One thing I noticed in this game is the lack of artillery support in the mix of combined arms Maybe TR should get a clear advantage in that field since it doesn't really require high tech laz0rs to make it effective. I let go of a chocolate brick when I came face to face with an 8" gun. I mean we have those field guns plotted around bases and what not, but what about indirect fire? I like to imagine artillerymen being able to set up a small mortar on his own, but if he can join up with another artilleryman maybe a small howitzer, and maybe add a self propelled gun to the game which would be a howitzer on a tank chassis basically.
An Abrams is terrifying period. A strafing, floating Abrams approaches "10 missed calls from Mom" level of terrifying.
A floating, strafing, Abrams sounds like a vomit factory for everyone but the giggling driver. Just imagine the tank moving forward, gliding to the right, and the turret rotating to the right at 40 degrees a second to engage a target (which means the crew is moving left). The Commander and Gunner have their faces glued to scopes, and the loaders brain and inner ear are trying to make sense of all those different motions combined with no reference to the outside world. Not to mention the fact that, if we are using a Magriders levitation, than the tank hull is STILL following the bumps and divots of the terrain. No thank you, Sir. No. Thank. You.
I believe indirect-fire artillery was deliberately not included because the development team felt it would be too dificult to counter without creating an incredibly complex system for targeting, and as such they would have needed to spend much longer developing the game before they would be able to ever release it. As things happened, they were pushed for an earlier release, and as such, I think it was for the best that they removed it from the plans.
cool. reminds me of when i got to sleep on the USS little rock in Buffalo (only surviving Cleavland class cruiser from 1945, currently at the ) when I was in scouts. we got to sleep in chain berths for a few days, look at all the awesome missile loading equipment since the little rock was converted to a galveston anti air missile carrier at one point so it could fire these babies at super sonic craft(and a bunch of other stuff) currently its at the buffalo naval park. here is the ship The naval park also has a diesel sub you can poke around in (The USS Croaker), and a few light tanks I think. really makes me wish we had naval combat of some degree.
this is probably the WORST game one could pick for an immersive authentic MilSim. the only things PS2 did right (kinda) are the combined-arms element and the large scale of battles. other than that it is as 'military' as a little girls barbie doll
its got bullet drop and travel time, that's more then cod can even try to emulate with its revenue increasing gun ****. The whole MilSim is a bit lame anyways, real life can actually be pretty dull when you try to shoe horn it one for one, into a game. Games shine when they attempt to break the real life rules, and maintain a level of predictability based on the new system they have implemented. Standard military has never really been that special, you can train anyone to do almost anything. I want crazy weapons that do things that make no god damn sense to 21st century humans.
I'm pretty sure the Liberator is more related to the Helicopter variety of gunship than the AC-130 style of gunship. Actually it's a bit of both to be honest lol. It's got the fixed, forward mounted pilot aimed weapon system as well as a gunner w/ access to the heavier weapons. Same sort of set up as the Mi-8 but helos generally have rocket pods as their forward mounted, where as we get something more akin to a plane nosegun.
Actually I think that's the product of the Liberator having old characteristics from PS1. In PS1, the Liberator was a pure bomber. The pilot had a 35mm nose cannon and it had a tailgun as well. The primary weapon was simple gravity bombs instead of the cannon we have today. In that sense, the PS1 Liberator was more like a heavy fighter-bomber, with free-fall gravity bombs combined with a frontal tank cannon. Maybe like a WWII heavy Beaufighter or something. But PS2 came on the coattails of that other game which featured an AC-130, so of course it had to jump on the bandwagon (lots of games have done this... a list of FPS games featuring the weird AC-130 would be very extensive). In PS2 they simply changed the bomb bay to a belly cannon and called it a day. I think that's why the PS2 Liberator is what it is. They took the old PS1 Liberator and stole the AC-130 design that all the CoD kiddies were raging about. Which is why it's such a strange vehicle. The belly cannon would have you think it was made for stand-off long-range attack but the nose cannon suggests it's meant for low-altitude strafing runs. And of course it has more HP than a MBT. It's a vehicle with a serious identity crisis, and part of that was created due to poor design decisions in PS2.
Yup. I've been saying it since beta. It's destined to be strong as **** in small fights and **** in big fights because of this. Rip the lib 2012-2012
I can't look at a lib without seeing a I mean, they have very similar weaponry. A fast firing nosegun, rockets and bombs, depending on the loadout. Even the shape itself is similar.
i watched a shacktac training video w/ the cobra attack helo and so many of the hud/functionality changes could fit in PS2. It was neat. Really long but interesting watch.
