PR Dev Journal. - Page 111

Celestial1 · 08-25-2009, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eavy Gunner

I think they should do what they did with the MG nest and put a roof on it.

As it is, the foxhole is ineffective to fire coming from higher altitudes, but extremely effective against level or lower level fire, whereas due to the roof the HMG is unable to be killed from high altitudes, but not very effective against fire coming from the front (a marksman/sniper can kill an HMG gunner from the front, since he's well exposed and cannot easily move out of the way)

Giving the foxhole a solid roof imo may not be the right way to go... but then again it would make it a lot more effective as cover, meaning that defenders will have an easier time...

I've effectively managed to convince myself that it's not a bad idea, but I'm still tossed.

**=KOF=CR8Z** · 08-26-2009, 01:35 AM

I think giving it a roof would make it harder to get in and out of and more of a bunker, imo.

As long as the foxhole is still effective against grenades and small arms fire, I'm all for em'! They look great and I can't wait to play with it.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 08-28-2009, 01:31 AM

I have to disagree with covering for foxholes. It might just be me, but a foxhole with covering isn't a foxhole, now I do understand that there are variations of foxholes that have been seen throughout various wars, but a sandbagged covered hole from my perspective is a foxhole.

I am for the developers placing covered versions or makeshift bunkers on certain locations like I have seen before, but to give a option for the SL to place a makeshift covered foxhole is a bit much. Now if there would be a arcitechual (sp?) engineer kit option that could be an interesting kit, but then again you might end up having a terrace and a penthouse attached to the foxhole/bunker at the end of the day vmaybe it goes well in San Francisco but not in PR.

**Berlancic** · 08-28-2009, 06:29 AM

You can use HMG nests as cover anyhow, you don't have to be in the MG, but it acts like a low bunker. The foxhole is meant to be a hole, not a roofed hole.

KevlarBR · 08-29-2009, 12:12 AM

Amen to that Berlanic...

I've used MG nests as my own private bunkers over and over again, and it gives you pretty decent cover...

Celestial1 · 08-29-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

I have to disagree with covering for foxholes. It might just be me, but a foxhole with covering isn't a foxhole, now I do understand that there are variations of foxholes that have been seen throughout various wars, but a sandbagged covered hole from my perspective is a foxhole.

I am for the developers placing covered versions or makeshift bunkers on certain locations like I have seen before

I see your point, and I raise you a +1 in agreement.

just IMO, I think some of the detail present in the foxhole would be nice to be added to the firebase (some dug-in sandbags, maybe a walkway, a wood-piece for the floor)...

It would look similar a foxhole, but with the covering and the radio box inside.

I'm no expert, though, so if it isn't realistic in that aspect, then I wouldn't complain... I just think giving the firebase itself a little more detail and a little more use in itself would be nice (especially like where in areas where the firebase itself blocks the position of good foxhole, like near a ridge). But hey, I like what we've got as it is, too!

(Maybe even add an option for a small bunker deployable that could help protect against heavier attacks with a roof, and thick walls, but might not have a lot of ways to fight from inside, so that an infantry squad can take cover during a mortar attack if they've got no time to run out of the attack radius in the hopes that they survive because of the bunker)

**=KOF=CR8Z** · 08-29-2009, 02:56 AM

Just throwing this out there, but what if the commander uav trailer were a larger complex that could be deployed in addition to the fire bases? I'll bet that would make for some different scenarios in CnC mode...

**Spitfire14** · 08-29-2009, 12:45 PM

You would just put it in the main like you used to have to do.

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM

They need to add medic bunkers from CoH. Then I can put an MG42 inside of it. I can also put a Flak 88 right next to it. And maybe a fortress of sandbag walls, concrete tank barriers, and mines.

One can dream, right?

Delta*RandyShugart* · 08-30-2009, 01:23 AM

It would be a neat addition if the CO had the option to Be a CO from the air, have a designated helo for this. Though I do understand where the negatives come into play, though I am basing this suggestion primarily as Blufor on insurgency maps.

Example - The USMC still uses the Huey as a command/support helo as one of it's various roles. The Army I suspect or possibly within certain detachments might also use a blackhawk, Kiowa or another variant as well.

**Ghost Dog** · 09-02-2009, 03:10 AM

0.87 changelog:

Quote:

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]AncientMan

GENERAL

- Compatibility with Battlefield 2 v1.5.

HUD

- Updated commander screen to show the marker reload time (60 seconds) now that the timer is hard-coded.
- Added "follow me / move out" to medikit comm rose.

PYTHON

- Fixed kit reservation issues.
- Updated mine markers so players can place multiple ones.
- Added informants logic that will report to Insurgent and Taliban commanders if 6 or more enemies are near a waypoint set in the map. The report takes around 60 seconds to reach the commander and it takes 5 minutes to start reporting contacts after the marker is placed. Vehicles are reported no matter the number of players in them.
- Fixed attack huey not having the critical damage system of other transport helicopters.
- Updated relative distances to be 50m, 100m and 150m (2, 4 and 6 players).

STATICS

- Updated L-Shaped HESCO with wire so they don't have lightmap bugs.
- Added 2 Russian apartment building textures that were missing.

VEHICLES

- Fixed the M249 geometry on the RHIB to be the correct version.
- Added commander UAV to conventional armies (full color) and Chechen (greyscale) command posts.
- Added seat to Insurgent/Taliban hideouts to be accessed only by commander. Added option on commander comm rose so he can build hideouts.
- Removed higher hitpoints for attack huey to be in par with the other heavy attack choppers.

WEAPONS

- Fixed M249 ELCAN deployed/undeployed mag-linking.
- Fixed floating 40mm grenade when sprinting with the M203 equipped.
- Fixed overheating patterns on the QJC88 HMG to be in line with the other .50 cals.
- Removed tracers from all of the Insurgent/Taliban weapons.
- Reverted LAT and HAT projectile explosion radii back to v0.85 values.

**Axis_Sniper** · 09-02-2009, 04:00 AM

Awesome! Not only are they adding the commander UAV, but they are reverting the LAT and HATs to their normal infantry killing ways in .85...And fixing the attack hueys!

**Berlancic** · 09-02-2009, 04:35 AM

I like how they reverted the AT killing infantry. L-ATs I think in some cases are meant to be used against infantry. the AT4 doesn't use an 84mm HE round for nothing.
I wonder how much of an impact removing tracers will have. Probably a lot harder to find technicals and PKMs.
And now static AA will hope to kill an attack huey.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 09-02-2009, 03:56 PM

Tracers I did wonder why that was still like that, maybe it was in place of a muzzle fire illumination and other harder to replicate signs of firing

RPG blast I thought was silly weak, it has deviation and settle time now I think so thats enough difficulty I reckon

The informants idea sounds pretty original and well in line with the outnumbered forces dynamic

Liquid.Watcher · 09-02-2009, 04:31 PM

Can some1 tell me why would they remove the tracers from the insurgents weapons? sure it will help improve ambushes of the opfor but does that make sense? doesn't high caliber weapons such as the PKM release tracers?