Oh hey look they are finally realizing that in order to properly balance aircraft and vehicles, you need to have pilot and tanker classes.
I love how they always find the people with the thickest accents in the office to narrate these videos.
I'm liking how they are making it a tad unrealistic and action packed, but having the really cool weapons and vehicles of the time. It's a nice aesthetic time period compared to modern tacticool we've been seeing for a decade now. Looks great.
The way those biplanes fly, so much yes please.
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpmBywMXgAABq_j.jpg:large[/IMG]
thanks dice
This may be the map we see at the new squads event at gamescom
Has there been any footage of battleships yet?
Did that plane just shoot rockets out of it's wings? Not complaining, I knew this game wouldn't be realistic, just want to confirm I saw the right thing.
[QUOTE=Marden;50867810]Did that plane just shoot rockets out of it's wings? Not complaining, I knew this game wouldn't be realistic, just want to confirm I saw the right thing.[/QUOTE]
Plane mounted rockets were invented during WW1 iirc :
[t]http://api.ning.com/files/RyuXpIqt7Tw6bpgnm2q*bT1FUbPwm2PojVpY50NHmROqpuH7i1NZiK2fBxg6SxGOQsTSNXSzAZFfBNiIZO0kq7Ntx9yhcpac/0le_prieur_test_1_500.jpg[/t]
I hope the planes don't handle like ass like BF3 and BF4
[QUOTE=Aide;50867903]I hope the planes don't handle like ass like BF3 and BF4[/QUOTE]
they are sluggish but that's more accurate for the planes at the time due to how inefficient the damn things were. add on flap damage and it makes it hard to control when you lose your control surfaces.
[QUOTE=GunFox;50867469]Oh hey look they are finally realizing that in order to properly balance aircraft and vehicles, you need to have pilot and tanker classes.[/QUOTE]
It's great too because you can disable an enemy tank and hope the enemy player jumps out, kill him, then take his kit and repair their tank.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50867575]I'm liking how they are making it a tad unrealistic and action packed, but having the really cool weapons and vehicles of the time. It's a nice aesthetic time period compared to modern tacticool we've been seeing for a decade now. Looks great.[/QUOTE]
bf1 feels really weird to me because it's much more a "ww2 with airships" game than it is a ww1 game
everything from the types of weapons to the tanks and planes' handling and top speeds are so inaccurate that it feels like a ww2 game with a ww1 skin
[QUOTE=Jelman;50867632][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpmBywMXgAABq_j.jpg:large[/IMG]
thanks dice
This may be the map we see at the new squads event at gamescom[/QUOTE]
It 1000% is. It's already confirmed to be the desert map with the armored train.
Cool, I hope they keep tanks brutally powerful.
Everyone knows 3 and 4 regulars like LevelCap want them to be useless though, so let's hope that doesn't happen...
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50868548]Cool, I hope they keep tanks brutally powerful.
Everyone knows 3 and 4 regulars like LevelCap want them to be useless though, so let's hope that doesn't happen...[/QUOTE]
My concern isn't with vehicles being powerful, it's with maps being too asset-rich.
I don't want situations where 60% of the team is always occupying vehicles on a rather small map. I didn't play the alpha but the footage I saw kind of made it look like there were a few too many vehicles allowed.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50868667]My concern isn't with vehicles being powerful, it's with maps being too asset-rich.
I don't want situations where 60% of the team is always occupying vehicles on a rather small map. I didn't play the alpha but the footage I saw kind of made it look like there were a few too many vehicles allowed.[/QUOTE]
Compared to Battlefield 4 the vehicle distribution is way better balanced. On a map roughly the size of Operation Firestorm you will [B]very [/B]rarely fight more than two tanks at once and your anti-tank tools are more useful this time around.
Speaking as someone who's primary complaint about BF4 was absurd number of vehicles on tiny baby maps, BF1 is a huge improvement.
Just realised there's a FT-75 BS in this footage. Are there going to be tank variants?
was that the red baron at the end?
[QUOTE=nAXiom090;50868922]was that the red baron at the end?[/QUOTE]
yes
It's going to be a skin you can put on tri-planes
:excited:
[QUOTE=nAXiom090;50868946]:excited:[/QUOTE]
Richthofen's DR.1 skin is a bonus for the collector's edition.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50869201]Richthofen's DR.1 skin is a bonus for the collector's edition.[/QUOTE]
fuck :suicide:
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50869201]Richthofen's DR.1 skin is a bonus for the collector's edition.[/QUOTE]
Deluxe, you don't need to buy the collector's edition for it.
[QUOTE=Jund;50868337]bf1 feels really weird to me because it's much more a "ww2 with airships" game than it is a ww1 game
everything from the types of weapons to the tanks and planes' handling and top speeds are so inaccurate that it feels like a ww2 game with a ww1 skin[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to feel like a broken record at this point, but where exactly do you think the weapons and tactics used in WWII were pioneered?
The answer lies in WWI. The war was an evolution from beginning to end, with new weapons and tactics throughout the entire war. While certainly BF1 isn't most realistic (such as some weapons are more plentiful than they actually were) it's entirely plausible and in line with how the war was by 1918, and where its evolution would have went if the war went on for even another year.
Completely accurate? No, but that's really where tactics and weapons were in 1918, a shift towards automatic and semi-automatic weapons, with a focus on the individual infantryman, squad, and platoon. By the end of the war, the most important unit on the battlefield was no longer the regiment or company, but [B]was[/B] the individual soldier. It [B]was[/B] the squad. It [B]was[/B] the Platoon.
I'm going to quote Dr. Stephen Bull from his book "Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front", and specifically a paragraph from the conclusion chapter of the book.
[quote]Nevertheless, this was far from the whole story, for as Lieutenant Charles Carrington of the Royal Warwickshires observed, the lines were only 'rigid' during 1915 and 1916: 'During 1917 bomb fighting in the trenches gave way to shell hole warfare, and in 1918 to open fighting' - in which tanks and cavalry played a part. It was also the case that technological and tactical virtuosity led, fairly quickly, to a wide range of new weapons and techniques that eventually culminated not only in breakthroughs but in a revolution in the way that war was fought. The revival of the grenade, the transformation of the artillery, the inventions of new shells and fuses, the rapid development and use of observation, fighting, and bombing aircraft, the first use of the flame-thrower, and the start of modern chemical warfare were just the most obvious manifestations of the revolution. For there were many other, more subtle, developments, which were also crucial.[/quote]
Yeah I always laugh at the "ww2 game with ww1 skin" thing. Fast paced, high-mobility individual warfare was developed in WW1.
Besides that, obviously DICE isn't going to try to make a mainstream game about trench foot and dysentery.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50870370]Yeah I always laugh at the "ww2 game with ww1 skin" thing. Fast paced, high-mobility individual warfare was developed in WW1.
Besides that, obviously DICE isn't going to try to make a mainstream game about trench foot and dysentery.[/QUOTE]
He is right about the feel of vehicles and the weaponry, though. Man-portable semi or fully-automatic weaponry was rare outside of the 10+ pound monstrosities like the BAR or Chauchat which were usually only given to one man in a squad. The tanks have ludicrously overpowered engines, though it wouldn't be fun to drive a tank that can barely move under its own power and can be outpaced by a dude at a brisk walk.
[QUOTE=Saber15;50871231]which were usually only given to one man in a squad.[/QUOTE]
lol
From Dr. Stephen Bull's [I]Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front[/I].
By 1916 this was a standard French infantry Company of four Platoons (sections is another word for squad)
[quote]12 Armed NCOs as Automatic Rifleman or Bombers
12 Rifle Armed NCOs
24 Automatic Riflemen
68 Riflemen
24 Bombers
16 Rifle Grenade men
8 Grenade Carriers
Each of the four Platoons was made up of two full and two half sections. The half sections comprised one with a corporal and seven bombers, the other, two Chauchat teams of three led by a corporal. The full sections were eight or nine rifleman each, backed by two rifle grenadiers and a grenade carrier - these full sections being lead by sergeants.[/quote]
That means a full company was about 164 men, with about 22% of a company using automatic weapons. About 49% were rifle armed, and about 24% being armed with grenades, with the carriers constituting about 5% of the company.
The Platoon was about 27 men, give or take a few as I'm not 100% on the wording (ie were the Corporals part of the 3 man Chauchat team or not counted in that, so this bit is give or take a couple). Going with the 27, 26% of the Platoon was armed with automatic weaponry at least (not sure about the distribution of NCOs with automatic weaponry).
They were far more common than you give them credit for.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50872090]
They were far more common than you give them credit for.[/QUOTE]
I was going more off the modern 'squad' of about a dozen soldiers, which still gives only two automatics per 12 man group at ~22% distribution. Battlefield has squads of 4 players each, IIRC.
Even taking into account the numbers you've cited, the distribution of weaponry in Battlefield is hilariously skewed in favor of automatics. Unless they're only really showing the automatic weaponry in trailers for the sake of the wow factor - the crazy designs look [I]way[/I] cooler than ye olde bolt actions - it seems like it's more along the lines of three quarters of the players are running around with SMGs and automatic rifles.
[QUOTE=Saber15;50872549]I was going more off the modern 'squad' of about a dozen soldiers, which still gives only two automatics per 12 man group at ~22% distribution. Battlefield has squads of 4 players each, IIRC.
Even taking into account the numbers you've cited, the distribution of weaponry in Battlefield is hilariously skewed in favor of automatics. Unless they're only really showing the automatic weaponry in trailers for the sake of the wow factor - the crazy designs look [I]way[/I] cooler than ye olde bolt actions - it seems like it's more along the lines of three quarters of the players are running around with SMGs and automatic rifles.[/QUOTE]
covered that here [quote]While certainly BF1 isn't most realistic (such as some weapons are more plentiful than they actually were) it's entirely plausible and in line with how the war was by 1918 and where its evolution would have went if the war went on for even another year.[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.