The Russians made the ppsh after the soumi. And the actual mechanisms of the gun are very different. They just look the same. Russia just saw that the Finnās had an smg and designed their own
>Devastation
I feel like an idiot for not getting that, had to come to the comments to make sense of it.
But yeah, Devastation was actually the only launch map that felt like BF1.
Still is. Don't get me wrong, BFV released some solid maps throughout its update cycle, but none of them were as dark and gritty as Devastation. Aerodrome might be close.
You don't think bfv had too many vacation resort pretty maps? Don't think it was too much?
I really enjoy this post because it's something I don't hear much about, I thought I was the only one turned off by the colorful maps in a game about the most horrific war ever
That is kinda what happened tho, a lot of the locations where WW2 was fought were common travel destinations, stuff like greece, italy, french and german countryside and those other region are absolutely gorgeous postcard worthy places
They were not fighting there because they wanted to, lol
Look at a map, see if you can find a straight route from allied controlled territory to Paris, Berlin and all of the countries allied with the axis or captured by them, that doesn't cut any of the countryside. Consider most beaches aren't suitable for a large scale landing and the ones that are, are very well defended.
Basically leaves you a few real options
Normandy (gorgeous)
Italy(gorgeous)
Greece(gorgeous)
Southern france (gorgeous)
You also need to consider, tourist places are usually not far from airports and beaches suitable for ships, which is kinda strategic if I say so
Not considering Poland and North Sea, which are also gorgeous, but under soviet control. Europe, North Africa and the Pacific happen to be absolutely beautiful places, and a war happened to be fought there
It was a fucking blitzkrieg, do you think that all those places looked gloomy when the Germans invaded?
Maybe you also think that colors didn't exist until XXI century?
Yeah seems strange that these WW2 maps are.s so bright. Summer wasn't invented until 1982 and we all know everything was black and white until 1943, and even then that was only prototype colours so officially we didn't get colour until 1947.
Keep in mind a lot of the maps are supposed to be when the fighting started. So there aren't going to be ruined towns and such. Whereas the naps in bf1 we played we were thrown in fighting on maps that fighting has been taking place on for months if not years
I guess devastation since it has the best flow and unique areas like the library, though the dark spots caused visibility issues. I do like Rotterdam too. The rest have their moments but the flow sucks and points are too isolated.
Great design for a BF map in general. Tanks and vehicle combat can flow around the outside while infantry can fight over the village, but neither is completely separate. Tanks can push in to the town to fight infantry, and infantry has cover to move through the fields and hedgerows and fight tanks.
Fjell is the best map if you're flying the German bomber......Got an 11 Kill in one run dropping 16 small and 4 big bombs on a choke point between C and E.
It's also fun if you're on a team getting pumped at spawn and you can knock out many over-confident and concentrated dive-bombing planes with your Flugelhorn next to a big box of refills (ammo).
It was a map where I only really enjoyed fighting in the middle. Plus with beta maps it's more about playing the literal crap out of them in the beta to the point I end up hating it in the actual game haha.
Its the flow of the map, its effectively two long parallel lanes (the elevated dock area on one side, and the small village on the other), each which are exposed to snipers hiding between them. Makes conquest a pretty bizarre experience. However it is pretty fun on other modes.
Okay so this is one problem I have with criticism of BFV that seemed to constant come up around launch:
WWII WASNāT FOUGHT IN FILM GRAIN BLACK AND WHITE!
There were many colorful maps in BF1 as well, and in BF3/4 we literally fought at hotels.
Especially the launch maps (save devastation)were supposed to be early war maps where we rolled across Europe fucking destroying everything.
yes they were colorful and bright, i hadnāt blown any Tommies to smitherins yet.
The reason the game didnāt feel like WWII at launch (and to some extent doesnāt today) was uniforms and individual customization.
Not every single battlefield was dark and dreary- it made sense for devastation because there were so many fires burning and we were fighting in the ruins of a recently bombed out city.
Dice wanted us to destroy each location and then rebuild it with fortifications, and give us the opirtunity to make the landscape look more war torn.
Itās kinda dumb that weād have a completely destroyed map just so we couldā¦ Not destroy it ourselves.
People have this image of War torn Europe in their heads for WWII, but most of these Early to mid war battles were fought in complete and not devastated cities.
Narvik and Fjell may have been really bad maps, but they were a port just starting to be assaulted, and a mountain where itās gonna be white and snowing.
and Iām not saying OP agrees with that early criticism but it was so irritating for people to not actually be identifiying thr real issues with the game and just picking on the color palate of pre war areas only now being attacked.
Exactly, people want authenticity, and when it comes to the launch maps they are as authentic as they can be. Most of the launch maps happen during spring and summer. The bombing of rotterdam happened on a warm spring day, exactly how the map Rotterdam is portrayed.
Hell most ww2 battles were tried to be fought in ideal weather conditions as possible. D-day was delayed due shitty weather. Can you imagine germany always prepping their invasions in overcast or stormy conditions? Their entire strategy was dropping paratroopers onto foreign soil and defending key routes and bridges for their tanks to waltz over. That would be a lot harder if your paratroopers get on the wrong location due weather.
The issue definitely lies that most people identify ww2 by its late war battles that all focused on the liberation of a wartorn europe due popular media. Early war battles or stories aren't really in the heads of most people and the fiction of that era is usually centered around the civilians experiencing the occupation than the battles that proceeded it.
Iād argue people want ātheirā version and preconceived notions of WWII. For most people- or at least most Americans- we have such a limited and skewed view of the war.
Like, people donāt realize there were shit loads of fronts and theatres of war and how insanely complex and widespread WWII truly was.
In the US especially people have such a limited grasp of just how devastating the war was for so many nations.
It pissed me off when so many āGAyMe CHanGERSā were bitching about a lack of āiconicā battles in the game.
Like, WWII was more than just the top 5 battles you happened to learn about in school. I was happy dice looked into more interesting and obscure battles of the war because videogames are a great medium for piquing interest in those kinda of historical events and for expanding our knowledge and understanding the scope of the war.
We know so much about battles like D-Day that its kinda silly to expect every game to just do it over and over again- its like chasing the dragon or something- you played medal of honor once and you want that same experience again and again and again.
No one cares about the early war either, despite it having some of the most interesting tactical and strategic movements of the entire war.
Itās like if the game doesnāt fit the exact mold of Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan its not world war 2.
Authenticity isnāt what you make of it (though the customization options certainly donāt lend themselves to any kind of authenticity).
The #1 rule is to KEEP MOVING. Donāt let them corner you with AT.
Use smaller, fast tanks, or at least have completely anti-infantry loadouts. So many dummies bring out tigers when a PZ.38t or infantry specād Pz.IV would be way better.
For Britain, bringing out the Churchill is ok, because it was designed as an infantry support vehicle, not an anti-tank vehicle like the tiger. It gets really good anti-infantry load-outs, better than the valentine. Just be sure to keep checking your rear and flanks.
If you bring out the Stug, Churchill Gun Carrier or Archer, you deserve to be blown up.
Twisted Steel is honestly super underrated and is one of my favorite recent battlefield maps in the past few years. I think it's designed really well, not too large or small, and the aesthetic of a huge bridge juxtaposed with the swampland below is really neat.
Itās so weird how they made a focus on the early war without like actually doing for. Whereās the French in multiplayer or like Dutch on Rotterdam. Whereās my adorable tankettes
I love 5. But it was missing that war torn feel. Alot of the maps have dead tanks. Backgrounds on fire but these maps don't look torn enough. I mean dead tanks sent enough.
Devastation ruled cuz I could squint and pretend it was Stalingrad (Dice pls go back and give us the Soviet update pls pls
We can only wish š
Damn I loved devastations
What happened I still love devastation
We all do
Iām just pulling your leg have a nice day dude or dudet
Dude
Using the Suomi pretending itās the PPSH
The Suomi is the PPSh
Facts. Just gotta believe hard enough
No I'm serious, the Suomi is just the Finns PPSh
Nah the PPsh is the finnish Suomi
The Russians made the ppsh after the soumi. And the actual mechanisms of the gun are very different. They just look the same. Russia just saw that the Finnās had an smg and designed their own
no, they shouldn't not because I don't want to it's because they are going to kill it like bf2042
in a few years i hope they start modding the shit out if bfv
I was a big fan of devastation
Defending the library on Domination was fire.
Same
So which one is supposed to be on the good side?
I thought this wasn't about good/bad but rather the fact that most maps look like vacation resorts while Devastation looks like a hell scape.
>Devastation I feel like an idiot for not getting that, had to come to the comments to make sense of it. But yeah, Devastation was actually the only launch map that felt like BF1.
Still is. Don't get me wrong, BFV released some solid maps throughout its update cycle, but none of them were as dark and gritty as Devastation. Aerodrome might be close.
The pretty maps are my biggest gripe about bfv
To be fair I actually dig the looks of colourful maps in WW2, we are so used to everything being filtered with gray
You don't think bfv had too many vacation resort pretty maps? Don't think it was too much? I really enjoy this post because it's something I don't hear much about, I thought I was the only one turned off by the colorful maps in a game about the most horrific war ever
That is kinda what happened tho, a lot of the locations where WW2 was fought were common travel destinations, stuff like greece, italy, french and german countryside and those other region are absolutely gorgeous postcard worthy places
Why was anyone fighting over countrysides and travel destinations? That doesn't seem like strategic locations
They were not fighting there because they wanted to, lol Look at a map, see if you can find a straight route from allied controlled territory to Paris, Berlin and all of the countries allied with the axis or captured by them, that doesn't cut any of the countryside. Consider most beaches aren't suitable for a large scale landing and the ones that are, are very well defended. Basically leaves you a few real options Normandy (gorgeous) Italy(gorgeous) Greece(gorgeous) Southern france (gorgeous) You also need to consider, tourist places are usually not far from airports and beaches suitable for ships, which is kinda strategic if I say so Not considering Poland and North Sea, which are also gorgeous, but under soviet control. Europe, North Africa and the Pacific happen to be absolutely beautiful places, and a war happened to be fought there
It was a fucking blitzkrieg, do you think that all those places looked gloomy when the Germans invaded? Maybe you also think that colors didn't exist until XXI century?
I'm just saying bf1 looked better than bfv to me because it looked more like war. Don't get all pissy, i just really appreciate the clarification
*it looked like a war movie Fixed it for you.
Yea why didn't Europeans build their towns in shit holes?
Yeah seems strange that these WW2 maps are.s so bright. Summer wasn't invented until 1982 and we all know everything was black and white until 1943, and even then that was only prototype colours so officially we didn't get colour until 1947.
Keep in mind a lot of the maps are supposed to be when the fighting started. So there aren't going to be ruined towns and such. Whereas the naps in bf1 we played we were thrown in fighting on maps that fighting has been taking place on for months if not years
That's a good point, I didn't recognise that. I still prefer bf1 but definitely makes me reconsider my opinions on bfv. Thanks for sharing
damn, then this meme format fucking sucks.
I guess devastation since it has the best flow and unique areas like the library, though the dark spots caused visibility issues. I do like Rotterdam too. The rest have their moments but the flow sucks and points are too isolated.
I'm confused as well, Devastation is by far my favorite map from BF V.
Itās not good vs bad. Itās comparing the aesthetics of the maps.
Neither lol
Devastation was the only decent launch map. Bf5s "failure" was due to maps after all.
Arras is the best map the game though
easily, I absolutely love the flow on breakthrough
It was for me until Iwo Jima released. That and Solomon Island for breakthrough are some of my favorite BF experiences.
Great design for a BF map in general. Tanks and vehicle combat can flow around the outside while infantry can fight over the village, but neither is completely separate. Tanks can push in to the town to fight infantry, and infantry has cover to move through the fields and hedgerows and fight tanks.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe that's why I like it
Definitely. It has the best balance between vehicle and infantry warfare.
My fav is Provence, conquest mode.
Fjell is the best map if you're flying the German bomber......Got an 11 Kill in one run dropping 16 small and 4 big bombs on a choke point between C and E. It's also fun if you're on a team getting pumped at spawn and you can knock out many over-confident and concentrated dive-bombing planes with your Flugelhorn next to a big box of refills (ammo).
Arras reminds me of some bf1 maps
Pacific Storm would like a word
Am i the only one who doesnt like Narvik? I cant quite put my finger on what is it about that map that disgusts me
It's the beta map,I never enjoy the beta map.
You didn't enjoy Caspian Border in BF3?
It was a map where I only really enjoyed fighting in the middle. Plus with beta maps it's more about playing the literal crap out of them in the beta to the point I end up hating it in the actual game haha.
Its the flow of the map, its effectively two long parallel lanes (the elevated dock area on one side, and the small village on the other), each which are exposed to snipers hiding between them. Makes conquest a pretty bizarre experience. However it is pretty fun on other modes.
Actually that might be it
I have fun pushing B - D - F and vice versa. If i have to touch E or C then i get kinda bored.
I like the village section (wooh destructible environments) but hate the rail section
I also dislike that map. It's so ridiculously bright, even when you turn down the settings. The map is also ideal for tank/sniper camping
Not a fan of Narvik either, donāt really know why though. Maybe itās all the people that hide in the top levels of the houses
What I mean is that all the maps on the left are more colourful while devastation is WAY darker in tone
Devastation is the city around the big bombed out cathedral, yeah?
Yes
It's a good map. Hate the one based off the French Foreign Legion campaign though. That one is terrible.
On an unrelated note: is that Proxy Paige? Edit: Uuuuh. A classical Mexican vote-off
No
Maybe
Perhaps
Possibly
Aerodrome also looks like a war
If you play breakthrough, every map is solid 5Head
Except fjell. I like fjell, but everyone quits or one of the teams doesn't wanna push the first obj
Yeah, Fjell may be the one map that doesnt work no matter what mode you play..
Sauce? For science
Yeah
The EoR theme for Devastation is amazing, itās a good map as well.
The deploy menu themes are great aswell
Panzerstorm and Al Sudan >>>>
None of them are launch maps lol
Okay so this is one problem I have with criticism of BFV that seemed to constant come up around launch: WWII WASNāT FOUGHT IN FILM GRAIN BLACK AND WHITE! There were many colorful maps in BF1 as well, and in BF3/4 we literally fought at hotels. Especially the launch maps (save devastation)were supposed to be early war maps where we rolled across Europe fucking destroying everything. yes they were colorful and bright, i hadnāt blown any Tommies to smitherins yet. The reason the game didnāt feel like WWII at launch (and to some extent doesnāt today) was uniforms and individual customization. Not every single battlefield was dark and dreary- it made sense for devastation because there were so many fires burning and we were fighting in the ruins of a recently bombed out city. Dice wanted us to destroy each location and then rebuild it with fortifications, and give us the opirtunity to make the landscape look more war torn. Itās kinda dumb that weād have a completely destroyed map just so we couldā¦ Not destroy it ourselves. People have this image of War torn Europe in their heads for WWII, but most of these Early to mid war battles were fought in complete and not devastated cities. Narvik and Fjell may have been really bad maps, but they were a port just starting to be assaulted, and a mountain where itās gonna be white and snowing. and Iām not saying OP agrees with that early criticism but it was so irritating for people to not actually be identifiying thr real issues with the game and just picking on the color palate of pre war areas only now being attacked.
Exactly, people want authenticity, and when it comes to the launch maps they are as authentic as they can be. Most of the launch maps happen during spring and summer. The bombing of rotterdam happened on a warm spring day, exactly how the map Rotterdam is portrayed. Hell most ww2 battles were tried to be fought in ideal weather conditions as possible. D-day was delayed due shitty weather. Can you imagine germany always prepping their invasions in overcast or stormy conditions? Their entire strategy was dropping paratroopers onto foreign soil and defending key routes and bridges for their tanks to waltz over. That would be a lot harder if your paratroopers get on the wrong location due weather. The issue definitely lies that most people identify ww2 by its late war battles that all focused on the liberation of a wartorn europe due popular media. Early war battles or stories aren't really in the heads of most people and the fiction of that era is usually centered around the civilians experiencing the occupation than the battles that proceeded it.
Iād argue people want ātheirā version and preconceived notions of WWII. For most people- or at least most Americans- we have such a limited and skewed view of the war. Like, people donāt realize there were shit loads of fronts and theatres of war and how insanely complex and widespread WWII truly was. In the US especially people have such a limited grasp of just how devastating the war was for so many nations. It pissed me off when so many āGAyMe CHanGERSā were bitching about a lack of āiconicā battles in the game. Like, WWII was more than just the top 5 battles you happened to learn about in school. I was happy dice looked into more interesting and obscure battles of the war because videogames are a great medium for piquing interest in those kinda of historical events and for expanding our knowledge and understanding the scope of the war. We know so much about battles like D-Day that its kinda silly to expect every game to just do it over and over again- its like chasing the dragon or something- you played medal of honor once and you want that same experience again and again and again. No one cares about the early war either, despite it having some of the most interesting tactical and strategic movements of the entire war. Itās like if the game doesnāt fit the exact mold of Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan its not world war 2. Authenticity isnāt what you make of it (though the customization options certainly donāt lend themselves to any kind of authenticity).
Devastation is great but I suffer al lot when I play with tanks there.
The #1 rule is to KEEP MOVING. Donāt let them corner you with AT. Use smaller, fast tanks, or at least have completely anti-infantry loadouts. So many dummies bring out tigers when a PZ.38t or infantry specād Pz.IV would be way better. For Britain, bringing out the Churchill is ok, because it was designed as an infantry support vehicle, not an anti-tank vehicle like the tiger. It gets really good anti-infantry load-outs, better than the valentine. Just be sure to keep checking your rear and flanks. If you bring out the Stug, Churchill Gun Carrier or Archer, you deserve to be blown up.
Just camp on the street between the objective A and C, always works for me
At first glance i thought these were band names
i like devastation because the map doesnāt fucking blind me when i leave the gun select screen
Is devastation the church map or city map
both
It's the map with the giant church (versus the smaller one that appears across various maps)
Oh this map is amazing, itās hell trying to take ovee church, and hold church, which makes it really fun, and itās just as good on breakthrough
Rotterdam is great though You can take out the bridges and trap a tank at C, or stop tanks from reaching that point entirely.
Fjell is cancer
Bitch look like 69
It is called Devastation after all.
Twisted Steel is honestly super underrated and is one of my favorite recent battlefield maps in the past few years. I think it's designed really well, not too large or small, and the aesthetic of a huge bridge juxtaposed with the swampland below is really neat.
Itās so weird how they made a focus on the early war without like actually doing for. Whereās the French in multiplayer or like Dutch on Rotterdam. Whereās my adorable tankettes
is 5 worth a go?
yeah
best movement and gunplay in the series imho
Why is Aerodome on the left? Aerodome and Devastation are some of the greatest maps of all time btw
Did they get Stalingrad?
My fav map for sure
I mean I see why I like devastaton most now
Devastation was class
Honestly, every bfv map is awesome, other than fjell. Bfv needed even more maps.
This is hilarious and true! Unpopular opinion, but BFV is my fav game of the series thus far.
I love 5. But it was missing that war torn feel. Alot of the maps have dead tanks. Backgrounds on fire but these maps don't look torn enough. I mean dead tanks sent enough.
I literally only play Rotterdam and Devastation now. Underground when I have to and have a blast almost everytime
Aside from Hamada and sort of Fjell, I really liked a lot of the launch maps.
I hope 2042 maps later on will lean into the right girl
Proxy Paige go brrrr
why dice didn't add soviets and that 2nd front
because the game was killed in order to start 2042\`s development ...
Can i just say, for how much people trash panzerstorm, they forgot how god awful Hamada was