Hi All,

 

I have been thinking a little about PR (and for that matter Vanilla BF2) and why they are so far out of date with some aspects of the weapons in use for real.

 

The three glaring omissions based on current operations in Iraq in particular are:

 

1) Most vehicle mounted weapons are now either 50cals or Mk19 40mm grenade launchers with more and more being converted to Mk19. This is pretty much the weapon of choice for the US military now yet it doesn't appear in the BF2 world?

 

2) Optics are now on just about everything. Pretty much all coalition forces have optics on all rifles and SAW's not to mention 50cals as well yet they are rare in the BF2 world? The Aimpoint on the M4 (or an equivilant Elcan or Holosight) is pretty much universal issue to front line troops now. Cheap Chinese aimpoint or ACOG copies can be had on eBay for $100 and these are flooding into the war zones and appearing on everything from AK47s to bolt action Mausers.

 

3) Insurgents have been increasingly using civilian rifles with scopes in place of dedicated sniper rifles. This trend started in Bosnia and is now so strong that the US government restricts the sale of telescopic sights outside of the US. Most US casualties to gunfire (rather than by IED) is by "sniper" fire.

 

I think one of the aims of the PR was to explore "aysmetrical warfare" and this is a great way to do this: Give the coalition forces better quality weapons with more optics and heavier firepower on the humvees etc but give the insurgents more sniper rifles.

 

To improve game balance, insurgents could have a 50% loading on their team balance, have areas of the map that can only be accessed by insurgents (as per the extract mode already in use) and perhaps award more points for a kill with an iron sighted weapon than a scoped one.

 

Thoughts?

Most of that comes down to balance. They are thinking about incorporating the vehicle mounted grenade launchers, but it probably won't happen. Could you imagine the slaughter one of those things could dish out given that the engagement range in PR/BF2 is relatively small?

Yep, someone asked me in-game the other night what I noticed as being the biggest difference between PR and RL was.

 

Apart from the obvious answer that no bugger is trying to shoot you for real the biggest differences I notice is the close ranges and the visibility.

 

Even on a jungle map the visibility in PR is very good compared to RL. In RL, when you are lying prone the whole world consists of the bush in front of you, the rock underneath you and the 225,000 ants and other insects crawling over you!

 

I am not advocating a wholesale change but a single "dissimilar warfare" map in PR would be interesting, even if it took a bit of fiddling to get the balance right.

 

Bammo

I agree 100% with you Bammo, but it will not happen due to the fact as Lucid said its about Balancing :shock: Its utter crap but people have suggested and suggested over and over about it.

 

With the close quarters issue, well I highly suggest in that case they only bring the vehicle into maps like Kabal and EJOD.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7493/1161382101iraqbcd1.jpg

A lot of people still like to use iron sights actually. To be truely realistic all weapons should be fully customized to your liking.

PIC SNIP

 

Terriblexs4ce...I think that guy is actually an Israeli military soldier. The photo looks very similar to a Pulitzer prize winner.

I concur it is almost undoubtedly a solider from Israel the camo's are a dead give away as with the helmet.