Hopefully, this issue is being corrected, Im not sure why EA would need to get gamespy involved with this update for BF2. I had the same problem my ID was diffrent in BF2 than in game spy after reinstalling the BF2 and all the patches still had the problem, but was able to figure out the gamespy ID just make the nickname the same and it came out ok, but that really annoyed me to have to go through with all that just to play 3 new maps.
Search
Search results: 7 found, showing up to 50
Yeah, I had the same problem I adjusted the Game spy nickname to my BF2 name and it worked fine. If you want to uninstall EF you have to uninstall BF2 and then the EA downloader will allow you to reinstall EF. The only thing with that is you have to update all the patches and that can take some time unless you already have them on your system, stored away.
I just downloaded Euro last night took a bit to figure out that your game spy nickname had to be the same as BF2 in order to get it to work. I downloaded it and said “ready to play” and then error came up saying I do not have it installed. After reading a bit and reinstalling the whole game BF2, SF etc and all the dang patches. I still got the error and then changed my nickname in game spy and it worked...... Gezzz I feel like a tard....Anyway, I was hoping that the new weapons would be able to use on the regular bf2 as far as unlocks, but I was disappointed. The maps look cool, I have only played the Tabarra map. Tested out the weapons and killed myself a few times cause was the only one on that server. I enjoyed some of the weapons and others were disappointing. The medic weapon is good as well as the spec ops, they have good rate of fire. The support weapon..... Hmm well let’s just say it’s like a spray gun. You fire that thing everyone will know where you are like a fireworks display. Tracer rounds are usually every 3rd round....hmm no, seems like every round, and talk about inaccurate. I have not fully played on all the maps yet, but will wait for my review on the 1-10 score tell I play all the maps.
[url=http://www.bf2player.com/index.php?page=stats&account=44382988][img]http://www.bf2player.com/sig/44382988-539.gif[/img][/url]
oh yeah, the PKM is still overpowered.
oh yeah, the PKM is still overpowered.
yeah just got my basic explosive badge using claymores on Karkand. With friendly fire off, you can rule that map, if you are on the MEC side. Just Place claymores in the maze of alley ways on the way to the flag. As long as you keep getting resupplied by support guys you can easily get basic that way. Even if you die, the claymores will be there for a brief period.
for a list
1 American M-1 Abrams
2 Challenger 2
3 German Leopard
4 Merkava 4
5 South Korean Type 88/120
6 Japanese Type 90
7 French LeClerc
8 Russian T-80UM2
9 Chinese Type 98
10 Russian T-90
1 American M-1 Abrams
2 Challenger 2
3 German Leopard
4 Merkava 4
5 South Korean Type 88/120
6 Japanese Type 90
7 French LeClerc
8 Russian T-80UM2
9 Chinese Type 98
10 Russian T-90
Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp