Why you must play as engineer. Also old school battlefield players are delusional

Powerslave118 writes… here

Damavand for infantry is pretty good too as there is only limited vehicles and they are not hard to take out.

In the past players on Whirlpool have commented that they need to play engineer in conquest because of vehicles. More specifically because they need to kill vehicles.

These same players are the ones that go on about how the BF series provides a rich, different gaming experience that allows the use of fancy things such as tactics and strategy. Personally I think these guys have no idea what they are talking about because they seem to be the battlefield die-hards – and probably have not dueled or even played TDM in older FPS. My guess is they had their FPS cherry popped by 1942 or Battlefield 2 and have that nice afterglow memory of it.

Tip: Quash that feeling and get on with gaming, 1942 is old now. If you are still gaming and comparing everything to that then you will never really enjoy gaming again.

Letting that tank cap offices on Kharg, waiting 20 seconds till it drives away and then recapping works perfectly well. In fact judging by the general quality of pub players I would say that you are better off doing this, even as engineer. On conquest maps most people play as engineer, so in the following example you will be soloing the tank. If you had a squad mate, or team mate at the point they would probably be engineer that you could support as another class.

How can you support engineer as another class? If the tank is good and has a repairer you can kill flank and kill this player while leaving a med pack for your team mate.

Anyway back to the average pub player. You can’t solo a tank. So being engineer, assault or recon does not matter because you won’t be doing anything productive. You will die.

StiffNipples writes… Here

1942/BF2 (even BC2) you used to fight between one flag and another, break the line and go cap the flag

He is sad that flags are grouped together and most of the combat occurs around the flag rather than in between them.

From a design perspective this seems a step up. By forcing play around the objective they are defining the play area. Rather than it being the entire gap between flags it becomes the area around the flags.

Is this bad? I find most firefights occur across the flag area, from the attackers side to the defenders side. Like a front, except instead of breaking through then capping the fight continues until the flag is taken.

There are a few points that are distant to the action. Antenna on capcicum and army base (the one up the hill) on kharg come to mind. There is no “front” to break through on these. I usually approach the flag, draw some fire from a distance to locate the defenders, if there are any, and go the long way around to kill them.

I see this “front” mentioned fairly often in relation to older battlefield titles.

  • Did it frequently exist? Was it always in effect and not something interesting that sometimes happened, like a good run with a squad. A battlefield moment if you will.
  • Did breaking through really result in capturing the next flag? I find this difficult to swallow because I would have assumed that the dead from the “front” encounter would simply back spawn at the flag.
  • Would the front occur now? 1942 and Battlefield 2 are old titles. In my experience the gamers that dropped their old games to play it were not really top notch and more likely to be the ones that would form a “front” because they enjoyed this type of gaming.

Would it still happen today with the different quality of gamers that play now?