Project Reality Forums

i just think that it should all be player controlled, otherwise the commander keeps his godlike position, which IMO is very bad for gameplay.

dawdler wrote:I thought big bombers where pretty obsolute today. How about an F117 with smartbombs?

When the marines and army went into Iraq, B-52's, and B-1b Lancers were sent in to carpet bomb many locations. Smart bombs dont always do the trick, gotta rely on the old school sometimes to get things done.

Weren't they still using some B-52's in Afghanistan for CAS simply due to the fact that the fighters didn't have enough loiter time, even with with the refueling. Not like they had to worry about a dedicated or high tech air defense network there either.

using a B-52 for CAS sounds like a pretty stupid idea

thatd be like using a daisy cutter to take out one guy in a bunker

CAS is CLOSE Air Support. Things like the A-10 are used in that role, or F-18's, F-16's, Cobra's... basically anything that can get in close to the ground forces to support it with relitave flexibility of where they can be. ie move around the battlefield where they're needed. I can't see a B-52 doing that, although it'd be interesting I'll give you that!

And methinks B-52's can get just over half way to Afghanistan from Southern England on one fuel load. They refuel mid mission, twice I think, once there once back (or is it 3?).

they take off from England? i would have thought Aviano (Italy) or somewhere in the US

They were using Guam and Diego Garcia too I think, maybe even Lousianna. In regards to CAS missions, they were mostly overhead to drop JDAM's using coordinates from the guys on the ground. I think they've got them to the point where they can hit moving targets with the things.

Replacing Artillery + Player Controlled = More bombers

WHy not have dedicated bomber aircraft, instead of an F15 bomber version, or a JSF with 2 bombs? Why not have player controllable bomber aircraft with a high bomb load (slower reload times), and scrap artillery all together?

Did somebody mention B52 bombing?

'[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith']they take off from England? i would have thought Aviano (Italy) or somewhere in the US

That'd be funny. We meet up in some bar in NYC.

"Hey beck"
"Sup Art"
"Whatcha doin tomorrow, me and some people are hitting up a ballgame, wanna come. The yanks are lookin good."
"Depends on the time. I'm doing a bombing run from 7am to 5pm.. but I'll be free after that."

I just want stukas with the dive-siren.


Coolest airplane ever.

That'd make for a cool easter egg, actually. Have it come flying with "Troels" written on the side. Or one of those commercials towed after it going "Troels is watching".

This game needs more land vehicles not aircraft, We also need more accurate anti-air. The prmm mod did make them better but the stingers still suck.

Artillery is cool you guys...why do you want to get rid of it?

PM DEV TEAM DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, KEEP THE ARTY!

Because you're not supposed to call in artillery strikes within 600 meters of your position.

Add mortars!

What is actually possible to do in a BF2 mod?

I think the aircrafts in BF2 is a little bit misplaced and makes the game unbalanced. Everything in BF2 is done with the rock-paper-scissors policy except for the planes. Even the helicopters, that sometimes seems a bit powerful in the hands of skilled pilots and gunners, can easily be shot down with some teamwork. But the planes can't really be shot down by infantry or ground vehicles or helicopters. Not even the SAMs are very effective against a really skilled pilot. So that leaves us with planes fighting planes... and that would be just fine, but planes are also very deadly against ground targets.

That's a little bit like playing rock-paper-scissors with only rock and scissors.... not that fun, eh?

So what am I suggesting?
Well, as someone might have mentioned earlier a solution to this would be to equip the planes with smart bombs as their only ground armament and make them require a laser designation from the ground. They'd still be very deadly, but it would require more teamwork, and it would make it possible to protect yourself from them by taking out the designating soldier on the ground..... But, is this even possible to do in a BF2 mod?

The same applies to artillery. As most here seem to agree about, artillery attacks from the commander is too powerful and require to little skill. Why not make it a team effort. Remove the possibility for the commander to call in artillery by himself and just make it possible to accept artillery requests from troops.... But then again, is this even possible to do in a BF2 mod?

I think they had the laser guiding built into the engine but removed it for whatever reason, most likely to give us in another addon pack knowing EA. Anyway I digress. Unless they removed the code my guess is it's a simple case of finding it and reactivating it for the new designator "weapon".

'[PTG wrote: Stu007']Replacing Artillery + Player Controlled = More bombers

WHy not have dedicated bomber aircraft, instead of an F15 bomber version, or a JSF with 2 bombs? Why not have player controllable bomber aircraft with a high bomb load (slower reload times), and scrap artillery all together?

Did somebody mention B52 bombing?

LOL you realize that you would have to be in a constant turn to have a player flown bomber, especially the B-52 or B-1..... maps would have to be very large to do it, plus you would have to have control of a land base which would throw alot of the maps out for using them. Would be funny though watching people scatter when you see hear it take off

It'd take half the map to get airbourne.

...And the other half to get above the blast radius...