|
|||||||
| PR Suggestions : Suggestions from our community members. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#21 |
|
PR Lead Forum Moderator
![]() ![]() |
Comes back to the best solution is probably one that involves two elements to the bunker and firebase:
The main body - the sandbags and cammo netting for the FB, the sandbag walls and wooden base for the Bunker A team-level rallypoint - either spawned automatically inside the B/FB after a short period of time, or SL/Commander placed within a very small distance of a B/FB. Attacking sides would be able to kill the rallypoint with a knife, leaving the main body of the B/FB up until an engineer could get to it to destroy it outright. The ability to request heavy kits would remain linked to the structure itself, as would the ammo store - meaning that if attackers failed to remove a B/FB and the defenders were able to recapture it, they could still utilise this important aspect. |
|
The most popular PR server in the UK - [T&T] Tactics and Teamwork - NOW running a second server - Server 1: Mixed Mode / Server: 2 INS Only! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
United KingdomLocation: Peterhouse college, Cambridge
Posts: 2,666
|
I think thats a bit better, maybee the HP of the bunker could be increased to make it a place you can really defend from, too?
|
|
Ballistics + Zeroing !!!Nedlands1 for [R-CON]!!! (Done) !!!Nedlands1 for [R-DEV]!!!
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
United KingdomLocation: Near Leeds
Posts: 1,501
|
Yeah I reckon if the defendabilty is increased there wouldn't be a problem, personally though I'd like to see less of the things in game in general and more transport.
I'd much prefer to have 1 bunker per side which can be heavily defended with AA, TOWs and MGs then loads of the things causing this if you ask me. |
![]() I'm a PC! And I use a badly written Microsoft operating system like the vast majority of PC users thus discrediting your individuality based retaliation to Apple marketing. |
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
PR Contributor
![]() |
I don't like the idea of removing bunkers. However, what could possibly be done to prevent eternal seiges is to limit a bunkers spawn ability. If bunkers can spawn a max of size men, and takes a two minutes to recharge each slot a squad sized group can spawn only once every 12 minutes.
|
![]() Ongoing PR Projects: Canadian Forces RG-31 Nyala Armored Patrol Vehicle - Status: Importing Topographical minimaps - Status: Restarted![7/18] |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
United KingdomLocation: Near Leeds
Posts: 1,501
|
Yeah that's a reasonable idea, 12 minutes is a little excessive if you ask me but summet along those lines might be good.
|
![]() I'm a PC! And I use a badly written Microsoft operating system like the vast majority of PC users thus discrediting your individuality based retaliation to Apple marketing. |
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
#26 | |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,081
|
Quote:
If you ask me, I'd like to see a system where players can only spawn on back flags (CPs not within the current AAS group). | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
#27 | |
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
United KingdomLocation: Shire of Staffs - England
Posts: 948
|
Quote:
To keep the CP defended, there would need to be a supply chain as discussed... A couple trucks full of soldiers and a supply crate or two seems quite realistic. If these trucks were destroyed, the supply chain would be broken and the defending team would need to find another way to reinforce or supply the CP. Defenders would be at a disadvantage in some situations IRLIMO. | |
|
|
|
#28 |
|
PR Beta Testing Team Leader
![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
United States of AmericaLocation: NY
Posts: 183
|
I honestly dont know what the big problem is for most of you.
If you're in a squad, and you encounter a CO asset... 1. Hide. Inform everyone 2. See if anyone has explosives or AT 3. Go to rally or nearest point to get AT or explosives. 4. Blow it up and run. If you fail, try again, but ask for tank or APC support. Communication brings down Bunkers more often than zerging. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
![]() |
Quote:
| |
|
[DM]Cheomesh -- Clan Leader.
I should have 200 posts more than it shows... Slayer of 2 spam bots! Aw dude 4 str 4 stam leather belt? AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! |
||
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Moderator
![]() Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Londinium, England
Posts: 2,718
|
I think the removal of Bunkers is one of the most regressive suggestions to date!
...mongol... |
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
![]() |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| bunkers, remove |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|