Battlefield 1942 is the single most epic game I have ever played, but it has gone down the road of X-Com, where every sequel gets increasingly better looking while at the same time, becoming increasingly less enjoyable than the previous. Well if I had my say on what the next BF title was to be, I'd bet I could recapture the glory that was 1942...

First and IMHO the most important thing is to rollback the engine to the Battlefield Nam model. Nam had significant improvements over BF1942, but suffered none of the problems of BF2142 and BF2. There were good points in the 2142 model which I'd add back in, but I'll get to those in a sec. With the Nam engine as a base, the music feature is the first thing to improve. It may seem like such a small thing, but the vehicle radio was just so much fun. What I'd change is first to make it a toggle-on, toggle-off item. If the vehicle is abandoned the radio would turn off, but so long as there is one person in the vehicle, the radio shouldn't cut off if you change position (hey, it's fun to sit in an APC turret with CCR blazing). Second improvement to the radio, optional MP3 streaming. In Nam, any custom songs chosen would only play on your PC, everyone else heard the built-in song for that slot. The ability to stream your custom music so if YOU hear "Still Alive", everyone else hears that same song. This would be made an optional item, players with "Stream MP3s" not selected in their audio settings would still hear the default, so you don't get bombarded by possibly bad music if you don't want to.

Also from the Nam engine, I would so very much keep the Helicopters exactly as they are. Helicopters worked better in BF Nam than they did in BF2/2142 or even DC Final. They had just the right amount of sluggishness to let the player know they ARE piloting a 2-3ton contraption (unlike DCFinal which they were weightless), but still agile enough to allow a skilled pilot to dance across the skies (unlike 2142's crashtastic flying brick).

Improvements to the engine, the ability to change kit components like in BF2/2142, that must be added back in. No unlocking required, all kits would have multiple main firearms to choose from, and you get them all from the moment installation is complete. Also added to the kit selection would be two "pocket" spaces with multiple options for what you carry on your vest. Options here would be as follows; Extra clips (amount varies by weapon), extra grenades (2 per "pocket"), Single-Use Medkit (when it runs out, it's out. Doesn't refill at ammo crate), or 1 special explosive (see kit for type).

Now for setting, I was thinking that the game could be multi-era spanning. On the historic end, try the Korean War (early '50s), never seen that war done and would be a easy step to adjust BF Nam. The second era I'd like to set around the Gulf War (early '90s), DC Final was too epic not to get a proper redo, and the military gear of the time was quite different from todays. Lastly, the third setting should be "today" or possibly five years from now, like BF2 it can be based on fictional conflict we could see happening but nothing in it very futuristic. An additional fourth war, Vietnam, could be added back in to make a more gradual stepped dating between the eras (and I'd never turn down extra content in games, they're too short these days), but it wouldn't be a focal point of the game.

I will admit, I don't know enough about the Korean War to flesh out many details, I just think that it would be a different one to play since we've done all the other wars to death. As to why I'd want two "modern" eras (the '90s and the '00s aren't all that far apart), it is in the changes in gear, vehicles, tactics, and enemies over that span that really sets them apart.

-Gulf War would use AV-8B Harriers, Modern+5 would use the F-22 Raptor
-Gulf War would use F-14 Tomcats, Modern+5 would field F-16 Fighting Falcons
-Gulf War gets the AH-1 Cobra, Modern gets the AH-64 Apache
-Gulf War has M-16's, give the Modern the XM-8's
And so on...

One last thought for the game, I hate to say this, but it would be best if the game did revolve around the USA, not to inflate their bloated ego even further, but in all three of the factual historic conflicts chosen, the US was present at all of them, and in significant numbers to justify the game being US-centric. There would still be battles with no US side in it, such as North Korea vs South Korea.

Ok, one more "last thought". Expansion Packs. Add as an expansion, World War I and II, or Vietnam (if not included in the original). If the game wanted to branch away from being all conflicts the US participated in, add the Fauklands War, conflicts between former USSR nations as they broke away from the Soviet Union, or my preference, a future date conflict between Canada and the US.

EDIT: I forgot to finish the concept of the item pockets, the "special explosive" option.
What I was thinking for this, recon/sniper units would get a Claymore, Assault units get two Flashbang grenades, Spec Forces get two bricks of C-4. Medics, Support, and Engineer would not get any special explosive option, in addition, one of their two pockets is taken up by their kit special (Medkit+Defib, ammo kit, or wrench+wirecutter). Now these special explosives are just the regular gear the kit normally had in previous games. The change will be that kits only have HALF the traditional quantity... Ie, Snipers only come with one Claymore mine. If you want a second, it costs one pocket, but if you use BOTH pockets you can have three mines. As well, grenades ALSO come at half the normal volume, only 2 per kit instead of 4. Ammo clips however are not halved, so if you chose one pocket to be grenades and one to be explosives, you would have all the normal gear the kit came with in previous BF games. This just gives you some flexibility to alter the kit to the mission, as you can max out clips for your sniper at the expense of grenades and mines, but stay out in the field for much longer. Contrawise, you can have a Spec Forces guy loaded with six bricks of C4 instead of the normal 4, and make a one-man objective killer.

Anti-Tank kits get a little bonus for their "special explosive". The extra ammo choice for them would be clips for their backup gun, not the anti-vehicle weapon. As such, they would have TWO choices for special explosives. The first is extra ammo for their anti-vehicle gun, the second being a one-shot rocket (their choice, Anti-Tank, Anti-Infantry, or Anti-Air). This rocket would be replaced at ammo kits, but it would require a long wait for resupply.

But I like Titan!

You are however right that whoever decided to scrap the radio should be nailed to a tree. Although I personally like unlockables. Perhaps unlockable add-ons for your gun, as opposed to just unlocking the gun?

That the commo roses are quite possibly the best form of quick communication I've come across in a game, and I like the more squad-based feel the game has now.

nilpferdkoenig:
I still want a "Battlefield: Critical Solution" with maps that range between 1000-5000 square miles with nuclear weapons with a real-life destruction radius and 750 players per team.

I mean, that would be friggen crazy watching 50 airplanes in a huge dogfight and tanks blowing up and 300 soldiers all shooting like crazy puppets at the charging 400 shotgunies.

Yes, that would be epic.

Unfortunately, Best Buy does not yet offer BlueGene computer clusters for consumer gaming purposes. :_(

Yeah, when BF2142 chuggs at 64 players, 1500 is kinda out of our reach.

Gremlin, thanks for the reminder about the ComoRoso. That feature is a definite add-back-in. With regards to unlocks, my personal preference is I hate them. I don't like buying a game then finding I cannot play with the toys advertised unless I devote my life to said game. If I were to ever include special unlocks, it would have to be for cosmetic changes, not anything funtional. Or IF it were something functional, first I'd require it to be insta-available in single player and local, only locked for online multiplayer... Second, the unlock would be earned by performing some spectacular achievement, not just X or Y kills with Z Gun, 1000 game hours, or stupid things like that. "Destroy an aircraft traveling at 90% or more throttle with a tank cannon" or "Snipe helicopter pilot while heli is in mid-air"...

Man i can't wait till PC's can make that kind of war-shooters, with thousands of men and planes and whatnot. Sadly by that time i'll probaly be married, in the navy, or a rebel in the peruvian jungle, or something :)

Leonhardt93:
Sadly by that time i'll probaly be married, in the navy, or a rebel in the peruvian jungle, or something :)

*blinks*

The hell?

I think he means he will be otherwise occupied.

I'dunno. I think we oughta keep a close eye on him.

One thing you've omitted from many of the points in your very detailed description Khell, is why? I understand you feelings on the engine and music, but why halve the number of explosives or make the unlocks harder to get? How would that make the game more fun?

Also, this bit:

One last thought for the game, I hate to say this, but it would be best if the game did revolve around the USA, not to inflate their bloated ego even further, but in all three of the factual historic conflicts chosen, the US was present at all of them, and in significant numbers to justify the game being US-centric. There would still be battles with no US side in it, such as North Korea vs South Korea.

Your justification for why the game should be focused on the USA is that you picked three wars that the USA was one of the principle participants in. That's fairly circular logic in my book. If you didn't want the game to focused on America, pick different wars.

Personally, I didn't think there was that much wrong with BF2, and I thought that 2142 took the series in the wrong direction. I liked being rewarded for putting time in, unlike games like games like Counter-Strike, where all you get is a nervous tic and an odd glazed look in your eye.

nilcypher:
One thing you've omitted from many of the points in your very detailed description Khell, is why? I understand you feelings on the engine and music, but why halve the number of explosives or make the unlocks harder to get? How would that make the game more fun?

Also, this bit:

One last thought for the game, I hate to say this, but it would be best if the game did revolve around the USA, not to inflate their bloated ego even further, but in all three of the factual historic conflicts chosen, the US was present at all of them, and in significant numbers to justify the game being US-centric. There would still be battles with no US side in it, such as North Korea vs South Korea.

Your justification for why the game should be focused on the USA is that you picked three wars that the USA was one of the principle participants in. That's fairly circular logic in my book. If you didn't want the game to focused on America, pick different wars.

Personally, I didn't think there was that much wrong with BF2, and I thought that 2142 took the series in the wrong direction. I liked being rewarded for putting time in, unlike games like games like Counter-Strike, where all you get is a nervous tic and an odd glazed look in your eye.

I didn't halve the number of explosives. Maybe I wrote it in a difficult to follow manner. My concept is that when you select your kit, you make three choices (after deciding which kit to start with); Primary Weapon and two additional choices of gear. Taking an Assault kit as an example, the Assault Kit would have the gun of your choosing, six spare clips, a pistol and three spare clips, and two grenades. In addition to this, you have two pockets where you can choose what to carry. If you select Spare Grenades and Flashbang Grenades as your two choices, you have the exact same assault kit that you'd get in BF2 or DC Final. BUT, by having the choice, you could instead of Flashbangs, carry another two grenades, giving you six. Or you could take both pockets as spare clips and have almost twice the ammo for your rifle.

The whole point is that with the choices given, there is a way to carry exactly what was previously considered the normal kit. BUT, you can adjust it to something different if you choose, making the players much less carbon-copy of eachother. You never know if that sniper brought along claymores or hand grenades, or if that anti-tanker is also packing a one-shot stinger. Does that support guy have a personal medkit or am I just not hitting him?

With regards to the America bit. I am resentful that Battlefield 1942 completely ignored Canada, and I would normally prefer Canadians to take the spotlight in a game, but we weren't much of a participant in the Korean War, and most of our actions in the Gulf War was thru NATO. But I begrudgingly admit that in Vietnam, Korea, and The Gulf, the US was a primary participant, and the only force present in all three. Therefore it only makes sense to center it around the one solid point. If World War 1 or 2 were to also be added in, they again did participate, and thus it continues the trend.

Khell_Sennet:
...or my preference, a future date conflict between Canada and the US.

This kind of intrigues me. I can imagine how, maybe in the middling-to-distant future, something might flare up about American access to Canadian resources like oil and fresh water or the Northwest Passage. That would be interesting. But how would it work out with respect to play balance, considering the vastly unequal strength of the armed forces involved and the proximity of the bulk of Canada's industrial capacity to the US border?

The hard thing about choosing a war in which to set a game- as you are likely aware- is that it has to be something that's said and done and which won't be viewed as overly insensitive by critics. Several of Israel's wars would make great material, as might the Indian-Pakistani conflict, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or a number of African ones, but those situations prick at some pretty sensitive places that might best be left alone.

What about a fictional war in a fictional modern or contemporary setting? I imagine something like Syldavia vs. Borduria (two fictional countries from Herge's Tintin comic books).

I'm loving the plan Khell. You've taken all of the best features and roled them into one.

I'd like to add on little thing- Singleplayer maps are the same size as the multiplayer maps. It really annoyed me when they started only letting you do the smallest maps in singleplayer in Battlefield 2. They had it right in Battlefield Vietnam (I confess I havn't played 1942 so I won't comment on that).

Now we just need someone to make it.

Khell_Sennet:
With regards to the America bit. I am resentful that Battlefield 1942 completely ignored Canada, and I would normally prefer Canadians to take the spotlight in a game, but we weren't much of a participant in the Korean War, and most of our actions in the Gulf War was thru NATO. But I begrudgingly admit that in Vietnam, Korea, and The Gulf, the US was a primary participant, and the only force present in all three. Therefore it only makes sense to center it around the one solid point. If World War 1 or 2 were to also be added in, they again did participate, and thus it continues the trend.

I'm sorry, this is the second time (following McNamara) that people have forgotten that Australia was bloody present at the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, and the Gulf War. We were actually second to go into Korea, after the US. There was also the battle of Long Tan. Maybe it's best you did your research before making an assertion Khell.

And as for your idea for BF, I think it's pretty good. The 'extra pockets' thing is a good thing, allowing players to further customise to suit their playing style.

le machin:

Khell_Sennet:
...or my preference, a future date conflict between Canada and the US.

This kind of intrigues me. I can imagine how, maybe in the middling-to-distant future, something might flare up about American access to Canadian resources like oil and fresh water or the Northwest Passage. That would be interesting. But how would it work out with respect to play balance, considering the vastly unequal strength of the armed forces involved and the proximity of the bulk of Canada's industrial capacity to the US border?

The hard thing about choosing a war in which to set a game- as you are likely aware- is that it has to be something that's said and done and which won't be viewed as overly insensitive by critics. Several of Israel's wars would make great material, as might the Indian-Pakistani conflict, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or a number of African ones, but those situations prick at some pretty sensitive places that might best be left alone.

With regards to the US vs Canada, it's not quite so unequally balanced as one might think. Canadians know the terrain here, American troops would be at a severe disadvantage trying to invade during an Albertan winter, and weather always becomes a factor when attacking somewhere like Vancouver, where the climate shifts between rain, heavy rain, and "holy fuck, it's up past my knees". Canadian troops have just as high-tech gear as the US, hell, we make some of it for them. The biggest factor between the two boils down to numbers, and while the US has superior numbers, it can turn to a disadvantage in a dirty war. One well-placed strike on New York would cause more casualties than if the US sunk the entirety of Vancouver Island. It could be a real messy fight, and would make for some wicked gameplay.

As to sensitivity to critics, fuck the critics. My three concerns for a game would be "Is it Fun? Can it be done? Has it been done before?", in that order. Nobody has done a game based on Canada and the US in all-out conflict. I'm basing it on an engine that has proven capable of doing what I'm asking for. Most importantly, it would be a total riot to play. People WILL buy a game even if it is in poor taste, so long as they will have a good time playing it. Some people will buy it BECAUSE it's in poor taste.

Logan9993:
I'm loving the plan Khell. You've taken all of the best features and roled them into one.

I'd like to add on little thing- Singleplayer maps are the same size as the multiplayer maps. It really annoyed me when they started only letting you do the smallest maps in singleplayer in Battlefield 2. They had it right in Battlefield Vietnam (I confess I havn't played 1942 so I won't comment on that).

Now we just need someone to make it.

Thanks for reminding me why I quit BF2... Nothing sucks quite like finding out the game you bought is stripped-down to 1/3 the content unless you go online. I'm a fan of single-player, I LOVE co-op mode, and to me nothing was a greater disappointment in BF2142, 2, and 1942 than finding out I cannot play X Y or Z map in SP-coop. 1942 started it, maps like Midway were huge fleet battles in Conquest, and piddly little island skirmishes in co-op. BF2 and 2142 expanded the problem by eliminating co-op, and making maps size by how many players are present. If I were to ever make a BF title, be assured that anything you can play online, you can play offline or with a local group, with and without AIs.

stompy:
I'm sorry, this is the second time (following McNamara) that people have forgotten that Australia was bloody present at the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, and the Gulf War. We were actually second to go into Korea, after the US. There was also the battle of Long Tan. Maybe it's best you did your research before making an assertion Khell.

And as for your idea for BF, I think it's pretty good. The 'extra pockets' thing is a good thing, allowing players to further customise to suit their playing style.

My apologies, I knew Aussie was there in Korea and the Gulf War, but not Nam. Most Vietnam War info I come across is from US sources (not like they're ever bias), and I previously never heard mention of Aussie participating in Nam. I hold Australia with quite high regard, and thus assumed they made the same call as Canada, and avoided a bad situation that was plain to see.

Personally, I'm not too concerned with playing imaginary vs. real wars. Though I do get a kick out of slaughtering landing on beaches of Normandy and slaughtering Nazis, I found it just as exciting being launched onto a Titan and placing C4 on its reactor core. Likewise, the futuristic setting didn't bother me either. I would have been much more concerned if all of the sudden people had magical powers or something.

A big thing in my mind is Keep Is Simple, Stupid! The CommoRose was a great idea straight out of the books of HCI and is key for any game where keeping your eye on the action is essential. Kit customization is great (even if it STILL is buggy as hell in 2142). I don't mind unlocks, but unlocking them shouldn't be a hindrance to playing the game. If you've ever played 2142, you'll know what I mean. Starting off with nothing means you get owned every time. Even after months of play I still don't have everything and it still puts me at a disadvantage.

One thing I think the Battlefield could take a cue from TF2 on is balance over realism. Yes, a modern tank can go 60mph, mow down an entire troupe of people carrying M16s, and still have enough ammo to destroy half a city, but when there's 64 players and 4 tanks, the other 60 people get really tired of dying. I loved how in BF2 a well placed mine or a couple of rockets could ruin a tank driver's day. It meant that having a tank wasn't the be all, end all of the game. I also find it infuriating that the sniper in 2142 can be demolished by an assault even at long range. One shot from my high-powered sniper rifle doesn't kill you, but two random hits from your assault rifle kills me? I can snipe people better with the engineer's submachine gun. How's that for balance?

Vehicles are great fun and have their place and I'd love to see more of them. Jeeps, tanks, jets, and helicopters, all useful and yet all with their disadvantages. More than anything, they have to be usable. I would hope a noob couldn't mow down the other team the first time they take off in a jet, but I'd also like to not see them instantly crash into the ground. Likewise, when an experienced player can still barely land the helicopter, it quickly loses everything that makes it useful. And, well, the 2142 "flying brick" has already been mentioned and I couldn't have said it better myself.

I love the idea of pockets that Khell mentioned. Kit customization is a delicate balance. On the one hand, the customizations have to mean something or there's no use in having them. On the other hand, it's far too easy for it to make a kit good for one thing and one thing only. An example of this extreme is the engineer in BF2142. You have a weapon for anti-air and a weapon for anti-ground, but not both. Since your primary job is destroying machinery, which one do you choose? It means you are only ever half-good at your job. Half the time you own, the other half you are defenseless. Something much more subtle, like choosing between extra clips or extra grenades makes sense -- neither one will make you completely useless, but depending on your playing style you'll get a great benefit from picking one over the other.

Another thing -- maps. It seems as Battlefield gets older we get fewer maps. Are they really that hard to make? Nothing says boring like playing Camp Gibraltar *again*. I liked how there were so many maps to choose from in BF2. It meant that I never got bored of playing the same map. It also meant that I never got so much practice on any one map that I knew it inside out. That being said, maps need to be different. Sometimes all it takes is a little quirk, like the fact that there's now a body of water between the two sides, or this time we're in tight city quarters as opposed to a widespread battlefield. These are the kinds of differences that mean having to change your playing style and it keeps things fresh. If every map is big, the sniper is the only thing that matters. If every map is small, why bother being a sniper? It encourages people to change classes, change playing style, and think on their feet.

Map design could be a whole book on its own, but it's key for any war game and BF has a hit-and-miss record on it. There's a lot to be said for having a clue where you should be going next and having fixed map layouts and capture points is good for this. On the other hand, there should be multiple ways to take a point. Make multiple entrances, leave lots of openings to attack or defend. Give just enough spots that they can all be defended with team work but penetrable with a slip up. Make the capture area large -- the fact that you had to be within 10 feet of the flag in BF2 meant that defenders just had to spam grenades and rockets to keep you from sitting under the flag. Make it a whole building where the person could be anywhere. Make it a field where three or four key spots could be used. Make it take some effort to figure out where you are before you are blown to smithereens.

And of course, teamwork. Voice chat and squads really helps for this. The commander is great too, but he needs more ability to be useful. Squad leaders are generally useless and should be given much more ability to help out. They should be a cross between the RTS commander and the FPS pawn. Things like squad beacons in 2142 are great, as would be deploying other things like supplies or radar stations. Project Reality handled this well -- it was extremely important to keep your squad leader alive, because he gave you a spawn point, ability to change kits, and resupplies. It meant that he shouldn't go running off into gunfire like a fucktard and that joining a squad and doing the fighting for your squad leader gave you an immediate benefit.

As if this post wasn't already long enough -- game modes. Deathmatches are fun at first but get boring quickly. Control points are one of my favorite, but even they get tiring after awhile. Capture the flag is great, though I think a lot of people don't like them because they are generally poorly done -- there's a difficult balance between the flag runner always getting away (by himself) and having the other team spawn in the second you grab the flag. Are there other modes? I don't know, but if so, keep them coming. Each one brings with it a new style of play and that keeps things from getting repetitive.

Speaking of repetitive, please don't make everything grey and brown. There's nothing more frustrating than spotting an enemy and picking him off, only to realize he was on your team. It shouldn't be that hard to tell. Likewise, a guy standing in the shadows shouldn't be invisible, nor should I have to crank my gamma. Cover should be a two-way street -- I may be able to sneak a (slightly obscured) peak at you, but if I'm able to shoot you, you should be able to shoot me. Of all things, Counterstrike handled this well. With boxes everywhere, you could peak over them (jumping) to see if anyone was coming, but you couldn't do much to kill them from there -- you had to step around the box, putting yourself in harm's way. It was still useful because you were able to see them (hopefully without them seeing you), which gives you the element of surprise. It's yet another delicate balance between sneaking and camping.

And last but not least, don't let EA make it! I know they own the franchise, but they fuck it up every time. I don't care how fun the game is, if it's riddled with bugs I won't enjoy playing it. Even though it has been out for what, two years now?, BF2142 is still buggy as hell. Players randomly being dropped from the server (only to be presented with a window for explaining the reason which is ironically blank), kit customization that is forgotten each time you log in, customizations that change on you as you're changing it, sniper rifles that don't hit their target even when it fills the whole damn scope; I could go on. If they ever release another Battlefield, it better be the most stable thing that ever lived. Do what the MMO guys do and make test servers where they can work out the exploits before everybody is forced to update. Have open betas where 10,000 people can hammer on the servers and point out everything they hate before they buy the game. The next time I pay $60 for a game and I can't play it, I'm taking it back. Fuck the "no returns" policy, I'll send it straight to EA and claim fraud. Sure there might be a "reasonable expectation" that the game wouldn't work (since it said EA on the box), but anything worth $60 better have some guarantee of performance.

Holy shit in a golden outhouse Reverse, that post is long enough to rival mine... And glad for every word of it. I agree with many/most points and would like to elaborate on a few...

The Helicopters in DC Final were a spectacular feat of coding, when you consider Trauma Team was picking apart code that wasn't theres and still managed to add in an entirely new classification of vehicle, it's a true miracle. They were difficult to learn the finer points of control, and prone to explosions when landed, but what I liked was that not everyone COULD fly them. BF Nam improved the helicopter concept and made them a little more rugged, BF2 didn't change much on the heli and it still worked well, it would have been nice if it ended there but they had to go and fuck the whole thing up in 2142 with the Brick.

One thing I would like to see in future BF games, better consequences to destroyed vehicles. Like you mentioned, tanks had to be scaled down in power to make infantry viable in the game, but they scaled it down too much where damage is concerned. First, I wish a tank or similar ride could be separated into components such as turret, treads, and body. I don't want to make things more complex, the simplicity of BF1942/Nam is why I play it more than 2/2142, but COME ON! A hit on the treads of a tank shouldn't blow up the whole tank, hitting the turret might, or the body.

Ok, so to flesh out this line of thinking, taking the M1A1 Abrams. In game, the Abrams should have four zones, Cockpit, Treads, Turret, and Body. The vehicle would have an overall healthbar like normal, plus a simple little icon of the vehicle (a small tank) beside it, and much like the Mechwarrior game, the color of the area would go yellow (50% health) then red (20% health) when damaged in those zones. Turret hits could disable the turret, leaving the tank mobile but unarmed. Tread hits could immobilize the tank but leave the cannons viable for use. Cockpit hits would be like head-sniping, hard to do but highest payoff, killing the driver and making the tank unusable (but not blowing it up). Lastly, hits anywhere but those three areas count as "body", and total destruction of the body blows up the tank.

This wouldn't be for simple vehicles like jeeps or civilian vehicles, but armored units should be more than hit/not-hit. Jets/heli's I'd like to see a similar line of realism added. When one is "destroyed" it blows up and kills the crew, but that's bullshit. I'd like to see a jet that's hit with a missile stay intact on its plummet to the ground, and only blow up when it impacts. Yes, overly powerful shots could be left as a total kaboom, but for most damage, the pilot should be able to eject from a dead plane, not instakilled because his wing clipped a helicopter's tail.

As to map design, you're totally right. We get fewer and fewer maps, and they're getting less interesting with each new game. I don't want a sequel, I want a game worth the money I paid. And I don't want any more fucking expansion packs that load as separate games. That you can't go from a map in Road to Rome to a Secret Weapons WW2 map without a game changeover is bullshit, and with BF2's expansion/booster history of 3 map addins, it makes it so tiresome to play the expansion servers knowing it will always be the same three maps, over and over.

And how about some better map ideas. DC Final had the best; Basrah Nights, DC Sea Rigs, and that urban one (forget the name) with the huge tower in the downtown core...

Well many have said things that I was already about to say (and I think a few of ya should go tell EA how to do their job :D ), but I do want to comment about Weapons and era specific stuff.

First, I think the XM8 was discontinued, or at least just taken back to the drawing board, and H&K Pretty much stopped all work on that thing, and just started working with the HK 416 and other projects...and hell, I would take an 416 over an M8 anyday. I'm not 100% sure on either but, I was hoping you would know because search engines and wikipedia fail me.

Second, I'm glad to see people out there realize that M4 and AK-47 and the occasional SA-80 (and for some reason without the Upgrade that makes it awesome) =/= the only modern weapons in the world.

I really think the main point for me though, is the choppers. They have to be hard to fly. My brother could make a Huey Slick freakin' dance. He once hurlted along the river, zero feeting, suddenly throttled back, span and brought it to a hover just hanging off the edge of a dock's walkway as a small group of teammates jumped in. That was beautiful to watch. I personally couldn't fly 'em for toffee, and that's a good thing. Sense of achievement ftw!

Pox in a box! Double post.

If could create Battlefield in my own universe it would be set in some United States state with diverse topography in the United States. You would assume control of that state's National Guard in a fight against a quasi-fascist US government in an alternate timeline set during the cold war.