would it be cool to have MLRS

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-09-23 02:56

Crewed artillery hell yeah!! I'd personaly like to see smoke rounds being added to the artilleries arsenal. The ability to deliver a heavy barrage of concealing smoke can be just the thing to allow the Blackhawk to insert her load and position the armor for the big push.

DAWG wrote: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.

Hickman · Post by **Hickman** » 2005-09-23 06:46

Over at Total-War our Mini mod team added smoke to the M109 and M-Sta (The mini mod was POE tweaked for tournament play) And it did exactly what it said on the tin! As you discribed above, we used it to smoke flags and attacks to great effect.

as well as seeing short range artillery like the MLRS introduced.

I see your point. However MLRS is classed as a Heavy assest and is not short range. It's been mentioned before, But we could introduce vehical mounted 81mm mortars as the short range solution.

eg:

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-23 13:47

actually POE added the smoke not Casket

and if you gonna use the vehicular 81mm mortar use the LAV-25 version not the M-133

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-09-23 17:56

Beckwith wrote:actually POE added the smoke not Casket

and if you gonna use the vehicular 81mm mortar use the LAV-25 version not the M-133

That's not a photo of an M113, I believe it's a British FV 432 mortar carrier. The LAV-M is used by the USMC, yes, but the US Army (who will eventually be represented in game) have the M1064A3 120mm mortar carrier that uses the M113 chassis.

Originally Posted by DAWG

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.

The Russians have a few pieces that they classify as anti-tank guns, but most can also be used for indirect fire or general fire support. So, anti-tank guns are still around.

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-09-23 20:39

'[R-DEV wrote:Hickman']Over at Total-War our Mini mod team added smoke to the M109 and M-Sta (The mini mod was POE tweaked for tournament play) And it did exactly what it said on the tin! As you discribed above, we used it to smoke flags and attacks to great effect.

I see your point. However MLRS is classed as a Heavy assest and is not short range. It's been mentioned before, But we could introduce vehical mounted 81mm mortars as the short range solution.

eg:

Yeah I played TW2 & TW3, I played it for some time on the coalition side. I can certainly remember the carnage that yourself and Red could cause with the MLRS, your ability with the big guns caused me no end of heart ache at strategy meetings. Hopefully we get to see the M109 and equivalents in game. You opposition monkeys over at TW bitched about it and got them tweaked down so far because of Birdkiller and Luckyshots abilities that they got removed pretty much entirely, which meant we never really got to see battles with serious smoke barrages, maybe this time.

Certainly the size of the maps in BF2 would lend to the use of mortars, in BF:V the maps were usually to open or simply too small to conceal mortar teams long enough to be of any real use. Except on None but the Brave, you guys did a swell job lobbing those mortars over flag 4 into the coalition main. Hell I loved that map to begin with, but we played it so often it just became a pain in the arse.

I no what you mean about the heavy assests, really I should have said medium range artillery, as I don't feel that in game MLRS should have the range of the main artillery. In a game situation it would be nice to have several different peices of artillery with differing advantages and disadvantages for use on specific maps.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-24 04:19

just so long as you dont a have crazy korean kid trying to use the bradley instead claiming it was better than the motars

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-09-24 05:12

DAWG...DAWG! Get out the Bradley DAWG! DAWG! Get out the Bradley... DAWG the Bradleys mine DAWG... DAWG! DAWG! please get out the Bradley. DAWG! DAWG! Beckwith took the Bradley...You said I could use the Bradley? Beckwith please get out the Bradley?

Now imagine this using Michael Jacksons voice, you really had to be there I guess.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-09-24 06:12

ROFLMAO yea you def had to be there god it was classic

Post by **Wolfmaster** » 2005-09-24 12:13

lol that made me laugh just reading it.

wish i'd seen been there....

Post by **bosco_** » 2009-02-16 17:25

Nice bump whoever voted.

would it be cool to have MLRS

good idea or not

Re: would it be cool to have MLRS