3 years ago
Howitzer
please can we have some Howitzers that you can roll into the battle area perhaps a small truck can tow them.
@AdamonicWe also had Siege Howitzer in BF1. It brought nothing but frustration from getting killed by shells landing from the sky.
Someone might argue it brought "immersion", which might work for a WW1 game. But for a game set in the future, it won't do any good.
Then BF5 artillery strike squad call in. Overpowered, frustrating to go against, screen shaking thing that added no real value to the gameplay
@Adamonic wrote:
@UP_LordPlumberYeah, I am not a fan of any indirect fire without a counter.
In older games you had to aim them manually. In Battlefield 3 you could only see where the rounds land on the minimap and you had to manually zero in with each shot, you didn't get to see directly where they landed. In 1942 and Vietnam, you needed a spotter to spot a location with binoculars to give you a view of the area and you had to manually zero in with each shot. It made artillery challenging but rewarding to use.
BF has a problem with 'combined warfare'.
It is a fundamental part of BF-games, but it also introduces a lot of issues.
We want to PTFO (in conquest / rush / breakthrough), but having indirect fire (mortars, bombs - in general too much explosives), long range sniping, vehicles with high mobility/effective weapons against infantry, are all things that make PTFO more difficult and often hurts the game-play, it too often makes the game into TDM instead of objective play.
I'm not saying that these things must all "go away", but they should all be used with caution.
BF1 for one learned us that explosive spam (heavy bombers, arty-trucks, mortars, excessive grenade-spam) can ruin the fun. The same could be said for arty-strikes and rockets in BFV, having 10 of these in a round made the game-play stupid in general.