I'm just wondering how FH2 compares to RO since, to my knowledge, BF2 does not support realistic ballistics which is one of the major reasons RO kicks so much ass.
what do you mean by "realistic ballistics"
FH2 (and i m pretty sure PR) both have bullets/shell ballistics. the projectiles falls over distances and needs time to reach the target, there are not "hit-scan" weapons like in CS/DoD.
I often enjoy a round of RO now and then, the infantry combat has a lot of pretty features, leaning, resting weapons, working bolts, melee attack with almost any weapon, picking up individual weapons instead of whole kits to "customize" the weapons to your disposal.
Tank combat also has some great stuff, range finders on sights, ricocheting shells on angled armor ...
the things that make FH superior imo are the much lager variety of weapons and vehicles, nice graphics and the ability to do what you want. you dont have to have a ultra fast PC to be able to play sniper/tanker on maps. In PR the first ones to load the maps get to choose their class/weapon from the limited team load out and if it is gone you only can pick up the weapons or have to wait until the slots open some day.
FH can also be played alone as tanker, you dont need 2 people communicating with VOIP or the quite useful "numpad" commands. you can do it all on your own.
and there are airplanes
and mines
and artillery pieces
and mortars
and paks (although i think PR got some too lately)
and jeeps
and bikes
and, and, and ...
RO is a great game with many many great features but imo it lacks some variety in vehicles. RO is "more" realistic than FH but FH dosent want that kind of realism.
hope that helps
