A different look at battlefield. -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 12 years ago

Battlefield is a vehicle oriented game. I think we all know this. What I am gonig to suggest probaly flys in the face of everything the battlefield series and it's mod stand for, but here it goes.

In my opinion Foy is one of the best maps in Forgotten Hope when it comes to integrating tanks into the map. There are only a couple of tanks per side and most of these tanks don't even appear for awhile. I'm wondering if we can have many more maps like this in FH2? It gets annoying that when playing on certain maps you either need to get in a tank, get in a plane, or pick the AT class. I can understand there will be some maps that are all tanks (like Aberdeen), some that are all aircraft (like Battle of Britain) and some maps that are almost all infantry. But i'm suggesting there be more maps that have a balance of all of these. Maps like Foy and Streets of Berlin are some of the best. Iwo Jima is a good map IMO because it has literally every facet of the game in good supply while still having a enough leftover players to be normal infantry.

0.7 has given us a good amount of balanced maps and I hope we see even more in FH2.




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

11th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

I agree with you about Foy, which is probably my number one all-time fave. But I don't think the balance of vehicle/infantry is badly out of line, although in maps like Prok I feel like finding a hole and hiding until all the armor and arty is dead or gone. Perhaps unfortunately for infantry lovers, the North Africa campaign which we will see first in FH2 was armor-heavy in RL. And if FH2 continues to stick close to historical accuracy (which is why I respect and prefer FH), I'll be happy, even if ultimately we have maps which include a bombing run over Schweinfurt, or a depth-charge attack on a sub.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Overall the balance is fine, it more or less comes down to realism of the gear and equipment used during that battle back then I would say (X soldiers and Y tanks, converted to FH battle size makes Z and Q units).




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago
NighthawkBattlefield is a vehicle oriented game. I think we all know this. What I am gonig to suggest probaly flys in the face of everything the battlefield series and it's mod stand for, but here it goes. In my opinion Foy is one of the best maps in Forgotten Hope when it comes to integrating tanks into the map. There are only a couple of tanks per side and most of these tanks don't even appear for awhile. I'm wondering if we can have many more maps like this in FH2? It gets annoying that when playing on certain maps you either need to get in a tank, get in a plane, or pick the AT class. I can understand there will be some maps that are all tanks (like Aberdeen), some that are all aircraft (like Battle of Britain) and some maps that are almost all infantry. But i'm suggesting there be more maps that have a balance of all of these. Maps like Foy and Streets of Berlin are some of the best. Iwo Jima is a good map IMO because it has literally every facet of the game in good supply while still having a enough leftover players to be normal infantry. 0.7 has given us a good amount of balanced maps and I hope we see even more in FH2.

I disagree, there are more then enough infantry maps, be happy with em i say. Like you said this is a vehicle oriented game and if it depends on me it will stay that way. Im a tanker and i dont like to be forced to play infantry. So im sorry to say this but deal with it. Or you can find a different game to play, like RO, Finnwars and such. Or BF1918. Mostly infantry oriented games. Afterall you seem to love to play infantry. I however dont, and that is why i play FH. :)




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 12 years ago

No I quite like playing as tankers and I love flying. I'm just saying that for the sake of realism when you think about the numbers included in the game most maps have way too many tanks in comparison to infantry. On some maps like all of the Kursk maps and many of the North African maps this makes sense. And there should be maps like those in FH2, and no doubt there will be. I'm just saying that I hope in FH2 the devs also make maps like Foy, and Streets of Berlin where the ratio between the number of tanks and the number of infantry is more realistic.

From reading books about WWII whenever troops are given tank support it is usually something like 2-5 tanks for a company. And If I'm not mistaken a company is 150 or so soldiers isn't it? But in alot of FH maps what you see are 20 tanks(or other combat vehicles) and then 12 people playing as infantry, or less. I'm sure we'll see those in FH2 I'm just hopnig we see more of other types. .65 didn't have too many maps like Foy, but 0.7 added a good humber more. I'm jsut hopnig FH2 countinues the trend.

Also this doesn't apply to jeeps, trucks, or APCs, just tanks, artillery, and other armored combat vehicles.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
NighthawkNo I quite like playing as tankers and I love flying. I'm just saying that for the sake of realism when you think about the numbers included in the game most maps have way too many tanks in comparison to infantry. On some maps like all of the Kursk maps and many of the North African maps this makes sense. And there should be maps like those in FH2, and no doubt there will be. I'm just saying that I hope in FH2 the devs also make maps like Foy, and Streets of Berlin where the ratio between the number of tanks and the number of infantry is more realistic.

And then you always got one problem. What if you got a some idiot who wastes all our tanks on purpose? Thats just one problem. Another problem is that tanks generally survived alot longer then ingame so reducing numbers is about as realistic as adding laser rifles.

From reading books about WWII whenever troops are given tank support it is usually something like 2-5 tanks for a company. And If I'm not mistaken a company is 150 or so soldiers isn't it? But in alot of FH maps what you see are 20 tanks(or other combat vehicles) and then 12 people playing as infantry, or less. I'm sure we'll see those in FH2 I'm just hopnig we see more of other types. .65 didn't have too many maps like Foy, but 0.7 added a good humber more. I'm jsut hopnig FH2 countinues the trend. Also this doesn't apply to jeeps, trucks, or APCs, just tanks, artillery, and other armored combat vehicles.

You know what it means when alot of people play as tankers? It means they like tanks. Why? Because in most WW2 you are forced to play as infantry. If i wanted to play as infantry i would play WW2online. I play FH because im a tanker. Less tanks = less fun for me. Besides your numbers are highly exagerated. I see more people playing infantry then tanks. Also if you reduce numbers i suggest you compensate it on some way or form. :)




Strumtrupp

FH:STURMTRUPP4|BF2:HG_The Tank

50 XP

2nd January 2005

0 Uploads

679 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

NighthawkBattlefield is a vehicle oriented game. I think we all know this. What I am gonig to suggest probaly flys in the face of everything the battlefield series and it's mod stand for, but here it goes.

In my opinion Foy is one of the best maps in Forgotten Hope when it comes to integrating tanks into the map. There are only a couple of tanks per side and most of these tanks don't even appear for awhile. I'm wondering if we can have many more maps like this in FH2? It gets annoying that when playing on certain maps you either need to get in a tank, get in a plane, or pick the AT class. I can understand there will be some maps that are all tanks (like Aberdeen), some that are all aircraft (like Battle of Britain) and some maps that are almost all infantry. But i'm suggesting there be more maps that have a balance of all of these. Maps like Foy and Streets of Berlin are some of the best. Iwo Jima is a good map IMO because it has literally every facet of the game in good supply while still having a enough leftover players to be normal infantry.

0.7 has given us a good amount of balanced maps and I hope we see even more in FH2.

I agree pretty much and have suggested similar in that maps should have a focus. Though IMHO BF would best be a land vehicle game. Planes and ships are out of place due to engine/playability restrictions.

I don't really like foy but for other reasons. Aberdeen might be a tank map but it does not work. the game winds up in a slugging match across an invisible line. Iwo? The vanilla overhaul? no way man.

@Pietje:

You know what it means when alot of people play as tankers? It means they like tanks.

While that might be true to a certain degree, people play certain roles more if that role assures better success (=more kills). A general rule in ballancing is to see what people play. If one weapon or class or vehicle is used out of perportion, that is a good indicator that it is unballanced.

There are tanks in BF2. There are planes in BF2. Guess what people TK for. Guess which one is used by people with high(est) k/d ratios.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
Strumtrupp@Pietje: While that might be true to a certain degree, people play certain roles more if that role assures better success (=more kills). A general rule in ballancing is to see what people play. If one weapon or class or vehicle is used out of perportion, that is a good indicator that it is unballanced. There are tanks in BF2. There are planes in BF2. Guess what people TK for. Guess which one is used by people with high(est) k/d ratios.

People rarely TK for tanks. People TK more oftenly for planes. Also i generally see alot of people camping for planes. So your pretty much entirely wrong. And i have been playing this game long enough to know better then that.

Oh and generally pilots have a higher K/D ratio. Your wrong again. So please base your facts on real facts, ok? Not facts that YOU want to see.

I like to discuss things but dont try and tell me all sort of nonsens as i dont like that. If you can keep that in mind then we discuss things on a normal, friendly way, ok? :)




Meadow

You might very well think that

50 XP

21st February 2004

0 Uploads

3,000 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

I'm sure we will see some excellent infantry combat maps in the early FH2 releases, there was a lot of infantry combat in North Africa, eg Tobruk, Matmata and various other actions. And remember a lot of the 'armour heavy actions' were done with the support of infantry. I personally look forward to crouching behind a Crusader, my SMLE (oh wait, they modelled the wrong rifle again, didn't they? *sigh*) in hand, a Swordfish roaring overhead and dropping a couple of bombs on a German bunker.




Strumtrupp

FH:STURMTRUPP4|BF2:HG_The Tank

50 XP

2nd January 2005

0 Uploads

679 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
PietjePeople rarely TK for tanks. People TK more oftenly for planes. Also i generally see alot of people camping for planes. So your pretty much entirely wrong. And i have been playing this game long enough to know better then that. Oh and generally pilots have a higher K/D ratio. Your wrong again.

1. is was not inteded to be hostile. Just trying to lay out how I have see it happen. No need to rate me down for it. 2. Your answer prove my point. In BF2 no one tks for tanks but they do for planes. In FH you saw people camp KTs when countless other tanks were around. 3. did you even read what I wrote? Your entire reply echos what I was trying to say. I was trying to get people to think for themselves about the answers. Guess that fley right by you.

So please base your facts on real facts, ok? Not facts that YOU want to see. I like to discuss things but dont try and tell me all sort of nonsens as i dont like that. If you can keep that in mind then we discuss things on a normal, friendly way, ok? :)

Facts? Got any evidence to back that up with? Then don't call them facts.




  • 1
  • 2