LAV under Carrier

2006-07-26 13:32:06

#1

Presul: Member; +12|6841|With my rifle, where else?

I would like an LAV under the carrier in the boat bay. It'd help when all the land flags are capped in Oman or Wake and it'd be better to have something that could fight when it got to the beach instead of a bunch of rafts getting slaughtered by FAV fire. Yeah there'd be people taking it and leaving all their teammates "requesting pick-up" but IDEALY you could use it to transport a bunch of people all of the carrier so they didn't all get arty'd on the flight deck and it'd be a little steardier then a blackhawk.

Perhaps 2? That'd change Wake Island A LOT.

Let me know what you think.

2006-07-26 13:32:51

#2

topthrill05: Member; +125|6777|Rochester NY USA

I like the Idea.

2006-07-26 13:33:55

#3

eagles1106: Member; +269|6783|Marlton, New Jersey.

actually it wouldnt change anything, do you know how easy a plane or helicopter can take out an apc in the water, wake would be pretty much the same. The z10 or j10s would just own apcs, adding apcs would only give more kills to the defenders...

2006-07-26 13:35:35

#4

Presul: Member; +12|6841|With my rifle, where else?

eagles1106 wrote:
actually it wouldnt change anything, do you know how easy a plane or helicopter can take out an apc in the water, wake would be pretty much the same. The z10 or j10s would just own apcs, adding apcs would only give more kills to the defenders...

How would that be less effective then the RUBBER RAFTS that are there now?

2006-07-26 14:12:12

#5

FrankieSpankie3388: Hockey Nut; +243|6729|Boston, MA

I like the idea. It gives the attacking chance an actual chance at attacking when all the other bases are captured. But what I think would be even cooler is if they had battleships.

2006-07-26 14:37:31

#6

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|6938|Comber, Northern Ireland

kinda weird i'm seeing all my old posts re posted

2006-07-26 14:38:18

#7

Dagriz: Member; +1|6692

topthrill05 wrote:
I like the Idea.

2006-07-26 14:40:00

#8

Dagriz: Member; +1|6692

eagles1106 wrote:
actually it wouldnt change anything, do you know how easy a plane or helicopter can take out an apc in the water, wake would be pretty much the same. The z10 or j10s would just own apcs, adding apcs would only give more kills to the defenders...

at least he could have support from the US essex during is trip

2006-07-26 14:40:56

#9

-=raska=-: Canada's French Frog; +123|6825|Quebec city, Canada

you know Dice planned to add overcrafts in the game but they finally abandonned ? I think they were supposed to be placed in the hangar.

let me find the picture

there it is : http://www.bf2-files.de/img/klassen/usa … e/lcac.jpg

Last edited by -=raska=- (2006-07-26 14:45:16)

2006-07-26 14:43:01

#10

Ir0n-M@n: has the greatest stats on earth; +125|6943|Germany

Lavs are really to slow in water -.- they would be killed after 20 meters...

2006-07-26 14:53:58

#11

PRiMACORD: Member; +190|6824|Home of the Escalade Herds

They need to add speed boats or something thats a lot faster then the rubber coffins

2006-07-26 14:55:16

#12

BigmacK: Back from the Dead.; +628|6950|Chicago.

-=raska=- wrote:
you know Dice planned to add overcrafts in the game but they finally abandonned ? I think they were supposed to be placed in the hangar.

let me find the picture

there it is : http://www.bf2-files.de/img/klassen/usa … e/lcac.jpg

Now there's a vehicle I would risk crossing the ocean in!

2006-07-26 18:38:18

#13

EvilJebus: Member; +11|6824

I assume you mean an APC, the idea of a amphibous vehicle spawned at the carrier would be good but like everybody else said it would get blown up easily, because of their stupidly slow speed in the water. Some kind of new fast armored aphibous assult vehicle capable of blowing up a FAV/DPV and avoiding a tank would help. The again, give the US a plane that doesn't suck and a AA turrent that can actualy shoot down a plane and maybe you could get a Blackhawk off the carrier.

2006-07-26 22:07:47

#14

Windrider_Melb: Pwned so often there's an IPO.; +29|6704|Melbourne, Australia

I disagree.

I think the whole game could be balanced more by adding incentive for pilots to concentrate on Air Superiority rather than what they normally do, which is harvest infantry kills.

Look at the modern US military; they don't send in one single foot soldier without almost total air dominance, including lower-level close air support superiority (the 'attack chopper' level).

Jets should be focussed on other jets and AA first (whether in the air on on the ground), then choppers, then hard armour, then soft ground targets. Attack choppers should be focussed on other attack choppers and AA, hard ground targets then soft ground targets. If you can get the pilots focus back to where it should be, then the game will balance a lot better.

I'll bet that in Wake, the reason you're not getting off the carrier is because the Chinese pilots have that all figured out. I'll bet that's why most people hate Operation Clean Sweep too, despite an abundance of Bradley LAVs on the USMC side.

\\'

2006-07-26 22:09:51

#15

Brasso: member; +1,549|6829

Any noob piloting the J-10 (including me) could totally rape the shit out of an APC heading for Wake....not to mention the hordes of AT infy on the island, the Z-10, and the 2 tanks that the PLA spawns...

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2006-07-26 22:13:06

#16

BVC: Member; +325|6894

I'm in favour of replacing the artillery island with a destroyer (cannons on destroyer) to either the east or south of the carrier, to give the USMC a wider angle of attack...that or even moving the carrier somewhere else (while retaining the arty island) to acheive the same effect.

2006-07-26 22:20:13

#17

HCSkorpio: Hind Secks; +8|6735|California

Why cant they just move the US spawnpoint from the artillery island onto the main island? Problem sovled.

2006-07-27 16:24:37

#18

BandoIruka: Member; +1|6693

HCSkorpio wrote:
Why cant they just move the US spawnpoint from the artillery island onto the main island? Problem sovled.

Apparently it wouldn't make sense with the map scenario where the chinese managed to sneak onto the island by night and capture it by force.

Asides from that, I don't see anything wrong with an addition to the LAVs on a map like Wake.

2006-07-29 03:08:20

#19

souljar: Member; +8|6683|Liverpool U.K

I say what about mini subs with two passenger seats , wey hey .

2006-07-29 19:13:12

#20

midnitebassist: Countersniper; +11|6728|here

souljar wrote:
I say what about mini subs with two passenger seats , wey hey .

Dude, I would whore those things like nothing else.

2006-08-02 04:59:00

#21

timmah1142: Member; +1|6704

-=raska=- wrote:
you know Dice planned to add overcrafts in the game but they finally abandonned ? I think they were supposed to be placed in the hangar.

let me find the picture

there it is : http://www.bf2-files.de/img/klassen/usa/fahrzeuge/lcac.jpg

this was a vehicle in joint operations. it was a good game with potential but did not have the following or quality which the BF franchise has.

2006-08-02 05:08:30

#22

DSRTurtle: Member; +56|6885

Windrider_Melb wrote:
I disagree.

I think the whole game could be balanced more by adding incentive for pilots to concentrate on Air Superiority rather than what they normally do, which is harvest infantry kills.

Look at the modern US military; they don't send in one single foot soldier without almost total air dominance, including lower-level close air support superiority (the 'attack chopper' level).

Jets should be focussed on other jets and AA first (whether in the air on on the ground), then choppers, then hard armour, then soft ground targets. Attack choppers should be focussed on other attack choppers and AA, hard ground targets then soft ground targets. If you can get the pilots focus back to where it should be, then the game will balance a lot better.

I'll bet that in Wake, the reason you're not getting off the carrier is because the Chinese pilots have that all figured out. I'll bet that's why most people hate Operation Clean Sweep too, despite an abundance of Bradley LAVs on the USMC side.

\\'

Your correct except for one thing. In BF2 the F35 is a missle magnet for the J10.

2006-08-02 19:36:02

#23

Windrider_Melb: Pwned so often there's an IPO.; +29|6704|Melbourne, Australia

DSRTurtle wrote:
Windrider_Melb wrote:
I disagree.

I think the whole game could be balanced more by adding incentive for pilots to concentrate on Air Superiority rather than what they normally do, which is harvest infantry kills.

Look at the modern US military; they don't send in one single foot soldier without almost total air dominance, including lower-level close air support superiority (the 'attack chopper' level).

Jets should be focussed on other jets and AA first (whether in the air on on the ground), then choppers, then hard armour, then soft ground targets. Attack choppers should be focussed on other attack choppers and AA, hard ground targets then soft ground targets. If you can get the pilots focus back to where it should be, then the game will balance a lot better.

I'll bet that in Wake, the reason you're not getting off the carrier is because the Chinese pilots have that all figured out. I'll bet that's why most people hate Operation Clean Sweep too, despite an abundance of Bradley LAVs on the USMC side.

\\'
Your correct except for one thing. In BF2 the F35 is a missle magnet for the J10.

Yeah.

Then maybe add another F35.

OR - the F35s should stay operating where they have supplemental air-cover; closer to the carrier and Arty Island. That might help give them the edge in establishing localised air superiority over a flag closer to the carrier.

Perhaps I think a little more than the average BF2 player. Probably why my stats are so bad

\\'

2006-08-05 13:20:54

#24

mcfarmer.dk: Member; +1|6684|Aalborg, Denmark

Ir0n-M@n wrote:
Lavs are really to slow in water -.- they would be killed after 20 meters...

I think they can go further, maybe 40 meters before the planes take them out, and if they make insight of the beach, I think that Anti tank would hide in the trees and shot out..

So no I don't think that would be an great idea, much better with an extra black hawk..

2006-08-05 13:24:31

#25

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6764|Area 51

eagles1106 wrote:
actually it wouldnt change anything, do you know how easy a plane or helicopter can take out an apc in the water, wake would be pretty much the same. The z10 or j10s would just own apcs, adding apcs would only give more kills to the defenders...

Actually, u don't get the littel square/circle in the water when the apc is in the water, and the thrail of water that it leaves is much smaller, and its takes more then 2 bombs to kill the apc in the water,
APC would make such more of a chance,

BF2S Forums LAV under Carrier

eagles1106 wrote:

topthrill05 wrote:

eagles1106 wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

HCSkorpio wrote:

souljar wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

Windrider_Melb wrote:

DSRTurtle wrote:

Windrider_Melb wrote:

Ir0n-M@n wrote:

eagles1106 wrote:

Board footer