This game needs city fighting!

Because it would be badass in this game?

I asked about heavily urban maps in a live stream with higby back during beta. He said basically the map and terrain is a balance of details and size, so technically in the current size and detail ratio we're at now on the continents the game can't handle it. So for a heavily detailed urban map the continent would have to be either significantly smaller in size or the areas outside the cities would have little to no details (paraphrasing what higby said). I really think more urban settings would be great based on the current vehicle state of the game. What I say they should do is remove some of the smaller insignificant bases to make the larger ones a lot more urban and more dense.

Its pretty badass in other games to. all of them. meanwhile we CA lovers get ******?

this thread is akin to me asking the devs to get rid of all the pesky buildings and rocks that hinder my ability to kill infantry, and I need the ground to be as flat as possible so that i have max advantage in my vangaurd (since it doesnt climb as well as other tanks). I dont like elevation changes, and really need an ability to aim higher to kill planes.

see the issue? i want to screw everyone, so that i can have my specific style of play maximized. if the OP wants urban fighting, cool. go play some other game that has it. inf lovers just need to get over themselves and stop trying to ruin every single CA attempt's put out there when they already have a dozen games at their disposal. Its either complete ignorance, or spoiled rotten into complete selfishness.

The real problem I have with this game, is that the entire planet is covered in military bases every few Kilometers. Why are there so many towers, small bases, and large facilities in such a small area. In addition to that, all of them were built by different opposing factions. I am also confused by the lack of civilian anything. So a large city continent would be a nice change of pace. I would love to see a large walled city with the empire warp-gates on the outside.

You are welcome to your opinion I suppose.

Wars happen in cities as well as in open fields. all vehicles can work in city style fights. If a city scape is created it can be created to incorporate a combine arms approach. Streets wide enough to allow tanks to travel and maneuver. No amount of city high rise is going to prevent Libs or EFS's from dropping their ordnance on the infantry.

You can also introduce new vehicles which are smaller and more compact which are capable of fighting in cities, like buggies or the Deliverer from PS1. CA wont be lost if a city is added, it just comes down to the developers doing it to allow everyone to have fun.

something like this?
Visk made this using the game files. All credit goes to him/her.

This is one of my favorite Visk creations of a city plaza or something. The game has the information and files to make some really good cities.

Umm... Anyone know what percentage of the current continents are open landscapes with little to no effective cover from vehicles?

I do not but I would willing to wager that the ratio of open landscape to genuine protective cover is already catering to vehicle jockeys that want to farm infantry- my guess it that this is partly why the game began with a laughable air-ground balance. I may even be willing to go so far as to say that all the back and forth nerfs-buffs that have enraged so many people in the air-ground balance fight would not have been nearly so necessary if more area in the maps had better cover or more urban structures. You may be correct that urban landscapes would hinder vehicles but it may also help them in other ways- do you think it would be more or less difficult to acheive lock-on if vehicles are constantly rounding corners or flying behind buildings?

I see your point that sprawling city scapes with tightly packed buildings would have a distinct impact on vehicles and I can empathize with that concern. However, Esamir is not going anywhere and that is pretty much the opposite of what the OP is asking for so I can empathize with that perspective as well.

Good god, I want that!

Let's just hope they fix their horrible designs first, including:
-The hex system
-The maps in general
-Terribly indefensible outposts
-Biolabs, the most baffingly terrible design in bases I've ever seen. It's an endless meat grinder.
-Teleporters into small invulnerable rooms in larger bases IS THE WORST KIND OF BASE DESIGN THERE IS

in theory, you are correct. in practice, you are not. tanks having a dedicated path, means pretty much suicide. towers and buildings, mean air craft not only have a near impossible time delivering ordinance, but thay ordinance will likely drop on an empty street since every one is inside.

There is a reason why inf lovers, love urban fighting. it takes away every single advantage that armor, and aircraft have, and give them to infantry. There is a reason why you are suggestion smaller, more nimble vehicles for this type of fighting, which brings me back to my original statement: Other games already have them. a dozen of more games already have this type of thing. why change this game, when all you have to to is go out and find another.

The reason i push back on this, is because i have seen multiple franchises get RUINED, and sucked into the same generic FPS model as every other sand box shooter, just because a certain group wants all the fun, and gives NOTHING to anyone else. We dont have any other CA games to fall back on like PS2. PS2 is different for its scale, and open map design. why change that when you can simply buy BF3?

I understand that we all have our own preferences, and i get the draw of urban fighting. my only request is that the inf lovers stop ******* all of the CA guys, just to have one more, over a dozen, of the exact same thing.

I think we have a slight miscommunication. My contention with the OP isnt what it does to vehicles. Its that what he wants, already exists. its that this kind of request, permeates every single CA game out there, and eventually simplifies, and condenses all of them.

My post about making maps more open, with less obstacles, was an illustration of ignorance or selfishness, not an actual request. it was a display of complete disregard for others style of play, while only wishing to see my, specific style, endorsed. Thats how i view this thread. If the OP wants tight fighting, with small vehicle influence, then thats fine, BF3 offers that. theres no reason to further split this game apart. that was my (simplified) point.

I would actually like to see some ship combat in orbit. Each ship could be its own continent. The faction that owns a particular ship has a bridge serving as a warpgate-esque staging area while the other two factions have breaching pods that have been rammed through the hull as their staging areas. The inside of the ships would only accommodate infantry and vehicles. The air would be responsible for combat outside the ship, and knocking out ship systems from without while the infantry and vehicles secure vital areas from within.

Securing a capital ship would grant the conquering faction an orbital strike capability on a particular continent on the ground.

You can go to whatever continent you want for whatever style of gameplay you want, if they make a city continent and most of the infantry go there, that is what they prefer. Wanting to force the infantry to fight swarms of vehicles in indefensible structures and wide open areas so you can properly farm them seems somewhat selfish.
So people suggest a city continent, it doesn't take away your play style.

I wouldn't mind having a map with a central large base that gives more advantage to Infantry. And out side that giant place it is more open rolling hills for that awesome ranged Tank combat i remember from BF1942. With some scattered bunker outposts surrounded by small walls and some towers.

But the Map should be designed so that depending on what outposts you control and their generators you get different advantages in the Base in the middle forcing people to move out and try and take these outposts.

Of course some anti drop bod systems and other fun things would make the people more dependent on transports....damn i would love to see the combat on such a map.

Adding things to a game will do nothing but good things. And for your information, I enjoy using tanks and esf's.

ok 1st: im just going to put it out here to stop this right now. NO style of vehicle play, is, or ever has been, as lucrative as infantry vs infantry play. EVER. not in this game. you want to talk about farming? look no further than bio-labs. And its not even close. vehicles dont farm, they kill those to stupid to counter them.
2nd: im a CA lover. that means that I play ALL aspects of this game. i dont play tanks, or planes, or inf. I play everything, so this has nothing to do with my style of play. it has to do with limiting my play styles available to me.

If you create a city map, you will see 60%+ people play there, and play there exclusively. Does that mean thats what people prefer? no, cause they can play COD or BF3 if they wish. its because the XP from it would be crazy. you would rank up 5 times faster than a tank crew in an open world. Im not against urban fighting (as stated before in my posts). Im against THIS game having urban fighting. in order for there to be a game which endorsed peoples actual style of play, and offers everything to every one, 1 of 2 things needs to happen. 1: eliminate XP outright and do away with tracking/unlocks. Thats how BF1942 was so successful with such a wide variety of maps/weapons as your disposal. nothing mattered but having fun, and kids grew up accommodating the need, as opposed to trying to execute an accomplishment (unlocks, medals ect) the most efficiently. Since thats not going to happen we need #2: create an XP system that actually accommodates all styles of play. This would mean drastic changes such as 25xp per inf kill (no matter what) and 500 xp per tank, as well as % damage=XP for simple engagements. Right now, I can fly a lib for 4 hours, and gain 25 certs, or get into a bio-lab fight for 1 hour and gain 70+ certs. which one do you think the majority of players will do? This has nothing to do with playstyle. period. we need to encourage people to expand their vision, not simplify, and reduce game potential whilst raining XP for having accomplished nothing in a game but twitch waring.

I will also go back to my original question. why not BF3? it has what you want. WHY NOT GO? WHY CHANGE THIS GAME? Inf wise, BF3 does everything this game does, and more. it doesnt fall behind, until you get into wide open areas.

you can add things to a game, that detrimentally effect it. an example is the addition of lock-on weapons. please see paragraph 3. ive watched this happen to a few different games. it all ends the same. COD gets one more direct competitor, and we get left high and dry.

We get it, that is your opinion. Now please quit derailing my thread.