the mapper/level designer decides where the defenses go, not the players. He built the world you're running around in, so why don't you demand to be able to move houses or change terrain by will? Same thing.
these PR styled gimmicks are only that, gimmicks.. they dont add any depth or dynamics to Battlefield(tm). we can make all of them, and more, if we want... But we rather spend our time creating real experiences
end of story.
Almost all of FH2s maps don´t have any real defenses. Sure, there might be trenches and fortifications, but ingame they aren´t used as defensive positions for a great number of reasons.
I´d rather have those (how you mockingly call them)
gimmicks than useless "defensive" positions that might look nice but have no real value.
Since everyone knows where static cannons etc. and trenches are they´re pretty much useless. Combined with your "gods eye"-artillery the situation only gets worse.
Unlike FH2, PR offers much more freedom in that aspect. Players have their approximate objectives in the form of flag zones, but can decide for themselves to set up positions with machine guns, fox holes etc. wherever the current tactical situation needs them.
Also I can´t understand how you can say that PR-style deployments don´t add any depth? Have you actually played the latest version of PR? I´m sorry, but you just trumpet arrogant and hostile innuendos against PR just because you want FH2 to be a lame-ass copy of CoD or any other generic FPS...
Of course, PR might not be as pretty as FH2, but sometimes prettiness isn´t everything....and you can mock about PR as long as you want, its player numbers and the ever-growing community speak for itself.
About the poll:
I voted "yes", but I have to admit that currently these
gimmicks won´t work in FH2. It´s way too fast paced at the moment and fortifications would be overran by ridiculous clown car squads even before half of them would be built.