I support this ... how bout you? Market Garden and Bocage would be so much fun!
approved
Anything more than the 5 or so maps they have would be great tbh.
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
I would not even mind ....
... a remake of Karkand
... a remake of Karkand
omgwtf ban urself
Karkand with destructible environments would be pretty sweet...jsnipy wrote:
I would not even mind ....
... a remake of Karkand
especially with nade spammersOmniDeath wrote:
Karkand with destructible environments would be pretty sweet...jsnipy wrote:
I would not even mind ....
... a remake of Karkand
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Like Arica Harbor (city portion, obviously) but based off Karkand's layout - could be fun.jsnipy wrote:
... a remake of Karkand
Some actual "new" maps and not new modes for the same maps would be welcomed. Even if they're remakes from past BF games - as long as they're released as free DLC you'll hear no complaints from me.
Last edited by TopHat01 (2010-07-29 23:30:22)
This...OmniDeath wrote:
Karkand with destructible environments would be pretty sweet...jsnipy wrote:
I would not even mind ....
... a remake of Karkand
Karkand with destructible environments would probably take out all the faults... no more selfish snipers or stat padders hiding on buildings!OmniDeath wrote:
Karkand with destructible environments would be pretty sweet...jsnipy wrote:
I would not even mind ....
... a remake of Karkand
El Alamein
nice.Pubic wrote:
El Alamein
iwo jima
Hate BC2. Love 1942.
Too small.Pubic wrote:
El Alamein
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Never heard of them.Stingray24 wrote:
Market Garden and Bocage
I do support all old maps (or at least the fun ones) in whatever the latest Battlefield game is.
Never heard of them? Here they are in their epic glory ...
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/Vi … amp;game=4
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/Vi … mp;game=4l
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/Vi … amp;game=4
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/Vi … mp;game=4l
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6910
Karkov please
i sometimes forget, that not everyone on this forum has played bf1942. i don't feel bad, i just forget.Vector wrote:
Never heard of them.Stingray24 wrote:
Market Garden and Bocage
Phillipines could be interesting. You probably wouldn't be able to have the naval component (no more shooting down planes with destroyer cannons ) but actually being able to have a jungle instead of a single tree here and there would be good. Enough urban bits for destruction goodness too.
Midway ? oh no wait, new BF games dont support naval warfare ...damn !
well in that case El Alamein would be epic ! the biggest map ever, well at the time it seemed to me.
it would play the same way as Highway Tampa has in BF2 epic tank battles.
well in that case El Alamein would be epic ! the biggest map ever, well at the time it seemed to me.
it would play the same way as Highway Tampa has in BF2 epic tank battles.
My thoughts on all the official vanilla 42 maps, assuming a modern-day theatre, no naval units and no planes:- (basically, like BC2)
North Africa:
* Battleaxe - would need to be renamed Sniperaxe
* El Alamein - good, quite open, transport helos would be very useful.
* Gazala - good, not so open compared to El Al, more urban, again transport helos...
* Tobruk - would be sniper city at the start, but in the urban bit no so much, would make a better rush map than conquest in a modern theatre
* Aberdeen - tanks, lots of tanks, would flow similarly to how it does in 42
Pacific:
* Wake Island - good variety of combat styles, would be great for both conquest and rush, and...well...it wouldn't be battlefield without Wake Island
* Midway - without naval it would blow unless done REALLY well.
* Coral sea - again, without naval...
* Iwo Jima - would be a classic, and I think games (conquest) would flow similarly to 42
* Guadalcanal - would be good, not much urban stuff though, would be a good rush map if done right
* Invasion of the Phillipines - good variety in this one, urban, sea, would be great in both conquest and rush
Russia:
* Kharkov - similar flow to 42, would be a good chunk of urban combat, and would make a great rush map
* Kursk - similar to 42; either intense fights for the middle, or one side caps & camps
* Stalingrad - CQB heaven, would be a reasonable rush map
Europe:
* Battle of Britain - given the lack of planes, it would have to be a sea/heli-based landing, and wouldn't really be the same as the original though it could work quite well. Its pretty much already a giant rush map, so could work well as that. Would make for good urban combat too - this is something that the original could easily have supported, but rarely did due to the way games went.
* Omaha beach - would suck for the attackers
* Bocage - would probably work better as a rush map TBH
* Market garden - fantastic, would be great as both game modes, though the dynamic/flow would change given a lack of planes
* Battle of the Bulge - great, would have all the same great elements from 42, plus destructible buildings would give it an extra dimension
* Berlin - as with stalingrad, a jizzfest for CQB lovers
* Liberation of Caen - would be as great as, if not better than the original, again due to destructible buildings.
North Africa:
* Battleaxe - would need to be renamed Sniperaxe
* El Alamein - good, quite open, transport helos would be very useful.
* Gazala - good, not so open compared to El Al, more urban, again transport helos...
* Tobruk - would be sniper city at the start, but in the urban bit no so much, would make a better rush map than conquest in a modern theatre
* Aberdeen - tanks, lots of tanks, would flow similarly to how it does in 42
Pacific:
* Wake Island - good variety of combat styles, would be great for both conquest and rush, and...well...it wouldn't be battlefield without Wake Island
* Midway - without naval it would blow unless done REALLY well.
* Coral sea - again, without naval...
* Iwo Jima - would be a classic, and I think games (conquest) would flow similarly to 42
* Guadalcanal - would be good, not much urban stuff though, would be a good rush map if done right
* Invasion of the Phillipines - good variety in this one, urban, sea, would be great in both conquest and rush
Russia:
* Kharkov - similar flow to 42, would be a good chunk of urban combat, and would make a great rush map
* Kursk - similar to 42; either intense fights for the middle, or one side caps & camps
* Stalingrad - CQB heaven, would be a reasonable rush map
Europe:
* Battle of Britain - given the lack of planes, it would have to be a sea/heli-based landing, and wouldn't really be the same as the original though it could work quite well. Its pretty much already a giant rush map, so could work well as that. Would make for good urban combat too - this is something that the original could easily have supported, but rarely did due to the way games went.
* Omaha beach - would suck for the attackers
* Bocage - would probably work better as a rush map TBH
* Market garden - fantastic, would be great as both game modes, though the dynamic/flow would change given a lack of planes
* Battle of the Bulge - great, would have all the same great elements from 42, plus destructible buildings would give it an extra dimension
* Berlin - as with stalingrad, a jizzfest for CQB lovers
* Liberation of Caen - would be as great as, if not better than the original, again due to destructible buildings.
Last edited by Pubic (2010-10-23 01:53:31)
I totally support this. Not only would it offer the well refined conquest maps that were enjoyed by so many, but some of the other maps such as Omaha Beach where teams could really simulate a push would be perfect for game modes like Rush.
Battlefield: Vietnam maps for BFBC2: Vietnam
Operation Blue Pearl
Cerbere Landing
Cerbere Landing