Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

[shafik]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Gulf of Oman is one of the worst. What the hell are those beachfront bases? Little huts with sandbags? The US would never bother, and the MEC should be able to fortify a lot better. And nice military airstrip in the middle of nowhere.

I swear, most of the maps are utter trash.

I've had many games where MEC forces fortified the beach in Oman, obviously not using the bases themselves, but going further out into the beach with APC's and heavy infantry and Jeeps. It's almost impossible to storm the beach if they do this. 2 APC's can rup apart the BH, A jeep can sink RHIB's in a few seconds. And snipers can pick off the really brave swimmers.

As to the aurstrip in the middle of nowhere... Sorry, but I don't see your point. Are you saying things like that don't exist in war?

[zacman13245]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

gulf of oman is a great map... dont know what ur talking about

[jamie321]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

i think there should be more objects in all the maps e.g. destroyed cars tanks jeeps , with more craters , even when playing on city maps like karkand , mashtuur and Sharqui i feel like there are not enough places to hide and take cover and that if you get spotted by a tank you are most likely to be killed , also i think they should make the buildings destructable like in Soldner , which was a pretty crap game but you could fire a tank shell a blow a hole in a building and make a crater in the floor (you could flatten a whole building if you took long enough!) , i also think you should be able to go into MOST of the buildings.
Even though these things would make the game better i thing it will be a few years before a game with all this comes out.

[ZAGOR]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Not to compare the 2 of them,but take the feling that maps in AA like VILLAGE,HOSPITAL SF,or the map (CSAR)where you have to resque the pilot of a downed BH and burn the wrekage, give you.That's what I call "warzone-feel"...
PS:you even have civilians in HOSPITAL SF

[gogtaylor]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

I will have to agree on the comment about wake and infantry battles. 75% of the time(if us makes it onto island ever) you will have an intensive infantry battle with 1 maybe two distinct fronts. Best is when us takes both points of the island and you have to battle fronts! I will seldom ever play a map besides wake just for that reason.

[vbl]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

I've had many games where MEC forces fortified the beach in Oman, obviously not using the bases themselves, but going further out into the beach with APC's and heavy infantry and Jeeps. It's almost impossible to storm the beach if they do this. 2 APC's can rup apart the BH, A jeep can sink RHIB's in a few seconds. And snipers can pick off the really brave swimmers.

As to the aurstrip in the middle of nowhere... Sorry, but I don't see your point. Are you saying things like that don't exist in war?

Cobra + Jets.

And there aren't enough APCs/Jeeps to cover the entire front. Honestly, a good BH pilot could fly super high or on a wide flank and get by without issue. It's been done! :)

As for the airstrip, I'm saying that it doesn't feel like a battlefield or a remote base. Just - blah. Look at all of the buildings on the map - they're mismatched boxes just sitting around. There's no infrastructure, and the bits that are interesting are irrelevant to the flag objectives. And why would the US care about such a place? It's one airstrip. Bomb it and go home. Same with Wake. There's no gravitas or believability.

Keep in mind that I've played Planetside, where bases are expansive installations with decent defenses, noteworthy benefits, and multiple layers to them - perimeter, wall, inside wall, inside base. I don't expect that every BF2 map would have such a thing, but I'd like to see at least a little more formality in the military-esque stylings. Or, if it's a truly urban area, some meaningful objectives coupled with serious damage and debris.

Overall, I find that the Chinese maps are better executed and are stronger from an immersion standpoint. Particularly Daqing Oilfields, which feels dark and muddy.

[Razzia.be]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

indeed, wake island is a real great map, once the us gets on the island hell breaks loose
i love it!

[Horatio_Bloom]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

I've mentioned it before somewhere, but I forget, in which topic, so I'll repeat myself: The thing I really miss are well-built defense positions... in 1942, I loved Tobruk, because it was really fun to defend and challenging to attack... There are no trenches, no pillboxes of any use, no logically placed barbed wires and drangon's teeth. This is most evident on Oman(Even though I love the map), where, from the beach huts, you can't effectively defend the beaches(you can't even see them, because of the oil drum walls), and their entrances face the enemy. Even worse you can only shoot at a chopper with the AA after it is behind your lines, because the walls and the trees are obscuringg the view. They are even more useless than the Maginot-line... The TOW's and machine guns are spread out randomly, also without any tactical advantage.

[iewgnem]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Its not WW2, modern combat does not require you to blow up every building you see or every car in your path.

To be honest the amount of deastruction / damage in the maps are just about right, any less and it seems fake and any more it wouldnt adhere to modern combat.

[3Libras]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

I miss the oldschool war feel of 1942. Never played Vietnam.

Destructible environments in DoD were kinda cool (there wasn't enough of them though!) like blowing a hole in a wall as a shortcut. Being able to level certain buildings and blow things up as a major objective (Secret Weapons, Battle of Britain..) is needed muchly.

[vbl]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Its not WW2, modern combat does not require you to blow up every building you see or every car in your path.

To be honest the amount of deastruction / damage in the maps are just about right, any less and it seems fake and any more it wouldnt adhere to modern combat.

What exactly is "modern combat" and how does that equate to less destruction? It sounds pretty flakey.

Karkand gets pounded by artillery every few minutes with heavy armor rolling through the streets and explosions going off everywhere, and you think the amount of destruction is appropriate? C'mon man.

Nevermind that if war erupted in the streets of a city, there'd be junk everywhere.

[Devil_Dog-9]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Well to be honest USMC hardly every tries to flatten a city before moving in because we try to not kill ciz. USMC would rather assault a city with infantry to save lives the destroy the city with arty to save Marines.

I do get what your saying about the environment...but it sounds like you are more going for a destroyable environment...and that would rock.

[vbl]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Well to be honest USMC hardly every tries to flatten a city before moving in because we try to not kill ciz. USMC would rather assault a city with infantry to save lives the destroy the city with arty to save Marines.

I do get what your saying about the environment...but it sounds like you are more going for a destroyable environment...and that would rock.

Nah, I know destructable environments aren't possible with the BF2 engine. But I would like some indication that there's a battle going on and that it's a recently abandoned urban area. I'd also like to see more fortifications.

Even the cityscapes in BFV (with the loudspeaker) were more eerie and immersive.

[imported_Psycho]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Buildings don't get knocked down very quickly if you only have 2 tanks on a map, and then if there were sides missing they might have to bother to make an interior instead of just copying the same one over and over again.

[vbl]

Re: Anyone else feel the maps don't have that "warzone" feel to them?

Buildings don't get knocked down very quickly if you only have 2 tanks on a map, and then if there were sides missing they might have to bother to make an interior instead of just copying the same one over and over again.

Two tanks, 2 APCs, C4 and grenade explosions regularly, anti-tank rockets, TOW missiles, tank shells, plus artillery.

And the town looks fine, short of two busted cars and a broken down APC.