Your Opinions are needed -1 reply

Please wait...

Victim

I die a lot.

50 XP

12th February 2004

0 Uploads

4 Posts

0 Threads

#251 15 years ago

Things I don't like: There's basically no point in getting a sniper kit unless you want the binocs, since the standard infantry rifles are just as accurate and the view distance on most maps is so small. They should stop being 100% accurate past certain distances. The planes are so sluggish and the view distance is so short and the machine gun damage vs planes so light that it's almost a miracle anyone gets shot down in dogfights. I've flown around entire rounds without getting shot down because dogfighting is so difficult. Also, bombers in general are so slow that you need to know where your ground target is ahead of time so you can set up a bombing run, but by the time you can finally get around to doing that, your target will have moved. This problem is even worse with the bombers that don't even have bombs. They are so big and useless that nobody bothers to fly them. I can understand realistically slow controls, but keep in mind the real life minimum safe distance to shoot up an enemy plane is 500 feet. Any closer and you may end up wearing the other guy's armor. It was probably a shorter distance in WWII because plane speeds were much slower, but you get my point. 500 feet in BF:1942 is beyond most view distances. Battleship AA did not fire all in the same direction all at the same time. Code in some (height) variation and/or have the guns to the side converge on the center, because as it is you're only getting use out of one or two of the 8 or so guns at any given time. Battleship guns did not all fire on the same trajectory, unless it was at an immobile target and they were certain of a hit. Some variation would be neato, especially since bombardment isn't as effective as it could be due to entire 6-8 round salvos landing in roughly the same spot. Changing the trajectories for 4-6 rounds could even better allow for long range sea engagements, since you wouldn't have to worry about getting the shot exactly right in order to hit anything. Besides, it's what they did in real life. The Japanese submarine seems intended for one person. If it submerges, which it is designed to do, the outside weapons blow up and respawn when it resurfaces. However, when it does resurface, the one person in the submarine will not have access to the three guns in the back, largely because of that damned conning tower getting in the way. Add some passenger spots with different exit points to the subs, so that they may get at least some use. Things I'd like to see: Gunsights on battleships and destroyers, yeah!! I mean really, you did it for the tanks... There were some radio guided bombs and missiles. If you're going to include obscure weapons and vehicles that didn't get much use, include those as well, cause they're spiffy neato. Carpet bombing. B-17's did not release their bombs one at a time; they did it all at once and their bombs spread out over an area. As it is, if you try and bomb an area in a heavy bomber, your bombs will all land in a perfectly straight line, which isn't terribly effective unless your targets all happen to be lined up. While an individual plane's bombs did land in something like a line, bombers never went on bombing missions by themselves. At the same time, BF can't support 100 heavy bombers flying over an area, so I think you should have the few we can have release their bombs all at once and have them spread out. Finally, a little something regarding plane speeds... the current flight system is designed to accomodate for three plane speeds: reverse, off and full speed. Planes are designed to be at their best performances only when they've reached full speed. Anything less and their performance suffers. Additionally, going over the top speed from dives results in even better handling. I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to see the optimum flight speed for performance somewhere around 70% power. Anything more/less and they turn slower.




MG42Maniac

A man of dubious moral fibre

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

3,932 Posts

0 Threads

#252 15 years ago
OhioanKamikaze-ing isn't that big a deal. Most people use bombs now anyways, unless they see a juicy target that needs to be taken out, like a King Tiger. The devs did mention that the problem was "fixed" in .62, but I don't know what or how.

Its coded so when a Plane hits a tank it doesn't do any damge or very little damage.




judge reinhold

BOY I SURE POST ALOT

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,112 Posts

0 Threads

#253 15 years ago
Victim Gunsights on battleships and destroyers, and maybe even periscopes for submarines, yeah!! I mean really, you did it for the tanks...

how does having tank sights correlate to a periscope? is there a command you know where the camera can autodetect the water surface and rise to it depending on depth?




Victim

I die a lot.

50 XP

12th February 2004

0 Uploads

4 Posts

0 Threads

#254 15 years ago

No, I wasn't thinking. I'll edit that out.




stm_Masi

I have made sin...

50 XP

12th May 2004

0 Uploads

34 Posts

0 Threads

#255 15 years ago

One biggest thing I`ve started to hate are those damn Katyushas and other rocket launchers.Certain maps like Karelia,Zielona Gora etc.are so owned by these weapons because people have learned to spot exact point even if noone is spotting:mad: .Maybe you can count that as a pretargeted area but this way it still sucks. Dont know what you guys think but my opinion is that rockets should be able to fire only if someone is giving a target for them(and reward spotter if co-operations is successful).And for the realism,I think there should be more artillery in use because as far as I know,in WW2 almost every big assault was launched under heavy artillery fire from a both sides(defenders&attackers).Please correct if I`m wrong.Thx.