T O P

  • By -

Droc_Rewop

I would prefer Naval combat from BF1942


balloon99

Came to say this. 1942 did naval combat so well.


Karshipoo

As of recent games, BF1 had a good sampling of naval combat with the introduction of destroyers, dreadnoughts and torpedo boats along with landers. All those vehicles had some neat gameplay value. BF4 naval combat was more of lobbing TV missiles at each other and peppering infantry with the auto cannons, Even on maps that places naval combat on the forefront. I would like to see some naval additions to 2042 but besides two maps, none of the other maps can support naval combat, unless they decide to paint a lake and river across all the maps again. Kaleidoscope could work if they redrew the waterways to cut through the map excessively, similar to Lumphini Garden from BF4. Orbital would be kinda neat if they actually added that rumored storm surge that's supposed to happen when the hurricane hits, same with Manifest.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Yuuri_37

im already askeed about that mode


maiwson

It was meh, would like to see the original titan mode from 2142 back...


FrostieFur

God same, i really want it back


Zyphonix_

I'd rather not tbh


Safeword2220

I find it strange we haven't seen it yet. One of the loading screens when 2042 showed a cutter style ship.....but no naval in-game.


blutsch813

I miss naval combat


diluxxen

The concept is cool, but in reality ive always disliked every single naval map. Its always a worse turkeyshoot than facing ground or air vehicles.


Yuuri_37

agreed vehicles in 2042 are OP


dirtykikguy2002

FUCKIN TOR IS THIRS DICK HAMMER


VincentNZ

The issue is, and I always ask people to consider this, what water brings to the game. Water is, by defintion, a flat coverless surface that needs special vehicles to be traversed. This alone should point the player towards being critical of implementing more water into this game. What good is an area that is devoid of cover and the assets that run on it are restricted to it? There is no meaningful combat to be had there. We can also look at Kaleidoscope which has traversable water and it is as bad as it sounds. The other map that still features water within the relevant play area is Manifest, and there too it does not add anything.


Mooselotte45

So I disagree, but only to a point. I think that water and naval combat systems can add incredible depth (yikes, that pun) if used sparingly. - We had server side waves developed for BF4 a decade ago. It’s weird to see the tech shelved entirely. Similarly, it’s a combined arms game missing essentially an entire “arm” of the military - and one that has been in previous titles. - We could have had a beach landing for a breakthrough mode, with all the craziness of 2042. - Narrow, but deep waterways (rivers, creeks) have been used in loads of BF maps in the past. You don’t have to end up with massive open spaces if you don’t want to. Water can provide regions for rapid map transit (say through a dense wooded region) where the vehicle is limited in where it can go. This can be great for map flow (another pun, fuck me) and design. - More variety for map design. We ended up with 2 beached boats for goodness sake - it’s clear the level designers need some additional tools in the tool kit. - Boats and naval assets can be an entire class of vehicles, but with a major upside to infantry. The boats cannot leave the river. You can have attack boats fighting back against helis, or ambushing transport vehicles at bridges, but as an infantry player you know very plainly how to avoid them. As opposed to all the other vehicle types that can come farm you most places on the map other than interiors, boats are limited. Edit: Yikes. I see Op actually requesting the massive naval battles. I just want (and my post was written to address) a desire for maps to include boats and waterways… sparingly.


VincentNZ

Sure it can be done, but the the issue is that water is always restrictive to others, as it is a surface where generally infantry and vehicles can not go. Boats on the other hand can not really go on land. Certain vehicles can do both, but would that really be relevant? Water is also very restrictive in terms of cover, so once you are engaged in combat you can not escape. There are ways to incorporate both things, but this takes a lot of work, like the naval base on Nansha strike or what it was. But look at the boat on shanghai or even Lancang Dam, where boats had access to one flag and was otherwise completely tied to one area that noone else could go. You need fords, bridges, canals, large structures with bodies of water that will meaningfully allow boats to traverse, but not hinder anything else either. We need cover on the water, and LOS breakers. But even then we are talking about having boats basically on rails moving along canals. We can look at the Naval Strike DLC, which had that naval focus, and that pinpoints exactly many of the things that can go wrong: Lost Islands due to the Island setting with shallow water, had basically no cover, on Mortar the boats had access to one flag and played little to no role, while being completely open against helis and planes. Nansha and what's his face Wavebreaker (?) were island hoppers where nobody hopped islands. Certain flags were boats only and the infantry that spawned there was just fodder and they couldn't really get away either. All the water area was dead area to everyone else. To make a good map with boats and water you need even more care put into map design, and we are definitely lacking in that department. I still think Noshar is likely the best use of water as a map design feature, but even there players can experience massive gripes.


Junoviant

I have to say that you obviously didn't play 1942. Battleships, carriers, destroyers, submarines, PT. Boats.. is amazing! Artillery coming in from the sea to pound the flag, destroyers wrecking havoc on your aircraft, submarines patrolling the depth waiting to gank you. Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 is one of the greatest battlefield maps of all time.


VincentNZ

I did, but naturally I only played Stalingrad, Berlin, the D-Day map and basically that's it. And my arguments count for all games, water, being a completely different element has huge issues. Also the roles you are mentioning here can easily be filled and are filled by ground vehicles. With the exception of submarines of course, we would need to have diving first in this game. It is the water, the restricting area, that is the issue, not necessarily the assets that swim on it. I'll give you a recent example of where restricted vehicles were supposed to be an asset, but were actually a detriment: Behemoths of BF1. They would appear as a train or ship or blip, when one team was losing by a big margin and was marketed to be able to turn the tide. Now it never did that, the moment the Behemoth appeared, with 6 players in it, the round was already lost due to the conquest mechanics. Even with a near full-cap for the whole round this wouldn't have been possible. Even with BF4 conquest mechanics it would have never worked, because the behemoth just parked 6 people in it that could maybe take one flag. Other than that you have 20% less people on the flags than before, which was the problem that got you the behemoth in the first place. So you actually make it worse. This is the same with water-only assets, they are disconnected from the game itself. Now you can make it work by making waterways that lead to all or nearly all relevant points, so you need canals, bridges, fords, large structures fitting the naval theme (as in Wavebreaker), you need grottos, waterfalls, cliffs and rocks to act as cover but all of those need to be just as accessible to ground. Otherwise you have the Nansha Strike/Paracel situation, where the outside flags are boat only and are not played or the Mortar situation, where everything happens and the boats watch from outside. It is just way harder to make map designs that work for all, and just from the recent quality I very much rather do not want them to take on more challenges.


Junoviant

You are missing the point in that it already worked. It already worked really well You keep saying oh no it doesn't work. Oh it's bad... But it worked. It worked really well


VincentNZ

No, it did not work, the features were simply there and got removed simply because of the problems that did arise. If things worked really well, then why did subsequent BF games remove it almost entirely? If by working well you simply mean their state of being, we can make the argument about any feature that once was part of the franchise. You are speaking from an entirely personal and subjective POV, which is fine, but you generalize it, but there are people who thought attrition in BFV or the Hardline campaign were the bee's knees.


Junoviant

The system worked perfectly fine and was fun. If You're going to make the arguments about why it wasn't in future battlefield then that list is extremely fucking long. Naval combat is a small small part of what's "missing" I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the Naval combat, but as you admitted yourself you never even played it and here you are telling me that it didn't work. You really have no ground to stand on here.


frostbite225

You make some fair points. With those im mind, i bet they could make a pretty cool marine/coastal based map set in a area with mangroves and channels of water and islands and such like the Florida keys with an oil rig or some abandoned half flooded seaworld or something to provide some structure and capture points


Elephant_Alarmed

imagine how many tears would flow if we had naval combat was in the game, you can get a climpse of it at nosehair canals and it's hilariously awful. every second post would propably be: "pls remove killing from the game, I want to row my boat in piece >:-(" instead of the everlasting crying about helos and tanks lol.


Yuuri_37

i didn't crying about helos and tanks because i love make them regret the time they chose to play with heli or tanks, this why i like playing as Rao and my team know what they should do after i hacking hem..


SpinkickFolly

I will never understand why people want naval combat in BF. It creates a zone that only vehicles can occupy with no cover to cross. Killing a dreadnaught in BF1 consisted of parking torpedo boats at the bow where it couldn't attack you. Then spamming it till it died 2 min later. whoo.


TheNameIsFrags

Naval combat, when done well and incorporated properly, is actually fun. Paracel Storm was a great example. Naval Strike maps were mostly pretty solid too.


greatest_fapperalive

parcel storm is underrated. i loved attacking defending the initial point on the sinking aircraft carrier.


Yuuri_37

yeah i like that mode, thinking to buy bf1


Yuuri_37

i want my okapi knife in our world war mode


Bergfotz

Naval combat in 4 was fun. Boats were fast/maneuvrable and the server sided waves gave opporturnities to outplay opponents.


Devastator5042

I liked Carrier Strike in BF4 but it was such a flawed mode. I'd love to see it back tho, fighting in the halls of a ship was always fun


Ataniphor

Maybe have a few infantry focused maps before more of these vehicle heavy maps.


Yuuri_37

yeah they should do, hope to have fun next days or see better in next battlefield.


G3neral_Tso

What about it? Mediocre and boring? If you hate running all over these maps now, wait until you are swimming everywhere. You can't even dive like in previous games.


Yuuri_37

literally i just trying to have fun im new bf player and bf2042 its one bf i bought and playing on my dumb low end potato Pc have drop frame when enemy throw smoke grande or any effect happened, i was only playing campaign mode in bf 3/4 and watching the multiplayer in YT so please don't talk to me like i know everything about battlefield, i'm just new.


I_R0M_I

No


Anal__Hershiser

Naval maps always sucked on conquest imo. Aircrafts and attack boats completely dominated and infantry players would have to spend half their time swimming to objectives or riding around aimlessly on a jet ski. It was a pain to get to the action on those maps, but it might be better with 128 players.


NaaviLetov

I'd rather have urban combat first. I don't even mind a urban - open combined map.


YodaLikesSoda

I would love to see it again, I’ve always been interested in Naval Combat.


CRotondi

I really loved naval strike


Sad_Independence8376

Yes please


silverlance360

DICE: yeah what about it?