lol, me too.Naughty_Om wrote:
i remember rolling the carrier once....got banned for that one.
That shows how much you know about modern military.T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
Tell me why those small carriers are unescorted, genius? Do you really think the Marines would send just that to take Wake back from the Chinese, for example?T0rr3nt wrote:
subs are mostly nuke subs now, not really anti-ship/sub vs sub. and would you like some noob to be whoring missles out of a sub you cant see and killing everyone. i didnt think so. same with guided missles.Presul wrote:
What about Subs? You could even have objectives the subs would have to destroy by launching missiles. Or what about guided missile cruisers? We used those all the time!T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
besides if you introduce a sub, you have to introduce a sub kill(i.e. the sea king or a sub killer ship.)
ontop of all the already made vechicals in bf2. its too much.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-16 15:16:09)
yea i think you should able to sink them also. i cant count the times i sank a ship with a tank. what about subs also? there was one in there somewhere.travisb05 wrote:
yes and beable to drive ships like in 1942
Midway and Guadalcanal!
naval battles would be great, no matter how "unrealistic" you think they are.
No one CARES whether naval battles are unrealistic, it's a GAME! If you don't like the naval maps, don't play them, just like plenty of people don't play Karkand or Wake.
I like the two carrier idea. Would there be any jets involved? What about Essex AA guns? And would the carrier be sinkable? (could only be done if there were jets to bomb them, really) (kinda the equivalent of capturing all the enemy flags)
No one CARES whether naval battles are unrealistic, it's a GAME! If you don't like the naval maps, don't play them, just like plenty of people don't play Karkand or Wake.
I like the two carrier idea. Would there be any jets involved? What about Essex AA guns? And would the carrier be sinkable? (could only be done if there were jets to bomb them, really) (kinda the equivalent of capturing all the enemy flags)
no essex guns. no aircraft (lets just say fog blocks all take off) carrier is not sinkable, you want to capture in order to gather intelligence (made up storyline) just think iron gator. but with 2 instead of 1.
Yeah and if you have submarines bf2 could also release Sikorsky Sea Hawks oooooo that would bee ssoooo coooool!!!Presul wrote:
What about Subs? You could even have objectives the subs would have to destroy by launching missiles. Or what about guided missile cruisers? We used those all the time!T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
if you had subs, you could also launch a 50 ton warhead with an atomic bomb...subs would be lammmmmeeee...hard to model for the current bf2.
well it sounded good, like bfv was missing flamethrowers.
see, thats something that is currently ruled inhumane....like napalm...so i think thats why they said a no-no.
lol, anyone ever play sypon filter (ms) they had a stun gun you could keep stunning them till they caught on fire. that is inhumaneNaughty_Om wrote:
see, thats something that is currently ruled inhumane....like napalm...so i think thats why they said a no-no.
im serious though.
well its a war simulation game, we dont play it to throw flowers and play paddycake. i see where you are going with this, but i guess im tired of the anti war, anti violent game people, who bottleneck what we play, or how we play it.Naughty_Om wrote:
im serious though.
BFV used napalm. It sucked, but it was there.
logan-x wraith wrote:
lol, anyone ever play sypon filter (ms) they had a stun gun you could keep stunning them till they caught on fire. that is inhumaneNaughty_Om wrote:
see, thats something that is currently ruled inhumane....like napalm...so i think thats why they said a no-no.
They had drivable aircraft carriers and destroyers in BF1942.
Navy battles (ship to ship) would be sweet to have in the game. Though you have to think that nobody else (enemy wise) has a navy that is in comparable strength to the US. so if you were going for realism it would definitely fail. i think the only way you could include ships (besides carriers) would be a sea to land assault. give defending team large shore guns and attacking team would have a Destroyer class ship to maybe a Cruiser size ship. but modern day navies don't really use main guns (direct fire, ship mounted, large caliber, guns) they use missiles because they are much more precise than gun batteries. so there could be problems with people just being noobs on the missile launchers. maybe to balance it out the defending team gets an airstrip so they can take out the missile racks and ship guns with their missiles. so then the ships would have to be destroyable since its highly unlikely you'll capture a ship. i'm sure there is a way to do it but right now it seems to me like there is too much to take into consideration just to balance it out and make it fair for both teams.
I am sorry but then where do the Tomahawk cruise missiles come from then??????????????? And yes there is such a thing as NAVAL BATTLES.T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
i have been saying this. so ur telling me that ship battles are not realistic?! damm rite they are why wud we still have them if they didnt need um
Yes, there's still a place for battleships and dsetroyers in modern warfare. They're just not as important as they used to be.
There's no way a Battlefield 2 naval battle would be even vaguely interesting if it even approximated how a naval battle would take place. Ships combat one another from many miles apart, using missiles and carrier-borne aircraft to do the damage. If they're equally equipped, whoever sees the other first will probably win, with a volley of cruise missiles from a hundred miles over the horizon.
Having said all that, BF2 is a game, and isn't even close to being a simulation. Ship combat could be fun. I also think it'd be cool if Spec-Ops could sneak onboard enemy vessels, and place C4 at certain points below decks to scuttle the ship. Aircraft would have to be involved, though to avoid them dominating the battle too much I'd like to see more prolific AA turrets.
And Old Wake used to be a lot of fun when you drove the Destroyer up to the beach until it tilted over and you could use the deck-guns on the poor saps who were spawning there. People who complain about spawn-rape in BF2 have obviously never been shelled from 50ft by 18-inch cannons.
There's no way a Battlefield 2 naval battle would be even vaguely interesting if it even approximated how a naval battle would take place. Ships combat one another from many miles apart, using missiles and carrier-borne aircraft to do the damage. If they're equally equipped, whoever sees the other first will probably win, with a volley of cruise missiles from a hundred miles over the horizon.
Having said all that, BF2 is a game, and isn't even close to being a simulation. Ship combat could be fun. I also think it'd be cool if Spec-Ops could sneak onboard enemy vessels, and place C4 at certain points below decks to scuttle the ship. Aircraft would have to be involved, though to avoid them dominating the battle too much I'd like to see more prolific AA turrets.
And Old Wake used to be a lot of fun when you drove the Destroyer up to the beach until it tilted over and you could use the deck-guns on the poor saps who were spawning there. People who complain about spawn-rape in BF2 have obviously never been shelled from 50ft by 18-inch cannons.
With him.T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
It'd be a pretty good idea actually. Destroyers could be cappable, carriers could be uncappable...
Hey, why wont there be submarine fights? Missiles same as as chopper and flares or something!
Exactly. Current elements of BF2 are unrealistic enough. For example, do you really think tanks park a few yards from eachother to wage battles in modern warfare? Do jets dogfight at 300mph? Do choppers have to tilt down 80 degrees to wipe out a tank with rocket pods? Can a man run around indefinately with a load of infinite ammo on his back?MrE`158 wrote:
There's no way a Battlefield 2 naval battle would be even vaguely interesting if it even approximated how a naval battle would take place. Ships combat one another from many miles apart, using missiles and carrier-borne aircraft to do the damage. If they're equally equipped, whoever sees the other first will probably win, with a volley of cruise missiles from a hundred miles over the horizon.
Having said all that, BF2 is a game, and isn't even close to being a simulation. Ship combat could be fun. I also think it'd be cool if Spec-Ops could sneak onboard enemy vessels, and place C4 at certain points below decks to scuttle the ship. Aircraft would have to be involved, though to avoid them dominating the battle too much I'd like to see more prolific AA turrets.
No, which is why BF2 is a game.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-22 06:12:21)
The USN has a whole group of subs dedicated to anti-ship/anti-sub warfare, as well as their 'tactical' missile subs.T0rr3nt wrote:
subs are mostly nuke subs now, not really anti-ship/sub vs sub. and would you like some noob to be whoring missles out of a sub you cant see and killing everyone. i didnt think so. same with guided missles.Presul wrote:
What about Subs? You could even have objectives the subs would have to destroy by launching missiles. Or what about guided missile cruisers? We used those all the time!T0rr3nt wrote:
no. modern armies have no use for such ships except the aircraft carrier anymore. those days are long over.
besides if you introduce a sub, you have to introduce a sub kill(i.e. the sea king or a sub killer ship.)
ontop of all the already made vechicals in bf2. its too much.
I would like naval battles