Please allow me to lay out the system. One player assumes the role of Commander. The Commander can then use the points his team earns to call in artillery strikes, smoke strikes, UAVs or vehicle reinforcements. They can also issue tactical orders to squad leaders who may then either follow or request a different order if they deem it necessary. This would give teams an incentive to earn points since it results directly in advantages for them, like vehicle requisitions. Meanwhile, to avoid a „fighting commander“ like the many in Battlefield 2, the Commander would have to be perched up inside a command-post in the team’s HQ. Now here’s where Conquest Double Assault comes into play. If certain criteria in the match are met or at a specific point during the match (like 50% of the tickets remaining) the enemy’s HQ could become available for capture like a regular objective.
Commander had been an essential part of the battlefield. Fighting Commander used to be a problem. Keeping Commander in the Main Safe Base could have fixed most of the issues. Commander could drop an Ammo Crate, Transport Vehicle, Artillery Fire, scan the entire battlefield, and use a UAV with precision. In BF4, guided missiles and UAV jamming are available. Commander might use a smoke screen and off-map airburst in the future.
In the next BF, the Commander must use a local command centre in the Safe Base. Also, enemy Artillery Fire must be banned from the Safe Base strike zone.
Also, rookies should never apply for the Commander position. Someone with a rank over 25, and there should be auto-selection for many contestants, as in BF2.
Asymmetrical Warfare: This (proposed) season is tied together by asymmetrical map design and could re-introduce classics such as Wake Island or Gulf of Oman. Asymmetrical map design means that one faction holds all capture points at the start of a turn but one: the enemy team’s spawn. However, all of those points are capturable, leaving this team vulnerable to losing even its only remaining spawn position. These maps have proven to be favorites in the community and the design principles between them have also worked marvellously in the past.
Gulf of Oman is a classic BF2 map. Attackers vs Defenders used to work as proto-Breakthrough/Operations. That is why BF2, in my view, is one of the best BFs ever created. Only Safe Base **bleep**, nade spamming, and dolphin diving are massive issues. Let`s be real, a perfect balance does not exist. Attackers vs Defenders worked perfectly fine. One round on each side, attacking or defending.
DICE should introduce a variety of uniforms as base layers, inspired by real armies, and add a slot based customization that allows us, players, to select the helmets, vests, facemasks, we want „our“ soldiers to wear. Further customizations could then allow for the attachment of, say, camouflage or helmet nets or engravings. Ready or Not for example has shown how such a system can allow for realistic outfits, but with enough options for customization.
My dream BF must contain basic outfits that fit factions in the game. Not just some random, out-of-touch body sets. BR could be an exception. But instead, players might choose between helmets, face armour/camouflage, gloves, patches, holsters for ammo and equipment, heavy or light plates that actually matter and have a profound impact on players' movement and chest armour.
I wouldn`t mind tattoos, because they seem grounded. Current whole-body sets/skins in BF6 compromise immersion. I do not want to play wardrobe simulator... this has to be practical for me. Huge room for improvement while keeping a grounded style needs to be achieved.
But you have to play the game to make a conclusion... deducting abstract things from metrics and statistics is not a good idea. Skilled game designers and Leads could make a great Battlefield if all had been in their hands.
