I have put a lot of thought into this and have come up with quite a comprehensive overall picture of what the game would be like. I would be interested to see what everyone thinks of it and whether or not I am alone in thinking such changes to the BF2 frame would improve the experience and refresh it.
I include links to images of vehicles.
Enjoy the read and tell me if you would consider this a good step forward for Battlefield, or off-putting.
Scenario
The battling factions are little-known forces with relatively small-scale agendas (yet with contemporary and reasonable amounts of kit) such as a mixture of mercenary and government-contracted paramilitary forces in Venezuela fighting off a private corporate-contracted force trying to seize natural resources.
Every scenario and battle would be the sort of thing that would float under the world media radar.
This is no inter-continental skirmish like BF2 and would make the average 20 vs 20 player counts in matches feel realistic.
Maps
Unusual locales aplenty here. Expect to see rolling hills and varied terrain in Thailand and Malaysia, to dusty Mexico and Africa, to snow in the Czech Republic.
Very nearly all maps will have aircraft in, and the average size will be about 150% that of the land area of Gulf of Oman.
Large built-up areas will be present in many maps, reminiscent of one early BF2 promotion vid that showed infantry action amongst buildings with jets up in the air above, patrolling the open areas.
Weather will play a role, with rain and snow present in some maps.
A night time setting would be used in one or two cases.
All maps would have an uncap base per side, and that base would have a bot-controlled randomly-located pair of anti-air positions to very nearly negate any chance of baserape from the air.
Overall we would be looking at around 18 large maps, with no copy + paste used in their design.
Weapons
The unlock system will remain in full force, with customization options along the lines of those found in 2142. Expect to adjust your loadout with attachments and altered munition-counts, all with effect on your weight and thus mobility, a concept drawn from Joint Operations.
In terms of standard weapons you'd be looking at Galils, AK74s, Uzis, Steyr AUG's and TMP's. Lots of variation and few weapons used by major governments.
There will be no portable guided munitions. RPG's and export LAW weapons will require a lot of steadying time to fire but will certainly wreck what they hit.
Sniper rifles will require holding of breath for accurate fire. The crosshair will move about if you move much, making it hard to fire - but if you can point it where you need to, the bullet will go where the hairs are lined. Range will be high but mobility / accuracy will be distanced a lot more than in BF2.
Claymores will remain but will require manual detonation like they do for real (when hastily deployed anyway).
Vehicles
A signifcant leap in a different direction will be made with vehicles. Due to the smaller scale and profile of the conflicts, large armoured vehicles will be a rarity, with the occasional Russian surplus BMP tracked vehicle posing one of the largest threats on the battlefield.
Hastily-rigged technicals with single .50 or multiple 7.62 gun positions will be genuinely viable options as a potent combat vehicle. Gunners will be able to fire with confidence from the back of these vehicles without having to worry so much about being sniped instantly because snipers cannot insta-shoot like in BF2.
The .50 cal will truly be an effective weapon, penetrating walls and downing people in one shot 90% of the time.
Boats will be integral to the game and there will be about 4 types, from 7.62-armed dinghy to Fast Patrol Boat with 20mm cannons and stinger position.
Quadbikes and snowmobiles will be a regular sight.
All jets in the game will be non-afterburning, subsonic light attack planes that can operate in close-air support in very localised zones. They will thus suit the "Battlefield" style very well. The turn radius of aircraft would be slightly larger than that of the BF2 jets (a realistic representation of these light attack aircraft. BF2 plane physics were rediculous, BF3 physics will be real. But because these aircraft are slower and maneuver in smaller spaces, they will fit realistically into the fairly compact battlespaces of Battlefield).
Expect a completely different experience with aviation. Fly slowly and aircraft will stall. You will need to survey targets on the ground with naked eye and cues from allies, as there will be no magic boxes on the HUD illuminating vehicles for you.
With realistic physics you cannot take height for granted. Lose height and it will take time to regain it. Pull too much G and you will black out. Push the nose down into a bunt and your head will practically explode.
The main jet weapon will be the underbelly or underwing 7.62/ 23 / 30 mm cannon. Firing these one / two barrelled beasts will be satisfying but will require moderation. I do not envisage infrared missiles. The aircraft will be light attack in the close support role, and the only real weapon for air-to-air will be the cannon (although unguided rockets can be used if you catch an aircraft unawares, to insta-gib effect).
Loadout will be changeable on the landing strip, with a choice of 250 KG bombs, unguided rocket pods, drop tanks or extra gun / ammunition stores.
A full landing will be required to rearm and repair and fuel levels will be limited (though real, thus not hampering flight much unless the round goes on for more than an hour).
Weapon stores weight will affect performance.
Without further ado, let me present the line-up of jets in the game!
Aermacchi MB-339
L-39 Albatros
AMX
BAE Hawk
Cessna Dragonfly
Tucano
Yak-130
Alphajet
Helicopters will make a large presence also. They will of course be realistic and so will be fast but will suffer damage if made to do silly moves like rolls and half-loops. There will be no technology like Maverick missiles but stingers can be mounted (maximum of two) to offer some protection against the might of the jet's cannon.
Like jets, exterior stores weight will affect flight performance.
Transport heli's will be a force to be reckoned with, as the door-mounted guns will pack the same realistic punch as those found on the jeeps.
Here are the attack helo's:
MD-500
Gazelle
Transports will be the Bell 212 Huey and Mi-2 Hoplite.
General Realism
Movement for infantry will not allow repetitive bunny-hopping, insta-proning or popping up and down behind cover. Sprint will last a lot longer than in BF2.
The amount of damage taken by players will be a little bit (one bullet, approx) less than in BF2.
One will be able to shoot while in the air and fall damage will be of little concern unless the drop is more than 7 feet.
One will not be able to self-heal instantly and bad damage will need to be seen to before it becomes fatal.
Infinate nade-spamming would not happen.
Miscellaneous details
Extra points will be awarded for kills which involve the destruction of a valuable asset such as a BMP or Jet.
Offline training available for all technical skills like flying, boat handling and spotting.
One will apply for the role as pilot like one does for commander. If accepted, kit is allocated with only a pistol and knife as armament. This will stop people using the plane to launch themselves into enemy base, and will put people off bailing out as they will not be much use on the ground fighting.
It will take time to enter a vehicle and you can be shot in the process.
One map would have a makeshift airstrip inside a huge cave in the side of a mountain.
Summary
The main slant with my take on this vision of BF3 is the removal of the "Rediculous" side of Battlefield while retaining the trademark accessibility. This is why the vehicle palette and general map sizing is so radically different. The same gameplay will be there, but in a form which is believable.
Battlefield is about guerilla tactics and chaos, so BF3's content and setting suits it. People whizzing around in there air engaging targets of opportunity at close quarters? Thats not the job of an F35, thats the job of an L39.
The way the game plays out is refined. There would be more to helicopter fighting than just a TV stand-off, and being in a good position against an enemy would help you win, not leaping into the air and diving to a headshot.
Squabbling over vehicles would be almost phased out; not only because of the system to apply for positions sensibly, but also because the aircraft would simply not dominate anymore - they would need to use weapons strategically through need to re-arm properly, and targets would need to be visually seen to be engaged.
To put it into perspective - with the right skills and the right communication, a modified toyota pickup crew could win the battle easier than the Littlebird helicopter or armoured vehicle.
Flying would be extremely engaging and interesting but would require genuine cunning and concentration to be up at the top of the table.
Due to the uncapable and slightly auto-protected nature of the bases, there would be more of a "safe haven" feel to the base and would give a "frontline" element to the true battlefield.
So what do you think, everyone? Would that be the kind of BF sequel that makes you pre-order as soon as you hear the first details of it? Or would you just stick to BF2 as long as possible, discarding my take on a new Battlefield like many did with Vietnam?
If so, why? Perhaps you liked the infantry side of Battlefield and would prefer to see the series evolve in that direction, or perhaps you liked the crazy, bizarre madness of how BF2 plays just the way it is? Do tell.
Just another note; I understand that a lot of the issues with BF2 are technical and to do with EA's dealing with the community. For the sake of simplicity, leave that out of this discussion and just assume that all the changes in BF3 are gameplay and content, as I list in my post above.
I include links to images of vehicles.
Enjoy the read and tell me if you would consider this a good step forward for Battlefield, or off-putting.
Scenario
The battling factions are little-known forces with relatively small-scale agendas (yet with contemporary and reasonable amounts of kit) such as a mixture of mercenary and government-contracted paramilitary forces in Venezuela fighting off a private corporate-contracted force trying to seize natural resources.
Every scenario and battle would be the sort of thing that would float under the world media radar.
This is no inter-continental skirmish like BF2 and would make the average 20 vs 20 player counts in matches feel realistic.
Maps
Unusual locales aplenty here. Expect to see rolling hills and varied terrain in Thailand and Malaysia, to dusty Mexico and Africa, to snow in the Czech Republic.
Very nearly all maps will have aircraft in, and the average size will be about 150% that of the land area of Gulf of Oman.
Large built-up areas will be present in many maps, reminiscent of one early BF2 promotion vid that showed infantry action amongst buildings with jets up in the air above, patrolling the open areas.
Weather will play a role, with rain and snow present in some maps.
A night time setting would be used in one or two cases.
All maps would have an uncap base per side, and that base would have a bot-controlled randomly-located pair of anti-air positions to very nearly negate any chance of baserape from the air.
Overall we would be looking at around 18 large maps, with no copy + paste used in their design.
Weapons
The unlock system will remain in full force, with customization options along the lines of those found in 2142. Expect to adjust your loadout with attachments and altered munition-counts, all with effect on your weight and thus mobility, a concept drawn from Joint Operations.
In terms of standard weapons you'd be looking at Galils, AK74s, Uzis, Steyr AUG's and TMP's. Lots of variation and few weapons used by major governments.
There will be no portable guided munitions. RPG's and export LAW weapons will require a lot of steadying time to fire but will certainly wreck what they hit.
Sniper rifles will require holding of breath for accurate fire. The crosshair will move about if you move much, making it hard to fire - but if you can point it where you need to, the bullet will go where the hairs are lined. Range will be high but mobility / accuracy will be distanced a lot more than in BF2.
Claymores will remain but will require manual detonation like they do for real (when hastily deployed anyway).
Vehicles
A signifcant leap in a different direction will be made with vehicles. Due to the smaller scale and profile of the conflicts, large armoured vehicles will be a rarity, with the occasional Russian surplus BMP tracked vehicle posing one of the largest threats on the battlefield.
Hastily-rigged technicals with single .50 or multiple 7.62 gun positions will be genuinely viable options as a potent combat vehicle. Gunners will be able to fire with confidence from the back of these vehicles without having to worry so much about being sniped instantly because snipers cannot insta-shoot like in BF2.
The .50 cal will truly be an effective weapon, penetrating walls and downing people in one shot 90% of the time.
Boats will be integral to the game and there will be about 4 types, from 7.62-armed dinghy to Fast Patrol Boat with 20mm cannons and stinger position.
Quadbikes and snowmobiles will be a regular sight.
All jets in the game will be non-afterburning, subsonic light attack planes that can operate in close-air support in very localised zones. They will thus suit the "Battlefield" style very well. The turn radius of aircraft would be slightly larger than that of the BF2 jets (a realistic representation of these light attack aircraft. BF2 plane physics were rediculous, BF3 physics will be real. But because these aircraft are slower and maneuver in smaller spaces, they will fit realistically into the fairly compact battlespaces of Battlefield).
Expect a completely different experience with aviation. Fly slowly and aircraft will stall. You will need to survey targets on the ground with naked eye and cues from allies, as there will be no magic boxes on the HUD illuminating vehicles for you.
With realistic physics you cannot take height for granted. Lose height and it will take time to regain it. Pull too much G and you will black out. Push the nose down into a bunt and your head will practically explode.
The main jet weapon will be the underbelly or underwing 7.62/ 23 / 30 mm cannon. Firing these one / two barrelled beasts will be satisfying but will require moderation. I do not envisage infrared missiles. The aircraft will be light attack in the close support role, and the only real weapon for air-to-air will be the cannon (although unguided rockets can be used if you catch an aircraft unawares, to insta-gib effect).
Loadout will be changeable on the landing strip, with a choice of 250 KG bombs, unguided rocket pods, drop tanks or extra gun / ammunition stores.
A full landing will be required to rearm and repair and fuel levels will be limited (though real, thus not hampering flight much unless the round goes on for more than an hour).
Weapon stores weight will affect performance.
Without further ado, let me present the line-up of jets in the game!
Aermacchi MB-339
L-39 Albatros
AMX
BAE Hawk
Cessna Dragonfly
Tucano
Yak-130
Alphajet
Helicopters will make a large presence also. They will of course be realistic and so will be fast but will suffer damage if made to do silly moves like rolls and half-loops. There will be no technology like Maverick missiles but stingers can be mounted (maximum of two) to offer some protection against the might of the jet's cannon.
Like jets, exterior stores weight will affect flight performance.
Transport heli's will be a force to be reckoned with, as the door-mounted guns will pack the same realistic punch as those found on the jeeps.
Here are the attack helo's:
MD-500
Gazelle
Transports will be the Bell 212 Huey and Mi-2 Hoplite.
General Realism
Movement for infantry will not allow repetitive bunny-hopping, insta-proning or popping up and down behind cover. Sprint will last a lot longer than in BF2.
The amount of damage taken by players will be a little bit (one bullet, approx) less than in BF2.
One will be able to shoot while in the air and fall damage will be of little concern unless the drop is more than 7 feet.
One will not be able to self-heal instantly and bad damage will need to be seen to before it becomes fatal.
Infinate nade-spamming would not happen.
Miscellaneous details
Extra points will be awarded for kills which involve the destruction of a valuable asset such as a BMP or Jet.
Offline training available for all technical skills like flying, boat handling and spotting.
One will apply for the role as pilot like one does for commander. If accepted, kit is allocated with only a pistol and knife as armament. This will stop people using the plane to launch themselves into enemy base, and will put people off bailing out as they will not be much use on the ground fighting.
It will take time to enter a vehicle and you can be shot in the process.
One map would have a makeshift airstrip inside a huge cave in the side of a mountain.
Summary
The main slant with my take on this vision of BF3 is the removal of the "Rediculous" side of Battlefield while retaining the trademark accessibility. This is why the vehicle palette and general map sizing is so radically different. The same gameplay will be there, but in a form which is believable.
Battlefield is about guerilla tactics and chaos, so BF3's content and setting suits it. People whizzing around in there air engaging targets of opportunity at close quarters? Thats not the job of an F35, thats the job of an L39.
The way the game plays out is refined. There would be more to helicopter fighting than just a TV stand-off, and being in a good position against an enemy would help you win, not leaping into the air and diving to a headshot.
Squabbling over vehicles would be almost phased out; not only because of the system to apply for positions sensibly, but also because the aircraft would simply not dominate anymore - they would need to use weapons strategically through need to re-arm properly, and targets would need to be visually seen to be engaged.
To put it into perspective - with the right skills and the right communication, a modified toyota pickup crew could win the battle easier than the Littlebird helicopter or armoured vehicle.
Flying would be extremely engaging and interesting but would require genuine cunning and concentration to be up at the top of the table.
Due to the uncapable and slightly auto-protected nature of the bases, there would be more of a "safe haven" feel to the base and would give a "frontline" element to the true battlefield.
So what do you think, everyone? Would that be the kind of BF sequel that makes you pre-order as soon as you hear the first details of it? Or would you just stick to BF2 as long as possible, discarding my take on a new Battlefield like many did with Vietnam?
If so, why? Perhaps you liked the infantry side of Battlefield and would prefer to see the series evolve in that direction, or perhaps you liked the crazy, bizarre madness of how BF2 plays just the way it is? Do tell.
Just another note; I understand that a lot of the issues with BF2 are technical and to do with EA's dealing with the community. For the sake of simplicity, leave that out of this discussion and just assume that all the changes in BF3 are gameplay and content, as I list in my post above.
Comment