ADF assets

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-02-20 00:21

i would like to know if the ADF comfac community would like comment on whether or not you think we should have ADF particular SL deployable assets.

i want to know if you think the currently available SL deployable assets should be used
or due to the unique ADF deployment fundamentals would it be worth us going to the very big task of creating ADF specific SL deployable assets.

if you think we should have our own assets please remember how much work is required in making them.

if you have any new idea's remember to include source material.

this thread has been inspired by some very intense discussions i have had over the last few months with members of the community, and i would like to get a wider opinion.

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-02-20 00:42

could you give an example?

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-02-20 00:51

well i am trying not to influence the thread, but what i a talking about is the things like deployable HMG assets, wire ect: which don't necessarily use ADF equipment or modes of deployment. what i want to know is if we should have ADF specific items or use whats currently available. if we should use our own items i want to know what the community thinks we should have. i have my own opinions but as these are neither here nor there i want to know what the wider community wants.

Su34 · Post by **Su34** » 2010-02-20 07:51

Well, for me as German it is not really important if everything is 100% correct. I don't even know, what items the Australians us, so...

For the first release I would use as much abailable material as possible. Later on, you can maybe add your own AA-gun (if you have one), your own HMG etc.
Don't care too much about making everyting 100% realistic, but get the most important job done for a first release, and then complete your work step by step

WilsonPL · Post by **WilsonPL** » 2010-02-20 23:02

Proper HMG, AA, AT are necessary imo.

Gu^n3r · Post by **Gu^n3r** » 2010-02-21 02:43

WilsonPL wrote:Proper HMG, AA, AT are necessary imo.

I think their the least of our conerns to be honest.

So far the only difference ive found between the HMG, AA and AT is the AA which is this

RBS 70 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and since its a single shot by the looks of it, I honestly think were better off with the standard american one used, same with the HMG and the AT.

We use most of their stuff anyway, dont see why we need to design to be that different.

If you really want this sort of thing done then I suggest doing it POST-release, as their are more important things to be done to get this mod off and into releases.

Sights · Post by **Sights** » 2010-02-21 05:49

'[R-COM wrote:Gu^n3r;1274276']I think their the least of our conerns to be honest.

So far the only difference ive found between the HMG, AA and AT is the AA which is this

RBS 70 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and since its a single shot by the looks of it, I honestly think were better off with the standard american one used, same with the HMG and the AT.

We use most of their stuff anyway, dont see why we need to design to be that different.

If you really want this sort of thing done then I suggest doing it POST-release, as their are more important things to be done to get this mod off and into releases.

I agree. If someone wants to tackle it themselves beforehand, they'll have my full support, but I don't think it's something the team should divert attention towards until post-release, or at least until all other release-necessary projects have been taken care of, if that makes any sense.

RHYS4190 · Post by **RHYS4190** » 2010-02-21 08:55

I would not worry

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-02-22 04:44

i dont want to hear any of this "oh wait till it's out stuff". thats not what this is about. nor did i ask or propose this be done asap. what i want is the opinions on the questions i asked, so read the initial post and if you have something worthwile to contribute please do so, if not your opinions can be expresed elsewhere.
any work that would be undertaken for deployable assets is and will remain at the discretion of the DEV's.
in so far as inherent timeline issues are irelevant for this question and i would prefer to not consider them in this question.

we are all aware via previous discussions within this forum that some elements pertaining to this comfac will not be introduced initially and will be incorperated at a later date.

that is all.
anglo.

H.sta · Post by **H.sta** » 2010-02-22 18:42

a deployable pub?

more seriusly, if the ADF uses cooler equipment than what is in PR is say go for it, as this would make the faction stand out even more.

General Fuct · Post by **General Fuct** » 2010-02-26 23:02

Light AT - LAW (can be borrowed from Canadia F)
Heavy AT - Carl Gustav 84mm with the upgraded optics (otherwise the other option is the Javelin...)
AA - RBS 70 (as mentioned above)

Truism · Post by **Truism** » 2010-03-03 07:56

I wouldn't bother. Most factions don't use exactly what is in the FoB deployable menu anyway.

Also the RBS-70 straight out wouldn't work in the BF2 engine. Hitreg isn't good enough.

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-03-09 01:18

so what most of you are saying is in a final version of the ADF comfac we should use american or british DA's even though we dont use them in real life and don't actually deploy our "assets" in the same manner IRL. because thats what i am hearing here.

T.Nightingale · Post by **T.Nightingale** » 2010-03-10 01:06

Well i think we should have uniquely australian deployable assets but if its too hard etc. etc. but what do you mean by deploying it in a differant way? The US dont IRL say deploy here and then bang a FB!
Please Explain that part.

Post by **Psyrus** » 2010-03-10 01:21

anglomanii wrote:so what most of you are saying is in a final version of the ADF comfac we should use american or british DA's even though we dont use them in real life and don't actually deploy our "assets" in the same manner IRL. because thats what i am hearing here.

I suppose it depends on 2 things:

- What you mean by "don't actually deploy our assets in the same manner IRL"
- How much of a priority the deployables are versus the rest of the faction.

Sure if everything else is done then why not, lets knock ourselves out modeling/texturing/lighting/coding new deployables just to be different, but as far as I know it's a faaaaiiir amount of work and since every other faction uses the standard it just sort of makes sense (to me at least) to keep in line with that.

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-03-10 01:22

well as far as i am aware, and i have asked this question of a couple of serving adf members. currently Light infantry force elements and motorised infantry force elements do not currently deploy (and this is only what i have been told, so if any one has better info please correct me) any dismounted HMG or AGL or ATDFSW in patrol or non permanant operational posts, current docterine as has been relayed to me, in the case of DLIFE units dictates that A1 and A2 support elelments provide firesupport from motorised support vehicles provided to support mobile operations. the only time fixed heavy or support weapons should be deployed (again only what has been relayed to me) is in the defence of permanant operational posts, this is not to say you wont find OP's or o/n defensive structures but heavy weapons as has been relayed to me are (with some rare exceptions) never deployed in fixed defensive structures but rather deployed from mobile support units. (ie: bushmasters ect)

T.Nightingale · Post by **T.Nightingale** » 2010-03-10 01:27

Well due to certain types of maps we must have deployable FOB's and Need a way to defend it. I think there might be a way to deploy a stationary non drivable bushmaster.
But more importantly would it be cheating to say that FOB's are "permanent"?

anglomanii · Post by **anglomanii** » 2010-03-10 04:12

i dont know thats part of why i posted the question in the first place, i was hoping some of the community with more familiarity than me could help out and clarify whats going on.

Wild_Turkey09 · Post by **Wild_Turkey09** » 2010-05-10 14:35

There's isn't much point putting heaps of time into designing these elaborate deployable assets when the standard ones are fine. Sure having some unique looking HMG's and stuff would be cool but its too early in development to start those kinds of projects. Beside's I can't wait to play with those ADF toys

Freelance_Commando · Post by **Freelance_Commando** » 2010-05-15 05:46

Alright, by your explanation anglomanii I'm thinking these (or at least you example) would be more of a gameplay change than an asset change due to the inherent nature of ADF doctrine/ tactics.
So instead of moving forward, building up a base of operations with heavy equipment, defensive positions and earthworks the ADF will simply use vehicle/ light assets for defensive purposes instead of the heavy stuff, as they will not being staying there permenantly.
- is that right?

It certainly is an interesting topic though; perhaps removing the entire Fire Base and instead using a 'deployable' APC (from an already existing APC), which can be returned to its former state in emergencies, for spawning off.
Or maybe the Heavy MG emplacement is removed altogether for an simple deployed MG with some sandbags on it...

Persenaly this 'specialisation' would be very nice, especialy against in Insurgent style games. But against a regular army I can see various balance issues coming to surface.

Was that what you were thinking of anglomanii?

ADF assets

ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets

Re: ADF assets