Bombing costs tickets

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2007-08-08 15:15

bombing costs tickets!
Think this would be a great Idea i explain:

like in real life it cost money to make bombs so when game starts and you get a plane you first must arm bombs(2 i think, right ?), thats costs lets say -5 tickets the bombs before you can bomb, so when you dropped youre bombs you need to rearm and the tickets reduce -5 again
(Only when rearming new bombs)

and than it would something like and expensive air support (the bombing plane) and only when realy needed so it would be like calling airsupport

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-08-08 17:47

If a bomb will cost 20 tickers, then its no point in boming a tank, coz even if the tank is full you team will loose 20 tickets while the other team will loose 3.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2007-08-08 17:52

youre right with to much tickets but maybe -5 or something

well if infantry cant fight the tank than its needed for air support and need to call 1. dont think you see bombers just flying trough the map for targets,, need to get called for support

and i think its pretty stupid that someone takes a jet and just gonna rape everybody with bombs.

and i think it encourage the use off tanks and H-AT AT and other explosive weapons for INF.
(mostly tanks,H-AT and AT is not in use when i am in a server)

nicoX · Post by **nicoX** » 2007-08-08 18:13

Not a bad idea. Besides if loosing tickets the commander should have the priority do decline using e.g. planes if he finds it not doing the job well.

Post by **Deadfast** » 2007-08-08 18:18

Not a good idea. At least not till deploying a new tank costs a tickets aswell (and you can bet it costs much more to produce a new tank than a new bomb).

nicoX · Post by **nicoX** » 2007-08-08 18:45

In a way the spawn time is an alternative to ticket loss.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-08-08 18:55

I'd prefer to see ticket costs for losing vehicluar assets instead...

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2007-08-08 19:07

well then someone is just gonna flyaround with his bombs an rape everybody with it
and planes gonna be an much more assets where you need an plan for like real live

system · Post by **system** » 2007-08-08 20:22

Expendable Grunt wrote:I'd prefer to see ticket costs for losing vehicluar assets instead...

Agreed.

Post by **Dunehunter** » 2007-08-08 20:26

If I'm not mistaken, there is one already.

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-08-08 22:48

arjan wrote:well then someone is just gonna flyaround with his bombs an rape everybody with it
and planes gonna be an much more assets where you need an plan for like real live

A10 only got 2 bombs, therefore u have to land after every second bomb. So you cant actually rape everything with bombs. And if they do, get a fighter

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-08-08 23:49

Exactly, it's pain in the arse to land aswell considering BF2s terrible physics and the ability to damage runways. Plus when you ground yourself it takes a good couple of minutes to reload or something like that.

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-08-09 00:18

Don't like the idea. Tickets reflect total manpower available/left to your team. A bomb wouldn't cost any mapower.

Post by **PRC_Heavy_Z** » 2007-08-09 00:22

^ exactly. bad idea

MajorPwnag3 · Post by **MajorPwnag3** » 2007-08-09 00:27

Even if you were to have a -2 ticket penalty for bombs, you would loose, or break even on tickets for destroying a tank except if it was fully loaded with people, and even then you would only have a 1 ticket advantage. Blowing up APCs and cars with bombs is a waste even without the penalty so don't try to argue that it would make it less of a dumb idea. There should be ticket losses for getting a vehicle destroyed, but never for rearming. Next thing you know, it'll be -2 tickets for each tank round, -3 for a C4, and -1 for every pistol magazine. Yes, weapons cost money, but $20,000 for a bomb is nothing compared to the $2,000,000+ for the aircraft that's carrying it. Sorry if I seem critical, but this idea seems like it would bog down gameplay and make PR worse, not better. Think of it this way: you loose tickets when a vehicle goes down because they have to build a new one, but that "cost" is including the munitions that come standard on the vehicle, and any rearming is done with munitions already in the field that are, therefore, already paid for.

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-08-09 01:03

I rarely drop bombs anyway, they take a long time to re-arm (quite rightly so) and I don't want to be sat on the runway for absolutely ages blocking it up.

Also, the 30mm Vulcan on the A-10 is extremely effective against structures and light vehicles. The Maverick ATGM is more effective than any dummy bomb on a tank/APC.

SGT.JOKER · Post by **SGT.JOKER** » 2007-08-09 10:32

NO. i dont want some trigger happy pilot losing the round for my team.

Jimmy_Smack · Post by **Jimmy_Smack** » 2007-08-09 11:44

That is like giving a kid some candy but telling him that his abusive father will smack him in the face whenever he tries to eat it.

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-08-10 01:12

arjan wrote:youre right with to much tickets but maybe -5 or something

well if infantry cant fight the tank than its needed for air support and need to call 1. dont think you see bombers just flying trough the map for targets,, need to get called for support

and i think its pretty stupid that someone takes a jet and just gonna rape everybody with bombs.

and i think it encourage the use off tanks and H-AT AT and other explosive weapons for INF.
(mostly tanks,H-AT and AT is not in use when i am in a server)

Suggestions like this from people like these are the reason that the Vietnam war was the biggest Airforce disaster in history.

TF6049 · Post by **TF6049** » 2007-08-10 02:43

Short answer: No.
Long answer: I don't want to hear this ever again.

Bombing costs tickets

IDEA ?