Battlefield 3: Global Conflict

[Starfisher]

Hey all,

I've been playing in an organized BF3 battle series for a few months now. I've mentioned it a few times but haven't tried to promote it here, because, well, I'm lazy as hell. Anyway.

The last campaign ended, and the new one is about to begin. If you want to join in, you can sign up for their draft and get placed into one of the two armies. I played with both generals last campaign and they're both pretty nice guys.

Here's some general information organized into a wiki. It can be a bit dense to get through initially, but the basics are thus:

1) The basic structure of the game is Risk like. There is a global map with territories either neutral or held by each army.
2) Each Saturday, one army has initiative and can make attacks. They can continue attacking as long as they win. The defending army gets to choose their side on the designated map as a defender's advantage. Rounds on a map are best 2 out of 3, unless one side uses reinforcements (there's a lot of extra detail here I'm leaving out for simplicity).
3) The goal is to get your army's territory up to 75% of the entire world map and hold it through the next weekend (the next attack by the other army).

Each of these Saturdays is called a "battleday" (you'll see this mentioned everywhere). They go from roughly 1pm EST to 6-7pm EST. You do not have to play the whole day, and it's important to note that GC is pretty heavily international, with probably an even balance between US and EU players.

Last campaign, there were enough people initially to fill two whole servers. Eventually that got whittled down to enough for one server (32v32 of course). Each army is responsible for organizing itself in game and in TS. It's pretty involved and the only thing I can really compare it to is a decently sized paintball scenario.

It's a BLAST once you get acclimated. Teams tend to be very well organized and this results in a lot of teamplay that you just don't see pubbing.

Here's the signup thread/information if any of you are interested: http://www.global-conflict.org/viewt...?f=168&t=18492

[sporty]

Could you describe the gameplay differences in more detail, please? What's gained, what's lost compared to public play?
Personally, I really enjoy the frantic chaos of public Conquest (even though I prefer medium sized servers nowadays), this sounds like it occupies a spot between full-blown public play and small-sized clan matches. I'm intrigued

[Brenil]

I was in GC way back when it started for Battlefield 1942. I haven't been a part of it for quite some time, but I assume it still follows the same format, so...

Could you describe the gameplay differences in more detail, please? What's gained, what's lost compared to public play?

It's nothing like public play. Everyone on both sides are on voice chat, regimented into squads with squad leaders who follow a chain of command up to high command which is usually a general and his staff. The general gives out orders to his squad leaders, who in turn give out orders to their squad members. In practical terms, this means it isn't like a clan match in that you have a few guys sticking together and practicing adnasuea, you have people of different skill levels and abilities working together to complete an objective the entire squad is assigned to. To add to this, each side has 'army practice' where people plan their coordination and the high command lays out their battle plan for the up coming battle day. They'll assign duties, explore the maps being fought over, and generally practice all manner of practical approaches and drills that will prepare the 'army' for the battle. Ontop of this, each squad usually (or used to) have their own practice days where they practice on their particular squad roles and work on their teamwork.

Then there's how each squad functions. When I played in GC, the squad layouts usually consisted of an assault squad, a reaction/defensive squad, artillery/defensive squad, air force, and special forces squads. The assault squad members would focus on working together at taking points and are usually assigned offensive based equipment (tanks, for example) and how best to utilize them. The defensive squad usually consisted of drilling its members how to best defend points taken by the assault squad and occasionally being drawn into supporting the assault squad where necessary. The artillery/defensive squad was usually held by high command members and specialists who used special equipment (Self-propelled artillery, for example) and focused on holding vital, yet less frontline, areas while commanding the battle via voice chat. The air force, obviously, flew all the aircraft and manned AA assets in the base, if necessary. Lastly, special forces would work on disrupting the enemy behind the lines, usually by sabotaging equipment, backcapping, or 'assassinating' high command in order to take their focus off controlling the battle and not dying constantly.

In short, each battle plays out like its name sake. Every player has a squad, a role (some have to be tried out for, like pilots, for example), and a rank. Every player follows the chain of command and only players who are assigned equipment can use certain vehicles. It's all very regimented and if you've never played anything like it, you'll be somewhat aghast at playing with pubbies ever again after trying it.

I miss GC, but there is a bit of a time commitment involved and it's hard to top Battlefield 1942's organized battles and I don't see how Battlefield 3 could come close.

P.S.

Starfisher, I'm curious, do they still have Flight School?