Are you missing the Commander mode?

This thought popped into my head last night... this setting, perhaps more than any other Battlefield to date, could really use a commander to spruce things up strategically.

The only argument I can see against it is that well, quite frankly, things are hectic enough as they are and stuff like aerial recon (which bombers can already do) amd heavy artillery (supports, sort of) would only make things worse.

But on the plus side, maybe a commander could make Behemoths actually have better impact on when/where they're deployed for the losing team? I just love the idea of a field officer who is able to affect the overall flow of the battle by issuing meaningful orders to squad leaders. The extra abilities could be a plus but for organization's sake, a commander could be wonderful... especially if squad leaders aren't doing their job.

I miss the commander mechanic of Battlefield 2. The second screen bolt on junk they added in more recent versions was pretty dang boring. The commander could make a pretty big difference but why would I want to play the game like that?

I'm assuming that, conceptually, it would be hard to pair up a Commander Mode with the tech level of the period. Although it would've been cool if they had reskinned it to have the commander standing around one of those cool strategy tables that you always see in the movies:

I really liked BF all throughout, 2 was great, but I think commander mode has never been something that added anything to the game.

Squad leaders are the solution. If they don't do their job that's their fault.

I do miss it, because having a Commander with a strategic goal in mind that would direct squads to objectives for flanking, diverting attention and simply knowledge of opposing flanking or equipment sabotage attempts was fantastic in BF2. Having all squads designated specific goals that didn't clash because they were directed by 1 person did a lot for map play dynamics. The commander always knew one squad was going to flank to objective F so that other squad needs to go to objective D that way they get more things done. In the later BF's each squad is working individually and more often than not you end up with 5 squads attacking Objective C at once so they bumrush that 1 objective and cap it, but at the same time they lose the other 5 objectives on the map making their efforts wasted.

Commander mode in BF2 (especially in BF2's later years) really prevented that 'running around like a headless chicken' play that BF commonly becomes. That being said, BF1 just doesn't have enough objectives it's lacking all the extra mechanics from BF2 like vunerable artillery cannons, UAV stations or exclusive air strips where you can take out opposing teams air support before they can take off. There was more to BF2 than just capping points and that's one of the things that made it such a big step up and where the modern BF's are still lagging behind.

Good commanders in 2 could win or lose the game based on the information and directions they gave. So long as the squads listened to them that is. Squad leaders as explained above are working individually and don't fill even half the role that the commander in BF2 did. BF4's commander was hot fucking trash though and that's probably why they removed it here.

@ivdamke: It never added anything to my game experience for me when I played. I played tons of BF2. And the artillery stuff was annoying.

There would be sensible, subtle ways that DICE could direct squads to do different things and all that if they wanted.

Anyways, don't miss it at all.

@ivdamke: BF2 was a great game but very very unbalanced in some key ways. This worked fine for organized teams but in more disorganized play, which is like what 90% of players experience, I felt those detracted from the experience pretty significantly. I played BF2 for years and liked it but personally thought 1942 was the better Battlefield overall.

I kinda agree with your points about simplicity, though. It's really debatable how much impact flanking squads would have on the overall battle in BF1's Conquest mode. Could make a huge difference in Operations as that's where you see 100s of tickets get wasted in pointless, misdirected assaults over and over.

Enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy spotted enemy enemy spotted enemy spotted

No, not really.

I hated my location always being known. It killed strategy.

@artisanbreads: Commander mode was less about artillery for me and more about tactics and gameplay direction. Artillery only ever seemed to be a big problem for people who kept playing infantry only Karkand 24/7.

@giantstalker: Having a commander is always going to result in a larger potential for organised teams though. Sure, a lot of people will ignore the commander but even if you have 2-3 squads paying attention you've got 10x more organization than any of the recent BFs.

@ezekiel: I take it you've not played any of the BFs from Bad Company onward because soldier spotting is a lot worse than commander scans on the 'my location always being known' meter. That being said 'Enemy Water Vehicle Spotted' in maps with no boats always made me laugh.

EDIT: Also that's why you destroy the UAV emplacements so you can go undetected by radar from the commander.

The UAV trailer or whatever it was called is pretty far out of the way, can only be destroyed with C4 (which only one class has access to) and can be fixed in no time with a supply drop. People usually don't bother destroying it, because it's pointless. No one wants to stand around the trailer the whole game, and if they do they're gonna get killed pretty soon anyway.

I played a lot of BF2 back in the day, but looking back and casually replaying it now, it's not very good. Yes, I didn't play BF3 much and never played any of the others online.

UAV trailers and artillery guns were constantly targeted and destroyed when I played (as were the equivalents in 2142), and oftentimes saboteurs would just hide and use the supply drops to fill up on C4 and blow up even more assets. The amount of time and effort it took a dedicated player to harass the enemy commander's assets was easily less than it took to effectively deal with that player and still be able to use the assets in between (assets still had to recharge from 0 after they were repaired, if I recall, so there was ample time for them to be destroyed again). Also, I believe assets could be damaged by all explosives, it's just that C4 was most effective, and they were frequently targeted by jets, sometimes choppers, and rarely tanks and APC's.

I was upset that BF3 didn't have a commander.

Having put tens of hours into BF4 and seen the commander mode in it, I've lost interest in that mode.

DICE successfully managed to make the BF2 features they put into BF4 seem meaningless and marginal, to the point where I don't care if they're gone in future Battlefields because they made them dull.

The communications wheel, the commander, it all feels useless and marginal in BF4, they failed to keep those things interesting and meaningful and they lost their impact, but I don't really blame them for that or care anymore.

Back in BF2 the commander had physical artillery cannons on the ground + a UAV station that you could infiltrate and blow up with C4, and he'd have to go there and fix them or they'd remain down. The commander had a voice where he'd select pre-recorded voice messages that the entire team could hear. He'd communicate with the squads in a lively way and give them orders.

Now all he does is show enemies on the minimap and occasionally shoot a missile at someone.

The teamplay essence of Battlefield is long gone and I'm fine with that. Let's shoot one another.

Dissenting opinion time!

I can see how some people didn't care for or about BF4's Commander Mode, but I found the whole thing fascinating. (Disclosure: This was my first Battlefield, and it was on PS4, and my Commander Mode took place on the iPad.) I'm bummed that it's gone, but Squad leader stuff is an okay replacement.

Here's what I liked about BF4's Commander Mode:

• I was a little shocked at how well the iPad version integrated with the main game. The fact that I could switch between different squad channels and communicate with them directly was an awesome use of a fairly limited mobile app. I do not know of any precedent for something like that which actually worked well.
• Establishing a working back-and-forth with squads via positive reinforcement just gave me tingles.
• Knowing there was an enemy commander gave me the "Oh hell naw it's ON" feeling like nothing else. It was the closest thing to playing StarCraft with real players operating all the units.
• I used this time to get in shape via treadmill while participating in a game I was obsessing over. I was in a point in my life where I'd decided to lose weight and get my cardio right. Why not play (sort of) my current shooter of choice while doing so? Ultimately I lost 30 lbs. playing this and Hearthstone and then moved on to longer distance running. I know that's not relevant to the features per se, but the circumstances fell together nicely and definitely influenced my experience in a unique way.
• If you had 12-year-old xxSmokedogg420xx snipers on your team just plinking away and refusing sensible capture/defend orders, you could drop a supply crate on them and kill them and they would die. I reserved this for the most staunchly anti-teamwork members, but y'know... war is hell, man.