Welcome to Tactical Gamer

Discussion: Project Reality / PR:BF2 - PR Dev Journal. - Originally Posted by Eavy Gunner I think they should do what they did with the
  1. 08-25-2009, 10:59 PM #1651
    Celestial1
    Celestial1 is offline

    Celestial1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,516

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eavy Gunner View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    2.  
  2. 08-26-2009, 01:35 AM #1652
    CR8Z
    CR8Z is offline

    CR8Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    southern california
    Age
    36
    Posts
    747

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    3.  
  3. 08-28-2009, 01:31 AM #1653
    Delta*RandyShugart*
    Delta*RandyShugart* is offline


    Delta*RandyShugart*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Good ol Suburbia in Southern Westchester County NY
    Posts
    6,091
    Blog Entries
    49

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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.
    Randy = Ace ! - Warlab






    Randy/Bob/Magnum
    RSS Feeds:Bamboo | |TG-31st| LR IHS Info | 9/11 - Never Forget |
    Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
    Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
    We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    4.  

     
  4. 08-28-2009, 06:29 AM #1654
    Berlancic
    Berlancic is offline

    Berlancic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia, Brisbane - best city in Oz.
    Age
    16
    Posts
    1,406

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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.
    |TG-69th|Berlancic2
    "Speed. Aggression. Surprise."


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    5.  
  5. 08-29-2009, 12:12 AM #1655
    KevlarBR
    KevlarBR is offline

    KevlarBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    382

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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...
    |TG-69th|Kevlar



    "Oh I know I don't think I see what I see what I'm thinking."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    6.  
  6. 08-29-2009, 12:40 AM #1656
    Celestial1
    Celestial1 is offline

    Celestial1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,516

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart* View Post
    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)
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    7.  

     
  7. 08-29-2009, 02:56 AM #1657
    CR8Z
    CR8Z is offline

    CR8Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    southern california
    Age
    36
    Posts
    747

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    8.  
  8. 08-29-2009, 12:45 PM #1658
    Spitfire14
    Spitfire14 is offline

    Spitfire14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    390

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    You would just put it in the main like you used to have to do.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    9.  
  9. 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM #1659
    Skud
    Skud is offline


    Skud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NY
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,042
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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?
    |TG-70th|Skud
    I just hipfire and get headshots at medium range - xBadger, the best player

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    10.  

     
  10. 08-30-2009, 01:23 AM #1660
    Delta*RandyShugart*
    Delta*RandyShugart* is offline


    Delta*RandyShugart*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Good ol Suburbia in Southern Westchester County NY
    Posts
    6,091
    Blog Entries
    49

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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.
    Randy = Ace ! - Warlab






    Randy/Bob/Magnum
    RSS Feeds:Bamboo | |TG-31st| LR IHS Info | 9/11 - Never Forget |
    Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
    Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
    We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    11.  
  11. 09-02-2009, 03:10 AM #1661
    Ghost Dog
    Ghost Dog is offline

    Ghost Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,851

    0.87 changelog.

    0.87 changelog:

    Quote Originally Posted by [R-DEV]AncientMan View Post
    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.
    |TG-6th|GhostDog
    Xfire: Iaintyourm8 | Ingame: |TG-6th|GhostDog | Steam: Zuigmijnballen

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    12.  
  12. 09-02-2009, 04:00 AM #1662
    Axis_Sniper
    Axis_Sniper is offline


    Axis_Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    21
    Posts
    2,584

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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!


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    13.  

     
  13. 09-02-2009, 04:35 AM #1663
    Berlancic
    Berlancic is offline

    Berlancic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia, Brisbane - best city in Oz.
    Age
    16
    Posts
    1,406

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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.
    |TG-69th|Berlancic2
    "Speed. Aggression. Surprise."


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    14.  
  14. 09-02-2009, 03:56 PM #1664
    Sabre_Tooth_Tigger
    Sabre_Tooth_Tigger is offline

    Sabre_Tooth_Tigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    eurasia
    Posts
    3,588
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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


    If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    15.  
  15. 09-02-2009, 04:31 PM #1665
    Liquid.Watcher
    Liquid.Watcher is offline

    Liquid.Watcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Big Apple
    Posts
    413

    Re: PR Dev Journal.

    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?


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    16.  

     
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules



  
 

Back to top
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9
Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0


©2004-2011 - Tactical Industries, LLC - All Rights Reserved
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 AM.