Quote Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle View Post
No, commander was used frequently and many servers employed rules to have the commander to be non combative because of it. So we won't agree there as many liked to multitask the role. But that does not mean that commander wasn't used. As for complexity? That's a complete joke and you know it. The only way that commander was complex is if you never used it. Lets see what you did as commander:
-look at birdseye view of the battlefield
-give orders
-spot enemies in the flanks/scan when needed
-give supply drops and later on vehicles
-artillery (which was disabled in some servers)
-provide uav
-provide assistance when asked by squad leaders
See the trend? LOL, yeah that was complex. Perhaps the number of things you could do as commander was some how "complex" .


As for what is actually planned for squads I will wait and see what is revealed because I'm a particular for details. But if it's anything like BC2 (which I believe it will be) it will be a complete mess with 64 players.
BF3 update BF2.
same as BF2 update BF1942.
huge updates in gameplay not like cod or mw series which basically is the same.

and it wont be like BC2, just that they used that game for fieldtesting.
I have more fun with BC2 in spite of the bugs and noobs than with Bf2 or bf1942.
hardware gonna get pounded even with dx10/11 and optimizations.
finnaly.

Games have advanced to be smaller with a higher degree of dynamic gameplay.
the commander dosnt fit there.
The time I played and had a commander who knew what they did, was rare.
and besides, if the other side didnt have a good one, they lost.
unbalanced complex issues plaqued that role.

Moving utility to the squad, make them able to support their advance and field, makes it more dynamic and can turn the tide in the battle.
war is a lot about locating the enemy and choose tactical element.