How the hell does a map in conquest start off being owned by the opposition? Conquest has always been Allied start here, Axis start there. 618 to 78 score with the team owning all the flags at the start of the game. This isn’t Rush! This isn’t Breakthrough. This is conquest. The mode that started it all!
Are they trying to force player into other modes?
Yeah the conquest assault on Hamada is utter .
HOW does RANDOM formattinghelp this terrible THREAD
answers ON a postcard
and fwiw a great many maps in BF1942 and BF2 started with all flags capped for the enemy, so no - CQ as you think isn’t how the series started.
Strike at Karkand was conquest assault and that map was absolutely awesome in BF2
You do realize what is now known as Conquest Assault was the default conquest game mode layout for a myriad of maps in earlier BF games, right? Some of the most revered BF games featured just as many if not more conquest assault maps than normal conquest maps.
THAT is the mode that started it all.
Some of you guys really should learn the history of the franchise before insisting DICE are taking things in some wrong, new direction.
BF4 is my first battlefield gaaaahhh
It can still be terrible due to implementation on a bad map. Even if history.
And?
That wasn’t the point of the OP at all. He led the thread by saying how could a game of Conquest start the enemy team with all the objs, insisting that’s not what conquest is or ever has been. To the extent he claimed Conquest has “always been allies start here, axis start there” like in normal CQ, comparing CQA to Breakthrough or Rush.
Whether he likes the setup on Hamada specifically wasn’t even brought up.
And im just sitting here thinking to myself “but, i like hamada conquest assault…”
Hamada gangnam style. When you dont have great party or teamplay. You never win for Allied. Only reskill and frustrating on this map..
I actually quite like Conquest on Hamada. Obviously if the Allies team is bad/doesn’t push objectives, then they’ll be crushed, but that’s literally the same in any gamemode on any map. Also I’ve had some very good, intense and close games on it, despite it being such a large map - last night we literally won by 1 point as the Axis (and I’m fairly sure I got the winning kill!).
Wouldn’t be the first time those two tried to do something naughty to Battlefield…
Conquest Assault is super fun if done right… I’ve not played much of BFV (only ever on someone else’s console) but I know in BF1 they did not do it well and I can imagine that it’s much the same in BFV.
Conquest Assault has been in Battlefield games since the very original. Historically they have been some of the most popular maps. Berlin, Wake Island , Operation Irving, Operation Flaming Dart, Strike at Karkand, Kubra Dam, Dragon Valley, Camp Gibraltar, Fall of Berlin.
Strike at Karkand was a linear map. It was basically rush with objective flags.
God himself couldn’t help this utter grease fire of a map!!!
And it was excellent.
There isn’t a point to Conquest Assault. But some people think it has a purpose.
When I first played Conquest on Hamada I thought it was ridiculous. Was it a bug?! Did I join a stomp?! Since then, I’ve grown to really like Hamada. I wish there wasn’t such a long slog between D and E/F, but other than that, it’s excellent.
Some more small transport vehicles, for example motorbikes with sidecars and a small mounted gun would definitely be nice on most maps actually, especially Hamada and Panzerstorm though, but that’s just map design rather than mode design. I agree with you actually - to start, it was one of my less liked maps for Conquest, but now I quite enjoy it.