Hi, I've been giving this a thought.
As good as the current CT maps are, such as Fin-Rus maps or Okinawa, Tunisia and etc.. I'm starting to think that they are perhaps still way too large for a CT map.
I'm not sure if everybody would agree, but I personally think that it's safe to assume that
the people of CT has at one point another, reached a certain consensus on how CT strats or objectives should be.
We have tried most anything possible to influence the
"strategic" aspect of CT - implanting 'mission objectives', limiting dar, limiting icons and etc etc. - but the end result seems to suggest that the current CT, one way or another, should be an arena of intense fighter combat with a more significant historical aura.
I do not mean to say that everybody thinks so. There can be many different opinions. For instance, I personally think that if we had decisively more numerous numbers in CT(around 100~150 regular), we could be able to make it something like a player-organized AH2:TOD. Others, however, may not think the same and have their own way of enjoying the CT.
However, despite the difference of opinions, a
consensus exists on how the
CT currently is, and precisely under such conditions,
how the CT should be:
* small numbers of people means certain aspects have to be (with deep sorrow, I'm afraid) abandoned or pushed to a degree of less importance..
* small numbers, but enthusiastic regular participators, probably means that the CT experience can be more tightly optimized into a smaller area.
* obviously, with numbers ranging from 30~60 people in prime time, these people will not 'fit in' to a 250x250 miles, 10x10 square area map.
* the small numbers, should mean the current status of CT combat, in a nutshell, can be optimized into many people packed up in a smaller square of area.
Take the sample of the Fin-Rus maps. From what we see in the clipboard map alone, it is a 250x250 miles, 10x10 square area map, with the western end starting from Stockholm, Sweden, to the eastern end of Velsk, Russia. The southern most point starts from Luga, Russia, and expands north towards Berlevag, Norway.
This, is a very beautiful map, but it is quite vast. In a one week time-span, the area of use people use in this map, is limited to a 50x50 miles, 2x2 square area of the Gulf of finland. That, is merely 4% of the total map. 96% of the map itself, is never seen, unless people have some reason to do the "Flight Simulator" impression and go flying for themselves offline. Most maps, aren't much different.
What we have seen, that makes people frown, is a handful of people spread along in such a huge area. This is where the "milkrun" accusations start from. Also, the 'combat avoidance' starts along these lines, where each party flies into sectors where there are few enemies present, such as all the Axis fighting in northern sectors and vulching one field, while all the Allied fighting in southern sectors and vulching another field. They accuse each other of being 'milk runners' and 'cherry pickers', when they are doing the same things themselves.
Also, the strategic conquest is clearly not a goal in the CT, and people frown on the fact that some people bring the same - suicidal pork + land grab MA mentality into the CT.
Some historical arenas, where ground forces were not of much historical importance, are warped, as GVs are vastly overused, especially in the cases where one side has a superior ground vehicle.
So what I suggest is this:
1) For the example of Fin-Rus map, the current Fin-Rus map is built with a sort of "MA mentality" - large maps, complete with vehicle spaws and numerous amount of bases. Considering the effort put into the fantastic, large map, not only is it limited in effect, but also inefficient and time consuming for map builders.
2) Therefore, for CT purposes, a map with specific CT mentality should built, not depicting the
WHOLE theater, but limited parts of the theater, a specific battleground, where small number of people can participate without any awkwardness, and can be optimized into a small space, without being spread apart.
For instance, this is what I'm looking at:
This, is my suggested overview of the entire CT: Fin-Rus area. It is a very small space, 3x3 square area. If the space is smaller, kanttori's "squad defense concept" can be organized and implemented in a much more efficient way even with smaller number of people with different time zones. In this 3x3 area, the Finnish side will be defended by the LLv34 divided into two parts, while the attacking VVS side can be designated into 3GIAP and 191AP.
Even if kanttori's idea is not implemented, a smaller map has certain advantages:
1) It looks small. People may laugh about it for a while. However, as stated above, if you really come to think of it, only an average of 5~10% area of CT terrain is actually used. Thus, smaller maps have a shorter build time with less time consumption from the map makers.
2) The area is smaller, therefore, much more detail can be put into the map for better immersion. Considering all the buildings, villages, 3D objects that are loaded with the map, that are never seen anyways, a smaller map will have a chance to become more detailed.
3) Smaller aspects, such as GV spawns, maybe bomber air-spawns, even, can be implemented with greater efficiency and optimization. The number of all the spawn points will be limited than before, however, this will mean the area where bombers and GVs spawn, will not be somewhere outside of the main battle.
4) The strats, or capture aspect, can be turned off or severely limited. Since there will be fewer fields on both sides, it will be easier to pork the bases and try a MA style capture. Therefore, this, should be looked into.. and perhaps with a smaller map, the map makers may be able to come up with more clever designs to prevent easy captures(for instance, Fester's implementation of tying towns to VHs, was very clever).
...
So, with this smaller map, the CT will be called "The Gulf of Finland", instead of the whole "Continuation War". The CT, with series of these small maps, may be able to depict a series of actions in accordance with the historical war, even with smaller numbers of people. (Maybe, for instance, if we start a Eastern Front setup, there could be a series of small maps rotating in a 1-week term, starting from outskirts of Poland, evolving into the area near Smolensk, the Battle of Leningrad, the Stalingrad, Kursk, and etc etc.. that would be five maps needed, but the total size of those five maps, would be equal to a one, large map.)
Anyhow, smaller maps, can't be worse than large ones. A CT needs a CT specific map. Okinawa or FinRus, is not one of them. Simply too large, and too much effort and time gone into waste.
Smaller maps, more compact area of battle, more people packed into tighter squares, and more detail and depictures put into the terrains for better immersion. That's what I'm getting at.
