Author Topic: Airfield Names (Read 766 times)

FiLtH · « **on:** October 19, 2004, 03:52:53 PM »

I really wish the fields had names instead of A#. Also I prefer having your country start in the same corner everytime(as long as the terrain was fair). We rotate around so much and defend "any ol' number base" that there is no sense of ownership. Also in regards to another post on here, I wouldnt mind seeing a two country war.

That is all.

Halo · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2004, 04:10:45 PM »

That is plenty.

You have valid points, but most players seem to prefer otherwise:

(1) the maps don't have room for anything except numbers, and we need numbers here the way numbered streets are helpful in cities to find locations quickly;

(2) countries rotate starting areas to provide variety and fresh perspective which to many are more interesting than static location;

(3) three sides provide more possibilities and challenge than just two sides -- two-side matchups are the specialty of the Combat Theater.

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2004, 06:30:29 PM »

I vote for field names or at least name some features.

Killjoy was here.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2004, 06:38:26 PM »

Lets see ... Augertown, Dweebsville, Mount Sheep, Warphaven, Twoweeksburg, Hordeborough, Whinester, Porkis, ... it's a start.

JB73 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2004, 06:51:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Lets see ... Augertown, Dweebsville, Mount Sheep, Warphaven, Twoweeksburg, Hordeborough, Whinester, Porkis, ... it's a start.

you left out LuftWhinersville

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2004, 08:12:50 PM »

"Mount Sheep" hahahahaha

Murdr · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2004, 08:27:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Halo
That is plenty.

You have valid points, but most players seem to prefer otherwise:

(1) the maps don't have room for anything except numbers, and we need numbers here the way numbered streets are helpful in cities to find locations quickly;

I seem to recall a game that had airfield names that were represented by 3 letters on the map.
Your street numbers analogy could go the other way too. I have often tried to give directions using everything to major interstate numbers to local street numbers to people who cant place the location by the number. Mention the closest bar, store or fast food joint, and they know exactly where its at. Its in the name, not the number.

Mabey I just dont pay attention, but from memory by number I could place:
6 fields from mindano
6 fields from ndisle
5 fields from trinity
0 fields from pizza
2 fields from uterus

If i said somthing happened at Airfield Assassin, I bet every AW2-3 player could picture it right away. I doubt it woud be the same if I said A233.

SFCHONDO · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2004, 08:40:24 PM »

Would be interesting to have the CT set up like the MA for at least 1 camp. All the planes for both (2) sides, radar distance and all that. Just to see how many people would play there and whether they would prefer it over the 3 sided MA. Would love to see how it played out. You could speculate for or against the idea all day long, but wouldn't really know unless it was put to a test.

Darkish · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2004, 08:50:54 PM »

.move Festerchester or .move 34

Bit of a pain in the arse really, and the map can get cluttered up enough as it is.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2004, 08:52:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Murdr
[If i said somthing happened at Airfield Assassin, I bet every AW2-3 player could picture it right away. I doubt it woud be the same if I said A233. [/B]

LOL Yep I loved it when you had full field names disabled and was only using the abbreviations. Twilight= Twi Moggy=Mog
and off course Assassin=Ass. There was a never ending stream of wisecracks about that field.

Grimm · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2004, 02:36:46 PM »

My understanding, after asking HT at Con. It would clutter the map overlay with long names strings. It would also affect the .move command.

He did seem to think that making a clip board map, if readable with names wouldnt be a big deal.

Cooley · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2004, 02:47:31 PM »

In another game,,,,,the airfield names just showed in the "Strat" buffer and in the radio buffer when captured and not on map to clutter it

Wurger · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2004, 03:35:42 PM »

Personally, I would prefer the HT coders to write code to fix/enhance many other things before I would advocate spending coding resources on something like this.

Bazi

Mak333 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2004, 04:31:06 PM »

First off, they dont code, they "coad".

Secondly, I vote for field names and fewer airfields. In some maps there are over 300 fields, thats over 100 bases per country - stupid. Each base should be maxed to maybe 10-15 air bases. This way its more realistic and NAMES WOULD WORK.

Nilsen · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2004, 04:38:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mak333
First off, they dont code, they "coad".

Secondly, I vote for field names and fewer airfields. In some maps there are over 300 fields, thats over 100 bases per country - stupid. Each base should be maxed to maybe 10-15 air bases. This way its more realistic and NAMES WOULD WORK.

I would have to agree with Hitech in your sig