeaknight]

Should be only 2x RPGs. I don’t know if that is realistic or not because US armor is quite tough. If the defense ever comes into play, Dev. can always change hit damage to please players.

There is only two reasons why it could not be in play.

1. Dev. Team is not experienced enouph to advance a code for defence like that.(Witch I do not belive because they have done exceptional
so far)

2. BF2 engine is not compatible. (Doubt)

I just want to know if it is a good idea or not... I keep hearing that it is impossible for the defence to work in the mod. There is a lot of things in the mod that people thought could not happen in the BF2 engine.

I also keep getting hit back with the accuracey a lot. We need a poll with advanced players to see what people say about that.(that is why I ask for all opinions. I love to figure out what people think about new ideas.) So far it seemes its only me that thinks that....

Thanks for the comment Freelance.

The Challenger 2 is a British tank, not US. I've heard there was a tank in Al Basrah in real life that took only minor damage to 70 RPG hits. Whether this is true or not, I know for a fact that modern tanks can take quite a few RPG hits before being decomissioned.

Smoke, have you any experience with the BF2editor? These developers from BlackSandStudios have been the best I've seen with modifying the Battlefield series. The BF2 Engine is very limited to modifying, and quite a few things are hard-coded. Lastly, to implement such an armor defense system would be rather unrealistic as BloodBane has stated.

[SMOKE911]

I've heard of tests for systems like this, but I believe it has yet to be implemented. Therefore making it unrealistic. Here is the real deal with the trophy system as it applies to the US Military: Global Security

There is research being done on close-in-protection systems, but they are not implemented, and will not be at least for some time into the future.



If a commander needs recon he talks to his squads in the field. Adding UAVs everywhere would not only be unrealistic for many of the teams, but would needlessly complicate the game.



Adding a commander kit would be a bit ridiculous, but I can see how taking away his weapon would force him to focus on his duties. Regardless, the commander does have to enter combat areas sometimes, and if it comes down to it he might really need that rifle.
As for the build system, in .6 the com was the only one able to place objects. The system was changed for many reasons, but I think the overall view is that the .7 system is an improvement over the old.

Correct MarineSeaknight Thanks for correcting.

[MarineSeaknight]

If I'm correct, which I'm pretty sure I am, those are where the smokescreen comes out when you hit X as a driver.

EDIT(Taken from Wikipedia's article on the C2): On each side of the turret are five L8 smoke grenade dischargers

...and if you count the number of dischargers on the Challenger 2 in the render you provided, there are in fact, 5 on each side.

[jerkzilla]

Man you guys sure do a poor job explaining.
Ever played 0.6, SMOKE911?
If you did, you'd know that there was no deviation in any of the rifles (what you described as inaccuracy). The problem with that was that since the Bf2 engine could not do weapon sway and, allegedly, in a real combat situation, there are also factors like stress, stamina and so on, that would make aiming kinda hard, if you were a support gunner in 0.6 firing 10s/100s of rounds at a target to suppress it, whoever it was you were shooting at would just pop out from cover, similar to a jack-in-the-box, and headshot you.
Commander assets are now placeable by squad leaders to let the commander command and not act like some construction site manager constantly moving all over the map while commanding his squads.
Tanks are not easy to kill, unless the driver is an idiot or the guy using HAT is good at it.
Personally, I'd rather not see UAVs back.

[KP]

Jerk speaks the truth. Listen to him.