![]() ![]() It made strategy more doable, made players more careful of their surroundings, and put an emphasis on transport vehicles. Bf4 was a nice medium (not slow, but not fast) pace. Many times they can't even get close because of the map design, so they often do suicide vehicle runs or use rockets. Many times I've seen a engineer, support, recon, or assault lead the charge against a tank. In bf4 there is only 4 classes and they can each pretty much do everything. I remember the many times I worked with a spec ops or engineer as a support to distract tank fire while they went around a building to lay down some c4 on it. Each class basically had its own pros and cons and when they worked together they made this unstoppable war machine. Then you had recon which thanks to gunplay had a bit of a learning curve and weren't great at close ranges. Assault, medics, and support however were horrific in fighting vehicles. Support was great for offering suppression fire and keep your squad stocked on ammo. ![]() Medics were great support but again weren't the best of infantry fighters. Assault could provide some amazing infantry support along with the ability to deploy smoke screens to cover those moments your squad goes into a open area. ![]() However they weren't the masters of infantry combat and suffered at medium to long ranges. Spec ops were great for shutting down commander support and taking out bridges/setting traps. There were a lot of classes and they each adding something to the battle. There is an abundance of anti air in the match and some of which (anti air tanks and active missiles) aren't nearly as balanced on maps.īalance. In bf4 many aircraft aren't up in the air for more than 5 minutes. Master missile dodging and dog fights was very hard. Although jets could be very effective, they also took a considerable amount of skill to master. #Battlefield 2 maps at launch plusPlus people who were skilled enough could use anti tank rockets and tank shots to help scare off air. They fired rockets that were effective and would scare off any air the minute they started locking on. In bf2 you had a really good anti air system, emplacements. There isn't much of a punishment for going with them aside from ammo. You see these anti tanks just be the perfect soldiers killing anything in their wake. In bf4 when I join a large conquest map it seems like 50% of the players are engineers, 40% are snipers, and the 10% are the rest. Engineers and gadgets had close range anti tank items (mines and c4) that meant exposing yourself greatly to take out your targets. It wasn't impossible, but many times you weren't going to win an infantry fight against a assault/support unless you were in very close ranges. taking anti tank class means your ability to fight effectively in infantry battles was hard. In bf2 you had a few classes that could counter vehicles and they were often not unstopable warriors. ![]() IN bf3/4 they put an emphasis on infantry gadgets to counter vehicles. However it is no where near what it is in bf4 where if I every decide to step foot outside of a building I'm getting shot be 4+ snipers sitting on roof tops or mountains. there were a few areas where walking in them you were sure to attract sniper fire. There wasn't an over abundance of death zones. They allowed players to employ tactics and flanking that were rewarding. I think the following are the reasons why Bf2 was such a good infantry+vehicular combat FPS. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |