Author Topic: CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO  (Read 1574 times)

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2001, 08:59:00 AM »
because it actually resembles (albeit not to scale) an area that WWII took place in?
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2001, 01:17:00 PM »
Jeez, Funked.

We ALL want total realism, right?

As long as we get to "select" the parts we want and ignore the ones we don't, eh?

 :D
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2001, 01:42:00 PM »
Nifty that's like saying the pedal powered Jaguar XK-E I had as a toddler was more like a real Jaguar XK-E than was my old beat up Honda Civic.  The pedal car sure "resembles" the Jag in shape, but functionally I'd say the Civic is a bit closer.      :)

What makes a terrain unique in terms of real world war-making is the x and y distances between features (mountains, lakes, cities, strategic sites) and the dimensions of those features.  If you scale it down you lose all of that.  It is no longer a historical terrain in a functional sense.

If we had 1/4 scale airplanes flying at 1/4 of real speed maybe it could be "historical".  But the only historical thing about any of our maps is their appearance in the clipboard view.  Surely the "hardcore" "grognard" set can see right through something so superficial?

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2001, 01:58:00 PM »
I like the Uterus map in there, we actually had some PLAYERS in there the other night, 20 if I recall!  I could actually FIND the bases on the map and thanks to others in there, told me where the fight was.  Had a good time and I think everyone was exchanging <S>'s to one another.

I dunno, Rip.  I'd love to see some new maps too, but hate all you like, the CT actually had PLAYERS for once.  Nice start, don't you think?    :D

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2001, 03:06:00 PM »
It's coming...really it is.  We're right now laying out the ground rules for how often we'll reset the map (in the absence of a "winner"), what settings to use, scoring issues, etc.  We want to have a plan worked out for the next two months, so as to keep the interest high.

As for historical vs. non-historical terrains, we'll likely try both.  There seems to be mixed opinions regarding which will attract more players.  The important thing is to have maps that allow good gameplay (strategic as well as tactical) while still maintaining the kind of combat-like environment you're looking for.

Sundog, I wouldn't worry as much about exact historical placement of those grass strips (love that idea, BTW).  Along the Eastern front, there were plenty of "air bases" that appeared and dissappeared as the war ebbed and flowed.  The more important issues is to lay them down logically, in such a way as to produce an exciting and challenging map.  Place know major bases in their historical locations, of course.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline K West

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1445
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2001, 03:36:00 PM »
Good news to hear Sabre. Hopefully I'll get a chance to log on soon and see how things are in there. Add another number to the entry screen counter  :)

 I really like the discussions I've been reading. Just about everyone has a good grip on what they want. Realistic expectations seem to be the norm.

 Good to see folks excited about the new CT and her recently appointed caretakers.

Westy

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2001, 04:31:00 PM »
I like glazed doughnuts.

You guys are welcome to fly in there with us in the interum. I've been in there every night this week, been having a really good time. We had 27 a couple nights ago. It's gonna get much better fellas, trust us.   :)

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2001, 10:11:00 AM »
hehe, as long as sfma is out, I might come in, I might not.  I hate that map as much as some people hate Mindanao.   ;)
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
CT will not be successful without historical terrain IMO
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2001, 01:16:00 PM »
LOL HB  :D

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]