While I'm not entirely critical of the game - for while it is not perfect it is certainly still playable if not attractive - there are a few aspects of the game that I find may be the center of concern for me. I am thoroughly grateful for the maps that are introduced into the game, as it keeps the gameplay fresh, but many of them share a particular trait that I find not entirely sound in balance. Single, large buildings that are difficult to destroy and pose serious advantages against the opponents. While late game counters will eventually remove this concern, many of the early games are determined by the factor of who makes it first to the key buildings. Large churches, fairly large office buildings, industrial warehouses, they all can house many windows and provide considerable protection for squads inside.
I'm with the opinion that early game engagements would be more dynamic if the influence of buildings are tweaked to be less potent, then I am sure it would no longer be a game of garrison.
Suggestion A: Larger buildings remain just as they are, but with only one or two sides available for use. This way flanking is not a terrible (and often futile) chore and players don't rely entirely on indirect fire and support to be able to get things done.
Suggestion B: Large buildings should be placed away from frontlines where most firefights occur. Smaller buildings with lesser protection should be there instead so as to still keep the option of early protection there, but without an incredible amount of survivability. This will indirectly promote frontline defense buildings that are available to all faction (sandbags, trenches, bunkers). The larger buildings will instead stand as a safe bastion that can be a point of a "final line" which melds well with avoiding a total snowballing victory.
Now I am doubtful that the developers would notice this game, so my concern is more so just curious about what the community feel on the matter.
0
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
