Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

 

2006-01-11 12:10:25
TigrisJK
Member
+3|7147
"Mines can no longer be destroyed with other explosives"

!?!?!?

That's ridiculous! Claymores are now just... even better! I'm not sure what I think about that. As a sniper it's an advantage, but that just means my teammates can't clear a path for themselves anymore. This is an exceptionally huge problem when it comes to invading a chokepoint... I always send in nades before I run in because of claymore possibilities... for instance the stairwell on Warlord and Sharqi has just become claymore heaven!

Crapola!

D'oh.
2006-01-11 12:13:45
Jobarra
Member
+0|7102

TigrisJK wrote:

"Mines can no longer be destroyed with other explosives"

!?!?!?

That's ridiculous! Claymores are now just... even better! I'm not sure what I think about that. As a sniper it's an advantage, but that just means my teammates can't clear a path for themselves anymore. This is an exceptionally huge problem when it comes to invading a chokepoint... I always send in nades before I run in because of claymore possibilities... for instance the stairwell on Warlord and Sharqi has just become claymore heaven!

Crapola!

D'oh.
Well, at least snipers only have 2 claymores.  Truthfully, I would love a demolitions kit/class that used claymores in the manual detonation configuration.  Nothing denies enemy infiltration better short of a tank round.  I guess medics will become even more useful to revive the point person of squads after a claymore blast.
2006-01-11 12:21:13
WilhelmSissener
Banned
+557|7154|Oslo, Norway
i hope for Norwegian Hunters even tough i know they won't come (btw i don't mean normal hunters but the parachute hunters in the Norwegian Army)
2006-01-11 12:22:35
MrPredictable
Member
+14|7108

Sgt.Scream.MDK wrote:

yeah, the UN as an army in the booster would be pretty boring. As a peacekeeping force your kit would only include food and vaccinations for NPC refugees and pen/paper for signing those cease-fire accords..
My guess is thats its going to be a EU(european union) army, like in modern combat.
2006-01-11 12:23:41
Kung Jew
That one mod
+331|7166|Houston, TX
It states that same class mine retrieval is possible.  I wonder if the "G" key is usable when climbing a ladder, or if you have to be standing on the same surface.  The wandering minefinders will still home in on my claymore, it doesn't matter if they could disarm it anyhoo. 

"must walk towards red skulllllll, must walk towards red skulllll......(BOOM)"


PS anyone else laughing at the noobtuberule about time arming GL rounds?
2006-01-11 12:29:43
VeNg3nCe^
¦Tactics Øver Principles¦
+314|7127|Antarctica

TigrisJK wrote:

"Mines can no longer be destroyed with other explosives"

!?!?!?

That's ridiculous! Claymores are now just... even better! I'm not sure what I think about that. As a sniper it's an advantage, but that just means my teammates can't clear a path for themselves anymore. This is an exceptionally huge problem when it comes to invading a chokepoint... I always send in nades before I run in because of claymore possibilities... for instance the stairwell on Warlord and Sharqi has just become claymore heaven!

Crapola!

D'oh.
It said mines not claymores, as in AT mines that the engi carries.
2006-01-11 12:37:48
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7176|The Netherlands
hey does anyone know what kind of tank is on the banner on the site?
I only know it is form the Europeans (smart eh)
https://img304.imageshack.us/img304/8144/ani235vi.gif
2006-01-11 12:40:01
Sh4rkb1t3
Member
+6|7106

DUFFKING wrote:

"- Grenade launcher projectiles now have a minimum time before arming."

This is gonna be nice... now the grenades will roll around a bit before they explode.  Great way to balance them IMO.  Unless it is a very long range shot... but those shots take skill, which most noob tubers do not have.

Last edited by Sh4rkb1t3 (2006-01-11 12:43:48)

2006-01-11 12:47:18
Kung Jew
That one mod
+331|7166|Houston, TX
Hadn't thought about the round staying live after hitting a target too soon.  I wonder if they'll make the rounds "dead" rounds if you hit an object before the minimum arming time, or if the shot rolls around a bit like Sharkbite mentioned above me.

Edit:  Having seen the round hit a wall and land in front of me, all I'll really get is an Ohshit second.

Last edited by Kung Jew (2006-01-11 12:49:17)

2006-01-11 12:56:55
misfire00
Lead Magnet
+26|7202|Charleston SC - USA

Jobarra wrote:

Well, didn't even think of the Challenger because it's turret seemed much bigger, but the tank in the screenshots does seem to be a Challenger 2:
http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

Look at the distinctive block where the cannon meets the turret as well as the smoke discharger configuration.  The tank driver also looks like a British soldier to me(Not really sure why actually, guess I'm just accepting it as a Challenger tank ).  It still doesn't match completely in my mind to the real life pictures, but maybe that is just some creative liberties taken with it.

From the above site:
"The Challenger 2 has a 12 cylinder 1200 horsepower diesel engine, from Perkins Engines (Shewsbury) Ltd of Shropshire, UK., and a David Brown gearbox, model TN54, with 6 forward and 2 reverse gears. The maximum speed by road is 59 kilometer/hour and mean speed 40 kilometers./hour cross country. The range is given as 450 kilometers. by road and typically 250 kilometers. cross country."

This is probably asking too much, but I hope with the armor booster pack that the vehicles will actually do the speeds that they can.  It would be ALOT of fun if the tank battles had tanks moving at 30-40mph around the battlefield firing at each other.  Would also make jets have to aim a bit better since the target is moving faster.  Right now they seem to go 10mph to me.
Have to agree with Jobarra that it's a Challenger 2. The sides of the turret and the aperture housing on the main gun are identical. Also compare the armor skirting.

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_ch2.htm
2006-01-11 13:04:26
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7176|The Netherlands
Will they add the S-TANK it is totally diffrent from the tanks we now battle with so that would be really cool
or is it too old (believe its from the 60's)
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7139/ani236bo.th.gif
2006-01-11 13:05:08
Sgt.Gh0st
Pump-Action Pimp
+16|7203|The Hague, Holland
Ok guys heres the deal, YOU buy European Army for me, give me the code etc. Then I'll give you the code for Special Forces *I still have one from the contest*

Yes, Im sirious.
2006-01-11 13:07:00
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7183

Rejoice plane whores, now you have an expansion pack you can use.
2006-01-11 13:13:16
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7241
well now the nade launcher nazis can rest assured that when i own them with the 'noob toob' it wasn't from close quarters. so i don't want to hear any more bitching about the GL, because you're still going to be killed by it, over and over again.
2006-01-11 13:14:03
BanG89
as good as me you never will be
+9|7173|Nederland

VeNg3nCe^ wrote:

TigrisJK wrote:

"Mines can no longer be destroyed with other explosives"

!?!?!?

That's ridiculous! Claymores are now just... even better! I'm not sure what I think about that. As a sniper it's an advantage, but that just means my teammates can't clear a path for themselves anymore. This is an exceptionally huge problem when it comes to invading a chokepoint... I always send in nades before I run in because of claymore possibilities... for instance the stairwell on Warlord and Sharqi has just become claymore heaven!

Crapola!

D'oh.
It said mines not claymores, as in AT mines that the engi carries.
claymore = mine, dude.
2006-01-11 13:20:01
Jobarra
Member
+0|7102

fdcp_elmo wrote:

Will they add the S-TANK it is totally diffrent from the tanks we now battle with so that would be really cool
or is it too old (believe its from the 60's)
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7139/ani236bo.th.gif
I would say that is way too old for the era of combat that battlefield2 is set in.  Could possibly be a mod that included it though.  I'm not familiar with that tank.  It looks like it has no turret, so is it actually an assault gun?  I wouldn't think an assault gun would work in modern combat.  Don't even know why they were made during WWII either.  I'm guessing part of it is that they are cheaper/quicker to make since you don't have to make the turret.

The Great Wall of China map sounds interesting.  I wonder if it's the actual Great Wall locale or if it is a reference to a massive PLA armored thrust.  I've been thinking of a mod that had one army populated with various armored vehicles(and a large number of AA vehicles) and the other army populated with various air vehicles.  I think that would be somewhat fun if the stingers/iglas worked more efficiently.
2006-01-11 13:25:05
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7176|The Netherlands

Jobarra wrote:

I would say that is way too old for the era of combat that battlefield2 is set in.  Could possibly be a mod that included it though.  I'm not familiar with that tank.  It looks like it has no turret, so is it actually an assault gun?  I wouldn't think an assault gun would work in modern combat.  Don't even know why they were made during WWII either.  I'm guessing part of it is that they are cheaper/quicker to make since you don't have to make the turret.
It is for forest warfare a turret is not handy in the woods

info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_tank

Last edited by fdcp_elmo (2006-01-11 13:27:30)

2006-01-11 13:32:54
[g0t]JediPimp
Banned
+0|7170
Two words FUCK THAT!!!!!

EA is not getting another fucking penny from me until they fix the performance issues and bugs in BF2 and BF2SF.

Am I the only person not pissed to find out that EA has been busy putting together this new shit to get more money outta you before taking care of those customers who already forked over money on Bf and BFSF.

EA Should get their fucking priorities straighted out.
2006-01-11 13:36:14
Jobarra
Member
+0|7102

fdcp_elmo wrote:

Jobarra wrote:

I would say that is way too old for the era of combat that battlefield2 is set in.  Could possibly be a mod that included it though.  I'm not familiar with that tank.  It looks like it has no turret, so is it actually an assault gun?  I wouldn't think an assault gun would work in modern combat.  Don't even know why they were made during WWII either.  I'm guessing part of it is that they are cheaper/quicker to make since you don't have to make the turret.
It is for forest warfare a turret is not handy in the woods

info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_tank
Still, even if you're in a forest, just keep the turret pointed forward .

Interesting concept.  They're right about the low design.  That thing would be a nightmare to fight against, especially if it was dug in already.   How do you get a shot against maybe a foot of the enemy showing, and that foot heavily armored.

Still, the versatility of a turret outweighs the defense provided by the low profile I think.  No stabilization of the gun would also get them killed on today's battlefield unless they were defending a dugin position.  Stopping to fire is a thing of the past.

[g0t]JediPimp wrote:

EA is not getting another penny from me until they fix the performance issues and bugs in BF2 and BF2SF.

Am I the only person not pissed to find out that EA has been busy putting together this new stuff to get more money outta you before taking care of those customers who already forked over money on Bf and BFSF.

EA Should get their priorities straighted out.
EA = business.  Their priority is to make money.  If EA was a completely benevolent entity, it would produce games completely for free.  Of course, it wouldn't last long as an entity since it's expenses would liquidate it.
Corporations = entities without emotion.  There is no perfect software.  There is a level of bugginess that every piece of software has, and the effort to fix that bug may just not be worth the fix.  I'm not saying that it shouldn't be fixed, but if they stopped everything and fixed every single conceivable bug, they would run out of money to pay the programmers

Last edited by Jobarra (2006-01-11 13:41:42)

2006-01-11 13:36:20
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7176|The Netherlands

[g0t]JediPimp wrote:

Two words FUCK THAT!!!!!

EA is not getting another fucking penny from me until they fix the performance issues and bugs in BF2 and BF2SF.

Am I the only person not pissed to find out that EA has been busy putting together this new shit to get more money outta you before taking care of those customers who already forked over money on Bf and BFSF.

EA Should get their fucking priorities straighted out.
EA has 2 locations (canada and sweden) working on BF2 one is doing custumor support (patches and stuff)
the oher is making new content (money making

Last edited by fdcp_elmo (2006-01-11 13:36:55)

2006-01-11 13:38:08
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7207

fdcp_elmo wrote:

Jobarra wrote:

I would say that is way too old for the era of combat that battlefield2 is set in.  Could possibly be a mod that included it though.  I'm not familiar with that tank.  It looks like it has no turret, so is it actually an assault gun?  I wouldn't think an assault gun would work in modern combat.  Don't even know why they were made during WWII either.  I'm guessing part of it is that they are cheaper/quicker to make since you don't have to make the turret.
It is for forest warfare a turret is not handy in the woods

info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_tank
S-tank is a home-defence tank
no turret, ultra low profile, self-entrenching systems, etc etc etc.
it's basically a mobile anti-tank gun with armour.  not exactly made for roaming into baghdad.
2006-01-11 13:38:57
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7241

Jobarra wrote:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7139/ani236bo.th.gif
I would say that is way too old for the era of combat that battlefield2 is set in.  Could possibly be a mod that included it though.  I'm not familiar with that tank.  It looks like it has no turret, so is it actually an assault gun?  I wouldn't think an assault gun would work in modern combat.  Don't even know why they were made during WWII either.  I'm guessing part of it is that they are cheaper/quicker to make since you don't have to make the turret.
in WWII the self propelled assault guns worked very well. they were initially designed to provide close fire support for infantry, being able to move with the soldiers and shoot whatever needed shooting. not having an aromored turret enabled bigger guns to be placed on the same limited chassis. the germans were especially proficient with assault guns, and adopted them from an assault role to a defensive tank killing role by the end of the war.

the SP assault gun is still a big part of any modern army's arsenal. even though many of them have armored turrets now, they're not as heavily fortified as tanks, only able to provide protection from small arms fire and shrapnel.
2006-01-11 13:44:36
Jobarra
Member
+0|7102

beeng wrote:

S-tank is a home-defence tank
no turret, ultra low profile, self-entrenching systems, etc etc etc.
it's basically a mobile anti-tank gun with armour.  not exactly made for roaming into baghdad.
Well, modern tanks shouldn't be used to roam around an urban setting(without substantial infantry support).  They have a way of getting destroyed that way.  Just like in the game .

Krappyappy wrote:

in WWII the self propelled assault guns worked very well. they were initially designed to provide close fire support for infantry, being able to move with the soldiers and shoot whatever needed shooting. not having an aromored turret enabled bigger guns to be placed on the same limited chassis. the germans were especially proficient with assault guns, and adopted them from an assault role to a defensive tank killing role by the end of the war.

the SP assault gun is still a big part of any modern army's arsenal. even though many of them have armored turrets now, they're not as heavily fortified as tanks, only able to provide protection from small arms fire and shrapnel.
There are modern assault guns?  Do you have any names?  I would love to look at some of these.  Some of the German Assault guns are pretty cool, but again, didn't realize how functional they could be.  Some of the Italian Assault guns were horrendous though.  I can't believe they actually sent people out on them.  I have a book of armored vehicles and I always laugh when I see the Italian ones during WWII.  Or some of the early WWI tank models.

Last edited by Jobarra (2006-01-11 13:47:51)

2006-01-11 13:51:14
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7176|The Netherlands

beeng wrote:

S-tank is a home-defence tank
no turret, ultra low profile, self-entrenching systems, etc etc etc.
it's basically a mobile anti-tank gun with armour.  not exactly made for roaming into baghdad.
you are right about it beeing a defence tank. in the 60's sweden was neutral but very aware that the NATO or USSR could invade any moment so they had to defend themselfs.
and rolling into Baghdad is really crap because it is purely adapted to the swedish forest

in fact it is the newest tank of this type I know and i would really like to see these kind of vehicles.
maybe they are good balancing... a movable Anti Tank vehicle with good armor but weak against AT rockets
2006-01-11 13:52:42
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7192|Atlanta, GA USA

[g0t]JediPimp wrote:

Two words FUCK THAT!!!!!

EA is not getting another fucking penny from me until they fix the performance issues and bugs in BF2 and BF2SF.

Am I the only person not pissed to find out that EA has been busy putting together this new shit to get more money outta you before taking care of those customers who already forked over money on Bf and BFSF.

EA Should get their fucking priorities straighted out.
I guess you missed the part where they discussed the patch being released soon that is gonna fix a lot of shit...

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard