# increase more tanks in conquest **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [September 1, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253 "2019-09-01T19:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![StealthAria](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@StealthAria](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/StealthAria)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/21 "2019-09-02T16:02:00Z")
> [@viper63x](#): > > > [@VincentNZ](#): > > > > > [@viper63x](#): > > > > > > so far only one tank per side on hamada, and devestation, and you call this an all out war? this is rdiculous. and then all the other maps have only 2 tanks on each side… WHy do people play this game? > > > > > > this is no conquest experince. > > > > That is nonsense. Hamada has 3-4 tanks per side. Only Devastation and Rotterdam have one. However, if I recall correctly there are event playlists that increase that to 2 per side. Panzerstorm has 7 per side, Arras has 3 as far as I can remember. Twisted Steel another 4. Mercury has 2. That is all without counting the planes of course. And without counting the Squad Reinforcements which allow for one superheavy tank and two Pakwagen at any time. There aren’t any fewer vehicles on the maps as in previous BFs. > > > > Your argument is also not very substantial, you can not complain about a guy playing the vehicle to his strengths especially with a teammate, while you just want to drive one for yourself. Vehicles are a balance hazard, and should therefore be applied in small dosages. > > well i joined hamada and saw only one tank. i waited for around 15 mins before giving up. so unless it takes longer than that for the other tanks to spawn in i dont know, also same with twisted steel i only noticed one tank per side. You start with multiple tanks, but a lot of people abandon their tank instead of dying with it which causes them to fall into enemy hands where they are then often kept to the distant rear where they are unlikely to get spotted or destroyed. As an aside, if you were just sitting on the spawn screen waiting, you probably didn’t see them because the counters don’t update in real-time. For whatever reason, the counters only update as they appear, so you’ll only ever see a vehicle available if the vehicle is ready as you enter the screen, if you’re waiting on one you have to keep opening and closing other menus (eg class customization) And let’s not forget that the game still has that bug where pilots and tankers get stuck in their old corpse and never actually get control of their new vehicle. There’s also another bug (might be related) where vehicles won’t actually spawn in when requested even though the counter drops. This is especially annoying since it can spawn the driver/pilot at the vehicle spawn without their vehicle, leaving drivers with a gimped loadout and causing pilots to fall to their death well outside the map. Vehicles lost to this bug cannot be recovered and leave the team permanently down a vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![ElliotLH](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/elliotlh/32/101030_2.png) [@ElliotLH](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ElliotLH)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/22 "2019-09-02T16:06:00Z")
> [@viper63x](#): > > (Quote) > well i joined hamada and saw only one tank. i waited for around 15 mins before giving up. so unless it takes longer than that for the other tanks to spawn in i dont know, also same with twisted steel i only noticed one tank per side. Both Axis and Allies get at least two tanks on those maps in Conquest. There are a few reasons why you might only see one team tank on the map from the redeploy screen, for example the enemy could have stolen your other tank rather than destroying it. ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:25am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/23 "2019-09-03T03:25:00Z")
> [@Jeffmaxs6](#): > > (Quote) > Golmud Railway your more likely to see a tank on > the hill camping. HaHa. 2-3 tanks taking flags. Same high ping players in the > tank every game that seem more worried about their kd then winning the game. 3-4 > tanks sitting on the out side looking in. A BF player should be able to do more > then one thing, besides living in a tank. > Sounds like the player OP already described in the tank. Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively. And if someone wants to “live in a tank” then so what? I don’t condone it, but it’s their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it. ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:33am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/24 "2019-09-03T03:33:00Z")
I would love to see them return to BF4s timer system, where they let you know when a vehicle slot was close availability. This new system, implimenteed in BF1, just causes players to sit and wait. Whereas before they could play infantry until the availability became closer. I constantly wonder, how did they have things so right before, but all wrong now? I can understand the lack of tanks in BF1, it was WW1. But they also had elite classes and the awesome behemoths. This is WW2, the golden age of tanks, and the war that contained the largest tank battle in history, Kursk. ---
**Author:** ![xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/xkusagamix/32/104118_2.png) [@xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/xKusagamix)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:42am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/25 "2019-09-03T04:42:00Z")
As the way the OP said, i could see that he’s a lone tanker and would just let the enemy destroy his tankmate just to get one for himself. If a tanker playing safe that actually has a squadmate using the machine gun and doing his job effective as defending or suppressing fire enemy’s objective, i would gladly jump in to eneme’s Panzerfaust/PIAT and die just to cover his butt. What’s wrong with people today? This is a god dang team based game. ---
**Author:** ![jroggs](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jroggs/32/106829_2.png) [@jroggs](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jroggs)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:11am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/26 "2019-09-03T05:11:00Z")
> [@filthmcnasty](#): > > Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively. > And if someone wants to “live in a tank” then so what? I don’t condone it, but it’s their money, their choice, and **there are plenty of ways to counter it**. Not true. It’s very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren’t available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank. Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there’s zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits. Now, it’s frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you’re just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team’s job is that much harder because of it. And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns. ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:46am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/27 "2019-09-03T05:46:00Z")
> [@jroggs](#): > > > [@filthmcnasty](#): > > > > Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively. > > And if someone wants to “live in a tank” then so what? I don’t condone it, but it’s their money, their choice, and **there are plenty of ways to counter it**. > > Not true. It’s very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren’t available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank. > > Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there’s zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits. > > Now, it’s frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you’re just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team’s job is that much harder because of it. > > And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns. I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud. I agree, in BF5 campy tankers are awful. But given the terrible tank/infantry balance, the low number of tanks and the high respawn wait it’s not hard to see why is so prevalent in BF5 ---
**Author:** ![Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/hawxxeye/32/101036_2.png) [@Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Hawxxeye)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/28 "2019-09-03T06:26:00Z")
> [@filthmcnasty](#): > > > [@jroggs](#): > > > > > [@filthmcnasty](#): > > > > > > Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively. > > > And if someone wants to “live in a tank” then so what? I don’t condone it, but it’s their money, their choice, and **there are plenty of ways to counter it**. > > > > Not true. It’s very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren’t available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank. > > > > Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there’s zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits. > > > > Now, it’s frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you’re just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team’s job is that much harder because of it. > > > > And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns. > > I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud. > I agree, in BF5 campy tankers are awful. But given the terrible tank/infantry balance, the low number of tanks and the high respawn wait it’s not hard to see why is so prevalent in BF5 Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered. ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/29 "2019-09-03T06:32:00Z")
> [@Hawxxeye](#): > > (Quote) > Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered. Exactly. The tank/infantry balance is beyond broken. I like the idea of criticals but with so few tanks per side you just get swarmed if you DON’T camp. BF1 did a better job by making rocket users go prone and the dynamite not being sticky. ---
**Author:** ![Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/hawxxeye/32/101036_2.png) [@Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Hawxxeye)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:06am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/30 "2019-09-03T07:06:00Z")
> [@filthmcnasty](#): > > > [@Hawxxeye](#): > > > > (Quote) > > Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered. > > Exactly. The tank/infantry balance is beyond broken. I like the idea of criticals but with so few tanks per side you just get swarmed if you DON’T camp. BF1 did a better job by making rocket users go prone and the dynamite not being sticky. and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:27am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/31 "2019-09-03T07:27:00Z")
> [@Hawxxeye](#): > > (Quote) > and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image) Lol, and reverse is worse ---
**Author:** ![xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/xkusagamix/32/104118_2.png) [@xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/xKusagamix)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:32am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/32 "2019-09-03T07:32:00Z")
> [@Hawxxeye](#): > > (Quote) > and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image) And neither the bull crap asymmetrical vehicles. The Staghound is basically a suicide tank with a decent bomber hunter ability. ---
**Author:** ![Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/hawxxeye/32/101036_2.png) [@Hawxxeye](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Hawxxeye)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:36am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/33 "2019-09-03T07:36:00Z")
> [@xKusagamix](#): > > > [@Hawxxeye](#): > > > > (Quote) > > and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image) > > And neither the bull crap asymmetrical vehicles. > The Staghound is basically a suicide tank with a decent bomber hunter ability. Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks ---
**Author:** ![xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/xkusagamix/32/104118_2.png) [@xKusagamix](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/xKusagamix)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:41am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/34 "2019-09-03T07:41:00Z")
> [@Hawxxeye](#): > > (Quote) > Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks And the Tiger Tank roll out into battle with 24 tank shells at max. Next the King Tiger probably will have less than 30 shells, same speed but maybe a little bit more tank shell bouncing. No wonder the German lost the war. ---
**Author:** ![filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@filthmcnasty](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/filthmcnasty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 8:05am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/35 "2019-09-03T08:05:00Z")
> [@xKusagamix](#): > > > [@Hawxxeye](#): > > > > (Quote) > > Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks > > And the Tiger Tank roll out into battle with 24 tank shells at max. Next the King Tiger probably will have less than 30 shells, same speed but maybe a little bit more tank shell bouncing. No wonder the German lost the war. If they make it historically accurate the King Tiger will breakdown before it even gets to the battlefield ---
**Author:** ![VincentNZ](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/ce7236/32.png) [@VincentNZ](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VincentNZ)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 9:14am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/36 "2019-09-03T09:14:00Z")
I’d very much rather have the gunner positions improved to BF4 levels, that should help enormously for tanks in close quarters. Remote turrets, proximity scan or flares, or 3rd person view. ---
**Author:** ![Jeffmaxs6](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@Jeffmaxs6](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Jeffmaxs6)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/37 "2019-09-03T13:48:00Z")
> [@filthmcnasty](#): > > > [@Jeffmaxs6](#): > > > > [»] > > (Quote) > > Golmud Railway your more likely to see a tank on > > the hill camping. HaHa. 2-3 tanks taking flags. Same high ping players in the > > tank every game that seem more worried about their kd then winning the game. 3-4 > > tanks sitting on the out side looking in. A BF player should be able to do more > > then one thing, besides living in a tank. > > Sounds like the player OP already described in the tank. > > Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively. > And if someone wants to “live in a tank” then so what? I don’t condone it, but it’s their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it. Maybe it depends when you started gaming. I started with UT, first person shooter. DM to be the best player. Beat the noobs, even when they camped and hung around the power up. Because that was about the only way they could helpfully get a kill. Now if you started with world of tanks. lol What about sportsmanship and close games? Sportsmanship, if you are a good player and like competition you don’t camp the spawn points for cheap kills. Tank \> infantry is not equal and the tank clearly has the upper hand. It’s almost like two diff games, just one brought a tank to a gun fight or vs. BF4 is gets tiring fighting a tanks, since they blast from the out side in and you run out of rockets to be farmed. 2-3 tanks doing this with air support and the game can be unbalance, but who cares right? So to much organization just ruins the game, where close games are better. So the players are some what responsible for close games. Like clans fighting against each other vs being on one side. And when the tank is worried about his kd he’ll just sit back and farm while the team is losing vs take risk. It’s just a game and should be fun and dare I say fun for all. Tanks should be valuable vs abused farm equipment and that’s what happens when there’s lots of them. ---
**Author:** ![jroggs](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/jroggs/32/106829_2.png) [@jroggs](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jroggs)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/38 "2019-09-03T15:33:00Z")
> [@filthmcnasty](#): > > I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud. My bad, then. ---
**Author:** ![Elephante33](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/elephante33/32/106646_2.png) [@Elephante33](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Elephante33)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/39 "2019-09-03T16:10:00Z")
More tanks and more vehicules is what we need. WW2 was a MOBILE war, a MECHANISED war. We should see squads moving around with their armoured support, and thats really hard to do when, despite every battlefield so far being EARLY WW2, tanks seem to be as rare as if both sides were Germany at the Fall of Berlin ---
**Author:** ![SlowOldWarrior](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@SlowOldWarrior](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/SlowOldWarrior)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 3:08am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253/40 "2019-09-04T03:08:00Z")
Make Medic like they were in BF3/4, the most lethal vs infantry, but useless against armor. Give Engineers SMGs and Carbine with rockets, but lesser infantry lethality. Give Support support C4 and MG, lethal but without pinpoint accuracy and suppression - yes, bring back suppression. Give Recon C4 and harder to use more powerful rifles. And finally, give us a greater number of tanks with more maneuverability. TLDR: Make a BF3/4 class balanced game set in WWII. Too easy. [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253.md?page=1) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/increase-more-tanks-in-conquest/107253.md?page=3)