Battlefield

[rancidpunk]

At first I much preferred conquest, possibly as it seemed to be more of a points fest! Lately though, I've been enjoying Rush a lot more than I used to. It's nice to have a change every now and then, although I stil can't be bothered with any of the TDM options.

[Mike939]

I find rush can be more intense but it just isn't well balanced, it's even harder trying to find a match were both teams put up a fight than it is in conquest.

[InfiniteStates]

It depends what you're after I guess...

On one hand I like Rush because it focuses the action so you get intense fighting in known locations, with a generally known frontline with a definite friendly/enemy territory aspect to it. But then the downside is that the quality of your fun/experience/game/whatever is a lot more dependent on how well balanced the teams are, and how well people work as a team. It can get really frustrating running into arm an M-COM to find the guys you thought were coming in with you are just lying on a hill somewhere trying to shoot spawning defenders while you get cut down by the 4 guys camping your target objective.

Also, Rush doesn't lend itself well to less than full games - as the team sizes dwindle, it's pretty much a given that the attackers will win eventually. And some of the maps (the ones I think of as "CoD maps" - i.e. with little or no vehicles) really are not suited to Rush. It's a campy mode anyway, so when it's on a campy map the attackers either need to win very quickly or not at all.

But on the other hand I like conquest for a more relaxing experience. A few good players can carry an otherwise useless team. You can largely avoid firefights if you want. And you can earn a lot of points doing so (if the game is reasonably balanced).

But I'm undecided on which I prefer as my stats indicate (167 Rush ribbons vs 192 Conquest ribbons). Depends on the mood/needs of the moment...

[mistachicken]

JUST GOT MY 10 M-COM'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hurrah , back to conquest again!!!

what a pain in the bum that was , i got lucky and got 3 in one game , pure jam though!

cheers

[JimmyJumble]

Never enjoyed Rush, too much of a cluster-*****. Conquest, more flags the better as well.

[HickmanBCFC]

I'm a Rush man myself. It seems to be more realistic as you've only got the enemy in more or less 1 direction.

Conquest is too COD esqe where you've got people running around in all directions. It drives me mad.

[leggy1975]

---

HickmanBCFC wrote:

I'm a Rush man myself. It seems to be more realistic as you've only got the enemy in more or less 1 direction.

Conquest is too COD esqe where you've got people running around in all directions. It drives me mad.

---

Kudos just for your avatar

u from Bradford?

[HickmanBCFC]

Keighley mate.

[leggy1975]

---

HickmanBCFC wrote:

Keighley mate.

---

The Keighley Boyz are in the house

vwp

[nicolaischwartz]

---

mistachicken wrote:

i think some of us should  jsut accept we just aint gonna gets that silly arse weapon for arming 10 m-coms!! , i spent an hour last night just getting........wait for it............2 :-(

---

Are u serious? I armed 10 Mcom stations in about 3-4 rounds of attacking rush.
I dont see that many players going for the objective in Rush, and thats why (especially in rush) that you have to play with a squad you know!