BF2: Armored Fury Update

The Battlefield 2 Website has screenshots from the upcoming Armored Fury booster pack for DICE's military shooter, along with some details on the pack and the upcoming version 1.3 patch for BF2. The further announcement mentioned in this story has also rolled in, promising the add-on the spring for a $9.99 price tag, and plans for a June release of Battlefield 2: Deluxe Edition, to include the original Battlefield 2, the Special Forces expansion, and the upcoming co-op friendly patch 1.3. Here's word:
Attention Soldiers!

Later today we will announce the Battlefield 2: Armored Fury™ booster pack for Battlefield 2™ which brings all-out mechanized battles to US soil for the first time. Maps set in the US have been requested by the community for quite some time, and we are pleased to deliver three that set the stage for huge armored warfare battles.

3 NEW MAPS

    • Operation Midnight Sun: The conflict spreads near the Pacific Ocean in a key battle for the Alaskan port of Valdez, where Chinese forces are attempting to secure much-needed fuel from the pipeline.
    • Operation Harvest: The MEC army begins their march East towards the U.S. Capital, and American forces must stall the advance long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
    • Operation Road Rage: The MEC forces have infiltrated deep into the USA, and are using the highways to move quickly towards key industrial sites that are dangerously near civilian areas.

To balance the wide-open tank battles with aerial firepower, six new vehicles will be introduced, including 3 scout helos such as the MD 530 ?Little Bird?, and 3 ground attack aircraft like the A10 Warthog.

In addition, patch 1.3 is on the way, and with it comes single player co-op support, so you can grab a friend and tackle the bots as a team. More details to follow, so stay frosty!
View : : :
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
47.
 
Re: ...
May 5, 2006, 23:31
47.
Re: ... May 5, 2006, 23:31
May 5, 2006, 23:31
 


I really don't think Iraq is as out of control as the liberal press would like to make you think it is.

Actually its probably worse than the so-called "Liberal" press reports it.

The country is still on the edge of civil war and militias roam the streets. Not to mention the "Good" stuff i'm told that happens isn't even all that great. Power is only on for a few hours a day and thats if they are lucky to get it, power output is still lower than before the invasion. The 100 hospitals that were supposed to be build? Only 20 have been finished the rest have been halted due to security, bombing and corruption. So its probably worse than people actually make it out to be.

46.
 
Re: interesting
May 4, 2006, 15:14
46.
Re: interesting May 4, 2006, 15:14
May 4, 2006, 15:14
 
V22 Osprey?

Oh well..yeah, I had forgotten about that, too. That's one of those joint service projects that took forever to get off the ground. I know they're suppose to replace the Army's MH-53J Pave Low helicopters and I think they're also replacing the Marine's Sea Knight choppers. Kind of dissapointing about the Pave Low though, those were kind of neat to ride around in; but the only ones who really use them are the SOAR regiment in the Army, so I would imagine they're not all that cost effective to maintain.

This comment was edited on May 4, 15:15.
45.
 
Re: interesting
May 4, 2006, 09:11
nin
45.
Re: interesting May 4, 2006, 09:11
May 4, 2006, 09:11
nin
 
with the exception of one strange plane I can't recall the name of right now.

V22 Osprey?



--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 16 W/Mo

http://www.flaminglips.com
44.
 
Re: interesting
May 3, 2006, 21:43
44.
Re: interesting May 3, 2006, 21:43
May 3, 2006, 21:43
 
The Army doesn't fly the A-10.

Sorry about that, I didn't make myself all that clear. I wasn't referring to Army pilots flying the A-10 (as far as I know, they don't fly anything fixed wing), in so much as the decision to use them usually floats between Army Aviation and the Air Force. Typicallly the decision to use the A-10 comes after weiging the decision whether or not to use attack helicopters.


As a matter of fact, they only fly helicopters

Well...

Not exactly, but I don't think you "pilot" a remote drone so much as run it around the sky with a joy stick.

43.
 
Re: interesting
May 3, 2006, 20:50
43.
Re: interesting May 3, 2006, 20:50
May 3, 2006, 20:50
 
It does a splendid job in supporting ground forces and between the Air Force and Army Aviation, it won't be let go too soon.

Army Aviation? The Army doesn't fly the A-10. As a matter of fact, they only fly helicopters, with the exception of one strange plane I can't recall the name of right now.

WoW: Darsius (Earthen Ring) / GW: Denarr Trueblade / BF2: Slinky317 / CoH: Spectris (Justice)
My Steam Community link:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/slinkfsu
42.
 
Re: ...
May 3, 2006, 08:17
42.
Re: ... May 3, 2006, 08:17
May 3, 2006, 08:17
 
The US/coalition forces are struggling to keep control of the situation and can only monitor small aspects on the country - the US could send more troops in but the cost and risk of casualties is currently deemed too great.

I think they monitor more than you know, and on a related note -- a friend sent me this video the other day:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147495723793591635&q=night+vision+iraq&pl=true

I really don't think Iraq is as out of control as the liberal press would like to make you think it is.

This comment was edited on May 3, 22:12.
41.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 15:19
41.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 15:19
May 2, 2006, 15:19
 

I see that irony is an art which is lost on some people.


*shrugs* You should learn the art yourself instead of debasing it with sarcasm.

surely all the years have shown is that the most powerful military in the world can't win against guerilla warfare, even in "backwards" countries like Iraq?

Eh, well, there's some serious money to be made doing performing just that function. You're ex-SF or intelligence you can sign on with any number of private firms advising clients in the middle east. It's become an industry in it's own right in Iraq.


The situation depicted in BF2 is entirely plausible, especially because of the level of foreign investment (mainly from China).

I don't think anyone disagrees that it's plausible a scenario, but this newest booster pack just really delves away from the previous attempts at providing believable scenarios.


Even 'Blackhawk Down' was only a botched raid; the casualties, while tragic, (18 killed) were militarily insignificant.

I think "negligable" is the better word to use. I mean, a KIA is a reduction in combat strength and accountability any way you look at it, which isn't insignificant in itself.


But the last 15 years of combat (and really, even since Vietnam) have shown that enemy forces cannot defeat the US military in direct action, it HAS to be a combination of direct action, propoganda, and a loss of will on our part.


The need to retool the US military to fight wars such as those occuring in Iraq and Afghanistan have been recognized since towards the end of the Cold War. Of course, it's been slow in coming as the military as a whole is an institution that resists change.

This comment was edited on May 2, 16:13.
40.
 
No subject
May 2, 2006, 14:13
40.
No subject May 2, 2006, 14:13
May 2, 2006, 14:13
 
But the last 15 years of combat (and really, even since Vietnam) have shown that enemy forces cannot defeat the US military in direct action, it HAS to be a combination of direct action, propoganda, and a loss of will on our part.

Enemy forces don't engage the US in direct action, though.

Freespace 2: Lost Souls
http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/
39.
 
...
May 2, 2006, 11:34
39.
... May 2, 2006, 11:34
May 2, 2006, 11:34
 
But the last 15 years of combat (and really, even since Vietnam) have shown that enemy forces cannot defeat the US military in direct action, it HAS to be a combination of direct action, propoganda, and a loss of will on our part.
That's a very interesting take on the situation - surely all the years have shown is that the most powerful military in the world can't win against guerilla warfare, even in "backwards" countries like Iraq? No-one has tried to beat the US in direct combat, though many citizens of foreign countries have resisted US occupation and been successful at inflicting casualties. The US/coalition forces are struggling to keep control of the situation and can only monitor small aspects on the country - the US could send more troops in but the cost and risk of casualties is currently deemed too great.

The situation depicted in BF2 is entirely plausible, especially because of the level of foreign investment (mainly from China). With drastic oil shortages a collapse of the US economy is far from impossible... without a sufficient supply of oil it is hard to engaged in prolonged warfare, which is why oil depots were so heavily targetted during WWII (to the detriment of Germany's forces). Troops then have to be split between the US mainland and Middle Eastern / South African countries to secure large oil supplies (dwarfing the small amount produced by the US). Many novels actually discuss this idea further. However, it is by no means a small feat and still pretty unlikely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emotinomicon: Emoticons of the Dead
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
38.
 
Looks cool
May 2, 2006, 10:50
38.
Looks cool May 2, 2006, 10:50
May 2, 2006, 10:50
 
I always wondered why all the BF2 maps with americans had the americans fighting on foreign soil.

Looking forward to this for sure. More massive tank battles = cool.

37.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 09:52
37.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 09:52
May 2, 2006, 09:52
 
The original reference was made to one uniform military attacking another uniform military. Not quite the same thing as America border security is handled by a civilian agency, not the military (though there is some justifiable arguments in favor of this).
I see that irony is an art which is lost on some people. On a serious note though, America's pourous southern border does demonstrate a serious security weakness which could certainly be exploited militarily.

This comment was edited on May 2, 09:58.
36.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 09:39
36.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 09:39
May 2, 2006, 09:39
 
Does 100:1 casualty ratio mean we win? Not automagically.

That's gonna be my word of the week!

35.
 
No subject
May 2, 2006, 08:51
35.
No subject May 2, 2006, 08:51
May 2, 2006, 08:51
 
vaguely tempted, and really not bothered about the roleplay justification or the detail about where it's meant to be set.


34.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 08:49
34.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 08:49
May 2, 2006, 08:49
 
[i]Some people claim that inflated military power and technology have no future when put up against basic human will. This can been seen in practice when some determined, drooling lunatic blows up an expensive M1126 Stryker with a washing machine timer and an old surplus artillery round. The Ho Chi Minh trail was often pretty much people physically pushing "cargo bicycles" around. Prolly scares the piss out General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex. It seems like these days Europe is bored with militarism and is pursuing diplomacy instead. Anyway, let em retire the A-10. Noone is stupid enough to attack us directly (China's historical secret weapon has been the human wave attack) and we've driven them all to a guerilla war anyway. That would probably make for a really boring FPS game though. Forgive the rant.[/i]

Such things are only said by people with no understanding of military science.
Technology rarely makes you IMMUNE to attacks by a determined (particularly suicidal) opponent. Technology acts as a force multiplier and/or a casualty divisor. It doesn't mean that your soldiers can't be killed, it means that it may take 200 enemies to kill one of ours, instead of 2 or 3. (Of course, our modern, risk-averse media society acts as a casualty MULTIPLIER, where 1, 2, or 5 friendly deaths generate more anguish and media coverage than 10, 20, or 500 deaths 50+ years ago.)

Your 'drooling lunatic' may detonate his shell and flip a Stryker, but he's probably extraordinarily lucky if he even killed one soldier, while in the same span of time for his preparation, more than 100 of his buddies have died in US raids, failed ambushes, sniper actions, and to US patrols.

Does 100:1 casualty ratio mean we win? Not automagically. But the last 15 years of combat (and really, even since Vietnam) have shown that enemy forces cannot defeat the US military in direct action, it HAS to be a combination of direct action, propoganda, and a loss of will on our part.

Even 'Blackhawk Down' was only a botched raid; the casualties, while tragic, (18 killed) were militarily insignificant. The failure on the Allied forces part was
a) an unwillingness to unlease the full military force available, due to the 'unacceptable' level of collateral damage
b) a criminal level of hubris, NOT having a fallback plan (particularly including armored backup units).

33.
 
Re: No subject
May 2, 2006, 07:27
33.
Re: No subject May 2, 2006, 07:27
May 2, 2006, 07:27
 
It would take the combined navies of the entire world, including Russia's which is in great disrepair, to be considered a match against the USA's. Even the USA's Coast Guard is in the top 10 of the largest fleets of the world.

I would imagine the pretext would be the US Navy getting over-extended operating in China and the Middle East, and being flanked by some strike-invasion force. Certainly I'd expect an ongoing war against both a substantial Middle Eastern force and China to over-extend the US military (in infantry terms, but perhaps also in naval support and logistics), we've already seen the small (in these terms) conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan do so.

but, I mean, it's a blank slate story wise. There's absolutely no info as to what is going and why in the games 'war', AFAIK. If you, for example, decide it's down to an oil shortage, then that'd mean you could ramp up the financial ability for Arab states to build powerful militaries, including naval forces.

Like it really matters, though.

(I thought I already posted this. now I'm scared where that post actually went.....)

Freespace 2: Lost Souls
http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/
32.
 
No subject
May 2, 2006, 07:21
32.
No subject May 2, 2006, 07:21
May 2, 2006, 07:21
 
Hey, no one mentioned Quake Wars yet so...

Screw BF2! Bring on Quake Wars!

LOL

If I have learned anything from the BF franchise its that the first game is good, but stay away from the expansions. You won't find that many servers running them anyways. Vanilla ftw!

31.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 04:45
31.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 04:45
May 2, 2006, 04:45
 
Mexico has sustained its invasion of the United States for decades without any sea power since the Rio Grande is pretty shallow and not defended.

Ding ding! We have a winner.

---
http://www.cynicsdaily.com - Another stupid blog complaining about everything.
30.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 03:42
PHJF
 
30.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 03:42
May 2, 2006, 03:42
 PHJF
 
Even if we're to ignore the gross implausibility of something like a "Middle East Coalition"

I know!! Hey, DICE had to create something plausible for the US to fight in the Middle East. Ah, past histories don't matter, do they?

They could have just used the GLA.

------
"I have a grave announcement. Anyone with a weak heart had better leave now. Goodbye."
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Avatar 17251
29.
 
Re: interesting
May 2, 2006, 03:05
29.
Re: interesting May 2, 2006, 03:05
May 2, 2006, 03:05
 
Oh, the A10 is still in service. It does a splendid job in supporting ground forces and between the Air Force and Army Aviation, it won't be let go too soon. The tendency to retire equipment is to phase them out in stages, where you retire one batch, replacing that batch with whatever new equipment/craft to take its place. So its not like there's a set deadline for these things to suddenly disspear.


including Russia's which is in great disrepair

Yeah. They are even selling off ships to different nations to obtain hard currency.


Mexico has sustained its invasion of the United States for decades without any sea power since the Rio Grande is pretty shallow and not defended.

The original reference was made to one uniform military attacking another uniform military. Not quite the same thing as America border security is handled by a civilian agency, not the military (though there is some justifiable arguments in favor of this).


Even if we're to ignore the gross implausibility of something like a "Middle East Coalition"

I know!! Hey, DICE had to create something plausible for the US to fight in the Middle East. Ah, past histories don't matter, do they?

28.
 
No subject
May 2, 2006, 02:37
28.
No subject May 2, 2006, 02:37
May 2, 2006, 02:37
 
If it weren't for the gulf war the a-10 would have been retired, but since it happened they found how much potential the design had.

Supporter of "The Only Good fredster Is A Dead fredster" fan club

The Former Leader and Victor of the rebel movement against the dark Lord Surewood and his fiendish cohorts(bunko)
Supporter of "The Only Good fredster Is A Dead fredster" fan club
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older