We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
Hey I like Minsk conquest for all the sniping action at the beginning of the rounds, easy infiltrator pins ftw!
Okay, for people that actually want to try to win the round, Minsk conquest sucks.
And Berlin phails because APCs have no place on an infantry map. Far to easy to cream a whole slew of people with the mortar on that thing. At least in Belgrade they're easier to avoid.
Hey I like Minsk conquest for all the sniping action at the beginning of the rounds, easy infiltrator pins ftw!
Bingo, thats the map.
Minsk is probably the only map that I am aware of that will let you create these "Armour trains". Tanks and APC on PAC, and the same + a bit more for EU.
Coupled with gunships, its only of those WWII style assaults where everyone rushes.
Uh huh...and compared to how many times you take it up the rear from the EU, how often would you say that is?
Shuhia (conquest) is the best for big armour columns, IMO. That's a fun map. So are Sidi, Suez, and Verdun (again, conquest) I can't honestly say I understand why you love Minsk so much, Ghost, but may I recommend a good therapist?
Actually. it takes a bit of a sacrifice to actually win Minsk as PAC.
Take the gunship, with you squadleader, and tell the others to hold their spawn. Take the gunship to the back of the map, and bail, and spawn and WIN!
Well yeah, but if some newb grabs the gunship and flys it into a tree or something your whole team is screwed. Not the best way to make a map 'balanced'. It's basically just the vehicular version of Berlin, where if you don't succeed in that first initial push (and a lot of the times people will not spawn right away, waiting to form squads or fixing their kit loadouts) you're largely borked. If you get some scrub in your APC (Berlin) at the beginning who just sits there at the road next to Roadblock and tries to pick off a couple people instead of blitzing past it and taking a back flag it's pretty much death for the PAC unless they have a significantly more coordinated and talented team. Minsk same thing, only there you have hordes of vehicles blocking the way if you don't take that first flag at the start, and NONE of your vehicles are going to get through the insane amount of MMs that litter the bridge. The gunship is the only hope, and that's hoping the EU gunship pilot isn't better than the PAC one or you don't get some nitwit in the ship to begin with. If that initial push fails, it's bye-bye PAC, again, unless the PAC team is far more talented than the EU team.
And maps where one team has to be more coordinated than the other are not balanced maps. Chokepoints FTL! :dead:
Meh, Shania conquest is too linear. Verdun, Sidi, and Suez conquest are outstanding, in that order. MIA's suez 24/7 is o.k., but the teams don't switch up, that I've seen. Which means you can get stuck on a side of morons, getting horribly abused over and over again. I think it might be FF=OFF, too. (I prefer FF=on, personally.) Be nice to see an "Armored Conflict" rotation that includes those maps, and would definitely include Tampa after the patch goes live. God knows there's enough infantry-oriented servers to choke a mule.
I didn't bother reading most people's post. BF2142 was made for people wanting infantry combat. Buy BF2. Thing is like 15 bux and vehicles are like godly there.
being in a squad of 4 people each in 4 walkers or tanks, thats the crap i want, you can get it in titan but can you get it in conquest?
Like the Jetpilots from BF2, you are missing a point.
Amassing all the armour on the map into a massive armour column is indeed very funny if you are one of the few lucky that manages to get a piece of armour.
But with that amount of armour there is nothing left to do for the 3/4 of the players who are left on foot. They are essentially just targets for the armour.
Fighting against 2+ pieces of heavy armour is almost pointless on foot, and if you should manage to prevail you will now be stuck in the class least suited for the infantry combat you desire.
If you finally manage to get a good infantry firefight going, you can be certain that the armour will arrive shortly and squash everybody.
Is it any wonder that those who want a chance for infantry combat gravitate towards infantry only servers? Or in the case of BF2142 maps with very little armour.
You would if you could, but you can't so you wont?
get your reading glasses, your going to need them
Originally posted by nemesis908
So what you're saying is, it's not a battlefield if it doesnt have vehicles? Like battles have only ever been fought with vehicles?
I would personally much rather play on a map with a "godawful" squad, than with a bunch of ignorant vehicle whores. So would a lot of people for that matter.
Originally posted by Vreki
Like the Jetpilots from BF2, you are missing a point.
Amassing all the armour on the map into a massive armour column is indeed very funny if you are one of the few lucky that manages to get a piece of armour.
But with that amount of armour there is nothing left to do for the 3/4 of the players who are left on foot. They are essentially just targets for the armour.
Fighting against 2+ pieces of heavy armour is almost pointless on foot, and if you should manage to prevail you will now be stuck in the class least suited for the infantry combat you desire.
If you finally manage to get a good infantry firefight going, you can be certain that the armour will arrive shortly and squash everybody.
Is it any wonder that those who want a chance for infantry combat gravitate towards infantry only servers? Or in the case of BF2142 maps with very little armour.
I put Vreki's post in because its relevant to what im talking about
Firstly you went wrong by comparing bf to real life, battles havent always been fought with vehicles you are correct but BATTLEFIELD was a game originally designed for mass infantry and vehicular combat, or was i missing the point when anti vehicle and anti infantry classes were put into the game
A bunch of vehicle whores? So everyone who jumps into a vehicle instantly becomes a whore? So I can then call CampG fanboys infantry whores! weeeee, hell alot of people will only even play these maps because they know high points are gauranteed. The point you seem to be missing that unlike in Battlefield 2 where VEHICLES = GOD OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING, this is not the case in 2142, you have a multitude of classes to counter vehicles, support can emp nade and disable while someone jumps on a railgun, a recon can rdx any vehicle into orbit and an engineer? Its never been so easy to destroy a vehicle, an anti vehicle rifle only detectable by a quiet sound or seeing it fired, awesome motion mines, missile launchers that can lay waste to air and ground. Vehicles are for all intensive purposes weak compared to past Battlefield games in terms of what they can come up against.
But no dont let me interrupt your squad as you pod down, shoot some infantry in the "True Bf style", because if people truly lack the skill, willpower or genuine brains to simply click engineer, recon whatever, jump on a railgun or work out some way of destroying said tank then something is seriously wrong with the playerbase (knew that already though), hell the commander can mow a walker with about 4 clicks of his mouse. You might prefer to play on IO maps and yes a lot of people do, but a lot of people DONT, i told you from the start that this was my own opinion but generalising vehicles because theyre the only thing that can ruin your bright infantry fuelled day is either laziness or ignorance.
Now for some random theoretical ball**** that i just thought up (honest)
The nature of the battlefield is a balance that shifts across the map, the objective being to capture different flags, in infantry the round quickly turns into a slaughterfest at one specific point with concentrated combat and i agree this is fun some of the time but more often i find that it descends into a tedious process of repetition, like firing the voss, pk rockets, chucking nades, chucking medhubs. With Armour you have another option, that squad who constantly res eachother no matter how many times you mow them will get totally raped by a piece of armour forcing them to change and react, vehicles are your option to actually change gameplay, to end the stalemate, i dont want to play a map and sit in one corner shooting people, it just reminds me of the dire netcode and hitreg, i can wheel in a tank or a walker and mow every mother****er in site and thats fun. I want to feel part of the battlefield, look out across the map and see a real large scale battle taking place and for the efforts of my team to actually matter, not simply throwing all my efforts into gaining a few metres of ground while fighting a mass of 30 odd assault or support guys laying waste to a tiny patch of land...
Vreki does have a point about combined power, but that should be true in any situation, an organised suqad of infantry will mow any group of lonely disjointed lone wolves, if a team can create an armour column then the other team should take it out, it isnt hard, or they can make their own, the effective counter is there and on conquest maps theres more than enough armour and engineers to keep an even playing field.
Infantry maps are fun yes, for me not all the time, i like playing them once in a while, im not advocating that theyre wrong, i am just saying that the simple saturation of every server with infantry gameplay is wrong imo and gets boring fast...
I put Vreki's post in because its relevant to what im talking about
Vreki does have a point about combined power, but that should be true in any situation, an organised suqad of infantry will mow any group of lonely disjointed lone wolves, if a team can create an armour column then the other team should take it out, it isnt hard, or they can make their own, the effective counter is there and on conquest maps theres more than enough armour and engineers to keep an even playing field.
You make it a bit hard to see who you are addressing, but I assume only this part was a response to my post?
One organized inf squad can make a difference, but they can not totally own the map. And they do not make the game unplayable for those who wish to use vehicles.
But watch what happens when a couple of walkers and an APC arrive. The infantry combat is now over.
I like to play Camp Gilbratar on 32 player maps, because there each team get one walker.
That allows them to act as a spearhead while still needing infantry support.
Thus it fulfils the role you describe of breaking up stalemates, without making the infantry feel like they are just targets in a MechWarrior game.
Originally posted by LanDodger
Infantry maps are fun yes, for me not all the time, i like playing them once in a while, im not advocating that theyre wrong, i am just saying that the simple saturation of every server with infantry gameplay is wrong imo and gets boring fast...
That is your opinion, but you are clearly in the minority.
They are "saturated" because that is what the majority want, so I cant see how you can claim it is "wrong".
If the maps were a bit better designed then vehicles would mostly fight vehicles, and infantry infantry.
But they are not, and I have no sympathy for vehicles user who complains that infantry do not understand that their role in the whole combined arms thing is that of "targets".
What for me gets boring fast is getting wasted by a vehicle each time I try to engage in a firefight.
I avoid infantry only servers because they are just as much against the ROC as K/P servers, but that doesn't mean that I am against the idea.
You will soon get Tampa Highway, which is an armour lovers dream, so settle for that and don't complain about those who prefer infantry.
They pretty much have to settle for Camp Gibraltar or Cerebere Landing, the rest are dominated by vehicles to a various degree.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment