Author Topic: A kind of poll (Read 983 times)

croduh · « **on:** February 12, 2008, 01:04:53 PM »

Whats your opinion on the latter:

Having more than 20 miles between bases but if those base have no towns(just deack and drop troops to capture)

Or - Closer bases with towns?

Please share.

Ghastly · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2008, 05:39:38 PM »

I don't have an opinion but suspect that I'd need to know what the intended use of the map is before I could hope to formulate one...

!

Dux · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2008, 06:00:01 PM »

Do both

BlauK · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2008, 09:02:41 AM »

Howabout some MILITARY target as town objects? It has always bothered me that a civilian town with churches and all must be completely wiped out in order to capture a base

An attempt into this direction was made on Karelia terrain, where several tents and their shell covers were defined as "town" objects, while the actual houses a bit further away were defined just as "structures".

Actually, I even toyed with an idea to define ONLY the shell covers as town objects and tents inside them as troops barracks. That would have meant that one can bomb the covers to pieces, but that would also kill the troops. However, if one wanted to capture the base and to continue the attack from there asap, much more accuracy (strafing, GVs, etc) would be needed to spare some of the troop barrack tents.

There must be some good and more realistic ideas which have not been tried out yet... or are there?

croduh · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2008, 09:27:26 AM »

There is always room for innovations, and that seems like a good idea there Blauk.In my opinion, Stalins Fourth scenario which ran on Karelia was by far the most fun scenario i have ever been.I just hope we can do it again soon.

For my newest map, Adria(sea), which i have now sent to Skuzzy for review, i have bases that try to follow historical placement.But they are very far in one places and very close in other.I decided to go no towns for bases.And i just had to add some more fictional airfield because the flight time would be just too long.

With placing no towns, i hope i have managed to reduce the level of hardness to take the field, because it takes longer than usual to get to it.IMO, of course.You only need to kill
2 or guns and drop troops.

And since bases are more apart, i hope that people will actually try to survive, but then again, i have to consider that people will climb very high and just bnz, or they will be bored and want to furball.I don't know, there are so many options.

That's why i seek the wisdom of wise map makers to en light me:D

Dux · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2008, 10:27:02 AM »

With an SEA terrain, your options are a bit more open. Bases can be further apart, because mindless furballing is not the prime function of an SEA terrain; there are objectives and targets and defenses, and if there's a furball that comes out of it... even better.

Can't really say there's any formula to it, but you'll know what looks right when you see it.