http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ps3-beta-battlefield-bad/59323

At 00:36, a tank destroys the building leading to objective A to be automatically destroyed. This will cause a real disadvantage in MP. All players will have to do is shoot the hell out of the building from a distance with explosives and when the building gives the objective is taken.

I suggest either the building CAN'T be destroyed (with 2.0 destruction) until the objective is taken or the building falls on the objective and now the team trying to take the objective crate has just made it harder for themselves since they have to scatter the rubble to get to the objective.

We did the same thing in BFBC1 if the crate was exposed. Why waste tickets trying to plant a charge when you can take the crate out from a safe distance with RPGs or tank shells? The defenders can just destroy the tank, unless they forgot that this isn't CoD and didn't bother to get anti-tank weapons or use their own vehicles.

Takes way longer for a tank to take down a building than it does to plant the charge. If you fight a team dumb enough to let your tanks sit at a distance and slowly destroy their building, then they probably can't defend the crate competently. Either way, you doing things the hard way.

ps3.PugHua wrote:Takes way longer for a tank to take down a building than it does to plant the charge. If you fight a team dumb enough to let your tanks sit at a distance and slowly destroy their building, then they probably can't defend the crate competently. Either way, you doing things the hard way.

These are good points but I feel it would be best if they had to be planted.

Crate itself can't be destroyed by tank/rpg/c4. For example the only way to destroy the crate in a bus is to plant a charge. Not every crate is in the building, but if it is - then you can destroy it with building. Which, btw, is pretty cool, and isn't unfair cause it takes some time, and if Defenders are smart they can easily stop tanks.

thats right they can destroy the tanks. if you HAD to come and plant charges then that could promote camping to stop the attackers but with 2 ways you can have two or more tactics either way.

cem_ea_id.soullessknights wrote:

ps3.PugHua wrote:Takes way longer for a tank to take down a building than it does to plant the charge. If you fight a team dumb enough to let your tanks sit at a distance and slowly destroy their building, then they probably can't defend the crate competently. Either way, you doing things the hard way.

These are good points but I feel it would be best if they had to be planted.

Then you're TERRIBLE at bad company play style.

Like someone mentioned, in the first we just shelled crates til they blew, easier that way honestly. This way lends itself to better strategy though. As attackers, me and my buddies usually plant c4 all in the building with A (first points) get a tank to shell a few walls, then blow the C4, usually takes it down quick.

There are plenty of buildings that CAN NOT under any circumstance, be taken down. You can remove the roof, walls, etc but the support structure is still there. There are several crate in buildings like these, which assures you can't blow up all the buildings to get the crates.

I find it effective strategy against a team who is poor at defending.. We held a round - Defending (got to 2nd to last crate).. and took 45 minutes to win.. It was hard for the attackers.. well organised def.

We held them in the town with some engineers keeping their tanks well back, snipers pinning down their infantry.. and assault sqauds in strategy flaning postitions.. (they kept funnelling up the middle).. they planted once or twice, but it was only a single guy, 2 assalt guys cleaned them up.. If you hold your defence well, and dont let them near the buidlings your fine... Its about working together, repairing your gear.. respawning on your squad mates..

That said.. the first objective is reasonably easy to take.. the 2nd is harder in the town.. 3rd seems hardest.. (the one in the bus).. the 4th and 5th give the attackers more cover so when you get there its a * fight.

It was the same in BC1. I like it, it provides multiple ways to attack and multiple ways to defend. It takes a long time to blow up a crate anyways. It's not very likely a tank can just sit there shooting crates for two long until someone on the defending team takes them out.

I like to have some squad members go in on foot to try to plant the charges and someone else will sit in a tank over looking it to provide cover. This way you can both plant the charge, provide good cover and probably get some extra kills, and still do damage to the crate if the charge does get defused.

xbox.Label07 wrote:http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ps3-beta-battlefield-bad/59323

At 00:36, a tank destroys the building leading to objective A to be automatically destroyed. This will cause a real disadvantage in MP. All players will have to do is shoot the hell out of the building from a distance with explosives and when the building gives the objective is taken.

I suggest either the building CAN'T be destroyed (with 2.0 destruction) until the objective is taken ...

That was the point of Destruction 2.0! On Arica Harbor, this strategy only works for one objective in the first base, and both objectives in the second base...the rest of the objectives you have to plant a charge.

I don't think it should be changed, it adds an element of realism to it.

so you were on a bad team and had a bad couple of games, it happens. but this is what makes the bad company and battlefield series in genreal so much fun because every battle is different from the others.