Should the Commander be in BF3?

[imported_Tren]

I say yes...

In BF2 I liked playing the commander because I enjoyed staying back and helping out my team at times instead of always being on the front lines. On the other hand a bad commander really hurts the team.

Thoughts?

[RangerXML]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Yes, added a great element to BF3, but give control of some of the arti to players like it was in DC.

[=98=]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Yes, it gave me something to do whilst eating Pringles and dips and not wanting to lose my slot in the server...

[imported_JayZ]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Yes.

BF1943 has a great concept with the bomber strike. It could work well in BF3 imo, at least on the larger maps. A trailer allowing the commander to call in Stealth bombers to carpet bomb an area. Which could also be defeated/repelled by friendly jet-fighters, AA fire or denied by detonating the trailer.

There could be some great additions to the commanders toolset.

[imported_Joey]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

As long as you have the choice to turn down the damn radio voice things...

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

I actually will go with no, at least not in its current incarnation. One of my biggest gripes about BF2142 was the overabundance of spotting devices, like the IDS, the commander, the NetBat, the Pulse Meter, UAV, and commander spots. On bigger maps (think El Al) it's fun going way off in the tooliedingles and taking a back route to the base to surprise an enemy, and while aircraft could still spot you it still required them to go out of their way to do so. With the commander spots and UAVs, the only time you can really sneak anywhere is if the enemy has either no commander, or a pants-on-head retarded one. Just right-click spot spamming could make up for a satscan if the latter was destroyed. I like the commander being able to drop supplies and give orders, but not much more beyond that. Arty also made trying to sneak anywhere virtually impossible, because even if you got there and managed to get behind enemy lines, you'd be either spotted by the commander and killed outright, or just artied into kingdom come. Without satscan, UAV, and arty, the commander has little else to do.

So if there's a commander in BF3, hopefully it won't be the same as the ones in BF2/BF2142. No reason that all of someone's hard work of taking the long way around should be instantly undone by someone looking at a top-down map and going right-click, left-click. Soldiers manually spotting what they see should be enough, and squad leaders can take care of the need for coherence between players (maybe have one squad leader be the 'main' squad leader that can act as commander and coordinate the squads?).

[imported_Joey]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

I agree with you Wolf with all the 2142 radars and stuff, it just made it easy for someone with the Ganz and the infantry sonar to just camp a flag and know where the enemy are attacking from and take them out by himself, without them standing a chance...

I know this from doing it myself.

[old sch00l]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

I enjoy the BF2 commander experience still, tis a rest bite from the ground / air chaos, hope they keep it in.

[Kreepy Kitteh =^o.O^=]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

It adds to the diversity of the game, it's an essential imo.

[iQue]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Well, I like the concept but no.

A good commander can easily win the round for you and a bad one will easily lose it. I think it's depending on one person too much.

I actually wish they would just remove UAV's, artillery and all that stuff and let people actually find enemies to kill instead of the minimap telling them where they are constantly.

[old sch00l]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

I think they should add extra dynamics so thinks like, UAV > Arty arn't so easy, rather than get rid.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Well, I like the concept but no.

A good commander can easily win the round for you and a bad one will easily lose it. I think it's depending on one person too much.

I actually wish they would just remove UAV's, artillery and all that stuff and let people actually find enemies to kill instead of the minimap telling them where they are constantly.

:nod:

Couldn't agree more. Although I'd be fine if the commander wasn't able to do stuff on his own and were rather just the squad leaders' *****. If the squad leaders actually had to request arty and UAV it wouldn't be so abusable as having a commander be able to press a button and instantly light up all the enemies on the map, then decide where the UAV should go. Maybe having an arty strike like they're having the bomber jet runs be done in BF1943 would also work. Or instead have a commander trailer that the commander has to be in and manually fly the UAV drone from, so he wouldn't be able to just plop down a UAV and then go off and do other things.

[Wizrdwarts]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

No, I always felt the commander position in BF felt out of place. While everyone else is fighting, all you do is click to drop arty, supplies, spot enemies, etc. I would much rather have a system like the field upgrade system in 2142, where squads working together (with a improved squad system) would get points to deploy assets. I think it would be a good balance between Frontlines/Enemy Territory where nearly everyone has the power to use assets, and BF, where only one person does.

[RangerXML]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

For the armchair general in all of us.

[=[MI5]=RJW]

Re: Should the Commander be in BF3?

Commander and Squads with better features! eg squad leaders talking to each other and improve the VOIP!