Author Topic: when I build my next main arena what should I keep/discard/add (Read 3262 times)

Citabria · « **Reply #15 on:** November 16, 2003, 02:05:35 PM »

i think thats the best compromise for next map and even when i rebuild my first map for ah2.

for festerma i will most likely keep the middle section (furball area) the way it is but will change the other zones and make them more distant.

I like fast furballs but I like longer missions too and I want to choose at will between the two on the same map at any given time.

seems best way to do that is with longer fligth times on the coastal zones and hq area.

qts · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2003, 02:21:34 PM »

One of the things all mapmakers should consider is the natural advantage that the northern (to a greater extent) and western (to a lesser extent) countries seem to have on the larger maps. It's particularly noticable on Trinity - and Uterus and Baltic, though smaller maps - and Pizza tends to this. How to correct this bias, I do not know, unless it's possible to have the whole map gradually rotate as if the centre of the map were the North Pole. That might be interesting, for you trade 24 hr sun for frequent bad weather (consider restricted planesets and landing in a white-out on skis).

I would like to see many more factories on larger maps. But instead of having a multitude of factories linked to one key field - Pizza is very bad at this - which leads to milkrunning way behind the front, have only a few factories, maybe even just one in certain cases, linked to a nearby field.

I dislike the constant canyons of Pizza.

I'll wait until I see how AH2 models field fuel before passing judgement on the distance between fields save to say that scjazz has a good point about bomber raids and radar.

N8dog has a good idea, but I think that these should not just be at the rear but dotted throughout, which would make the map more strategic. Having some Table Mountains around might be fun.

Have shore batteries inland - think pillboxes - covering likely ground attack routes.

Multiple 163 bases.

Replicant · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2003, 02:46:28 PM »

Any way of incorporating multiple terrain tiles? e.g. centre of map is desert, next area outward is a browny green, then lush green, then furthest out is snow covered. Be nice to be able to fly over different ground colours.

Grizzly · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2003, 03:07:40 PM »

One of my many peeves is the inablity to defend towns at bases on some maps. The towns are too far away from the field, or at such a different elevation they can't be seen from the field. Some hidden towns have enemy spawn points located just beyond them so GVs can destroy the town and take the base without anyone knowing about it. Air defense isn't affective when these fields are nearly vacant, and an understaffed country doesn't have the resources to protect them all by air. The result is a series of sneak attacks, such as that which the Pizza map is famous for. If you want a game to be based upon land grabbing, you should provide the means to defend them.

More manned ack that's harder to kill.

Manned ack in or near towns such as you set up next to VH bases.

Friendly spawn points to some towns located remote to the base.

I think strat targets should be located in the rear of countries. This adds incentive to move the battle line toward the rear. This makes it more necessary to plan bombing missions instead of pesky repetative individual attacks. If the strat targets were located nearer to the front lines, the Knights would never have DAR.

Locate more defenses at strat targets. Your spawn points are great. Now add some manned ack there too.

Close and chained fields are great. but these can be alternated with more distant bases, especially towards the rear.

Give shore guns a greater range of cover. Allow them to be used for defense against GVs and landing craft also... great fun for the gunner then.

As it is now, bases have little or no defense against the hordes. Once they deack and kill the VH, it's all over. If they want to capture bases, make them work for it.

grizzly

Rutilant · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2003, 03:30:56 PM »

I like the shore battery pill box thing.. as long as thier hardness is decreased i think it could work.

mos · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2003, 04:15:15 PM »

What I'd like to see is less emphasis on airfield targets (other than the hangars themselves), and more emphasis on strat targets. What I mean by that is that someone porking random bases shouldn't kill a country's front. Instead, maybe dropping all fuel tanks at a field means no plane can take off for 5 minutes. Perfect for a well-organized mission: drop the field and a couple surrounding fields, but drop those troops fast or you'll have a swarm on your hands.

Have several fuel/ammo/whatever factories that serve the same function current fuel/ammo/whatever tanks already do. As those factories are destroyed, the bases connected to them have less and less fuel/ammo/whatever available to them. That would make level-bombing (and dive-bombing dweeb lancasters, I suppose) a fun and useful sortie. As it stands, right now I don't notice if our cities and factories are leveled. It doesn't really affect my play.

Maybe change radar factories to radar bases with extended range, and remove the radar from fields themselves. (Have radar bases cover a two sector radius, that'll make them pretty important targets to furballers and strat guys alike.)

Hm. Re-reading the thread, I came across this:

Quote

for festerma i will most likely keep the middle section (furball area) the way it is but will change the other zones and make them more distant.

I like fast furballs but I like longer missions too and I want to choose at will between the two on the same map at any given time.

What if several of those "furball fields" are tied to an external field's town? If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you can still come up with ways to combine fields that share a single map room.

moot · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2003, 04:44:52 PM »

What Replicant said, snow please.

NoBaddy · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2003, 06:54:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by qts
One of the things all mapmakers should consider is the natural advantage that the northern (to a greater extent) and western (to a lesser extent) countries seem to have on the larger maps. It's particularly noticable on Trinity - and Uterus and Baltic, though smaller maps - and Pizza tends to this. How to correct this bias, I do not know, unless it's possible to have the whole map gradually rotate as if the centre of the map were the North Pole.

There were some "mistakes" made in field location that made the southeast country in Trintity more vunerable. When I added airfields, the SE country got medium fields, the other 2 countries got small. Unfortunately, the other problems (such as A1 being located in 3k pass in the mountain buffer zone) means that the new fields had little impact. I hope to address these issues when the map is redone for AH2.

Fester...

I would suggest that you look at improving the GV battles. Counter spawns can really make GV fights a lot more fun (it really is a great way to deal with spawn campers). With the setup you used, adding a few more spawns per GV field would greatly improve things.

sax · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2003, 06:56:29 PM »

Problem with having the coastal bases only better for strat is they gonna know your coming cause it's next in the conga line.

How about keeping the furball area a decent distance away so the coastal bases are reasonably safe from the furball horde but the center can still be used to launch buff raids to the coast---or vise versa , coastal bases could have decent distance to launch buffs into the center.

JB73 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2003, 07:08:34 PM »

not reading all these posts.... too drunk lol

i know my opinion is watermelon noone carse about it but IMHO:

NO airfields with a GV spawn to somewhere without that base being able to spawn back... IE 1 way spawns.

nothing in AH is more worthless IMHO than an airfield that has GV spawn ponits into it with ZERO outgoing spawn points.

why bother defending it..... they will just bring GV's instead of planes, or both.

if they can attack in a certain way you should be able to counter attack in the same way.

balance

i believe thats what you were looking for in the first map you made.

what i have stated above is the BIGGEST reason bigisles is a pain in the arse map. pretty much with all the "large" maps there is the same thing. look at the small maps. this is almost not prevelant.

side note this ONLY applies to AIRFIELDS. their VH is harder to kill than a viehicle base only. also they have airplanes to defend. IMHO a Vehicle base alone in the center of a bunch of bases SHOULD be able to spawn anywhere.... just not lone airfields.

oh well another lame thought by yours truly.

Octavius · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2003, 07:50:22 PM »

Throw in some new aircraft skins if at all possible

Many players have contributed excellent skins for Special Events. Why not throw some of those in?

If this next map is for AHII, then nevermind. Different skins will become available once approved by HTC.

Innominate · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2003, 08:14:12 PM »

keep the base distances!
Wider fronts would be nice.

The only thing I can think to complain about with festerma is the lack of interesting terrain at low levels. I feel rougher terrain makes things more interesting.

Swoop · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2003, 01:51:15 AM »

Can't be arsed to read the whole thread.
Dunno if it's been mentioned:

Shore Guns. We'd like some please.

Ya know that huge amount of sea that's completely unused? How bout some more islands? Not too close either, the rest of the map is nice and close together, lets have some not so close bases as well.

Furball · « **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:08:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB73

NO airfields with a GV spawn to somewhere without that base being able to spawn back... IE 1 way spawns.

nothing in AH is more worthless IMHO than an airfield that has GV spawn ponits into it with ZERO outgoing spawn points.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Ever seen Kanttori's excellent fin rus map? where the GV spawnpoints from each base spawn directly opposite eachother seperated by a small GV battlezone (similar to the middle bit of trinity but smaller with only 2 spawnpoints).

maybe you could consider bringing something like this to MA where the bases are seperated by a small battlezone such as this -would make attacking bases a whole lot more fun.

The area on FinRus map

My (crappy MS Paint) idea showing defensive/offensive GV
spawns.

gofaster · « **Reply #29 on:** November 17, 2003, 08:30:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
Ever seen Kanttori's excellent fin rus map? where the GV spawnpoints from each base spawn directly opposite eachother seperated by a small GV battlezone (similar to the middle bit of trinity but smaller with only 2 spawnpoints).

maybe you could consider bringing something like this to MA where the bases are seperated by a small battlezone such as this -would make attacking bases a whole lot more fun.

My (crappy MS Paint) idea showing defensive/offensive GV
spawns.

That's so crazy, it just might work!

One thing I like about FesterMa map is that there are factories along the GV base "alleyways". That's an idea that should be retained. With the overlapping spawnpoints, that idea would really be a lot of fun to try.

I also like the fact that, from launch to being directly over an enemy base, the altitude attained is approximately 10-12,000 feet in a Spitfire IX and P-51D.

I would suggest more ports, with a carrier port and battleship-only ports. And shore batteries. And PT boat spawn points.

Instead of open ocean, why not a Great Lakes style so that captured carriers can't be hidden so easily?