Self-Pwnt.B00MH3ADSH0T wrote:
Yes but you are mixing up 2142 with 1942.Ice Cold Killa wrote:
your "friend" is mixing 2142 with bf2.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Self-Pwnt.B00MH3ADSH0T wrote:
Yes but you are mixing up 2142 with 1942.Ice Cold Killa wrote:
your "friend" is mixing 2142 with bf2.
I have been playing BF1942 again past month -after a four year break - and it is quite funny/retarded indeed, most players seem to use the carrier on Wake, Iwo Jima and Midway as some oversized landing craft, 9 times out of 10 grounding it right in front of the enemy defgun...An Enlarged Liver wrote:
Yes - bf1942 you could drive the nice little ships all around - I loved it when people would ground them right in front of a massive gun! BF2 not so much. It is a point where they really screwed up if you ask me. Movable ship would eliminate a lot of the raping problems.
Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2007-03-20 12:22:14)
You all owe me some serious money ... yes, you can sink the Essex Carrier ... click on the link below for the pictures .... sheesh.psycokiller05 wrote:
ok well i had an argument with my flat mate he said that when he used to play bf2 you could move the carrier and blow it up this isnt true is it,and that when you blew it up the round would finish
Can you say "moded single player"?OrangeHound wrote:
You all owe me some serious money ... yes, you can sink the Essex Carrier ... click on the link below for the pictures .... sheesh.psycokiller05 wrote:
ok well i had an argument with my flat mate he said that when he used to play bf2 you could move the carrier and blow it up this isnt true is it,and that when you blew it up the round would finish
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=34741