Bandage Pouch vs the Medical Crate Battlefield 1

Many wonder what the difference between the Bandage Pouch and the Medical Crate is in Battlefield 1.  At first it would seem that the med crate must be better because you have to pay for it with war bonds in BF1 and gain XP to unlock it in BF4.  I would argue that for most situations the bandage pouch is better than the med crate, while both have their plusses and minuses.   

The med pouches are great because they can heal you and your teammates on the run, you don’t have to wait until you have some place to hide and wait for the crate to do its work.  As soon as you walk over a med pouch it you sort of it up and begin healing.  Now you can run to new cover or new objective and heal all the way.  If you are out in the open and get shot, toss a bandage pouch in front of you and begin healing on the run.  If you take any amount a damage the healing process will halt and you’ll have to throw a new pouch.  Likewise on the run you can toss a bandage pouch to your teammates and they can heal on the run or in cover if they choose.  All you have to do is point the cross hair at your team mate and hit the spot button or what every key or button you are using for that accessory.  The pouch will go flying a considerable distance to hit the teammate.  One of the problems using the med pouch is that you throw it, so if you want to use it, you have to run after it, or toss it up against a wall, so it will drop at your feet. 

Hiding by a medical crate to heal myself in Battlefield 1

The medical crate is great because it can heal yourself and other teammates with the push of one button, but you have to hang around the med crate and order to do that and that isn’t always a safe place to be.  If grenades are being thrown nearby they can destroy the crate as well.   The med crate is great for healing lots of teammates at choke points like the canyons in the Argonne Forest or one of the fortresses, the crate is also good if you are traveling around in a group and capturing a flag and everyone has to stand nearby anyway.   Dropping the med crate in these situations is also a great way to get lots of XP in the game, just be sure to check every now and then to make sure it hasn’t been destroyed by grenade spam.  Unlike the bandage pouch the med crate won’t heal you if you are being suppressed. 

I find the bandage pouch much more flexible than the crate, so I almost always run with them vs the crate.  The same goes for the ammo pouch when playing support, although it isn’t as crucial when playing that class.  Everyone has their own play style so the crate may be better suited to you while playing the medic class in Battlefield 1, but if you haven’t used the pouch in the while, you may want to revisit. 

Bad Battlefield 1 Weapon Balance?

More details about Battlefield 1 continue to trickle in after the official announcement and trailer made their debut a few days ago.  One of the details that has come down has me a little concerned from a historical perspective rather than gameplay, and that is lack of information about bolt action rifles.  We know that there will be bolt action sniper rifles with telescopic optics, and those were certainly commonly used on the front lines of WW I.  However, there is no other mention of them in all the talk that I have heard on YouTube and read.  Bolt action rifles with open iron sights were more frequent than any other type of infantry weapon.  I would imagine that 99% of the primary weapons in the Great War were of this type.  Yet I have heard that the classes will work this way.

1. Medic - Semi-automatic rifle
2. Assault - Submachine guns
3. Support - Light Machine Guns
4. Scout (recon BF4) - Scoped bolt action rifles

• Semiautomatic rifles in WW I were very scarce as well because of their complexity and unreliability.
• In World War One the submachine gun (smg) was in its infancy and saw very little use on the battlefield.  The standard infantry rifle of the German army, the Gewehr 98 (G98, M98) had a production run of 5,000,000 1898-1918 (note: many were contracted to other countries).  In contrast the MP18 submachine gun did not reach full production until 1918 and only about 5,000 were produced, and saw action at the very end of the war. 

• The light machine gun (lmg) like the British Vickers gun would be very difficult to impossible use standing up against the shoulder for any period of time because its minimum weight was 33 lbs (15 kg)  Today the M60 machinegun is bad enough and weighs in at 23 lbs (10.5 kg). 

• Scoped Sniper Rifles were uncommon, but not rare, and very similar to their modern counterparts

• There was also mention of shotguns, which were uncommon compared to long rifles, but that doesn't trouble me. 

The No. 1 MK III Lee Enfield bolt action rifle was the main
infantry weapon of the British Army in World War I.

Because of the lack of discussion of bolt action rifles I'm worried that the historical infantry weapon balance will be way off.  I now this all speculation at this point, but I'm still concerned. What Dice may end up creating is an elite group of soldiers set in 1918.  I think that would be too bad from a historical, but it still can make a fantastic game.   For instance, in BF4 the number of aircraft and armor to the number of infantry is completely wrong, and it is an amazing game.  As primarily an infantry player I would like to see the number reduce, but I am satisfied with the current gameplay. 

I can see why DICE may have reduced the bolt actions role in the game.  Turn bolts are harder to use because of their low rate of fire.  To be successful against any enemy your aim as well as you tactics must be very good.  The big old clunky guns are less sexy then the massive firepower of the lmg, or somewhat steampunk looking smgs.  For those that decide to use a Mauser 98 or a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk3 I hope they do an incredible amount of damage to make up for their slow fire rates.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plays out in the reality of the game.  DICE just have made the bolt action rifle a side note compared to all the other rifles because they are less cool.  I like the big old long guns a great deal, but on the video game battlefield they wouldn't be my first choice.

Production numbers were taken from Wikipedia.  My professors would not be proud...

Amazing Response to Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty Infinite Warfare

Battlefield 1

It hasn't even been a full four days since the unveiling of the Battlefield 1 trailer, and the response has been overwhelming positive, and the opposite has been true for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.  Will the game live up to the hype - time will tell. 


Battlefield 1 Trailer May 6- May 9

Views 19,500,000
Thumbs up 1,000,000
Thumbs down 19,000
Trailer length: 1 minute 19 seconds

Holy shit that positive reaction is amazing

Call of Duty Infinite Warfare  May 2 - May 9

Views 14,100,000
Thumbs up 260,000
Thumbs down 1,200,000
Trailer Length 3 minutes 24 seconds

Holy shit that negative reaction is amazing

Call of Duty screenshot - spaceships?

I really can't believe the response to either of these.  Now I like COD games overall, but there are many things I don't like.  I thought the trailer told an interesting story, and it looks like they could pull off an engaging campaign.  However, I have absolutely no idea what the single player and multiplayer game is going to look like, because it looks like such a departure for the series.  Therefore the trailer gets a thumbs down from me.  The COD trailer also features the David Bowie song Space Oddity, which just like the trailer tells a story, but a mellow song, no matter how good it is, is a very bad choice to introduce a first person shooter game to the world.  I could see it as a follow up to emphasize the tone of the campaign though.   

I think what fans are really rebelling against is the setting of the game.  Gamers are growing tired of future settings, many even want to see a return to the past.  COD is leaving the ground and its roots, which is completely new for the franchise.  In the end the actual game may actually gain a following, but it is off to a very rocky start.  The only thing that may save it, is its connection to remastered COD 4, which both delighting and annoying fans. 

The Battlefield 1 trailer also suffers from the same vagueness, but it is incredibly action packed, features a well done mix of the White Stripes' Seven Nation Army, shows the absolute brutality of WW I, and amazing action sequences.   It is also short, leaves your mouth wide open and stimulates the imagination. 

Since WW I has become a rather obscure piece of history in the United States it was a difficult feat to get this much interest.   So far the developers could not have done better.  Dice and EA still have their work cut out for them to produce a great game that is well balanced and fun to play. 

Battlefield 1 will have an open beta before release, and it will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the real game and if it will translate into amazing sales.  The Battlefield series of games has done well, but COD has had more appeal to the masses, could there be a new king of the fps?