Possibly so, but Kanttori has done well for the CT, I don't mind spending a week working this map. The plane set is a good one (altho' I think it would be a good idea to enable the G10 at more places...G6 is not competitive with the 9U); I just wish there were a way to persuade both sides not to cap bases.
The bases were laid so the fighting would be over the front, i.e. the defensive V-bases. Most of the air bases along the front are 30 - 40 miles apart with the V-bases in-between as something to fight over and around.
The distances from the airbases to the frontline (v-bases) aren't any longer then in some of the other maps. Long distances with nothing to do are a problem but with this map flight times (distance to combat) to the front are comparable to flight times between airfields in the other maps. The defensive v-bases being as hard as they are to capture were to be the focal point of the fight rather then just over the air bases like it in other maps.
Distance to Combat and Distance between bases are 2 different things. Most combat in the CT is over a base, mostly air bases.
This map adds something between the airbases to fight over (the defensive v-bases). If 2 bases are 35 miles apart, and an objective to fight over is between, theoretically then its 17.5 mile to combat. The problems is that when looking at the map and seeing 5 v-bases crammed into a sector and 1 airfield the obvious assumption is “there’s to many v-bases”. It’s an illusion created by vbase density, if we removed a few it would be less obvious.
On Fork's setup on the France map that ran last week the 2 closest fields were 30-35 miles apart. The little time I was able to spend in that setup the fight was right over the French coast meaning the allies flew 30 miles to one way to get there.
contrasted againt the most active area on the Kurland map:
The main difference being the v-bases betwen the bases.
The map was laid out so that to capture the v-bases it would need both air and land components attacking, to defend them requires the same.
For example:
The attackers launch Jabos to level the vbase, the defenders launch fighters to kill the Jabos, The attackers send in fighters to cover the Jabos. The attackers send in GVs, the defenders launch their own GVs and send in their jabos to kill the enemy GVs, more fighters arrive etc. It was hoped the fight would develop in this fashion. It didn’t.
The idea evolved around creating a map that is difficult roll over forcing a giving level of cooperation. With the airfields vulnerable but in the rear we laid out the GV remote spawns as a sort of a road system. Using the v-bases we created choke points. I would have left out the C47 so that capture could only occur via the M3.
Within in 1 hour of setting the arena up it was clear that the premise behind the map was a bit much for the CT. For the most part folk flew right by the V-bases and went right on to the opposing field. Then the complaints began with "Its too far between airfields".
Against my recommendation the map was "adjusted". I had though that we should give it a day or 2 to see how it plays out and to give folks time to adjust and learn the map. For instance at p25 there is an airfield attached to that port. Many weren’t aware of it.
The adjustments resulted in fighters everywhere. In some case at v-bases less then 3 miles apart. The v-bases while difficult to attack became for the most part irrelevant.
The typical base porking resulted.
The map was in the SEA for a week. Besides the "bug" on this forum the map itself is exactly how I laid it out.
Kanttori simply produced a map based on my design. We learned, actually I learned that the design and idea behind this map is wholly unsuited for the CT. It will be adjusted and corrected.
If this setup sucks then sorry you aren’t having, Fester's new main map is up and this map only has 5 more days to run.
