Should SAS be allowed? -1 reply

Please wait...

mach1muscle351

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

9th February 2006

0 Uploads

528 Posts

0 Threads

#51 12 years ago
RN_MaxIt all depends on whether special forces type action is appropriate for a given map. Game maps only normally enable representation of a small and limited "sample" of a given battle or action. "Main bases" in BF maps are a game mechanism, symbolic representations for the forces entry points into the game area from a much larger actual historic battle front and also act as a means of allowing 64 players to simulate a much larger force by respawning. There would not be a huge base at the front of a battle unless the map was actually designed on an attack of an installation. Main bases were far behind the fighting, heavily defended and well manned, mostly being abandoned and emptied way before the fighting arrived. If the base raids didn't take place during the real battle then there is no worthwhile reason to allow for them in game. Who knows, in any event FH2 may end up with specific raid maps with objective targets.

On occasion they did happen around the same time of other battles that were going on in a different area. Its just that they were so far apart it was like two battles. Alot of the SAS missions did happen at night. But since the battle of El alamein is generally scrunched down to about 45 minutes in FH. Its kind of hard to have it so its night/day/night/day.




The Crimson Major

Veteran Lurker

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

525 Posts

0 Threads

#52 12 years ago

absolutely not. Its totally unrealistic to have special forces on the same battlefield as regular troops, especially with such small maps. it just doesnt work in multiplayer.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#53 12 years ago

It's my firm opinion that large battles (El Alamein, Kursk, etc.) should be broken up into smaller segments, as some of them are already.

So there wouldn't be anything speaking against having commando-type elements in an appropriate scenario.

The only problem is that these guys worked with surprise; in FH2, you'd be expecting them. It's beyond me how anyone would simulate this.

LRDG/SAS also operated with fairly small teams, so you couldn't constantly have people spawning--the only thing that remains would be limited, occasional spawns of LRDG trucks (W00T) and such in conventional maps, taking care to not mix the conventional fighting and commando raids too much.

One thing I was thinking was mixing an objective map (i.e. blow up static planes at a remote airfield) with flags; have it like a destructible flag. So, as long as the Axis have the planes alive, it counts as a flag in their favor in the bleed rate, while they permanently lose that "flag-equivalent" when the planes are blown up.

They could still win based on successes elsewhere in the game, but it'd just be that much harder. How's that? You wouldn't have anyone raiding mainbases either.




UH60BHPilot

Pacific Campaign for the win.

50 XP

31st December 2004

0 Uploads

153 Posts

0 Threads

#54 12 years ago
Real-BadSeedwhen the game supports 1024 players on one server (minimum), then yes, until then no..

Amen to that... :bows:




mach1muscle351

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

9th February 2006

0 Uploads

528 Posts

0 Threads

#55 12 years ago
FuzzyBunnyIt's my firm opinion that large battles (El Alamein, Kursk, etc.) should be broken up into smaller segments, as some of them are already. So there wouldn't be anything speaking against having commando-type elements in an appropriate scenario. The only problem is that these guys worked with surprise; in FH2, you'd be expecting them. It's beyond me how anyone would simulate this. LRDG/SAS also operated with fairly small teams, so you couldn't constantly have people spawning--the only thing that remains would be limited, occasional spawns of LRDG trucks (W00T) and such in conventional maps, taking care to not mix the conventional fighting and commando raids too much. One thing I was thinking was mixing an objective map (i.e. blow up static planes at a remote airfield) with flags; have it like a destructible flag. So, as long as the Axis have the planes alive, it counts as a flag in their favor in the bleed rate, while they permanently lose that "flag-equivalent" when the planes are blown up. They could still win based on successes elsewhere in the game, but it'd just be that much harder. How's that? You wouldn't have anyone raiding mainbases either.

Well the only way to give SAS element of suprise is to allow them to raid airbases. The fact that these are so rare in FH allows them to have suprise. 9 times out of 10, when I do this mission people dont even see me until I drive away. They're too busy waiting for airplanes. If we built a map entirely on this, then it would totally diminish suprise.




Strumtrupp

FH:STURMTRUPP4|BF2:HG_The Tank

50 XP

2nd January 2005

0 Uploads

679 Posts

0 Threads

#56 12 years ago

FuzzyBunnyIt's my firm opinion that large battles (El Alamein, Kursk, etc.) should be broken up into smaller segments, as some of them are already.

So there wouldn't be anything speaking against having commando-type elements in an appropriate scenario.

The only problem is that these guys worked with surprise; in FH2, you'd be expecting them. It's beyond me how anyone would simulate this.

LRDG/SAS also operated with fairly small teams, so you couldn't constantly have people spawning--the only thing that remains would be limited, occasional spawns of LRDG trucks (W00T) and such in conventional maps, taking care to not mix the conventional fighting and commando raids too much.

One thing I was thinking was mixing an objective map (i.e. blow up static planes at a remote airfield) with flags; have it like a destructible flag. So, as long as the Axis have the planes alive, it counts as a flag in their favor in the bleed rate, while they permanently lose that "flag-equivalent" when the planes are blown up.

They could still win based on successes elsewhere in the game, but it'd just be that much harder. How's that? You wouldn't have anyone raiding mainbases either.

Similar to what I have been suggesting for some time. /me thinks fuzzy and I should desing a few maps together