Posted: 2006-05-20 23:18
VBSS, you say?'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']
So, riverine maps, maritime interdiction / non-compliant VBSS scenarios, etc. are things we have been looking at.![]()
VBSS, you say?'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']
So, riverine maps, maritime interdiction / non-compliant VBSS scenarios, etc. are things we have been looking at.![]()
Not really. The "Carriers" in BF2 are really Amphibious Warfare ships. USMC Helicopter carriers. They don't get a full battle group. But yes, they would get some kind of defence.Burning Mustache wrote: No offense, but I think this is a stupid idea, and unrealistic on top of that.
If you want to enable the MEC to attack the carrier, then you would also need to add 5 submarines and gunships around the carrier, because in real life, NO aircraft carrier travels without heavily armored support ships.
In BF2, there is no need to simulate this because the on-shore forces are not usually supposed to capture the aircraft carriers. The carriers only server as an off-shore spawnpoint to enable battles taking place at coastlines, not to simulate real sea battles, etc.
The Wasp class amphibious assault ships are armed with more than just the Phalanx CIWS (which, in its Block II configuration, can be used against surface craft) for close range defense. They also have 3-4 25mm Bushmaster automatic cannons (the same type found on the Bradley) and various mounts aboard the ship for heavy and medium machineguns, which can include single or twin .50s, Mk-19 automatic grenade launchers and GAUSE-17 miniguns.Malik wrote:How many Amphibious Warfare ships have you seen with over ten 50 calibre machine guns? Last I checked they have those big defense canister weapons, but their main defense would be accompanying ships. I like the sound of having extra transport boats, but I don't want the game to become a huge naval warfare thing.