Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

[Cpt Lars]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

may be you have not noticed but this is and extremely good simulation of war(aside from some weapons and vehicles) and it is open to interpretation on the purpose of the game but anyway the genre is battlefield/military

[zacman13245]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

that poll is biased, slightly

[Geekybiker]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

I dont think that flying planes is unskilled, but jets dont really have a check. All the ground vehicles are realatively easily destroyed. The helos arent too bad. The jets are near impossible to shoot down except by another jet. That combined with near instant repair/reload makes them almost unstopable. Real or not, the AA should take down a jet more often than not if you have a lock and they dont drop flares.

[BF2MilkMan]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

Jets shouldn't be removed completely. If anything they should take more damage from anti-aircraft (not stinger, but Linebacker and Tunguska.) Also, I think that if you have two good pilots, one on each side, they usually keep each other busy throughout the round trying to shoot each other. I'm kind of sick of people complaining about those that have skill at flying, I mean most of us can't even stay in the air for longer than 5 minutes let alone be able to bomb and damage the enemy while we're flying. Yeah, even I get really mad at those guys that bomb the heck out of your spawn, but you've just got to find a way to cripple it. Take the airfield or perhaps practice using the AA so that you can shoot them down whenever that situation arises. You would be suprised at what a good squad can accomplish in this game.
Peace out. War in.

~bf2milkman

[$hArp$h0t]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

I personally hate jets. They're practically invincable, and just fly back and forward bombing you over and over. If there's one thing I've always hated in a game, it's being killed by something that's completely beyond your control. Also why I'm not a fan of artillery.

I think every vehicle in this game is well balanced, useful, and fits, except the god damn jets. What do y'all think?

Jets and artillery are essential in the game...they are both part of a balance system to make the game fair since it's mainly a multiplayer game. Tanks are also hard to defeat if the driver is an average skilled user...planes, helos, mines, Javelins, and the occasional suicide bombers are what keep the tank's "owning" reputation low. Planes and helos are obviously arguable of balancing since they are harder to take down since they're fast, agile, have flares, and an ace pilot can just about dodge any IGLA or stinger you send at them...but of course thats why there are only about 2 jets and 1 attack helo on each map. Jets don't always pick on troops since they are such small targets and if a jet is near go prone, it decreases the chances of being seen by the pilot and if he drops a bomb being prone can help protect you esspecially if there is hilling or cover to block the blast radius. As for arty the balance for arty is the fact you can destroy the artillery with C4 and such or a suicide car/bomber. And to survive arty don't bunch up in one giant troop blob cause thats where the commander will want to strike when he sees that on the UAV. What I'am saying is NO bf2 would not be a better game without jets.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

Meant as a point defense fighter, the Flogger offered a powerful radar, an infrared search and track system, a selection of radar and infrared guided weapons and tremendous speed (Mach 2.35) to counter its adversaries. The MiG-23 was designed in 1964-66 as a successor to the MiG-21. In addition to a much more powerful engine, the MiG-23's most significant new feature was its variable sweep wing. Like the USAF's swing wing F-111, the sweep of the wings could be changed in flight. Fully spread, this gives a shorter takeoff/landing roll while carrying a heavier weapons load. With the wings fully swept back, the MiG-23 has greater speed. The wing has three sweep settings: 16, 45, and 72 degrees. The prototype first flew in April 1967 and MiG-23s began entering operational service in 1971.

MiG-23 aircraft acquired by the United States under the Foreign Materiel Acquisition/Exploitation program are designated as the YF-113.

The aircraft is in widespread use in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The MiG-23/27 FLOGGER series of aircraft has been used extensively by the former Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia. Other countries including Libya, Syria, Egypt, India, Cuba, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea have imported FLOGGERS.

The MiG-23 series served as fighter-interceptors, with a secondary capability of ground attack. The MiG-23BN and MiG-27 were fighter-bomber variations. The Flogger B is a standard interceptor. Other versions of this aircraft are: C--two seater; G--improved interceptor; and E--export. The MiG-23MLD FLOGGER K version was a modification of the MiG23ML FLOGGER G and incorporated improved avionics, armament, and aerodynamic features. The MiG-23MLD is the most advanced version of the Flogger. It features a different identification-friend-or-foe system, a more advanced missile capability and a distinctive notch in the leading edge of the wing to improve flight characteristics. More than 4,000 MiG-23/27s are estimated to have been built.

The wings are high-mounted, variable, swept-back, and tapered with blunt tips. There is one turbofan engine inside the body. There are rectangular, box-like air intakes forward of the wing roots and a single exhaust. The fuselage is long and tubular, except where intakes give a box-like appearance. It has a long, pointed nose and a stepped canopy. There is a large, swept-back, and tapered belly fin under the rear section. The tail is swept-back, has a tapered tail fin, has a curved dorsal in the leading edge and an angular tip. Swept-back, tapered flats have angular tips and are high-mounted on the fuselage.

The MiG-23UB is a two-seat combat trainer version of the MiG-23 third generation interceptor-fighter. It was fitted with a variable sweep wing and this feature helped solve the problems of the multi-role combat aircraft capable of performing front-line fighter, interceptor-fighter and low altitude fighter-bomber missions.

The decision on the development of the combat trainer was taken two years after the first MiG-23 prototype was manufactured at the end of 1967. The MiG-27UB is a day and night all-weather combat trainer that can carry various armaments, including the GSh-23L gun, rockets, bombs, the R-3S air-to-air and Kh-23 air-to-surface missiles.

The development of the two-seater, dubbed "23-51", was made in March 1969, and in May, it made the first flight (Design Bureau's test pilot M.M. Komarov). The MiG-23UB state tests were completed in 1970 and the aircraft entered the service, so the IAIA launched the production run.

The first MiG-23UB was produced on the basis of the MiG-23C one-seater. The changes were made in the nose fuselage up to frame No.18. The fuel tank No.1 was decreased to place co-pilot seat and the 470- litre fuel tank was located in the tail fuselage.

The first production aircraft was tested by Moscow test pilot A.V. Fedotov together with the factory test pilot E.N. Tcheltsov. Later on, the aircraft were tested by V.S. Prantskyavitchus, N.N. Ivanov, G.E. Bulanov, G.M. Kurkai , E.M. Shastun, V.B. Maksimenkov, V.F. Novikov, O.G. Smirnov, A.F. Sidorenko, A,I. Kapustin, N.I. Petukhov and others.

The production two-seaters were fitted with extended chord, leading edge extensions and capable of loading with drop tanks. The MiG-23UB nose fuselage lines were made like those of the MiG-23M.

The aircraft was powered by R-27F2M-300 engine (1x 6900/10000 kgf) and the earlier two-seaters were equipped with the RP-21 radar sight similar to that of the MiG-23S, but the radar was not reliable and was replaced by a mass balance. The aircraft, engine and other systems control was performed from both cockpits, but the second one had the priority where, normally, the instructor's seat was located.

The periscope was placed on the second cockpit to ensure the view while taxiing, taking off, approaching and landing. The KM-1 ejection seats with centralised ejection sequence control system.

The MiG-23UB armament included the R-3S IR homing air-to-air missile and the Kh-23 missile to hit the surface targets. The Delta NG station was used for the Kh-23 missile guidance.

In 1984, the MiG-23UM two-seater was developed, that corresponded the MiG-23ML and MiG-23P fighters, in terms of structure. The earlier MiG-23UB were upgraded to the MiG-23UM.The aircraft were fitted with the SOUA active stall barrier system and the UUA-1 angle of attack indicator.

The MiG-23UE combat trainer were in service with the AF and Air Defence of the USSR, Algeria, Angola, Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Libya, Northern Korea, Syria, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Hungary, East Germany, Iraq, the Congo, Cuba, Laos, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Somali, Sudan, Czechoslovakia and South Yemen.

In AF and Air Defence in most of these and CIS countries, the MiG-23s are still in service. Part of MiG-23s of the Russian AF is maintained operational at the storage bases. One of the aircraft is still used at the IAIA as an "enemy fighter" or an escort aircraft for the "new born" Su-30s.

The two-seater was designed for training, but the MiG-23UBs and MiG-23UMs had to perform combat missions as a sort of command post in Afghanistan.

The MiG-23UB production run lasted till 1978. Totally, 769 aircraft of this type were manufactured in Irkutsk. The MiG-23UBs were delivered to many countries.

Over 11,000 MiG-23 air vehicles are now operated by the air forces of more than 20 countries. More than 60% of their fleets are MiG-23ML, MiG-23MLD, MiG-23MF and MiG-23MS fighters, 30% are MiG-23BN fighter-bombers and the rest of the aircraft are MiG-23UB combat trainers. For most air forces, MIG-23 is the main type of combat aircraft which has been successfully mastered by flying and maintenance personnel. The aircraft possesses high performance and can be kept in service until 2010-2015. However, the aircraft weapons and avionics designed more than 20 years ago can not operate on a par with up-to-date analogues.

RAC "MiG" offers the most rational approach to MiG-23 upgrade. The project ensures the optimal upgrading method and several basic upgrade versions that could be chosen by customers themselves. These versions were tried out during upgrading other MiG aircraft types. They consist in: integration of new avionics and weapons (including those of Western make), and continuous upgrade with a stage-by-stage growth of capabilities. It should be noted that this approach is common for all versions of the MIG-23 family.

[Cpt Lars]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

i think in order to reload your plane you should have to land it but they have to fix the speed problem meaning not stalling at 200 mph thats rediculous i used to Flight Sim 2004 and landing a plane at normal speeds of 60-100 mph(depending on the craft and location[aircraft carrier and base]) also the air fields need to be extended

[TooL]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

While we are at it let's remove vehicles as well so we can play games that simulate the civil war - we don't like to play with modern technology.... :blabla:

[imported_xRandoMx]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

Just play SF. Only jets I've seen in it don't move at all. :-)

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the jets. The problem is with the AA code. Stingers that are more likely to hit your own jets/copters aren't much use, you know? Especially since only a noob gets tagged by a missile while in a jet.

[majsmt]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

However it is a game. There are too many things in BF2 that do not follow the real battlefield.I was not taught in basic training to hop continously to avoid enemy fire or numerous other things that take place in the game.Some have the opinion that the game could be improved from its current format.Allowing the server to have some options would give everyone their choice without limiting players to a select set of maps.

[<Rogue^Snake>]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

The only thing that bothers me is the scoring. I don't think you should get the same points for a kill as a grunt, whos down in hell. Artillary/Jets/Choppers/Tanks, they are all uber weapons. And with any of them you have a large advantage over the other 90% of the ppl in the game without them.

I love seeing all the uber ace's come to defend their Jets. First off all, if you want to call yourself an Ace, and say you have loads of skill LMFAO, come play Lockon, or IL2.

Jets are a part of the modern battlefield, I'll give you that. And I like to fly them once and a while. I agree that they sould'nt be able to just fly bye the field and be re-armed, that just retarted. Yeah, thats part of the modern battlefield ROFLMAO.:laugh: Being repaired while hovering is also retarted. And ppl wonder why noobs TK for jets. Hell, if your not an idot, you can't die and you'll get alot of kills. Whats not to like about that?

If those 2 things (Re-arming/Repair) (points) were adjusted I think it would help. But you better belive that the ones we have, that own everyone in their vehicles will fight it all the way.

Mybe even dividing the kills up. Like in everyones Sigs. It should have more than one Kill catagory. 1 for AC, ground etc. I bet if they did that everyone would be happy. The Uber Ace's could say "Hey look at my skill" While the grunts could say " UFO ace! you rule! " :laugh:

Thats just my opinion.

[BGB Slayer]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

The only problem I have with jets is the people who fly them. Normally Lone wolfers who just want to fly around shooting down other jets with no help what so ever to the folks on the ground.

The only time jets actually effect the game is when the person flying it uses it to help his team. Bombing tanks that are spotted, shooting down heli whores, etc.

Most of the time though the jet folks are just plain annoying, they'll drop bombs right on the heads of their own teammates just to get a few kills. Or they will just fly around and around while the last few teammates alive are trying to get that last spawnpoint.

[SQUiB]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

Jets aren't too good at all, they should be incredible killing machines. All that is needed is a few simple fixes to balance them against infantry.
- Fix AA make it actually hit some hostile targets. Doesn't need to be awesomely accurate, just enough so that it is enough of a threat to aircraft that they respond defensively rather than offensifvely by blowing the crap out of you. Jet armour might have to be reduced as part of this since choppers will get mauled if AA becomes too good.
- Sound that will tell us when aircraft are comming so that infantry and light vehicles have a little time to take cover.
- Give them a realistic arsenal. ie increase it so that they can be in the air for a while without re-arming) but at the same time make thier respawn longer and re-arming/repairing take much longer (at least 3 min) while the jet is ON THE GROUND. That way if you have wethered the storm or managed to take a jet out you have some respite. It also means that pilots will have to do other things instead of just flying a plane/chopper or they will get bored waiting for their plane.

Not only will this balance the game a little but jets will actually be more realistic (since the most common pro jet response is that they are a realistic part of modern warefare).

[imported_Master Shake]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

I think you need that sudden death from above element in the game to keep the intensity up, but I also think you need shoulder fired stinger missiles so when that plane comes dive bombing at a 40 degree angle you can blast them head on Desert Combat style, this would keep the heat off.

[sav112]

Re: Would BF2 be a better game without jets?

I know it’s a bit unreal as most modern conflicts have armour and air support but I’d love just two battle lines like WW1, but with the modern guns. Put the odd hut in the middle, debris and fox holes and I think it would be fun. I know you can get a blast out of street fighting in towns but id love to try and hold a line with the enemy and comrades running at each other.

You know what I find I miss from 1942 the space and time. In some of the desert maps you could drive your jeep for ages and just enjoy, hide and wait with no satellite garb. You knew the enemy base was miles away and normally defended but this BF2 is just a massive in your face, your always getting shot at game which has its fun points but I miss the old 1942 at times especially capture the Flag.

I can remember the Map but it had two massive bases British and german with a huge mountain ridge in between and was fantastic I’d bring that map back in a min.