missing vehicle in SF?

2005-12-08 01:41:52

#1

G.I.JOE¤MFA¤: Member; +3|6990|Wherever Uncle Sams Needs Me.

ok i read these missing vehicle threads and no1 has mentioned the A-10

IMHO the A-10 should have been in SF since its based on special forces an A-10 should have been in game since the A-10 is for ground support and calling in an airstrike from an A-10 would be great

but on the downside the A-10 would be a real bitch since it would get over used and be worse than artilelry...lol

maybe in a later patch it will be added then the aerial ribbon can be used...lol

2005-12-08 13:12:54

#2

nexus3372: Member; +1|7041

true that

2005-12-08 13:19:44

#3

Kung Jew: That one mod; +331|7005|Houston, TX

I'd LOVE to see the Warthog in BF: anything!
If nothing else, just to chew through tanks/infantry/AA site/(insert something destructable here) with that GAU-8.....

2005-12-08 13:57:30

#4

stryyker: bad touch; +1,682|6980|California

but the A-10 would dominate in every way, able to take direct fire, like 30MM Minigun, but then again, more points if you have it!

2005-12-09 11:43:52

#5

he_who_is: Member; +0|6974|Portland, Oregon

and to be realistic you should hear it on the other side of the map. even before it takes off, if anyone can hear the VOIP the A-10 isnt loud enough. and screw the warthog, go thunderbolt II

2005-12-11 01:33:35

#6

T1mbrW0lf: Member; +2|7056|Eastern PA

he_who_is wrote:
and screw the warthog, go thunderbolt II

The Thunderbolt II IS "the Warthog" . . .

2005-12-11 23:29:49

#7

Kung Jew: That one mod; +331|7005|Houston, TX

Umm. Ermmm everybody here realizes that I'm referring to the:
A-10 Thunderbolt II
AKA "Warthog" "Tank Buster"

Twin enginge plane - mid-rear mount.
GAU-8 minigun that sticks out upfront offcentered to the left of the pilot. Spent uranium Ammo that shoots at some ungodly rate.
And a couple o' bombs too. (smirk)

Last edited by Kung Jew (2005-12-11 23:31:05)

2005-12-11 23:47:05

#8

-MP-Nuke1266: Member; +20|6976

don't forget about the maverics
put the gau-8 avenger in ANY vehicle in ANY game and it wil own lol.......
for those of you who do not know what this is talking about , in bf2 terms, the gau-8 would have about the firing rate of the phalanx CWIS ( otherwise known as the "USS Essex" ingame) and have about the damage per shot as the american APC..... any more would be just cheap... then again... the 'bolt is cheap in the 1st place

2005-12-11 23:58:50

#9

Kung Jew: That one mod; +331|7005|Houston, TX

I think the pilots only have 23 seconds of full barrage from the GAU-8 before it runs dry. Maybe for in-game play they could limit the ammo. As for the mav's, they'd have to replace them with the 18 unguided dummies, or perhaps cluster bombs.

Can you imagine the roar of that gun flying cross the battlefield?

2005-12-11 23:59:44

#10

Deedubya: Member; +-2|7062|The Seventh Circle of Hell

The only downside to the A-10, is if you have a competent pilot on the other side, you're toast. Sure it's a flying tank, but get an able pilot in a J-10 or Mig, and you're going down hard. That would have been a sweet alternative to the F-15 though...I do think they should have put F-16s in instead of F-18s. More maneuverable, faster, lighter, and able to carry the same payload. Oh well. They could've at least put in Super-Hornets, not those crummy C-models they have in the game.

2005-12-12 00:09:56

#11

Kung Jew: That one mod; +331|7005|Houston, TX

Can hornets be launched from the Carrier-class we are using? I don't know enough about military naval vessels, but I recognize that we aren't using a standard carrier.

2005-12-12 00:34:43

#12

Vintageologist: Tankbuster; +31|7018|Vienna, Austria

The F18 in-game only spawn on land... everytime you have to strat from a carrier, you'll get the F35B... (Putting an F14 instead of one F35B sure would be fun of course)

Btw why would they insert an F16 if they have the official replacement aka F35?

2005-12-12 00:44:25

#13

Deedubya: Member; +-2|7062|The Seventh Circle of Hell

Because even when the JSF (F-35) goes production, it will take years for full implementation. We'll still be flying F-16s for many years...why they even put the JSF in the game is beyond me, it's not even in production yet, and it barely just started flight-testing. I think it was a poor choice to put in the game.

And to Kung Jew, no an F-18 would not be able to launch from that ship (well maybe with JATO rockets), as there is no catapult. It's actually used accurately in the game, with jump-jet style aircraft, and choppers.

2005-12-12 00:51:42

#14

RedEyes-CAD: Member; +1|6972|Arizona

If your thinking of using the JSF why not just use the F-22...oh yeah thats the Air Force's awesomeness...

If the A-10 was put in there would have to be some SERIOUS countermeasure for it.

2005-12-12 01:01:51

#15

Deedubya: Member; +-2|7062|The Seventh Circle of Hell

If they put the F-22 in the game, it would do it absolutely no justice. To balance the game, you would have to NOT implement so many features of the jet. Multiple targets at one time, global positioning link ( meaning the F-22 could target something, a jet a vehicle, anything and send it to other jets/vehicles/choppers), supercruise capability (the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound WITHOUT augmentation), thrust vectoring...

2005-12-12 02:13:37

#16

fdcp_elmo: Rules over Sesamestreet; +5|7016|The Netherlands

I miss the Fennek as a transport for SAS

2005-12-12 02:16:25

#17

dshak: Member; +4|7073

no jets in sf... victory is mine!

STOP MOCKING ME BROCCOLI!

BF2S Forums missing vehicle in SF?

he_who_is wrote:

Board footer