ExelMatters of taste cannot be argued, but you are of course wrong. It did suck. :smack:
:lol: I Love that post
I loved the way BFV utilised existing maps to create more. First you get a brand new city, with both sides fighting as equal. Then you get a destroyed city, where one side is pinned down. First you get a night-time "invasion" map, where one sides invades the land. Then you get a day-time map were both sides have equal chance now First you get a small portion of the map to fight on as infantry entry point operations. Then you get a huge non-infantry map, but with the same infantry section that is already captured. That made the battles linked together, and you got so much more involved. It's a great idea.
Its a good idea yeah, one of the few features of bf:v that was actually good.. Maybe its time to add a german propaganda speaker in stalingrad, like in the movies and COD :p
Having a developing battle on the same map is a good idea, but recycling the same battle with slight changes is not. But the maps would have to be carefully tailored for that purpose, so as to make it interesting and not repetitive.
GauntletYou and your Holland! :p But yeah, I totally agree. It would be a good idea to get the most use out of maps. Other examples would be many of the Pacific islands, like Guadacanal and Guam. [I may be on this ice now, but I think those island belonged to US at the start, and were captured by the Japs, and the retaken by US]
haha i know....... but i really don't know any forheign battles, in that way:uhm: it was only an example;)
yeah, and a fine example indeed. They can do that with some French city, first a city that were captured in Normandy during Fall Gelb with French vs. Germany, and then the same [outbombed] city but this time its Operation Overlord with US/UK vs Germany!