project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Suggestions
30 Oct 2014, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2010, 06:30 PM   #11
burghUK

burghUK's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

Were you on NWA today when i raping with LB? thus holding a grudge against them?

i disagree the lbs are fun.

If I don't make it , tell my wife i said "hello".
burghUK is offline
Old 04-26-2010, 07:40 PM   #12
chrisweb89
Project Reality Beta Tester
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

A little cocky are we? I don't think he wants them removed just because you're such an awesome pilot. I would like it if they put reall attack choppers on the maps like an apache and what karabala used to have remove the LBs completely, I think they're fun to use but I just don't see their place in conventional forces.
chrisweb89 is online now
Old 04-26-2010, 11:38 PM   #13
TristanYockell
Supporting Member

TristanYockell's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

If insurgents/ talib get to place HMG's/AA emplacements, then give the coalition gun ships all you wish.

I always found it very odd that insurgents cant place AA nests?. As long as you have a hideout down, you should be able to put a MG or AA nest in its general vacinity. It's just one more incentive to place and build hideouts anyway.

I see alot of insurgent/tali squads that just piss around and don't build hideouts, need a little more reward perhaps.

Lets face it, it wont be a gameplay killer anyway, insurgents in a static postion will get flanked, sniped, or pummeled by armour eventually anyhow.
TristanYockell is offline
Old 04-26-2010, 11:42 PM   #14
Archerchef
Supporting Member

Archerchef's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

dude lb totally balances karabala out. and ramiel's lb need hydras. if you go into the city as infantry, your probably not going to recieve fire support from apc or tanks because most likely they will be destroyed. thats where the lb comes in. you need some kind of fire support when your stuck in a city with a bunch of insurgents. they usually call in a jdam or artillery but thats only available every 30-60 mins until we implant it in the game
soo.. realism vs balance
Archerchef is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 12:36 AM   #15
Bringerof_D
Supporting Member

Bringerof_D's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

the problem i really only see is they way it's used. in insurgency situations you are fighting in a populated area. using unguided high explosive rockets use would probably IRL be very limited and limited to open areas where all targets are confirmed hostile.

i support the removal idea but only if something else is added to balance. i mean players are hard coded and right now the use of the little bird isnt tactical or realistic at all. its used along the lines of "OOH i see a guy, lets shoot" or "lots of running people, let fly the missiles!"

Information in the hands of a critical thinker is invaluable, information alone is simply dangerous.
Bringerof_D is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 03:22 AM   #16
alberto_di_gio

alberto_di_gio's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

Quote:
Originally Posted by crAck_sh0t View Post
i disagree the lbs are fun.
Did ever any LB gave my squad air support while we are searching 4 a cache...Nope!
Did I ever get any useful solid intelligence from LBs...Nope!
Did I ever see a LB chasing bomb cars or GARY to eliminate...Nope
Should it stay just because its fun to fly with...Nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bringerof_D View Post
i support the removal idea but only if something else is added to balance.
well... I guess by balancing you mean something should be added to INS side because removal of LBs means another 2 or 4 BLUFOR soldier will be included into active fighting which is much more vital than LBs for sure

my personal experience and thinking pls no offense


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
alberto_di_gio is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 03:35 AM   #17
Alex6714

Alex6714's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto_di_gio View Post
Did ever any LB gave my squad air support while we are searching 4 a cache...Nope!
Did I ever get any useful solid intelligence from LBs...Nope!
Did I ever see a LB chasing bomb cars or GARY to eliminate...Nope
Should it stay just because its fun to fly with...Nope


Because its a paper coffin with a magnet perhaps? Did you even try to communicate with one?

"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"

"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
Alex6714 is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 04:00 AM   #18
alberto_di_gio

alberto_di_gio's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex6714 View Post
Because its a paper coffin with a magnet perhaps? Did you even try to communicate with one?
First you have to ask me if I ever see one alive at the time of need

You may call me wrong of course but I also think no reservations should be needed when you see tens of small dots on the map trying to reach the red diamond

But you are right that with the metal coffin thing so thats becasue I support the removal of it. Or at least replace the one for two person only with a 3+1 or 5+1 model (AH/MH-6J) so that at least they can assist squads logistically.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
alberto_di_gio is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 04:16 AM   #19
[R-MOD]Dunehunter
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member

[R-MOD]Dunehunter's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to [R-MOD]Dunehunter
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

I dunno, I've had some pretty effective runs in games where I got good intel from squads on the ground. "suicide car *grid location*, please take it out", stuff like that.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[R-MOD]Jigsaw] I am drunk. I decided to come home early because I can''t realy seea nyithng. I hthknk i madea bad choicce.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[R-MOD]Dunehunter is offline
Old 04-27-2010, 05:29 AM   #20
Kain888
Supporting Member

Kain888's Avatar
Default Re: Removal of the attack Loach/Little Bird on insurgency as a whole

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto_di_gio View Post
Did ever any LB gave my squad air support while we are searching 4 a cache...Nope!
Did I ever get any useful solid intelligence from LBs...Nope!
Did I ever see a LB chasing bomb cars or GARY to eliminate...Nope
I have opposite experiences. LB with good coordination and teamwork are lethal. Not always, but it's the same with APCs, they often don't support and transport troops when some guys just want to use it as tanks, should we remove them? I don't think so...
Kain888 is offline
Closed Thread


Tags
attack, bird, insurgency, loach or little, removal
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2014, Project Reality.