Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Miller said:
I've checked on PC and it's still the same mission and reward (white paint for the rifles).
Click to expand...
hm, might have stopped in the meantime then. it did work a while back, and I hope they were not dumb enough to have to run it manually. that would be some division 2-tier retardation.
 
I just want one regular army vs army alt-historical or contemporary Battlefield game set in the United States. Red Dawn may be retarded but I don't want to shoot Russians in Iraq for the millionth time, I want to make the Highway of Death out of Route 56. Want to have CQC combat clearing the Empire State Building. Want Levolution of the Hoover Dam being blown. MAKE AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD


I also wanted Battlefield: Cold War. They could have played hard into the multinational/front idea from BF1 and had something like four wars and a new one per pack, like:
Vietnam (Americans vs North Vietnam) - or - Korea (Americans vs Chinese/North Koreans)
Afghanistan (Soviets vs Mujahideen)
Six Days War (Israelis vs Arabs)
Something from Africa, or Latin America (Rhodesia is obvious, but too based for this world; maybe Sandinistas, or play Castro's revolution, or Bay of Pigs even)

It would have been badass, and could have even had a WW3 pack (1950s American suburbia, National Mall in full detail with fighting in all the govt buildings/monuments, Moscow w. the same with the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, maybe post-nuclear Manhattan).
I hate this braindead, soulless PMC futureshit. Who fucking cares about it.

Let's say the DLC were:
Korea: Fight the Forgotten War, fight America's only war against China
Iraq-Iran War: Jihad in the modern day, prequel to Desert Storm
Che: Could have maps in both Latin America and Africa
WW3
 
Last edited:
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
I just want one regular army vs army alt-historical or contemporary Battlefield game set in the United States. Red Dawn may be retarded but I don't want to shoot Russians in Iraq for the millionth time, I want to make the Highway of Death out of Route 56. Want to have CQC combat clearing the Empire State Building. Want Levolution of the Hoover Dam being blown. MAKE AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD


I also wanted Battlefield: Cold War. They could have played hard into the multinational/front idea from BF1 and had something like four wars and a new one per pack, like:
Vietnam (Americans vs North Vietnam) - or - Korea (Americans vs Chinese/North Koreans)
Afghanistan (Soviets vs Mujahideen)
Six Days War (Israelis vs Arabs)
Something from Africa, or Latin America (Rhodesia is obvious, but too based for this world; maybe Sandinistas, or play Castro's revolution, or Bay of Pigs even)

It would have been badass, and could have even had a WW3 pack (1950s American suburbia, National Mall in full detail with fighting in all the govt buildings/monuments, Moscow w. the same with the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, maybe post-nuclear Manhattan).
I hate this braindead, soulless PMC futureshit. Who fucking cares about it.
Click to expand...
A nice late 50's early 60's would have given them a fuckton of prototype weapons, vehicles and locales to play with that haven't really been done before. That would probably be really good, if nu-dice weren't the ones making it that is.
 
wopirish said:
A nice late 50's early 60's would have given them a fuckton of prototype weapons, vehicles and locales to play with that haven't really been done before. That would probably be really good, if nu-dice weren't the ones making it that is.
Click to expand...
Korea would make a hell of a Battlefield game, too. The most modern tech deployed there were the M46 Pattons (which were just Pershings that had been converted into actual combat-ready vehicles instead of a rushed prototype), the rest of it all WW2 technology for the most part. Garands vs. Mosins, M2 Carbines vs. PPSh's, BAR's vs. DPM's.

Sadly given the tech disparity it would make for a much better SP campaign than a MP game, since that tech disparity included things like flak jackets and NVD's. Would be one hell of a fun SP mission to go infiltrator hunting at night with an M2 with night scope, though. Yes, the flak jackets and NV scopes were WW2 tech, deployed on Okinawa in surprisingly large numbers, and the special nightfighting squads the USA deployed accounted for something like 70% of all casualties among Japanese infiltrator units.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
I just want one regular army vs army alt-historical or contemporary Battlefield game set in the United States. Red Dawn may be retarded but I don't want to shoot Russians in Iraq for the millionth time, I want to make the Highway of Death out of Route 56. Want to have CQC combat clearing the Empire State Building. Want Levolution of the Hoover Dam being blown. MAKE AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD


I also wanted Battlefield: Cold War. They could have played hard into the multinational/front idea from BF1 and had something like four wars and a new one per pack, like:
Vietnam (Americans vs North Vietnam) - or - Korea (Americans vs Chinese/North Koreans)
Afghanistan (Soviets vs Mujahideen)
Six Days War (Israelis vs Arabs)
Something from Africa, or Latin America (Rhodesia is obvious, but too based for this world; maybe Sandinistas, or play Castro's revolution, or Bay of Pigs even)

It would have been badass, and could have even had a WW3 pack (1950s American suburbia, National Mall in full detail with fighting in all the govt buildings/monuments, Moscow w. the same with the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, maybe post-nuclear Manhattan).
I hate this braindead, soulless PMC futureshit. Who fucking cares about it.

Let's say the DLC were:
Korea: Fight the Forgotten War, fight America's only war against China
Iraq-Iran War: Jihad in the modern day, prequel to Desert Storm
Che: Could have maps in both Latin America and Africa
WW3
Click to expand...
BF2 had a DLC set in the US. But yeah, a proper game or DLC set in America could be fun.

The Cold War era has a shitton of untapped potential for shooters. Biggest roadblock though is the ideological murkiness during the time period. Most conflicts didn't really have a clearcut "good guy" or "bad guy," are still controversial, and still have people firmly entrenched on one side or the other (Arab-Israeli wars being a great example). You also either have to commit to making a game with a "lopsided" balance (which I'd love to see), or artificially flatten the equipment disparity, as a lot of the conflicts during that period were insurgencies or a superpower beating up on a smaller nation. I'd love to see a shooter commit to it but I don't have much faith outside of some Indie/AA shooter, and they seem more focused on the world wars or modern day.

If they ever go for it though I'd say Korea is most likely. It's the easiest tech disparity to flatten, and the least controversial.
My dream shooter would be the Iran-Iraq war (because I nerd out over that war's history lol). You've got decent settings for maps (Northeastern highlands, major cities, southeastern marshes, oil platforms), big operations to latch onto, and both sides are using similar equipment (the F-14 being the only major point of technological disparity). You could gloss over the fact that the number of Iran had major equipment shortages, or make it a gameplay feature by giving Iraq more tanks and Iran more troops or something. You could even throw the US in as an Operation Praying Mantis DLC (of course ignoring the fact that that operation was more one-sided than the Gulf War). The main sticking point would be controversy. You could do the BF1/V style campaign to avoid committing to one side or other, but the unavoidable fact about that war was both sides were fucking horrible. Iraq used chemical weapons (against both military and civilian targets). Iran used child soldiers in human wave attacks. Saddam and the Ayatollah are also probably up there with the west's most hated world leaders of history.
Snekposter said:
Sadly given the tech disparity it would make for a much better SP campaign than a MP game, since that tech disparity included things like flak jackets and NVD's. Would be one hell of a fun SP mission to go infiltrator hunting at night with an M2 with night scope, though. Yes, the flak jackets and NV scopes were WW2 tech, deployed on Okinawa in surprisingly large numbers, and the special nightfighting squads the USA deployed accounted for something like 70% of all casualties among Japanese infiltrator units.
Click to expand...
Lopsided conflicts would make great SP campaigns/missions. You could justify the PC being a one man army, force the PC to survive and fight as an insurgent (set ambushes, etc.), or even make a tense, borderline horror experience as a counterinsurgent.
 
Jewthulhu said:
Lopsided conflicts would make great SP campaigns/missions. You could justify the PC being a one man army, force the PC to survive and fight as an insurgent (set ambushes, etc.), or even make a tense, borderline horror experience as a counterinsurgent.
Click to expand...
Yup. Or for MP you could balance it out by having the Nork/ChiCom guys spawn in two or three guys Enlisted-style instead of just one, so yeah, the UN guys have Garands and ten round Enfields they can quickly reload, but they're outnumbered heavily (as it historically was). Same deal with M2 Carbines and the stick-mag PPSh that had replaced the unreliable drums. Tanks are pretty easy to be relatively fair with since you've got T-34/85's/Easy Eights as the mediums and M46/IS-2 as the heavy armor. Could also have increased spawns on the commies so a blown up tank respawns faster or its 3:2 on the field or something if we want to have historical performance for US armor, such as stabilizers and HVAP.
 
Snekposter said:
Yup. Or for MP you could balance it out by having the Nork/ChiCom guys spawn in two or three guys Enlisted-style instead of just one, so yeah, the UN guys have Garands and ten round Enfields they can quickly reload, but they're outnumbered heavily (as it historically was). Same deal with M2 Carbines and the stick-mag PPSh that had replaced the unreliable drums. Tanks are pretty easy to be relatively fair with since you've got T-34/85's/Easy Eights as the mediums and M46/IS-2 as the heavy armor. Could also have increased spawns on the commies so a blown up tank respawns faster or its 3:2 on the field or something if we want to have historical performance for US armor, such as stabilizers and HVAP.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see how an asymmetric military shooter plays out. The problem is that I'm not sure if anyone's willing to do it. It'll take heavy balancing, will require devs to limit customization, and will require people to play smarter. EA/DICE sure isn't going to try; they want Battlefield to follow the "everyone's a badass" model from CoD.

The closest thing to an asymmetric military shooter I can think of is the Insurgency mode from PR. And that's a milsim mod from the late 2000s. Not sure if anyone else has had the balls to try.
 
Jewthulhu said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see how an asymmetric military shooter plays out. The problem is that I'm not sure if anyone's willing to do it. It'll take heavy balancing, will require devs to limit customization, and will require people to play smarter. EA/DICE sure isn't going to try; they want Battlefield to follow the "everyone's a badass" model from CoD.

The closest thing to an asymmetric military shooter I can think of is the Insurgency mode from PR. And that's a milsim mod from the late 2000s. Not sure if anyone else has had the balls to try.
Click to expand...
There are lots of popular asymmetric multiplayer FPS these days. Red Orchestra / Rising Storm series comes immediately to mind. Balancing is not that hard to achieve, as long as there is sufficient playtesting and post-release support.
 
millais said:
There are lots of popular asymmetric multiplayer FPS these days. Red Orchestra / Rising Storm series comes immediately to mind. Balancing is not that hard to achieve, as long as there is sufficient playtesting and post-release support.
Click to expand...
Is it actually asymmetric or are there just kit restrictions? There's a bunch of games that restrict kits, I'm thinking more along the lines of having radically different way to play each team.

For example, in PR Insurgency, the insurgent team is stuck with shitty irons AKs and RPGs, don't really have vics more advanced than a technical, have access to a "civilian" kit, have effectively unlimited tickets, and are focused on defending scattered, hidden weapons caches. The coalition team typically has whatever standard weapon with access to scopes, heavy vehicles, limited tickets, and needs to find the objectives through an "intel" system. I can't really think of any shooter that matches that in terms of asymmetric gameplay.
 
Jewthulhu said:
Is it actually asymmetric or are there just kit restrictions? There's a bunch of games that restrict kits, I'm thinking more along the lines of having radically different way to play each team.

For example, in PR Insurgency, the insurgent team is stuck with shitty irons AKs and RPGs, don't really have vics more advanced than a technical, have access to a "civilian" kit, have effectively unlimited tickets, and are focused on defending scattered, hidden weapons caches. The coalition team typically has whatever standard weapon with access to scopes, heavy vehicles, limited tickets, and needs to find the objectives through an "intel" system. I can't really think of any shooter that matches that in terms of asymmetric gameplay.
Click to expand...
In Rising Storm only Americans get helicopters and air support. There's also stupid pointless shit like the Communists spawning troops differently than the Capitalists.
 
First post here; Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam (The original, not the Bad Company 2 version) are still two of the greatest games I've ever played and there's never been a proper successor to either of them. I'm not into turbo-autist realism milsim games. Hell Let Loose is one of the most tedious games I've ever played.
 
Remember when Battlefield had secret weapons that required cooperation and puzzles to obtain for future use? BF4 had the Phantom Bow, Hardline had the Mammoth and Syndicate guns and 1 had a Peacekeeper revolver. Did players actually like those?
 
Michael Wade said:
Is this like technically 100 vs 100 player counts with zombie bots? I'm cool with that
Click to expand...
The game can barely handle 128 players.
The Dark Protocol event is 12 vs 12.
bf2042-s6-midseasonevent-beautyshot-en-gb-a.jpg.adapt.1456w.jpg
 
Snekposter said:
Yup. Or for MP you could balance it out by having the Nork/ChiCom guys spawn in two or three guys Enlisted-style instead of just one, so yeah, the UN guys have Garands and ten round Enfields they can quickly reload, but they're outnumbered heavily (as it historically was). Same deal with M2 Carbines and the stick-mag PPSh that had replaced the unreliable drums. Tanks are pretty easy to be relatively fair with since you've got T-34/85's/Easy Eights as the mediums and M46/IS-2 as the heavy armor. Could also have increased spawns on the commies so a blown up tank respawns faster or its 3:2 on the field or something if we want to have historical performance for US armor, such as stabilizers and HVAP.
Click to expand...
There could have been a Halo ODST moment in a Korea campaign mission where you face a Chinese human wave and they never stop coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom