Kadaver[NL]
Member
+1|7119
I think it's weird to see the arty without loaders, maybe EA should change them into static self-propelled guns like the paladin or M109.

Also the maps with "the Essex" should have something like a cruiser or a frigate as arty base,instead of the guns placed on a dumb island.The naval guns on the ship replaces the land guns

The ship could also serve as additional Helli-platform.


What's your opinion!
ShEpArD_oF_rOt
Member
+16|7161|Illinois
I think that when I get shot in-game I should be able to feel the bullets and get blood all over my desk.
eagles1106
Member
+269|7179|Marlton, New Jersey.
yeah, a magical arty shell appears laoded in the artillery
people have suggested more ships in these forums a lot too
Beefy
Member
+0|7237
i dont really give a damn
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7365|AUS, Canberra

Kadaver[NL] wrote:

What's your opinion!
i think this has nothing to do with bf2s.com

moved
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7267|Colorado
I think BF2 is an arcade version of war on the battlefield, arcade not simulation.

Less realism please, I want flying jihad supermen.
Kadaver[NL]
Member
+1|7119

eagles1106 wrote:

yeah, a magical arty shell appears laoded in the artillery
people have suggested more ships in these forums a lot too
The ship should be static ! That's difference between my suggestion and the others.
PspRpg-7
-
+961|7293

You could also fly the ship.
Kadaver[NL]
Member
+1|7119

TrollmeaT wrote:

I think BF2 is an arcade version of war on the battlefield, arcade not simulation.

Less realism please, I want flying jihad supermen.
So why has EA made a game which let us use Abrams, Mig29's and M16's.

Last edited by Kadaver[NL] (2006-06-17 00:17:28)

WormGuts
Member
+17|7389|Dayton, Ohio
oh on that line can we force planes to have to land to take on repairs and ammo?

as a ground pounder i'm happy with how the game is.

still wondering what happened to the delayed GL arming...

Last edited by WormGuts (2006-06-17 00:17:20)

TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7267|Colorado

Kadaver[NL] wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

I think BF2 is an arcade version of war on the battlefield, arcade not simulation.

Less realism please, I want flying jihad supermen.
So why has EA made a game which let us use Abrams, Mig29's and M16's.
because its an arcade version, they dont represent everything that they can do, just the basics for having fun.
SiMSaM16
Member
+48|7288|United States of America
They should give us Javelin missiles too! 1 shot anything killer!
jkohlc
2142th Whore
+214|7121|Singapore

Beefy wrote:

i dont really give a damn
darad0
Member
+40|7216|Centreville, VA

TrollmeaT wrote:

I think BF2 is an arcade version of war on the battlefield, arcade not simulation.

Less realism please, I want flying jihad supermen.
lolzzz
De_Jappe
Triarii
+432|7122|Belgium

Still waiting for the nuke

Well you can't make everything realistic. getting revived by shock paddles after you were hit by a tank shell, or flying over an airfield to get extra bombs, or support having unlimited ammo, ... Some things have to be made like that or else it would be boring for some parts.
oberst_enzian
Member
+234|7338|melb.au
realism or not, they aren't bad suggestions. i very much agree about the artillery part, as i have also been thinking that they could have implemented it in a more interesting way (see my 'self propelled guns' thread). mind you, the emphasis for me is on fun and maintaining interest, rather than "realism", which i think is impossible in a videogame. so personally i would put this down to more diverse implementation of the content than realism...

mobile, manned artillery would kick ass, and prevent boring repetitive spawn raping by the commander on maps like Wake, for example.

2c.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard