# Ideas for realism and teamwork improvement **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 14, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031 "2016-06-14T15:50:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/socomseal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/1 "2016-06-14T15:50:00Z")
Here are a few ideas I have to better represent what World War 1 was actually like, while also improving team play. 1. Make tanks slower. Tanks are supposed to be very powerful, they completely changed the war and made breakthroughs much easier, but they were very slow behemoths. If tanks were significantly slower, it would not only be realistic, but it would require teams to plan out their tank attacks more, and it can help a team dominate an objective. It would also enable infantry to closely follow behind the tank, much like real life. 2. Get rid of extremely unrealistic aimpoint and zoom optics on most weapons. I know some world war 1 weapons had fairly ugly and hard to use iron sights, but being that this is a game, you can make the sights look better while still capturing authenticity of the era. By removing extremely unrealistic sights, it will make shooting require more skill, and it will possibly even change the engagement ranges to be more realistic. Looking back at the battlefield series, BF2, the best BF game by far had iron sights on most weapons, and that was set in modern times. Yet people loved that game and loved the ironsights. BF 1943, had ironsights, and the game worked out just fine. There is nothing wrong with having standard ironsights without optics or aimpoints, its worked in the series before and it can work now. 3. Reduce the amount of semi-auto rifles on the battlefield. Most soldiers in WW1 used bolt action rifles, and semi-auto rifles were almost nonexistent in the war. Bolt action rifles are not only realistic, but they require some skill to use, and they are accurate/ powerful weapons. Having bolt actions would encourage more melee combat, longer engagements, more skill, and somewhat less run and gun. It would accurately reflect combat of the era, and offer something completely new to battlefield. Semi-auto weapons should remain in the game, but they should not be accessible to everyone at all times. Here are some ways to limit semi-auto rifles 3a. Make semi auto rifles a pick up on the map, such as weapons seen in BF4. 3b. Offer semi-auto rifles to squads that are doing well, as a temporary squad upgrade. 3c. Allow a commander to give a squad a semi-auto upgrade that will last for a limited amount of time. The upgrade would only remain as long as the command slot is filled. The commander could offer semi-autos to 1 or 2 squads at a time, and then would have to reassign after the duration ran out. 3d. Offer semi-auto rifles to only 1 kit, but make it so that kit got very little ammo and had to stay near ammo supplying friendlies in order to keep fighting. This would improve team play, raise skill required to use a semi-auto rifle, and make a semi auto-rifle pick shots more wisely. 4.Additionally, I think sub machine guns should be limited since they were only used in small numbers in the last year of the war. But I doubt you would limit them, so at least make them horribly inaccurate unless point blank, and have a slow rate of fire to balance them. 1. Make 1 man machine guns less run and gun, they should need to be bipoded to be truly effective. The MG should be horribly inaccurate and have lots of recoil when firing from the standing, unbipoded position. 2. Add a new class called “Grenadier” or “Trench raider” something of that nature. This class will represent the assault troops of the time. They should be armed with a pistol, 6-10 grenades, the best melee weapons possible, and dynamite. This class would offer something totally different to what’s been seen in Battlefield previously, and it would offer interesting new gameplay. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/2 "2016-06-14T15:51:00Z")
Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. ---
**Author:** ![B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/b3antown_b3a5t/32/101262_2.png) [@B3ANTOWN\_B3A5T](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B3ANTOWN_B3A5T)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/3 "2016-06-14T15:53:00Z")
You actually want a grenade spam class ? ---
**Author:** ![PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/popotoostronk/32/103149_2.png) [@PopoTooStronk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PopoTooStronk)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/4 "2016-06-14T16:08:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. ---
**Author:** ![El-FaMa](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@El-FaMa](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/El-FaMa)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/5 "2016-06-14T16:16:00Z")
> [@B3ANTOWN\_\_B3A5T](#): > > You actually want a grenade spam class ? Just what I thought when I read this. That would be so annoying. ---
**Author:** ![socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/socomseal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/6 "2016-06-14T19:32:00Z")
> [@B3ANTOWN\_\_B3A5T](#): > > You actually want a grenade spam class ? Yea, it would be spammy. But The disadvantage of the grenadier class would be that the class is only good at close range. I just think it would be interesting, but I know they wouldn’t add it. But everything else I think is reasonable. > [@Loqtrall](#): > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. How so? ---
**Author:** ![Ameeba37](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/ameeba37/32/101194_2.png) [@Ameeba37](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Ameeba37)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/7 "2016-06-14T19:34:00Z")
Battlefield is not a war simulator. Balance \> realism ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/8 "2016-06-14T19:34:00Z")
> [@socomseal](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. > > How so? Because Battlefield is not, has never been, and never will be a realistic game, and it doesn’t portray warfare in a realistic way at all, no matter what era the game is set in. Like most people who bring up realism in a Battlefield topic - I think you’re mixing up “Realism” with “Authenticity”. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/9 "2016-06-14T19:41:00Z")
> [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. ---
**Author:** ![socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/socomseal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/10 "2016-06-14T21:56:00Z")
> [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. I’ve played most of the battlefield games, particularly the early games (1942, Nam, BF2, 2142) I know Battlefield is not supposed to be a totally realistic game. It is quite arcadey. However, in the past, Battlefield has had elements of realism (faction locked weapons, faction specific vehicles, balanced but not totally unrealistic weapons of the era). What I am asserting is not a WW1 simulator, I’d play Verdun for that. What I am asking for is a slight tweak in authenticity to not only stay true to history, but also make the game more balanced and enjoyable for everyone while also promoting team play. If you take issue with promoting realism that helps to balance gameplay, then perhaps you should go back to battlefield heroes. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/11 "2016-06-14T22:27:00Z")
> [@socomseal](#): > > > [@Sir-xer21](#): > > > > > [@PopoTooStronk](#): > > > > > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > > > > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. > > I’ve played most of the battlefield games, particularly the early games (1942, Nam, BF2, 2142) I know Battlefield is not supposed to be a totally realistic game. It is quite arcadey. However, in the past, Battlefield has had elements of realism (faction locked weapons, faction specific vehicles, balanced but not totally unrealistic weapons of the era). What I am asserting is not a WW1 simulator, I’d play Verdun for that. What I am asking for is a slight tweak in authenticity to not only stay true to history, but also make the game more balanced and enjoyable for everyone while also promoting team play. > > If you take issue with promoting realism that helps to balance gameplay, then perhaps you should go back to battlefield heroes. how is making SMGs useless (Oh God, the horros of playing anti tankin BF2), making LMGs useless unless bipoded, and basically just giving everyone a bolt action balanced? How is a grenade spam class balanced? ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 10:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/12 "2016-06-14T22:32:00Z")
Except it’s just your opinion that it would make things more fun and balanced. Because so far I see nothing unbalanced about the fact that there are copious automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the game, just because most people in WW1 used bolt-actions. And I think it’s a horrible idea that variety only be offered to those in the game that are doing well, and to restrict LMG users, which is an ENTIRE CLASS of players, to laying on the ground or behind a wall. I also see nothing unbalanced about tanks moving faster than their real-life counterparts, because infantry have more ways to effectively kill them spread across the Battlefield and available to the assault class (which is literally the Engi class from BF4, but entirely focused on destroying vehicles this time around), and anti-tank rifles for the scout class. I also see nothing unbalanced about including varied optics in the game, so gunplay doesn’t get monotonous and “same-ish” because nearly every weapon you’re using has only iron sights. Lastly, I think a class that is literally based around spamming explosive sounds horrible, as does pretty much everyone else. To me it sounds like you’re not trying to make the game better in the best interests of BF fans, and are more suggesting changes to make the game YOU personally want it to be - because the overall game your changes suggest doesn’t sound like a BF game at all - which is centered around large-scale “all out” warfare. To me it sounds like you want a “big Verdun” with more vehicles, and that you essentially want BF1 to be literally the slowest and least varied BF in the history of the franchise by a large margin. Sorry, but that doesn’t sound like a game that very many Battlefield fans would enjoy. In it’s current iteration, the game is getting a surprisingly positive reception despite the fact that droves of people were saying how much they disliked the WW1 setting BEFORE the gameplay reveal. ---
**Author:** ![Troopperfofo](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Troopperfofo](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Troopperfofo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/13 "2016-06-14T22:37:00Z")
OP you should just play Verdun its almost what you are looking for and its even coming to consoles if you don’t play games on PC. Battlefield 1 is never going to be Verdun on Frostbite and it seems that is what want here. Personally after seeing the livestream Il probably only buy Battlefield 1 for the campaign unless the Operations game mode turns out to be fun. ---
**Author:** ![nathanator2](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/a698b9/32.png) [@nathanator2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/nathanator2)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/14 "2016-06-14T23:01:00Z")
OP Battlefield has been catering to a different crowd for years now. Notice how maps always filled are typically lockers and metro? Because battlefield is not what it use to be. Everyone just wants fast paced action with instant rewards, you don’t need to think in this game anymore. I mean gameplay could have been slowed down a tiny bit, just to allow us a new feel. But they didn’t, because this game just caters to the casual crowd now and everyone just wants action action action. Even if it means portraying ww1 unrealistically. ---
**Author:** ![Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/loqtrall/32/100975_2.png) [@Loqtrall](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Loqtrall)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/15 "2016-06-14T23:06:00Z")
I don’t know why you used Locker and Metro for examples of “fast paced action” - when literally both of them are two teams in a stalemate at the middle of the map, lobbing explosives at each other until the game ends, and peeking around corners and over walls waiting for people to kill. It’s not “fast paced” when it’s 64 people staring at each other down a hallway, taking potshots at each other and getting most of their kills with spammed explosives. ---
**Author:** ![nathanator2](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/a698b9/32.png) [@nathanator2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/nathanator2)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/16 "2016-06-14T23:15:00Z")
those maps are close quarters. The action compared to others tends to be more fast paced. Plus you tend to only ever see the huge kill scores on those naps because of ts easy nature. And hell, compare bf4/3/1 to battlefield 2 and you will see the pace of these games is much faster. ---
**Author:** ![DominicO65](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dominico65/32/101754_2.png) [@DominicO65](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DominicO65)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/17 "2016-06-14T23:19:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > Saw “realism” in the title - instantly knew the thread wasn’t worth it. This ---
**Author:** ![socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@socomseal](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/socomseal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/18 "2016-06-15T00:27:00Z")
> [@Loqtrall](#): > > Except it’s just your opinion that it would make things more fun and balanced. > . I don’t know how long you’ve played Battlefield, but in BF2 and 2142, the LMG was not very effective from a standing position. You could still get kills, but it was difficult. WW1 MGs and even LMGs today are used for suppressive fire. Laying down a wall of lead that stops the enemy from moving is helpful to the team. I’m not saying to make it totally impossible to use an LMG from a standing position, but rather that it should be difficult due to recoil. I was suggesting slower tanks purely because it would increase teamwork and planning. Not for balance reasons. Iron sights should be upgradable, with better iron sights. But adding a scope to everyone’s weapon sounds like a sniper fest waiting to happen. I just thought a grenade spam class would be cool, they still have to close the distance. But like I said, I see issue with it. Bolt action rifles would make this game different from its predecessors, which is kind of the point of a new setting. But in any event, the game already offers a rank system that rewards players with better equipment, what’s so bad about allowing good players good equipment on a temporary basis so that everyone can experience it without a grind? BF used to be about skill. Nathonator is right, the casuals have taken over, and this game is no longer being made for the original players of the series. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sir-xer21/32/103487_2.png) [@Sir-xer21](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-xer21)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/19 "2016-06-15T00:34:00Z")
> [@socomseal](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > Except it’s just your opinion that it would make things more fun and balanced. > > . > > I don’t know how long you’ve played Battlefield, but in BF2 and 2142, the LMG was not very effective from a standing position. which was one of the reasons support’s only real function in BF2 was grenade spam. It was a useless class. you speak of casuals as if you arent one. or as if BF was ever anything more than a casual game. ---
**Author:** ![Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@Rev0verDrive](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Rev0verDrive)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031/20 "2016-06-15T01:25:00Z")
> [@socomseal](#): > > > [@Loqtrall](#): > > > > Except it’s just your opinion that it would make things more fun and balanced. > > . > > I don’t know how long you’ve played Battlefield, but in BF2 and 2142, the LMG was not very effective from a standing position. You could still get kills, but it was difficult. WW1 MGs and even LMGs today are used for suppressive fire. Laying down a wall of lead that stops the enemy from moving is helpful to the team. I’m not saying to make it totally impossible to use an LMG from a standing position, but rather that it should be difficult due to recoil. On realism … LMG’s are by far more accurate and have less recoil than AR’s do simply because of barrel length and overall weight. Do some research. An LMG using irl ballistics in BF would be a laser based on the distances we play at. M249 Effective firing range 700 m (770 yd) (point target, 465 mm barrel), 800 m (870 yd) (point target, 521 barrel), 3,600 m (3,940 yd) (maximum range) Just look at that full auto recoil … Barrel climbing like a monkey on a ladder. /sarcasm M60 Two handed hip … [![Video: Craig M60 Med Burst from Hip](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/9/9/99bde5c669350da7279cb0fb4996dbb7c840c070.jpeg "Craig M60 Med Burst from Hip") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1DPCbAzal0) M60E One handed hip [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X517Utblb00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X517Utblb00) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/ideas-for-realism-and-teamwork-improvement/102031.md?page=2)