For some reason, in this title, I prefer Breakthrough, and I have mostly played Conquest in previous titles. I think it might have to do with the maps, but Conquest is just borderline unplayable for me. I would say in my last 10 or so matches, there are only a few ways it goes:1. One team is capping half the points undefended while the other team is capping the others, with only small skirmishes in between. Objectives are capped in almost a clockwise fashion.2. You are either overrun by 3x the number of enemy players or are overrunning them with 3x the number of attackers. Rarely is there an even firefight that lasts more than 30 seconds.3. A little bit of both.4. You are spawned in on the losing team with 10 tickets or less remaining (sometimes in the EOR screen).Is anyone else experiencing that? More so lately than before?

@Adamonic Conquest in 2042 is a super casual experience. You don't find many people ever contesting points, and you tend to kill the same people over and over again. it's easy for folks to run around like headless chickens and there isn't much thought that comes into play when it comes to capping points around the map.Breakthrough is a shell of its former self. It offered the best combined arms experience in the game where the team that was more coordinated most often won games. Even in its current iteration, it provides more action than conquest.To the folks saying its too chaotic, play Irish.

@Adamonic Breakthrough is way too chaotic and repetitive.It's a wall of players vs a wall of players sniping, throwing grenades, and camping in limited vehicles.The only way it progresses is when attackers get a good squad that eitherA - Flanks the enemies and wipes them out, allowing their team to pushB - Brute forces their way through, making their team move because the frontline has shifted forward, so people start looking for targetsBut I do agree that 128p conquest in 2042 is quite boring compared to previous games. Maps are not well designed. Reworks help alot, I will give them that. But still, core is there and its still doffocult to find a good rotation sometimes. Even I with my vast experience am getting lost from time to time. But I still prefer conquest to BR for the simple fast of movement and the ability to outplay the enemy.You're not likely to flank an objective, kill a bunch of people and start taking it by yourself. Conquest allows such scenarior.

I play conquest myself (mostly Exodus), I feel like Breakthrough is just a meat-grinder-mode (which can be ok sometimes).In 2042 Conquest plays more or less the way it has for a long time, people tend to run 'headlessly' from flag to flag (zerking) and defending is not really something people do much. But that is how it has been for some time now, people have always accused other players defending flags as being campers. 2042 Conquest is a little more chaotic than BF1/BFV due to Helis and more moveability from some of the specialists. I kinda liked the slower pacing of the previous games, but that is a matter of taste. The lone-wolfing is probably a little worse in 2042 because of the gadgets and the increased moveability compared to BF1/BFV.The worst part is the map-design, it is pretty bad all over, very few maps are 'ok/good' and even the remakes hasn't really improved things much. 64 player Conquest have some really awful layouts and 128 player mode feels very empty.

@AdamonicAll 3 of your points have been in all of the battlefield games probably since the game introduced all squad spawn.While it offers more spawn points around the map to keep players interested it also leads to a lack of cohesive teamplay within maps without chokepoints.The modern playerbase that Dice has purposely attracted have not been good for the franchise.Just look at how many of the reddit kids salivated over the brain-dead gameplay of BT128 last week.It was pretty damn depressing that to them total non stop chaos is true battlefield.However back to your main question I mostly play conquest and only enjoyed breakthrough on V's Pacific maps when it first launched. Its the only time breakthrough really clicked for me.

I switched from Conquest to Breakthrough during BFV and barely play Conquest at all now. It's mostly due to the more concentrated action and chaos, but can understand that's not for everyone.

Conquest vs Breakthrough | EA Forums

14 Replies

JOGAGATYA
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
Breakthrough is too chaotic for me. I prefer less enemies around points. I enjoy the tactical aspect of the game with friends while talking on mic. Good laughs. Fun. On breakthrough there is almost no chance to communicate it is just a mindless grind for me. Conquest is fine here on PS4 except i would finally like to see a server playing through ALL MAPS with vehicles on one after each other.
UP_Plumber
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@Adamonic Breakthrough is way too chaotic and repetitive.

It's a wall of players vs a wall of players sniping, throwing grenades, and camping in limited vehicles.

The only way it progresses is when attackers get a good squad that either

A - Flanks the enemies and wipes them out, allowing their team to push
B - Brute forces their way through, making their team move because the frontline has shifted forward, so people start looking for targets

But I do agree that 128p conquest in 2042 is quite boring compared to previous games. Maps are not well designed. Reworks help alot, I will give them that. But still, core is there and its still doffocult to find a good rotation sometimes. Even I with my vast experience am getting lost from time to time. But I still prefer conquest to BR for the simple fast of movement and the ability to outplay the enemy.

You're not likely to flank an objective, kill a bunch of people and start taking it by yourself. Conquest allows such scenarior.
cso7777
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
I play conquest myself (mostly Exodus), I feel like Breakthrough is just a meat-grinder-mode (which can be ok sometimes).
In 2042 Conquest plays more or less the way it has for a long time, people tend to run 'headlessly' from flag to flag (zerking) and defending is not really something people do much. But that is how it has been for some time now, people have always accused other players defending flags as being campers.
2042 Conquest is a little more chaotic than BF1/BFV due to Helis and more moveability from some of the specialists. I kinda liked the slower pacing of the previous games, but that is a matter of taste. The lone-wolfing is probably a little worse in 2042 because of the gadgets and the increased moveability compared to BF1/BFV.
The worst part is the map-design, it is pretty bad all over, very few maps are 'ok/good' and even the remakes hasn't really improved things much. 64 player Conquest have some really awful layouts and 128 player mode feels very empty.
Tank2042Man
3 years ago
@AdamonicAll 3 of your points have been in all of the battlefield games probably since the game introduced all squad spawn.

While it offers more spawn points around the map to keep players interested it also leads to a lack of cohesive teamplay within maps without chokepoints.

The modern playerbase that Dice has purposely attracted have not been good for the franchise.

Just look at how many of the reddit kids salivated over the brain-dead gameplay of BT128 last week.

It was pretty damn depressing that to them total non stop chaos is true battlefield.
However back to your main question I mostly play conquest and only enjoyed breakthrough on V's Pacific maps when it first launched. Its the only time breakthrough really clicked for me.
ElliotLH
Hero+
3 years ago
I switched from Conquest to Breakthrough during BFV and barely play Conquest at all now. It's mostly due to the more concentrated action and chaos, but can understand that's not for everyone.
protoman23
3 years ago
@Adamonic Conquest in 2042 is a super casual experience. You don't find many people ever contesting points, and you tend to kill the same people over and over again. it's easy for folks to run around like headless chickens and there isn't much thought that comes into play when it comes to capping points around the map.

Breakthrough is a shell of its former self. It offered the best combined arms experience in the game where the team that was more coordinated most often won games. Even in its current iteration, it provides more action than conquest.

To the folks saying its too chaotic, play Irish.
ATFGunr
Legend
3 years ago
@Adamonic I’ve ended up the same way. Conquest was my favourite in past games, Breakthrough seems the only mode that offers any level of consistent action. It’s the maps, conquest is too big and players tend to band together and move as a swarm. They meet another swarm now and then, and you get a good battle. Then it moves on. Yawn.
Skill4Reel
3 years ago
When playing conquest in BF2042 I feel disconnected from the battle. Squads seem to have no focus or aren't working together for one goal. I will take the linear chaos in Breakthrough over the disjointed and often boring dysfunction of a game mode that is currently conquest.
The last game in this series that I have mostly played conquest in was Battlefield 1, and while the same lack of team chemistry was present there as well. The smaller maps made it more enjoyable as a solo player when moving between different objectives.
The stats page shows that I have 50h and 142 rounds of conquest played versus 441h and 1,134 rounds of Breakthrough.
LMG72TeRMiNaToR
Seasoned Veteran
3 years ago
BT FTW, the last BT kaos 128 was truly awsum. Wish it was a perm mode. I am the man of kaos running and gunning with my Mighty LMGs :D getting many multikills :D
kregora
Seasoned Ace
3 years ago
@Adamonic I totally agree. Exodus Conquest on the BC2 and BF3 maps is okay, and the Tactical Conquest Grind was okayish.
But Breakthrough offers compensations for the lack of cover and concealment by reducing the high sniper positions to a minimum.

I prefer that I know where to go, and where to expect enemies in Breakthrough. That leads to some interesting gunfights, and you are not shot down in the middle of to control points 400m apart by a sniper that is on a high rise 500m away, where no one contributed to any objective play, but changed some unimportant K/D statistics.