Author Topic: What's your favorite MA map & ideas for new ones? (Read 990 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2006, 11:00:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
I wsh they could modify Pizza enough to mollify those who hated it, but keep the cool canyon fights, and the hi-alt bases

I Second the motion

whels · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2006, 11:01:39 AM »

love Pizza map and small maps.

i got an idea for a map using pearl harbor for a GV/FT area and surrounding islands and pacific area for the rest of map. just got to get
a map maker to help make it.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2006, 12:02:28 PM »

I`m not real particular, but in all fairness I think we need at least one map with a field for each country at high alt, secluded by a good deal of distance to give the bomber guys like Laz and the BKs a fair break.

Seriously I like the canyon thing or at least some deep valleys.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2006, 01:43:18 PM »

Actually I think part of the problem as to why the maps don't rotate all that much is that we have soooooo many fields so close togeather.
With so many it's next to impossible to get enough force togeather to take them and change map. And yes I realize that the furball crowd likes the bases close togeather so there should be a mix maybe groups of fields but less fields total.

I am currently working on one That I may try to submit although at first it was slow going because the editor is a friggin %!^$# to work with at first but I think I'm getting the hang of it now so things are moving along faster now.

pluck · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2006, 02:04:28 PM »

i hate large maps do to the lack of frequent moderate to heavy fighting, and the frequency of bases being taken with little resistance.

i have always wondered how life in AH would be if we had large maps, but with certain elements to improve gameplay.

for example, what if we had large fields, but with only a certain amount of "capturable" bases. bases that are not capturable, would still allow sorties to be flown from them. the amount of capturable bases a country would have is related to the number of players which are on at any given time. when one base is capture, another one which previously wasn't allowed to be captured, becomes available.

im sure something like this would take alot to implement, and who knows if it would even work, but the goal would be to create and environment where a country always has a relatively adequate amount of people to defend bases, reducing "milk running." maybe you could also add strategy for this too, and maybe zone bases make all fields in the area capturable.

of course i realize this is probably unrealistic, but thought would be interesting concept:) ~~as always, Vast~~

Hajo · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2006, 03:37:55 PM »

When logging onto a big map what I usually find is a 95% portion of the map unused and 3 large horde fights. Individual small fights are practically non existant. Usually it's one horde hittting a lightly defended base and a fight for the few enemy aircraft that are attempting to defend it. Then...a pause over the base to see if anyone is going to come up over a capped field and another scramble to vulch those trying to up.

I never see two large forces at 12K to 17K meeting in a head to head confrontation. By large force maybe a 5 to 10 on a 5 to 10 which would be historically correct....maybe even larger. Usually fights in this game end up on the deck near a capped base with ack and VH down.

Guess it's all generated by the players themselves. Good thing we have snapshots and the occaisional Scenario to break the MA horde dog pile on the rabbitt mentality.

IMHO small Maps generate more fights with closer numbers. Maps such as ND Isles and the Baltic Map seem to have more fights spread out over the map.......while 90 to 95% of the big map is used for a buffer that only delays a reset. I mean takes more time to jabo, deack, and vulch a greater number of bases. And it's easier to log on for quick action look at the map see where your countries forces are in larger numbers and join the vulchfest.

Brenjen · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:52:31 PM »

Well thanks for the replies. I was hoping the editor would work with the current DL but it just crashes me back to desktop as soon as I click on anything with the sweet little "would you like to send an error report?" pop-up. I will have to leave it in the hands of others. Now get to work on some new maps! lol

outbreak · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2006, 10:10:56 PM »

I want Snow Maps with Snowy Weather and Frozen Oceans so them Damn CVs dont move when ya try to bombem

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:54:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
I like to see a medium sized map, make it big size, but put lots of ocean in corners. Keep the fields very close in the center, farther apart in the middle, and quite far apart deep into the country. Low fields for front line action, 2 - 4k fields in middle for bombers and a 6k field in the rear to defend strats.

Great idea there.

Balanced GV spawns throughout. Except for the front line no real dead zones. You should be able to up a GV at any rear base, and jump to the next field over in any direction. This is perhaps the weakest point on most of our maps.

Yes and no. I DONT like this idea, although at times in the past I would have agreed with it. Simply put, we dont need GVs from 3 different fields to defend EVERY base. We'd never get a base captured. I like having the chain of VH bases all around the map, chains of airfields around the map, and only occasional interaction (spawns) to connect them. It means at least some of the time you are going to need to fly your troops in, and some of the time you are going to have to truck them in, but still leaves you with some that can be done with either one as well. Its called variety.

3 fleets per country, one for each flank to attack/defend with, and one in the rear. Low mountains (6k tops) at the borders between countrys, and long fiord like bays to encourage CV attacks.

You can have Vfields as front line bases, but it should never be more than a sector to fly to get to them for defense, less would be better.

``````````````````````````````````````````````(border)
Vfield ^^^^^^^^^^^ VField
(Mountains, canyons)
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
^^^ ^^^
Airbase
X

Distance should be 10 to 15 miles from airfield to vfield. So if you lose the next field over you can still defend/counterattack without flying 35 miles.

Should have 3 full sets of strat objects. One on each flank, one deep in the heartland. So its "Possible" with a static front line defended on both sides to
get a bomber to the nearest strat objects. Not easy perhaps, but doable esp if the enemy is busy elsewhere. Put the strats in a nice valley in a loose cluster with a medium airfield (3-4k alt) nearby to defend.

Island bases offshore are always hotly contended. They give the enemy a beachhead closer to the action. But they should be a bit farther apart, and you only need a couple for each front.

Best of luck!

Sounds good to me!

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:04:25 AM »

I would not mind the boring pizza map if it had all the fields about 3/4 of a sector apart. Infinity has the same problem... fields too far apart.

problem is... if it is a fun map then no one plays with the "win the war" types. maybe ghost has a good comprimise.. I don't know.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

hitech · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:16:22 AM »

If fields are closer than about 18 miles, i.e. 3/4 sector we will not accept it.

HiTech

Treize69 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:25:49 AM »

As far as MA terrains go, Im pretty happy with what we've got. good variety.

As for what terrain I would most like to see for events or the AvA Arena- Southeastern Europe, from Italy up to Austria and over to the Crimea. Large scale. Ploesti runs, shuttle runs, eastern front.

We'd feel right at home.

gatso · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:52:41 AM »

I liked, still do like, the concept behind Equinox. But it was made for AH1 and 700 people online. A couple of things haven't ported across to AH2 so well and the "tank town" in the centre of the map never really happenned. Also there's a couple of bases on the edge of the disk that are too isolated. If I was making it again I'd probably cut it down to 2/3 the size and any bases closer than 3/4 sector would then get removed and used to fill in gaps on the edge or just removed entirely.

I like the exactly 3 sided symetry. How can you complain that one side has an advantage?

I like that every CV fleet is different.

I like that certain GV bases at 10k are strategically important.

I like that there are a few areas with triangles of bases within less than a sector of each other.

I'd like to see some new scenery, textures etc. Right now I honestly think that would add more variety than an entirely new map.

Gatso

Goth · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2006, 12:05:52 PM »

I furball, but I hate hordes...so stuff like fighter town usually has no interest for me. Big maps I hate because it's usually horde at 3-4 bases with 98% of the map unused.

My favorite map is Baltic. I have had a lot of good fights on that map, fights that usually start out as 5 vs 5 or even 10 vs 7, and those are the fights I like.

Had a good fight going at 7 last night till toolshedders destoyed the FH's. It's been real frustrating for me lately, hordes, HO's and lack of good fights in general have made me come close to canceling the game account.

Brenjen · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2006, 01:10:05 PM »

I agree with you Gatso, some terrain changes on current maps would go a long way. Especially(sp?) for those who like to both GV & fly. It's hard to keep from getting bombed with the current terrain, the trees can hide you, but I have yet to find that sweet spot. With the tunnels you had somewhere to hide even if it wasn't fool proof, but what ever is? Larger more complex city-scapes with areas to set-up GV ambushes & have overhead cover at the same time would also be cool IMO. That way JABO would be safe from flaks & M-16's unless they broke cover to fire. That would encourage two man flaks ( driver & gunner ) & that also might create a target for level bombers to hit in a massive city flattening raid. Something similar to the cities in the SEA perhaps. Maybe I just play too much, but it's sort of monotonous to me the way it is now; feels like working on an assembly line.