Suggestions from Cerberus

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 03:01

1. For urban maps, get rid of artillery. No one in their right mind would bombard a city while their forces were fighting close engagements in it. [for urban maps] replace the artillery with mortar strikes that could be used every now and then. They could last longer but have less devestation than an arty strike. Keep artillery available on big open maps.

2. Realistic maps. I don't want to be fighting for a ****ing dam. Towns, airfields, cities, etc

3. Maps with objectives. Maybe some seizable objectives may include an airfield, a FARP, a vital town, a weapons cache, a hideout, etc, and the map will be won when that objective is taken. Or maybe one team has to blow something up (have an engineer place C4 on weapons cache, etc).

4. Longer respawn times. Can't stress this enough; people need to value their lives and not run through streets without scanning the area for enemies.

5. Longer respawn time for vehicles, along with longer reload and repair times.

6. If possible, please put in a reticle for the where the bombs are going to land (on the HUD).

7. APCs are called Armored Personnel Carriers for a reason. They shouldn't be one-man killing machines with machine guns on every side. Weaken the strength of the main gun so people will actually use them for transport.

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2005-11-22 03:18

1. For urban maps, get rid of artillery. No one in their right mind would bombard a city while their forces were fighting close engagements in it. [for urban maps] replace the artillery with mortar strikes that could be used every now and then. They could last longer but have less devestation than an arty strike. Keep artillery available on big open maps.

1 - Im a fan of that. Sound like a good idea.

2. Realistic maps. I don't want to be fighting for a ****ing dam. Towns, airfields, cities, etc
2- I started working on a airfield one, but work got in the way.

3. Maps with objectives. Maybe some seizable objectives may include an airfield, a FARP, a vital town, a weapons cache, a hideout, etc, and the map will be won when that objective is taken. Or maybe one team has to blow something up (have an engineer place C4 on weapons cache, etc).

3 - I think there working on it. I would love to see a shoot out at a town or something.

4. Longer respawn times. Can't stress this enough; people need to value their lives and not run through streets without scanning the area for enemies.

4 - Yeah I thought this was a big deal for this mod?

5. Longer respawn time for vehicles, along with longer reload and repair times.

5 - Yeah again I thought this was a big deal for this mod? maybe 10 min?

6. If possible, please put in a reticle for the where the bombs are going to land (on the HUD).

6 - NAWWWWWWWWWWW LOL

7. APCs are called Armored Personnel Carriers for a reason. They shouldn't be one-man killing machines with machine guns on every side. Weaken the strength of the main gun so people will actually use them for transport.

7 - No Comment

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-11-22 03:22

I agree with everything but #7. Making the APC's gun weaker would make the mod unrealistic. Remember the point of this mod is realism. Being hit by one of those apc rounds or being near the explosion of an HE round will render you incapacitated.

And it's not like APCs are invincible, all it takes is an AT guy. But it should be a hit hit kill with the AT weapon to kill an APC, and one tank shell to take it out as well. They are meant to be exclusively small arm resistant, I think.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 03:22

In response to coderedfox

Regarding your thoughts number 5... ten minutes is too longer, IMO

Regarding your opinion number 6... because of the longer respawn and reload times, precise bombings by aircraft could not be done at a rapid pace.

And to all:

I guess you're right about number seven.

Another suggestion

8. Less MBTs

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 03:35

Hmm... hold on while I edit this post

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 04:02

Well, I mean on maps where MBTs should not be fighting.

And for maps such as Karkand, I don't think the infantry would be assisted by a platoon of M1A2s in such a small area.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-11-22 04:31

why did you delete my post?

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-22 06:27

Armand61685 wrote:I agree with everything but #7. Making the APC's gun weaker would make the mod unrealistic. Remember the point of this mod is realism. Being hit by one of those apc rounds or being near the explosion of an HE round will render you incapacitated.

And it's not like APCs are invincible, all it takes is an AT guy. But it should be a hit hit kill with the AT weapon to kill an APC, and one tank shell to take it out as well. They are meant to be exclusively small arm resistant, I think.

you mean that one its still there

as for the M1's in urban areas, it is a fairly common practice, its been proven in other threads,

and a LAV is an APC

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-11-22 18:26

Agree with all points, especially the one regarding the APC. Are those guns on the side even realistic? Seems like one of those batman cars or something. (I'm not saying make the gun weaker, just stating that it might be feasible to remove those guns on the sides).

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2005-11-22 18:46

What's so wrong about fighting over a dam?
Those things happen to be very strategicly important as they may supply a shitload of power to industries that produce military material. So, in theory, such a dam could be vital enough to warrant an assault on it.

For the rest of your points, they are well covered by what others have already said.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 19:41

It's just lame having all that equipment **** around the dam and all those changes in elevation. Make it more leik the dam from Goldeneye and then we'll talk

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2005-11-22 20:05

Cerberus wrote:It's just lame having all that equipment **** around the dam and all those changes in elevation. Make it more leik the dam from Goldeneye and then we'll talk

Well, It IS a construction site so it's not like it is totally improbable. But you ARE right about the bloody cranes! And not just in Kubra Dam.
What the hell were DICE thinking of? Sure the crane is a pretty cool piece of model but is that enough to have it in every damn map???
IMO, no. You get mighty tired of it after a while...

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-11-22 20:08

they do seem to like that crane, dalian plant has 2 right next to eachother! thankgod they abstained from placing them in everymap though.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-22 20:20

More suggestions (I'll keep posting my valuable ideas here):

Green tracers for the PKM.

Small arms fire (minus M2s, M82s, RPG-7s, AT-4s, etc) do less damage to helos.

Some maps that take place during dawn or dusk.

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-22 21:04

How come every thing in bf2 is under construction?
The dawn and dusk might be too complicated for the engine.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-23 03:02

Yes i like all thos ideas

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-11-23 04:26

Solodude-

Yes, the LAV-25 is considered an APC. However, the Marines do not use it in a "battle taxi" capacity, they use it as a reconnaissance and mobile fire support platform. The only troops they normally carry into battle are a small dismount scout team of made up of (according to TO&E) 3-4 0311 riflemen (or they may be 0313 LAV crewmen they just didn't have room for in a driver's seat or turret).

Though the BTR-90 is very heavily armed, it is still classified as an APC rather than an infantry fighting vehicle.

'[R-PUB wrote:Artnez.com']Agree with all points, especially the one regarding the APC. Are those guns on the side even realistic? Seems like one of those batman cars or something. (I'm not saying make the gun weaker, just stating that it might be feasible to remove those guns on the sides).

The BTR-90 does have firing ports for embarked infantry so they can use their rifles. The firing port weapons will be adjusted to reflect the fact that they are rifles.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-23 05:53

Also, the damage system ain't quite right yet.

I shot a man twice with an SVD from twenty feet away (I was in an enemy base) and he didn't die. Those were my last two bullets, and since I used them, I had to reload and he killed me with his M82.

Also, I shot a prone soldier who was facing me with an M24. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I think it would have gone through his head or busted his upper torso up pretty bad. He didn't die, BTW