Will our beloved ships still be here? -1 reply

Please wait...

foodmaniac2003

Gelato pwns all

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,875 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

In BF2, is it still possible to have large, movable ships?

Is the Ark Royal shown (somewhere...I don't remember where the pic is...) a movable object, or just a static?

If it is a movable object, have the FH2 devs figured out a way to still launch planes off it? I remember someone on the PR forums mentioning that two vehicles on top of each other will immediately explode...




Real-BadSeed

Science experiment

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

3,799 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Ships are possible, bf1918 just put out a ww1 battleship mod for BF2. Dont know about moving carriers with aircraft though.




Sicarius

AIDS Monkey

50 XP

2nd February 2006

0 Uploads

239 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

I brought up this question yesterday...weirddddd (over TS), I was wondering more about destroyers, etc.




Oberst Topgun

Herr Oberst Feldmarschall

50 XP

8th August 2003

0 Uploads

868 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

they are possible, but theres a big prob: ladders dont work anymore, so it will be a bit fancy, but we have them ;)




ctz

FH Devolver

50 XP

17th May 2004

0 Uploads

655 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

yeah, ladders on ships don't and won't ever work, short of fixes by DICE (hah! don't make me laugh).

so i'll likely have to engineer a replacement for ladders, probably a vehicle which acts like a lift but has seat animations taken from the ladders.

but yes, once we have them they'll be a huge number of horrible hacks. i doubt they'll ever work as well as they did in bf1942 (which wasn't great, but was passable).




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Large ships are going to be tricky as I understand it, and it might not work as well as it did in FH1942.

That said I’m not really saddened by the prospect of possibly seeing less of them, I have always seen naval combat as more of a distraction than anything else. Not particularly rewarding at all, as the scaled down nature of the game turns the ballistics into a joke, and you have two Battleships bumping into each other, or exchanging fire at 100 meters.

I did enjoy torpedo bombing ships, and speeding around in PT boats, but honestly I think any ship larger than your average destroyer is out of place, much like a B29 would be if it actually were put into the game. Sure, some people want their Prince of Whales regardless of these arguments, but it wont be because of realism, diversity maybe, or more likely “just because its fun”. The maus/Dora/B29/Russianlandbattleship would be “just fun” too, but people get pied and strung up for mentioning these. Even though the size and firepower are really not that different when you take into account the scaled nature of FH. Therefor I fully support the exclusion of moveable battleships and aircraft carriers, apart from static fire/air support platforms, would the devs take this course.




Real-BadSeed

Science experiment

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

3,799 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Well, i personally loved naval combat in BF1/FH1. Midway is still one of the few vanilla bf1 maps been played, and filling servers.. That says something about naval combats popularity. Of coarse some people dont like naval combat, but they are in a small minority, imo. TBH, the bf2 engine has been highly disappointing and frustrating for me. And its made Modding a mod such as FH for "full scale war" type gaming way way more difficult.




Spike1942

Work in progress

50 XP

30th September 2003

0 Uploads

192 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

If aircraft carriers are impossible in the BF2 engine due to explosions if one vehicle is on top of the other, that's going to make some 'BF1942' Pacific maps very difficult to pull off. Midway is a goner if that's the case.

Even Wake Island will be tricky - the devs might have to cheat and have an fake island nearby with a Japanese airstrip on it. The alternative is to have Wake Island with no aircraft included.

The island invasions of Tulagi, Makin and Iwo Jimi will be quite unrealistic if the US have no carriers for air support.

I strongly suggest that "FH2 in the Pacific" should focus on new maps and different Pacific battles, rather than recreating the FH1942 ones. For example, we could have Bataan and Corregidor maps, Malaya and Dutch East Indies maps, Singapore and Burma maps, even India. Also New Guinea maps, separate ones for the Aussies and US. Finally, the US retaking the Philippines in 1944-45.

A completely new and different Pacific war experience, with the primary focus on ground combat (especially infantry vs infantry combat) instead of on naval and air combat as in BF1942.




Real-BadSeed

Science experiment

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

3,799 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

We can have carriers but they will have to be immobile, so some invasion maps can still be made. But its still all very depressing and limiting....




foodmaniac2003

Gelato pwns all

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,875 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago
Real-BadSeed;3593801We can have carriers but they will have to be immobile, so some invasion maps can still be made. But its still all very depressing and limiting....

Gah.

:( :( :(

No movable carriers :bawl:

Why must DICE do this to us? :(