If Dice is really trying to make the game as ‘realistic as possible’, then there shouldn’t be any form of locking on whatsoever, right? I am all for this by the way. Using skill to hit vehicles is awesome. YET, since hitting vehicles (mainly flying ones) will be harder, does this beg for a reduction of overall vehicle health? I mean, these vehicles during the war were, for the most part, not ultra armored. What are your thoughts on lock ons and vehicle health?
Planes will probably be vulneravle to small arms but if youre actually taking that “realistic as possible” comment seriously, you dont know DICE or BF.
Obviously there should be no lock on weapons in the early 1900’s.
The airplanes and airships should theoretically be easier to take down with small arms fire due to their lack of armor and slow movement speed.
no lock ons were confirmed
I pray there’s no lock on system. I highly doubt there will be anyway though and I think the vehicles will be quite vulnerable. That or their weapons will have to do more damage.
DICE won’t sacrifice gameplay in BF1 (or any BF game for that matter) in the name of realism.
I don’t think there will be lock on weapons in BF1, but I do think DICE will make it so that aircraft and vehicles are more susceptible to infantry weapons than ever before.
I’d say the Battlefield games feather the line between realism and fun. Not quite realistic but also amusing to play for days.
BC2 Vietnam style.
I hope they don’t go too OTT with the damage from ground fire. The last thing I want is a good dogfight ruined because someone can shoot me down with a service revolver!
The Red Baron was probably killed by ground fire too :#
I’m failing to see how this a valid topic of discussion.
- Lock-On weapons did not exist in this time period.
- Battlefield is not a milsim. If you want hardcore realism, ARMA is what you want. That said, it has been confirmed that damage to planes etc will affect the control of the vehicle.