Page 1 of 2
Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-07 23:18
by Rapid12
This maybe should be in the PR suggestions, but being as PR is Modern Warfare, and my topic being 'historical conflicts', I thought best to put it here.
Here goes...
Which historical conflicts would you like to see being replicated in PR. (if one's theory of reality can bypass playing with modern weapons in an historical conflict)
Back in my BHD days, coincidently a clan called PR (predators) recreated the famous battles of Western Europe in WWII. Battles such as A Bridge Too Far. Paris. Market Garden. Normandy Landings.
BHD had the capacity for it's following to make their own maps, you see?
So, to answer my own question, I would love to see a recreation of the above in PR, but without losing the modern weapons. Not quite reality is it?
What would thee like to see?
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-07 23:23
by Spec
Something with pikemen, knights and crossbows.
Seriously, this has been suggested already and will certainly not be done by the dev's - of course there always is the chance of a community mod about historical battles, but you'd have to find a team for something like that.
Edit: Misunderstood your post, sorry.
You're just talking about doing it with what we currently got.
All I can say then is bayonet charge! just kidding.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-07 23:26
by Gore
PR would be cool if set in the years of 1939-1945. Glad we have FH1942 though, FH2 doesn't really do it for me.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-07 23:36
by waldo_ii
If a lot of WWII battles were fought today, they either wouldn't be fought, or they would be completely different.
Normandy? Imagine this: Tons upon tons upon tons of artillery and encampments along a beach (Omaha style). Instead of doing the old-fasioned Marine landings (small craft), high-altitude stealth bombers (B-2) would blow the ever loving banana's out of the coastline. Then ship armor and infantry and other logistical assets safely with no resistance (after a bunch of engineers have cleaned it up). No battle at all.
(The high-altitude bombing is done at a high-enough altitude that AA cannons, such as a ZPU, would lose velocity, and AA missiles wouldn't be able to engage due to lack of range or ability to lock on.)
Edit: I won't even go into fighter-bomber aircraft, cruise missiles, Apaches, ship-to-shore artillery (Iowa class battleship, anyone? Yeahh, that's the shit.), submarines.....
Edit: Surveillance from space, JDAMs being dropped from supersonic aircraft, unmanned assault craft (Predator)...
Edit: JDAMs being dropped from F16s flying at 40,000 feet at 1,200 miles per hour...
Edit: JDAMS being dropped from F22s flying at 65,000 feet at 1,400 miles per hour...
Edit: Dropping 80 500lb JDAMs at 50,000 feet at 600 miles per hour from a single B-2...
Edit: The AIM-92 Stinger can travel 4.5 KM. So even if it could see a F22, a B-2, F-35, etc, and identify it as aircraft (B-2 has a radar signature the size of a bird's eyeball. Thank you, PBS!), it wouldn't be able to reach it.
Edit: Holy batman's underwear, if anyone wants to start a conventional war with the US, be afraid... be very afraid. We'll cuddle you.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-07 23:40
by Gore
Yes. Where's the honour in that. I can fly a B-2 bomber from this couch
And I'm sure if they had such "luxury" back then they would do as you said. Yours and my problem is that we're the modern day people who strive for things that'll do our jobs for us. Evolution will end up where it started my friend.
Edit: how about a Snickers?
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 00:27
by charliegrs
been suggested millions of times. the only way this is going to happen is if a community mod team takes it up.
and dont we have enough ww2 shooters as it is? come on people be original. i want a late 80s cold war conflict, ala world in conflict.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 00:27
by kevlarorc
You should recreate the Battle of the Bulge in PR. Just dig out some trenches in the middle of a forest, stick machine guns all over the trenches, put a few f-16s on the map but have it too cloudy to fly, and have a stand-off for 3 hours.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 01:12
by UntenablePosition
Monte Cassino
I would also like to see a map with lots of the fortifications and trenches on Kozelsk.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 01:23
by Hoboknighter
Pickets Charge from Gettysburg. get 5 Emplaced MG's with everyone else bayonet charing or being insurgents and forced to use SKS.
Perhaps we could try this on a map thats rather woody and hilly. There are plenty of those.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 01:33
by Snazz
waldo_ii wrote:If a lot of WWII battles were fought today, they either wouldn't be fought, or they would be completely different.
Holy shit, if anyone wants to start a conventional war with the US, be afraid... be very afraid. We'll rape you.
Exact same can be said for PR's current fictional setting, remember that in PR the US&UK are invading China and fighting conventionally with the middle east.
waldo_ii wrote:ship-to-shore artillery (Iowa class battleship, anyone? Yeahh, that's the shit.)
That is a WW2 class battleship and is since retired.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 01:48
by Hoboknighter
The battleships are on standby and can still be reactivated if they're needed (I hope that day never comes, considering how many ships we already have and are building).
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 02:46
by Rapid12
What about the Falklands war? That would be a good un to recreate.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 09:41
by Axel
waldo_ii wrote:If a lot of WWII battles were fought today, they either wouldn't be fought, or they would be completely different.
Normandy? Imagine this: Tons upon tons upon tons of artillery and encampments along a beach (Omaha style). Instead of doing the old-fasioned Marine landings (small craft), high-altitude stealth bombers (B-2) would blow the ever loving SHIT out of the coastline. Then ship armor and infantry and other logistical assets safely with no resistance (after a bunch of engineers have cleaned it up). No battle at all.
(The high-altitude bombing is done at a high-enough altitude that AA cannons, such as a ZPU, would lose velocity, and AA missiles wouldn't be able to engage due to lack of range or ability to lock on.)
Edit: I won't even go into fighter-bomber aircraft, cruise missiles, Apaches, ship-to-shore artillery (Iowa class battleship, anyone? Yeahh, that's the shit.), submarines.....
Edit: Surveillance from space, JDAMs being dropped from supersonic aircraft, unmanned assault craft (Predator)...
Edit: JDAMs being dropped from F16s flying at 40,000 feet at 1,200 miles per hour...
Edit: JDAMS being dropped from F22s flying at 65,000 feet at 1,400 miles per hour...
Edit: Dropping 80 500lb JDAMs at 50,000 feet at 600 miles per hour from a single B-2...
Edit: The AIM-92 Stinger can travel 4.5 KM. So even if it could see a F22, a B-2, F-35, etc, and identify it as aircraft (B-2 has a radar signature the size of a bird's eyeball. Thank you, PBS!), it wouldn't be able to reach it.
Edit: Holy shit, if anyone wants to start a conventional war with the US, be afraid... be very afraid. We'll rape you.
The beaches in Normandy was infact bombed to shit, I don't think much more than a couple of MG42's, well placed, and a handfull of german soldiers defended Omaha, Operation Overlord was a almost picture perfect success.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 11:15
by Gore
Axel wrote:The beaches in Normandy was infact bombed to shit, I don't think much more than a couple of MG42's, well placed, and a handfull of german soldiers defended Omaha, Operation Overlord was a almost picture perfect success.
Yes it was.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 11:49
by Epim3theus
waldo_ii wrote:
Edit: I won't even go into fighter-bomber aircraft, cruise missiles, Apaches, ship-to-shore artillery (Iowa class battleship, anyone? Yeahh, that's the shit.), submarines.....
Edit: Surveillance from space, JDAMs being dropped from supersonic aircraft, unmanned assault craft (Predator)...
Edit: JDAMs being dropped from F16s flying at 40,000 feet at 1,200 miles per hour...
Edit: JDAMS being dropped from F22s flying at 65,000 feet at 1,400 miles per hour...
Edit: Dropping 80 500lb JDAMs at 50,000 feet at 600 miles per hour from a single B-2...
Edit: The AIM-92 Stinger can travel 4.5 KM. So even if it could see a F22, a B-2, F-35, etc, and identify it as aircraft (B-2 has a radar signature the size of a bird's eyeball. Thank you, PBS!), it wouldn't be able to reach it.
Edit: Holy shit, if anyone wants to start a conventional war with the US, be afraid... be very afraid. We'll rape you.
You do know you are paying for al that stuff? And prolly your grand-grand children to?
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 12:07
by Rudd
Rapid12 wrote:What about the Falklands war? That would be a good un to recreate.
The Argentine community faction are working on this
Good maps > Historical conflicts, as long has a map has good gameplay its backstory is irrelevant.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 12:27
by STORM-Mama
Normandy and the whole Western Front is overused and uniteresting.
The Eastern Front would fit PR gameplay perfectly. Large scale tank battles in open Russian fields, intense urban combat with bloody house-to-house fighting, CAS with IL-2s and Stukas, etc.
To whoever said that we have enough WW2 shooters - Wrong. What we have enough is shooters set in Holland, France and North Africa. Eastern Europe deserves more attention, since it was here that most of the fighting took place. And with "attention" I don't mean any shitty CoD-campaigns.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-08 13:24
by Axel
GoreZiad wrote:Yes it was.
I sense a sarcastic undertone.
I was just pointing out that it was infact a success tactically, it went as planned with extremely few backsplashes, Omaha a fairly minor one.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-10 01:35
by Gore
Axel wrote:I sense a sarcastic undertone.
I was just pointing out that it was infact a success tactically, it went as planned with extremely few backsplashes, Omaha a fairly minor one.
I'm not sarcastic mate.
Re: Historical Conflicts
Posted: 2009-04-10 02:59
by Hoboknighter
The Falklands war was a disaster for the British. It would suck for both sides, unless it happened to simulate the actual infantry invasion by the British.
The Finland-Russian war of 1939 might be interesting, if we can invent skis