Map Idea # 2,387,714

[Rolex]

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but my eyes glaze over reading the furball vs. toolshed threads.

How do you make a map to satisfy the urges of everyone - furballers (individual or squad), base takers, mission guys, gv guys and bomber types?

First, we already have limited Me-163 fields for good historical reason and some large maps are rarely reset now.

1. Could we have fighter-only fields for small airfields, medium bombers and fighters for medium airfields and heavy bombers available only at large airfields on a Main Arena map?

2. Could formations of bombers be limited to four-engine, heavy bombers? Could medium bombers be single plane only?

Would the result be this?

A. Longer lives for CVs without altering damage requirements. Only medium fields (with single-player, medium bombers) would be in the vicinity of a coast line.

B. Large airfields in rear areas around the map with enough strat targets and other large and medium fields available for capture.

C. No large airfields near gv areas so gvs and porking of ordnance and troops couldn't be done with dive-bombing-then-auger Lancasters.

You can imagine how it would impact base taking for small and medium fields. There would be more of a fight and less 2 minute captures by a hoarde. Also base defense without formations of lancs to up and carpet bomb incoming gvs from 800'.

Is the idea reasonable? Would it be acceptable to HTC?

I understand how difficult mapmaking is, but if it's acceptable and a reasonable idea, I'm willing to work at building such a map if others are willing to come on board and be part of a team. Making one in cooperation with HTC and experienced mapmakers seems more reasonable and productive than just talking about it.

Let the bashing begin!

[Bear76]

Let the bashing begin!

You suck!

[NCLawman]

I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea.  Not to mention that, based on my limited knowledge (very limited), it would seem historically accurate.  Not all fields are meant for large bombers.  Many fields were specifically set up for air defense of cities, resources, and coastal boundaries while bombers were set back more to inland (and larger) bases. In fact, because of the differences in speed, climb rate, and range, many bomber missions into enemy territory would take off from back base and would be met by the small fighters in the air.  The fighter then escorted the bombers to the target or as close to the target as able, and would then turn back.  Each group would then return to the respective base from which they launched.

I don't see the request of differentiating small fields (fighters) from medium and large fields (capable of bombers) any different from the current setup of aifields and vehicle bases.  Cast my vote for a good idea and I would welcome the new map if created.

(But that is just my humble opinion -- and you know what they say about opinions. LOL)

[storch]

what a great idea.

[Slash27]

Who is this "Rolex" anyway?

[mars01]

You want the template for a great map that accommodates all types of game play?

Study FesterMA!  or

Add a fighter town and you have every thing everyone wants.  The potatod monkeys can take undefended bases at will - as usual, The Alt monkies can up from and fly high over the potatod cherry picking them or the cherry picking at FT.  The strategery folks can pretend they are making a difference freeing all the drunks under the oppressive enemies of the evil other chess pieces swine on the rest of the map.  And those that just want to up and fight can go strait to fighter town and just kick arse!

[lazs2]

Yep... rolex.. I think most of the map makers and yourself are getting way too deep into the thing.   Good gameplay for everyone is not that complex..

Look at festers map... better yet... look at it before the whining started by the whorde.

Take any map we have and move the fields to the 3/4 sector mark apart and you will vastly improve the gameplay on those maps.

Any map we have could be the best map we have with that done and maybe a FT in the center.

make a good new map that satisfies everyone?   copy festers and maybe revert it to its original or copy some of the other maps and move the fields closer together..

Heck... even infinity could be a good map if the fields were moved closer and there was a tnk town and fighter town in it.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[MINNOW]

FesterMA could have that if there was 3 fields like A21 instead of 1......

I like the high alt mountains around fighter town on the FTMap but I dont know how hard that would be to do.

Just my .02

[mars01]

Yeah minnow, I think the base spacing is the one thing that makes his map so great.  The terrain etc are the variables people can manipulate in making the map unique.

[Rolex]

FesterMA is a great map, but we only have one FesterMA. HTC is busy with Combat Tour, so all the talk in the world isn't going to make a new map.

The kind of map I'm proposing would certainly change gameplay. The HTC folks would be the experts on whether there is value in that change.

[Kermit de frog]

I like this idea.

How about like this?

Small fields fighters > 5 eny, medium bombers and gvs.
Medium fields, all fighters, all bombers and gvs.

or

Small fields, fighters > 5 eny, only c47 bomber, and gv's except for tiger.
Medium fields, all fighters, medium bombers and gv's.
Large field, all fighters, all bombers and gv's.


Medium bomber = 2 engine
Also keep the field spacing to 3/4 and 1 sector apart.

[hubsonfire]

Some good ideas so far. I'm not sure if our idea of fun coincides with HTC's idea of a good map, but I guess I'm more concerned with what the players enjoy anyway.

Throw some strat targets in large numbers near the HQ, and slap a couple of mid alt bases for perk rides and interceptors within reach of said strat. Give the guys who want to up massive HQ/factory raids a choice of targets from a few fields, and give the guys who want to hunt them down and shoot them the same. The bomber/interceptor raids that were run in the AvA were a good bit of fun without being over complex, IMO. An area that encouraged that type of play (maybe it's just me, but I rather enjoy that sort of thing when no one enjoys a tremendous advantage over the other guy) as opposed to 20 forms of NOE lancs belching out 42K #s at every base with some action would seem like more fun for all involved.

I like the idea of smaller fields having limited planesets. I also really liked the concept of a few planes being available at the V bases in the past. Give those areas limited A2G planes, while making it difficult for the divebombing lancs and such to wreak havoc over TT areas.

The center island on one of the maps (was it OZkansas?), when it had early war only, was, for me, great fun, and never seemed to be short of likeminded people.

Anyway, couple of thoughts while I was eating. Who's got some others?

[Killjoy2]

I'm liking this idea.  Something has to be done.  (IMHO)

1) Fighter Town

2) Tank town

3) Historical Town

4) Strat targets near HQ.  (this sounds juicy)

5) Perk certain planes at small bases?

6) ENY limiter at small bases is interesting.

7) Ownership of zone bases opens up additional spawn points for GV's and options at smaller bases.


Hey, at least we have some ideas.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Rolex
2. Could formations of bombers be limited to four-engine, heavy bombers? Could medium bombers be single plane only?[/i]

Would the result be this?

A. Longer lives for CVs without altering damage requirements. Only medium fields (with single-player, medium bombers) would be in the vicinity of a coast line.

I understand your intent, but the Boston and the JU-88 are incredibly weak in the defensive firepower department as it is.  Nerfing them further by eliminating formations would make this bad situation even worse IMHO.

That is, even if it is possible within the current code to disable formations for only one class of bombers, or only at certain bases (no idea if it is or isn't).

Overall, I like the concept of certain planes at certain sized bases.  As someone else mentioned, a couple single engine attack planes available at V bases would be cool too (thinking IL2, Stuka, Hurri IID or C myself).

That being said, just be prepared that regardless of what you do / don't do or are able / unable to build, someone, somewhere will whine about it.

[Angry Samoan]

I think Rolex should get a promotion to Timex.

Takes a lickin but keeps on tickin:rolleyes: