UAV's Vs. Commander(a compromise)

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2004-11-28 05:46

In light of the recent argument of the role the commander should play. I have a compromise. As of now UAV's are beggining to play a major role on the battlefield. In game the UAV's could be launched off a short runway with a control booth at the end. The pilot would simply enter the boot and take over control of the UAV, much like how the droids work in Galactic Conques for Battle Field(some of you have played this, I know Beret has). The UAV's would be able to spot targets for artillary(like scout vehicles do now) or identify targets for ground or airborn forces to destroy.

Now the commander. The commander would have a normal map(not a godlike view) with all of his troops on it. He would be able to talk to them, set waypoints. He could also work with the UAV to organize troop movements if the pilot found a flag that was ungaurded.

I think it would work out much better this way, as the commander would do what he does IRL, and a new tool for BF is born. The UAV.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2004-11-28 05:56

A good suggestion, we are also currently addressing this issue. We are aiming to provide a solution that will make everyone happy. However, we will have to look over all the options first, and decide which avenue is most realistic and has the ability to be integrated into BF2.

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2004-11-28 06:02

I like it. It would give the commander a very good and realtime view of a limited part of the map (i e only what can be seen by the cameras on the UAV).
I don't think you should call this a compromise. It's a damn good suggestion that I'd really like to see in game.

A few things though, there should be a mobile controlcenter for the UAV or, in the case the UAV is launched from a carrier you could enter a room on the carrier to take control of the drone. Also, the drone shouldn't need an airstrip to launch or land, any piece of flat terrain should do.

Archangel · Post by **Archangel** » 2004-11-28 06:42

the booth/vehicle should(better be) destroyable too or limit it to where the only person who CAN enter is the commander

Silverwolf · Post by **Silverwolf** » 2004-11-28 11:32

A very good idea, and one with a lot of merit. Archangel's suggestion is also good, as this would mean the commander can only hav his 'over-view' if in the booth/vehicle, and it being destroyable would work to prevent the enemy commander from being as powerful.

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2004-11-28 16:29

I believe the commander starts the game in his own little "booth". The UAV pilot would have to be sperate and work together with the commander. The commander would however be able to see what the UAV was seeing and he could use his waypoint feature to set waypoints for the pilot to fly.

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2004-11-28 16:49

Can you say "LandWarrior" everyone?
Link :--> http://www.gdds.com/landwarrior/main.html

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2004-11-28 17:00

LAnd warrior = fubared. How on earth is a normal soldier going to get around an active battle field without breaking half the stuff on that. Anyways, whasat got to do with UAV's?

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2004-11-28 17:49

Did you read what it says on the site I linked?
It means that every soldier equipped with the landwarrior system will have a very up to date set of information to work with.
As for the equipment being "fragile", well, I believe this system to eventually become as rugged as any combat gear. It will have flaws in it's early versions, so did the M16.

What does it have to do with UAV:s? A lot I'd say. The info from the UAV:s could be relayed to the landwarrior equipped commander who, in turn, can relay what he deems important data to the rest of his team.

It's the Digital Battlefield. It's almost here in the real world so why not in a game that's supposed to be in the near future?

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2004-11-28 17:55

Ewwwww digital battlefield(how ironic, I play on one every day). But the question is, will it be in wide-scale usage in the near future? IE this decade. BF2 is modern, IE today, not 20 years from now.

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2004-11-28 18:16

I was under the impression that PR would be set in the near future ie up to a decade from now and by then, yes, I believe that the landwarrior will be on the stage. Not for every soldier but one or two per squad plus squadleader.
Be this as it may, I DO agree with you that there should not be some sort of magic superview available for anyone in the game. A narrow strip below a UAV with more detail for the commander should be more than sufficient for this game. Though a working LW system would be cool!

Silverwolf · Post by **Silverwolf** » 2004-11-29 00:40

Ugly Duck wrote:Ewwwww digital battlefield(how ironic, I play on one every day). But the question is, will it be in wide-scale usage in the near future? IE this decade. BF2 is modern, IE today, not 20 years from now.

BF2 is supposed to be slightly futuristic, as EA & Dice hav stated in a number of interviews, as this allows them to bring weapons/equipment that are still under development into the game, like the M8 n M29.

G-CAP · Post by **G-CAP** » 2004-11-30 00:43

Post by **Black Beret** » 2004-11-30 01:30

G-CAP wrote:yea

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2004-11-30 04:15

Silverwolf wrote:
Ugly Duck wrote:Ewwwww digital battlefield(how ironic, I play on one every day). But the question is, will it be in wide-scale usage in the near future? IE this decade. BF2 is modern, IE today, not 20 years from now.
BF2 is supposed to be slightly futuristic, as EA & Dice hav stated in a number of interviews, as this allows them to bring weapons/equipment that are still under development into the game, like the M8 n M29.

Well if that's the case hopefully FN's SCAR will be added to replace that pos known as the M8. SOCOM wanting nothing to do with the XM8 program is one more blow to the program.

Silverwolf · Post by **Silverwolf** » 2004-11-30 04:37

hmmm, k, yeh hadn't seen anything bout FN taking over from H&K for the new SF rifle (nothing bout it on FN's main site that I can see), anyone got any links for Specs or pics of it??

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2004-11-30 04:48

No pics, but I've read that it's based partially on the FNC/AK-5 rifle series. There will be a few 5.56mm versions and two 7.62x51mm/7.62x39mm rifles.

It hasn't been 100% confirmed but this is not the first I've heard of FN winning the contract either.

Here's an article about it.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=648

Silverwolf · Post by **Silverwolf** » 2004-11-30 08:38

Well going by that article EA/Dice may include both the M8 & FN's SCAR, this of course is simply my personal opinion

, though it would be cool. But then of cors if they don't, maybe our lovely modding team we hav here would be willing to add in the FN SCAR *grovels on hands n knees*

Anti-}{ero · Post by **Anti-}{ero** » 2004-12-04 21:48

The XM-29 project has been scraped... took to much money, and was to heavy for the individual soldier. As for the XM-8 that has been said many many time to be the next weapon for the US. It has been stated everywhere, even from the military. They are sopposed to be entering circulation in 2006... but there is a company in Iraq right now that is using them, for field testing purposes i guess. Whether that has anything to do with this new FN SCAR.. i have no clue, but im just stating some facts.

getting back on track here...

I think that the UAV should be integrated into BF:2/PR.This would add a very powerful weapon, if used right. I think that there should be a booth, that could be destroyable, but it cant be too far, where the oppisition cant find it. BUT, i believe the UAV should be destroyable, from say one or two SAM missles? That would give the opp a chance to destroy the comunication drone, and be a great relife that they made the oppisitions General blind.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2004-12-04 21:50

Who are your sources? Where are you getting your facts? link?