Battlefield 4

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

Seriously though, only so many contenders on the world stage, and the Eurozone is unlikely to go to war with anything for any reason. I suppose you could play as the French vs some African rebels....

Or Mexicans vs the Cartels...

Or China or Russia vs it's own citizens.

Could go back in time, Battlefield: 1066.

[brn4meplz]

India Vs Pakistan.

Problem solved

[Unkn0wn]

Yes, I'm sure that was the only reason.

You seem to misunderstand what false pretense means. I didn't point to a single reason, so it makes no sense for you to even refer to a reason.
There's a handful of reasons why the US invaded Iraq, I was simply pointing out that nuclear weapons and freeing the Iraqi people aren't among those reasons. Which is to say that the US isn't all 'good guy' when it comes to world politics, despite what popular media and the entertainment industry will have you believe.

And yes, I'm well aware that there's not a plethora of contenders when it comes to bad guys in global conflicts, but my real point really was that the modern conflict setup has gotten pretty boring by now. Not to mention that they could at the very least mix up the scenery a little. Fighting in Karkand 5588412 or chinese valley 5478 gets boring pretty quickly.

[Hicks58]

I'd quite like to fight on home turf. Go prowling through the streets of London, Manchester or some other UK City would be fun. It'd also be fun to actually fight against a technological equal - Russians and Chinese are always portrayed as having decent, but decisively lower tech than either US, UK or EU forces and it gets kinda old.

Make some bad guys in some of the supposed "Good countries". Say, America loses it's shit for a seemingly legit reason and the EU steps up. Challengers and Leopards having to square off vs Abrams would be interesting. Now throw in some questionable reasons to just confuse the fuck out who is actually supposed to be the good guy and voila.

Shit, could even get the Ruskies to join in with the EU after some persuasion and be "Good guys" too.

Just do something fresh! Something interesting!

[nikomas]

Make some bad guys in some of the supposed "Good countries". Say, America loses it's shit for a seemingly legit reason and the EU steps up. Challengers and Leopards having to square off vs Abrams would be interesting. Now throw in some questionable reasons to just confuse the fuck out who is actually supposed to be the good guy and voila.

Tbh, not that much of a stretch 

[Sachaztan]

I'd quite like to fight on home turf. Go prowling through the streets of London, Manchester or some other UK City would be fun. It'd also be fun to actually fight against a technological equal - Russians and Chinese are always portrayed as having decent, but decisively lower tech than either US, UK or EU forces and it gets kinda old.

Make some bad guys in some of the supposed "Good countries". Say, America loses it's shit for a seemingly legit reason and the EU steps up. Challengers and Leopards having to square off vs Abrams would be interesting. Now throw in some questionable reasons to just confuse the fuck out who is actually supposed to be the good guy and voila.

Shit, could even get the Ruskies to join in with the EU after some persuasion and be "Good guys" too.

Just do something fresh! Something interesting!

For several reasons that will never happen, ever, in a game published by a big company.

[Spartan_Marine88]

For several reasons that will never happen, ever, in a game published by a big company.

those reasons are becoming less and less potent. Its the same reason why companies are starting to fire the old CEO's who stood by those reasons.

[nikomas]

And in the end that would not really matter as last time I checked, the US has more carriers than the rest of the world combined and an airfleet that would put the rest of NATO to shame.

Overcompensation much? Yeah, but the real threat to MBT's has never been other MBT's but I believe it's been established that if you establish air superiority, MBT's are pretty fucked. While you can still have heavy SAM networks for devensive coverage, if your enemy has air superiorty your MBT's are not going to be worth much on the offensive, be they Chally's, Abrams or T90's

[AmPM]

Yes, because we totally miss those other targets.

Seriously, we have weapons that can eliminate a tank battalion in one conventional missle...

Though I would be curious to see how that scenario works out with the EU/NATO/China/Russia trying to cross the ocean to the USA in the first place. Talk about a futile attempt.

[DarkSoldierX]

^ your forgetting that they have so much air cos they mostly just bomb themselves, so need lots to try and make some bombs hit the other side and deal more casualties than they inflict on themselves.

A massive Air Force isn't good when it mostly attacks yourself

What kind of evidence exist that we bomb ourselves more then the enemy? US air support isn't inaccurate with the information that they recieve. And im not trying to say that other nations air support isn't.

No it wouldn't, it would be GG in tank engagements involving the Challenger 2. The Abrams will fail to penetrate cos of the awesome armour, and the Challenger 2's would blow them away.

To put it in perspective, an Abrams can be penetrated by a single close range RPG (unless armour grating is put on), whereas a Challenger 2 has taken 70 close range RPG's before, and then the insurgents just gave up. The only Challenger 2 ever taken out of action was from a freindly she'll hitting the open commanders hatch and killing the crew, the tank survived though.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt a challenger get raped in the front by a RPG 29?

[NightRain]

They should make a game about West Germany versus East Germany and have a corrupted USA General be the cause of the conflict.

[Jodomar]

Abrams on the same playing field with the Challenger. Plus, Abrams has taken 70 rounds of rpg's to it's face as well. The Abrams actually has a better haul for taking shots in the face then the challenger does but the challenger has better side protection. This was changed up by the TUSK upgrades the Abrams has received which the challenger apparently can not fit. Both are good tanks and were made under separate requirements. Also don't forget the Abrams is linked with all other combat units in the field including Air Support. Not sure if the challenger has that or not as I didn't read into that much.

Now you could do another American Civil War, that would be interesting. What about Germany getting tired of bailing out other countries to decides to take them over instead. Both Interesting options that I wouldn't mind seeing. Really you can only have a set amount of countries to work with to make things plausible. Let's be honest her Somalia taken over the world just wouldn't make any sense, so we are stuck with playing the same countries/factions against one another.

[nikomas]

They should make a game about West Germany versus East Germany and have a corrupted USA General be the cause of the conflict.

Wargame, European Escalation?

[Sachaztan]

afaik a challanger 2 and an abrams have never faced off against each other.

What is there to say that they both can't penetrate each others armor?

And as for USA facing off against well, anyone, let me demonstrate with this graph that shows US military expenditure vs the military expenditure of the rest of the world:

[AmPM]

Lets pull this back to realism.

The Challenger would be dead before the Abrams ever caught sight of it, by a missile launched from a plane or drone that isn't showing up on radar and is far enough away that they can't hear it.

[brn4meplz]

The good thing about bringing other stuff into the equation in theory fights is that other nations have Anti Missile systems or ERA.

Also they British super tech where they send an SAS team back in time to kill AmPm's mother so he can't bring other shit into this theoretical equation on this day.

[DarkSoldierX]

Pfft, you're both talking about the Challenger 1 which was the same as the Abrams in every aspect (both had Chobham armour), except that the Challenger had a bigger gun, and the Abrams more horsepower, but the same speed (Don't get any ideas about copying, the Challenger came first).

Now, the Challenger 2 is 95% different to the Challenger 1. The biggest difference is that it has Chobham Dorchester Level 2 armour (while the Abrams has just resorted to putting on depleted uranium plates, though it does have a gun of equal size now). Basically the Challenger 2 has the edge in a fight due to it's superior armour, sure the Abrams has extra plating, but they only cover the weak sides and rear, the front is less defended than the Challenger 2 now, and the Challenger 2 doesn't need the extra plating as it has more side and rear armour than the Abrams.

Not really, both the Challenger 1 and Abrams have about the same weight, length, width, height, armour, and speed, also they look very similar (again, no funny ideas about copying, the Challenger 1 came first). So I'd say the requirements were the same.

Also, despite the Challemger 2 having 95% different parts to the Challenger 1, it's still nearly the same in all stats, it just has even better armour. So in a fight the Challenger 1 would be an equal fair fight, but the Challenger 2 would have the edge due to better armour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

Alot of people say that challenger 2 does have a little bit better armour. But you fail to see that in theory the updated rounds that the abrams shoots excedes the protection of a challenger as long as its not shot in the turret and from a angle. And vice versa for the challenger.

[DarkSoldierX]

No it wouldn't, it would be GG in tank engagements involving the Challenger 2. The Abrams will fail to penetrate cos of the awesome armour, and the Challenger 2's would blow them away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

You also did look at this right.

[NightRain]

Wargame, European Escalation?

Why not? Wargame did have a good idea as a conflict. West vs East Germany and it was a new idea in a sense. Two same nations fist fighting with one another while recieving support from outter world.

[nikomas]

Why not? Wargame did have a good idea as a conflict. West vs East Germany and it was a new idea in a sense. Two same nations fist fighting with one another while recieving support from outter world.

Yup, that game was pretty much goty for me and given the look of ALB... Well, CoH2 will have to put up a big show is all I'm saying.