Author Topic: Another map idea (Read 241 times)

Tilt · « **on:** October 31, 2006, 01:58:48 PM »

The object here is to move the conflict zone to places between airfields rather than over air fields.

Essentially the land grab routes are via vehicle fields. Some vehicle fields give access to the towns which must be captured to secure an enemy air field.

Air fields only have remote gv spawns to their respective towns.

The reader will note that the towns are mainly behind the airfields such that the "front line" has already passed the airfield before it is vulnerable to capture.

Each country has 3 zones. In the central zone the strat facilities are in the rear with the HQ. In the two outer zones the strat is scattered.....somtimes close to air fields to provide additional AA coverage.

All ports have an associated fleet.

I have put a grid in reference although it may need some modification re size.

Buffs have loads of targets to promote the land grab

Vehicle fields, strat, fleets, towns even some bridges at the country start borders. But little is now served bombing air fields (with the possible exception of VH's and troop porkage)

Capping air field and town with the same force (ie capping town and vulching air field) is also no longer viable. Vulch fests no longer aid capture.

No vehicles can gain easy access to attack airfields. (only their towns)

Capturing a town without taking the local vehicle field will result in the loss of the said airfield shortly after. (given normal game balance)

Radar range should over lap to provide 100% coverage over the main land.

Landscape (hills and valleys etc) would be such as to focus ground combat.

indy007 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:05:54 PM »

Isn't there a map out right now similar to this? I've seen it pop up several times. The front rows are V-bases, and the next row is airfields.

The problem is there's alot of distance between the frontline airfields. With the layout you have there, it would be about 2 sectors. It results in very few fights, lots of porking and chasing, and the GV play in EW kinda sucks to begin with.

The bases distances on average are just so far, I don't think this would have your desired results in EW or MW.

Plus, using a Vbase for a lynch-pin isn't a great idea. They can be dropped very, very easily by a single buff formation, and plotting intercepts over that distance is not viable.

I think you've also got about 3x more strats than you actually need for this many fields.

The port in the middle is awesome though. I'm all for some ports, with absolutely no other bases around (even Vbases), for pure CV vs CV action.

68Ripper · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:08:45 PM »

Do the Vbases spawn over to the enemy Vbases? Or will they have to cross the bridges? If they have to cross the bridge that would be a major choke point for vehicles.

NHawk · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:23:02 PM »

I REALLY like the concept, but as it is it won't work on a 256 x 256 map which is the limit for the arenas right now.

And, bridges are non-existent (and can't be added) in the MA so spawns would have to cross the channels (which isn't a problem).

Re-work it down to a 256 map and you might have something.

Tilt · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:44:12 PM »

The key concept is the position of the airfield towns they are to the rear and adjacent to vehicle fields which must be captured first.

The bridges are deliberate choke points and maybe contentious as they are a "new object" for MA Play. Infact many bridge objects do exist now on many terrains.

It easy to fall into the trap of measuring time to combat as time between air fields.............however given that the object is to put conflict between or away from air fields then the time to combat is halved.

Actually I would like to add towns to the Vehicle fields but that is so non standard I doubt HT would accept it.

Every vehicle field has spawn points to it from rear vehicle fields so even vehicle fields with downed VH's can be re enforced.

It is a 512 map but does not use all of the 512 x 512 area. Game play is actually very compact or at least thats the objective.

NHawk · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:58:26 PM »

There is a way around the custom object problem (bridges). Since a CV group would never make it through the channels, just make 1 mile wide land bridges. They would serve the same purpose.

I still think it needs to be scaled down. It's at about 325sq miles. While it might be OK, I'm not sure on that.

Simaril · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2006, 04:20:28 PM »

Creative idea Tilt.

I'm not sure how the time-to-the-fight issue can be addressed though. Unless the layout is carefully done, the flying time/flight time ratio could drop pretty low, and actively discourage what you're trying to do. Think of how that new post-change small map is disliked by the GV guys -- since the spawms are "too far apart."

How would it work if the base arrangement was adjusted, so that the Vbase rows and the Airfield rows are offset, to make a triangle with 3/4 sector between them? that would allow the rows to be as clsoe as possible, adn to reduce the time to fight.