" I LOVED playing the Commander role, though I mostly did it in 2142 as opposed to BF2.  It was a great change of pace and it really, really felt like I was helping my team as I gave my squads objectives and dropped supplies and things.  Surely, there was lower breadth of players that knew the intricacies of playing the role, but that really helped instill a pseudo chain-of-command that added to the Battlefield feel.  Sure, less people could play the role at once, but that doesn't mean it wasn't appreciated from a strategic and a practical standpoint.  Ask all those soldiers that I dropped vehicles/supplies for. "

But the commander were really rather pointless. Try to join a 64-player Karkand server, apply as a commander on USMC and give EVERY squad leader an order to capture to Suburb (for those that don't know, the easiest flag for USMC to capture) and see how many follows your order. Go commander next round also, but don't give orders. I'm willing to bet that about exactly the same amount of players will go for Suburb, regardless of the orders. The fact is that most don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I want to see a commander/leader/person in BF3, but they need to do something different from the commander position in BF2/2142.

" @easthill said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic:I'm with you on the commander issue, so that's a worry we very much share. I'm looking forward to them revealing the multi-player, hopefully it will lay all our worries to rest. :) "

he pretty much said that they regret ever implementing the commander position, like, even in Battlefield 2, so there's nothing to be laid to rest ! he said only 2 people use it ? what is he nuts ? i played Battlefield 2 for 3 years and there were ALWAYS commanders filling the position, 80% of which did an amazing job and got frequent "thank you" commands from the players.. so i dunno what BF2 that guy played! "

" When is the next major game event where developers showcase upcoming titles like E3? "

" @yinstarrunner said:

" I LOVED playing the Commander role, though I mostly did it in 2142 as opposed to BF2.  It was a great change of pace and it really, really felt like I was helping my team as I gave my squads objectives and dropped supplies and things.  Surely, there was lower breadth of players that knew the intricacies of playing the role, but that really helped instill a pseudo chain-of-command that added to the Battlefield feel.  Sure, less people could play the role at once, but that doesn't mean it wasn't appreciated from a strategic and a practical standpoint.  Ask all those soldiers that I dropped vehicles/supplies for. "

But the commander were really rather pointless. Try to join a 64-player Karkand server, apply as a commander on USMC and give EVERY squad leader an order to capture to Suburb (for those that don't know, the easiest flag for USMC to capture) and see how many follows your order. Go commander next round also, but don't give orders. I'm willing to bet that about exactly the same amount of players will go for Suburb, regardless of the orders. The fact is that most don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I want to see a commander/leader/person in BF3, but they need to do something different from the commander position in BF2/2142.

"

" It will be very, very interesting to see how this game turns out. "

"  When is the next major game event where developers showcase upcoming titles like E3? "

" So if I go on their forums and start complaining to raise the console player count to at least 32 or 40 do you think it can happen? I mean I at least want to feel like the scale is bigger than bad company or else there's no point in getting it except for revamped visuals and animations. Pretty much just BC3... "

"  Ok so, no commander because you want to give everyone those 'powers' , and the squad talk made me feel uneasy.. like its not structured and organized, just 4 player squads with no leader again.. 
 So Battlefield 3 is devoid of any form of leadership... yup im not gonna complain anymore, i'll just take it. dont wanna ask for a key asset of the Battlefield games (fucking leadership) and be told im 'bitching'

 
@B0nd07 said:

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean)."

The commander hid in back because he was important.  He controlled the UAV placement (which no one was pounded by, since they only spotted in a small radius and were not offensive at all), artillery strikes (useful for softening the other team's defense or defending a flag), vehicle drops, and supply drops (back when you didn't regenerate health, these were very important; they often meant the difference between holding a point and losing it). "

wham bam thank you ma'am  "

" @easthill said:

" @yinstarrunner said:

" I LOVED playing the Commander role, though I mostly did it in 2142 as opposed to BF2.  It was a great change of pace and it really, really felt like I was helping my team as I gave my squads objectives and dropped supplies and things.  Surely, there was lower breadth of players that knew the intricacies of playing the role, but that really helped instill a pseudo chain-of-command that added to the Battlefield feel.  Sure, less people could play the role at once, but that doesn't mean it wasn't appreciated from a strategic and a practical standpoint.  Ask all those soldiers that I dropped vehicles/supplies for. "

But the commander were really rather pointless. Try to join a 64-player Karkand server, apply as a commander on USMC and give EVERY squad leader an order to capture to Suburb (for those that don't know, the easiest flag for USMC to capture) and see how many follows your order. Go commander next round also, but don't give orders. I'm willing to bet that about exactly the same amount of players will go for Suburb, regardless of the orders. The fact is that most don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I want to see a commander/leader/person in BF3, but they need to do something different from the commander position in BF2/2142.

"

you cant use Karkand in your argument.. apply what you said to any other map and you'd be wrong. 
Karkand is the one map that doesnt actually need a commander, except for artillery support 

Maybe. But the squad goes wherever they want to go, most often the squad don't even stick together. On bigger maps the commander usually just sends the artillery to the enemy airfield most of the time anyways, no real benefit for the team - but the commander get 4-5 sure kills every time from the sheep that camp for planes and helicopters - me included.

What I'm trying to say is really that the commander doesn't have anything that couldn't easily be put other places. Few things in Battlefield are worse than commanders sucking at their job. The squads give themselves order, they can press Caps-lock and see where the other squads are. Why not just give the squad leader a more powerful position, give the squad leader access to call in artillery and UAVs when he really needs them - rather than be declined by the commander because he got an agenda of his own (to get kills)?

I want to have a commander in BF3, I really do. But I don't want the BF2 commander... I don't believe he works as good as you give him credit for, and I would understand DICE removing him, sadly...

"I don't understand the pessimists. DO NOT UNDERSTAND. "

" @KaosAngel said:

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

Is this real life? "

" @Seppli said:

"I don't understand the pessimists. DO NOT UNDERSTAND. "

That's because, as you yourself said, you prefer the game play in the Bad Company series.  You like essentially being a one-man army.  What the "pessimists" prefer is the game play from the core series.  The feeling of team work you got when your squad leader asked for the UAV over the point you were taking so you could defend yourselves better, and then dropped a supply crate to keep you armed and healthy.  And when things got bad, he could drop artillery on the enemy reinforcements.  Basically, we long for the days when people where more concerned with actually completing the objective than their K/D ratio. "

• I could be there, in the thick. See the situation firsthand. Call in the mortar strike myself.
• I could man the UAV with the vehicular zoom specialization. Spot enemies and 'headshot tanks'. Protip - Aim for the topside of the turret.
• I fight my way to a vantage point, drop supplies and be the perfect spawn for my squad mates, all the while I cover a valid angle on an objective.
• etc.
  

Big fat sigh. Enough of the leet speak and exaggerations.

Man that looks awesome. Think I'm going to go back to Bad Company for a while.

 I want to call shots. Every round. DICE lets me call these shots. I'm not co-dependent on some anonymous commander to make or break the game. I'm making it. And so do you.
 
That's the big idea behind it.
 
Just take responsibility and play the best game you can. My presence improves any round of Battlefield I play. So should yours. Why should I be stripped of that power for some random dude to ruin my fun with bad calls eventually?

" @Seppli said:

"I don't understand the pessimists. DO NOT UNDERSTAND. "

That's because, as you yourself said, you prefer the game play in the Bad Company series.  You like essentially being a one-man army.  What the "pessimists" prefer is the game play from the core series.  The feeling of team work you got when, for example, your squad leader asked for the UAV over the point you were taking so you could defend yourselves better, and then dropped a supply crate to keep you armed and healthy.  And when things got bad, he could drop artillery on the enemy reinforcements.  Basically, we long for the days when people where more concerned with actually completing the objective as a team than their K/D ratio. "

" @Seppli: Again, you prefer the one-man army-ness of the Bad Company series.  I (and others here) do not.  And while yes, the commander was important and powerful, he was not so powerful that one little mistake on his part would instantly lose the game. "

" So you say you need a commander, because you ain't got enough good players on your friendslist to work with a fully functional squad? Well then, I smell hypocrisy! "

I've just gotten so mellowed out about this game after the screens. It's gonna be fucking sick. We all know that. Just let them make it. I mean, no mod support was a cop-out move all around, and maybe there should be a commander and more than 4 kits. But you know what? The game is gonna be what dice wants it to be. And I'm damn well gonna motherfucking buy it either way.

" @Seppli: and I disagree. The lack to teamwork in BC2 shows that you can get past a 'well setup meatgrinder chokepoint' without a strong team effort. Also, being able to blow up the checkpoints - or did they finally remove the broken came mechanic? "

" @KaosAngel said:

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

Is this real life? "

" I've just gotten so mellowed out about this game after the screens. It's gonna be fucking sick. We all know that. Just let them make it. I mean, no mod support was a cop-out move all around, and maybe there should be a commander and more than 4 kits. But you know what? The game is gonna be what dice wants it to be. And I'm damn well gonna motherfucking buy it either way. "

" @Seppli: You can't attribute a close match to teamwork. You can attribute it to each side sucking (or succeeding) just as hard as the other team. "

I can't really see what you guys see in the commander? His most useful feature is the rabid blind spotting they took out in 1.5, essentially a "reveal every enemy feature". 95% of people playing don't pay any attention to the commander at all in a public match - hell, most don't even pay attention to their own squad. A random public match doesn't play like the trailers. And you don't need the whole server with you on ventrilo to win a round, one good squad or one good heli/jet-pilot is all it takes to win. Regardless of the commander. Damn, in many situations 2 good people playing medic together is invincible.

I can imagine this being hard to run... 
HD78** series here I come!

" @withateethuh said:

" @KaosAngel said:

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

Is this real life? "

let's have all the soldiers break into dance to compete instead of shooting each other. After all, it's not real life.  ?? "

Thought gb didn't allow scans. Huh.

" @Seppli: Again, you prefer the one-man army-ness of the Bad Company series.  I (and others here) do not.  And while yes, the commander was important and powerful, he was not so powerful that one little mistake on his part would instantly lose the game. "

" @B0nd07 said:

" @Seppli: Again, you prefer the one-man army-ness of the Bad Company series.  I (and others here) do not.  And while yes, the commander was important and powerful, he was not so powerful that one little mistake on his part would instantly lose the game. "

dude, they just dont get it, and they're the majority..  the mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere you and I used to have while playing BF2 during it's prime, is gone. im starting to accept it and accept this new streamlined power-to-the-players bullshit, and so should you.. "

• Vehicle Zoom for Longrange Spotting and AT rocketsniping (onehit-kill, if you hit the turret)
• Vehicle Electronics (fly as high as possible and minimap-spot all enemies)
• Vehicle Smoke (support your assaulting team mates by laying down smokescreens for cover - almost never see that being used to full effect)
• Vehicle Alt-Fire (pick off camping snipers and defend armed objectives)

" Like it can't have teamwork because it's a console port or something. Willfully ignorant. "

The lack of a commander is very worrying. It had its faults in BF2, but they just need to revamp it, not remove it. Also, if it doesn't have 6 man squads I won't be buying it. 4 isn't enough, and never will be. 
The other thing that worries me is the feel of the movement. In BF2 the movement felt fluid and consistant, but in all the BF games since the movements has been slow and clunky. I don't want it to feel like I'm trying to move through treacle.
 
Also, people complaining about the player count on consoles have nothing to complain about. With this engine you can't do it on consoles, simple as. If you want to play it properly get a gaming PC.

"If you'd be able to explain why the 'mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere' is so heavily reliant on the commander position and having more and more restrictive kits... However, you don't and I disagree.  "

 yeah man you'd be running with thirty other people around you in six man squads, pushing the fight to the next area and looking out for mines in the dirt and tanks around the bend and enemy jets above your heads, with one man stationed somewhere, dropping supplies around you and providing UAV over the point you're heading to (which ALWAYS felt so good, like a christmas present, like the angels came down from the sky to give you this supernatural view of nearby enemies only for a couple of minutes) 
 
you get there, scatter around the flag as the enemy defends it, die and respawn and die again, until it goes a little quiet and you hear the Artillery cannons whistling in the distance, only to have the shells shower around you and allow you to sneak your way to the flag and secure it before the enemies know what hit 'em ..  
not to mention the occasional commander spotting that alarmed you when you had an enemy car fleeing from the action or something. 
 
And ofcourse, since Battlefield is all about countering the enemy attack, nothing felt better than to have a brave soldier on your team make his way to the commander's headquarters undetected and blow up his equipment, allowing you to cripple the enemy's eye in the sky and strike back after you've been getting the artillery treatment for a while, while the enemies try desperately to fix their tools AND keep an eye out for your undetected attacks 
  

Nobody fucking wants that colossal battle feel anymore. everyone is so immature and impatient that they all want big dicks ingame and wanna have everything at their disposal.. so i dont really blame DICE for turning a man game into children's play, i blame this new age of gamers who got spoiled by Call of Duty    

"Everything the commander brought to the table is still in play. Any wellrounded squad is just as powerful as the commander ever was. A team of beast players is so much more than the commander could ever be."

"which is very much a result of empowering all players by splitting the commander's powers between the kits and merging several underpowerd and underused kits into actually competent and fun to play kits which each fill a distinctive role on the Battlefield.   "

"@Ahmad_Metallic: 
 
Just think about the UAV emplacement. There are tons of valid playstyles depending on your vehicle specialization. I seldomly see great UAV pilots. Anytime I'm taking the helm, I'm bringing something to the table.
 

• Vehicle Zoom for Longrange Spotting and AT rocketsniping (onehit-kill, if you hit the turret)
• Vehicle Electronics (fly as high as possible and minimap-spot all enemies)
• Vehicle Smoke (support your assaulting team mates by laying down smokescreens for cover - almost never see that being used to full effect)
• Vehicle Alt-Fire (pick off camping snipers and defend armed objectives)

 Are you a good UAV pilot? Do you actually take over UAV responsibities and make full use of its powers or are you just plain ignorant to it? How the hell should I know... I'm quite certain though that you don't, since you're talking as if BF:BC 2 lacks depth, which is just you being ignorant of the tools at your disposal.  In other words. The depth is there. It will be there in BF3 even more so. It probably won't just be 'Commander = Depth here'. Who knows? Maybe there'll be a fullblown Predator UAV bunker or something awesome like that. "

" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @B0nd07 said:

" @Seppli: Again, you prefer the one-man army-ness of the Bad Company series.  I (and others here) do not.  And while yes, the commander was important and powerful, he was not so powerful that one little mistake on his part would instantly lose the game. "

dude, they just dont get it, and they're the majority..  the mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere you and I used to have while playing BF2 during it's prime, is gone. im starting to accept it and accept this new streamlined power-to-the-players bullshit, and so should you.. "

Dude - If you'd be able to explain why the 'mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere' is so heavily reliant on the commander position and having more and more restrictive kits... However, you don't and I disagree. Everything the commander brought to the table is still in play. Any wellrounded squad is just as powerful as the commander ever was. A team of beast players is so much more than the commander could ever be. It all still happens, more intensely even. It's dense design and it shows. Less downtime, more fighting, more excitement - which is very much a result of empowering all players by splitting the commander's powers between the kits and merging several underpowerd and underused kits into actually competent and fun to play kits which each fill a distinctive role on the Battlefield.  As opposed to BF2 kits, you really see every kit getting used - unless you're going PUG and end up in a sniper-team ;P. "

Okay too many people replied for me to respond to everyone.  Let me clarify:  Battlefield 2 was distinctly different from Battlefield 1942.  My opinion has it that Battlefield 42 was a better game than Battlefield 2, simply because it was simpler.  Battlefield 2 lacked many things and added other things.  It took away warships, significantly large maps, and most importantly strategy.  How can you strategize an approach to a situation if you've already been spotted above by the "commander".  Yes, it may be fun to play...but for ONLY ONE GUY!!!  Ok my mistake, 2 guys since were counting the other team.  So that's two people who are screwing up the entire game simply because they've been given what's basically a wallhack to see the entire map as they choose.  2nd, Artillery was a formidable enemy.  It was fun planting C4 on it to take it out but let's face it, it also sucked being in the middle of what could have been the best fight of you're life...just to have everyone get slaughtered by death from above.
 
I guess you could argue that anyone can use artillery in BFBC2...but for some reason it doesn't feel as effective and thus less game disturbing.
 
Having any kind of class (or rank if you will) that has significantly more power than all of the other classes combined is not a fun game.

" @Seppli said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @B0nd07 said:

" @Seppli: Again, you prefer the one-man army-ness of the Bad Company series.  I (and others here) do not.  And while yes, the commander was important and powerful, he was not so powerful that one little mistake on his part would instantly lose the game. "

dude, they just dont get it, and they're the majority..  the mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere you and I used to have while playing BF2 during it's prime, is gone. im starting to accept it and accept this new streamlined power-to-the-players bullshit, and so should you.. "

Dude - If you'd be able to explain why the 'mesmerizing Battlefield atmosphere' is so heavily reliant on the commander position and having more and more restrictive kits... However, you don't and I disagree. Everything the commander brought to the table is still in play. Any wellrounded squad is just as powerful as the commander ever was. A team of beast players is so much more than the commander could ever be. It all still happens, more intensely even. It's dense design and it shows. Less downtime, more fighting, more excitement - which is very much a result of empowering all players by splitting the commander's powers between the kits and merging several underpowerd and underused kits into actually competent and fun to play kits which each fill a distinctive role on the Battlefield.  As opposed to BF2 kits, you really see every kit getting used - unless you're going PUG and end up in a sniper-team ;P. "

I see every kit being used in BF2, I don't know what game you're playing.  And again, when you're dealing with 64 players, you need a commander. 1942 didn't have a commander, and the game didn't feel as proper, controlled, or teamwork based. If you want 'more fighting', play call of duty or bad company. if you want a degree of realism spread out over massive battlefields at the detriment of some action, then play battlefield. Would you mind sharing your BF2 account name with us? "

Ene-ene-ene-ene-enemy Infan-ene-ene-enemy Infant-ene-ene-enemy-enemy boat spotted. The commander is great when it works, but my experience is in never/rarely does, and when I played BF2 most of the time it was on a server-park with its own community. Battlefield is great fun playing in a squad and doing a difference, but it was fun in 1942 too - without squads and commanders. It's fun in BC2 - without the commander. The commander have never defined a Battlefield game, 64-players, massive maps and vehicles has. And before you bitch about me never playing the game, my main profile was "AnQu" - and I have at least twice as much in unranked playtime. 

Realism is the last word that should be used to describe Battlefield 2. 

@magzine: Then I'm sorry I came of that way, was none of my intentions - I'm anything but anti-BF2. I've just gotten kinda upset about all the negativity towards BF3 as of lately - we still don't really know anything about the multiplayer yet... Wasn't directed at you personally.

It's kinda funny actually, I thought I would be one of the most rabid people defending Battlefield 2s honor, but so far nothing I've seen from anyone have led me to believe DICE don't know what their doing. 4 classes? Pff, I'm fine with it. No commander? Really not that big of a deal. Though remove the squad leader and I will be upset....