About the new terrain

[Fish42]

And how about switching to real maps of Europe, North Africa and the South Pacific to make Aces High more like a WWII flight combat simulator.  AH has a fantastic plane set and FM's but these Fantasy Island maps and chess piece enemy combatants really hurt immersion no matter how good the game looks.  The MA is like flying WWII planes at Disneyland for crying out loud.

What do we have...about 12 or 13 fantasy maps we rotate through.  How about 12 or 13 different regions of Europe, North Africa and the South Pacific instead.  And what about those guys called the Allies, Germans and Japanese.  I think they had something to do with WWII also.

ah no. There is events held all month that use maps and plane sets that are more "realistic". Those maps will be fixed up using the new program.

Or you can fly Ava if you want to fight Allies vs Axis... but you might struggle to get in with all those people packing the room.

[Bizman]

And what about those guys called the Allies, Germans and Japanese.  I think they had something to do with WWII also.

Have you ever been bullied, or worse, bullying someone about his origins? There are players from all over the world and I bet if the MA countries were named after real ones, there'd be a whole lot of conflicts. Old victories, losses, misbehaviours etc. aren't forgotten and when certain elements apply they'd pop into surface. You wouldn't like to be called names just because of your choice of country, would you? Switching countries could also raise some debate. This chess piece neutrality is a simple way to avoid many types of problems which could occur if some players were dru... err, tired, adrenalized, excited beyond their normal behaviour etc.

FWIW I'd like to see more real world based maps on MA, too. It's just nice to have names for fields instead of A##.

[GScholz]

What happened to the Baltic map? I don't remember anyone having nationalistic problems with it... And that map included parts of Germany, Poland, Russia, Finland to name a few.

[Lusche]

What happened to the Baltic map?

Nothing happened to it.

[GScholz]

I too would like more maps based on real locations. I really liked the baltic map, and I think Guadalcanal would make a great map. Locations in Africa and South America could also make for interesting maps with real cities and landmarks.

[The Fugitive]

The problem with "real world" maps is they don't always provide a "fair" /"balanced" arena. Look at Mindanao.



If the map starts with your team in the western side odds are very good your going to win the map. Southern, well just turn over your flag 

Sure it looks like a real world place but the groans that come up when that map is up! I know it has very few GV battle spots and that is one of it's issues, but still it's is a bit out of balance.

Now if map makers made maps with real world setup like this added thought should be added in. If the Mindanao map were to be made today maybe have the southern country have a dozen more bases, and/or a few GV spawns behind enemy lines to even the odds a bit. Use game play mechanics to off set an advantage given by real world terrain lay outs.

[Bizman]

The problem with "real world" maps is they don't always provide a "fair" /"balanced" arena. Look at Mindanao...

That is absolutely true. On the other hand, life isn't fair. Why should virtual life make a difference? After all, the circulation of maps also changes the starting situation on each map, evening the odds. Why couldn't the current country on the southern side of the Mindanao just accept the situation as a challenge instead of waiting for the evident loss and map change? Waiting to be beaten is just so un-american! And yet the majority of players still come from the USA... Besides, on any map the country situated on the bottom triangle has the psychological disadvantage of having to work their way up.

There are locations on the Earth that could be transformed to tri-symmetrical (couldn't figure out a better word for that) like the surroundings of the Great Lakes. Indians, Inuits and Europeans. Or Englishmen, Frenchmen and Savages, if that sounds better. Another approach could be to take some identifiable spot and make a threefold kaleidoscopic image of it. How about a triple Italy surrounding a three-bay Mediterranean? Or a triple Iberian Peninsula with the Pyrenees in the middle, surrounded by seas?

[The Fugitive]

That is absolutely true. On the other hand, life isn't fair. Why should virtual life make a difference? After all, the circulation of maps also changes the starting situation on each map, evening the odds. Why couldn't the current country on the southern side of the Mindanao just accept the situation as a challenge instead of waiting for the evident loss and map change? Waiting to be beaten is just so un-american! And yet the majority of players still come from the USA... Besides, on any map the country situated on the bottom triangle has the psychological disadvantage of having to work their way up.

There are locations on the Earth that could be transformed to tri-symmetrical (couldn't figure out a better word for that) like the surroundings of the Great Lakes. Indians, Inuits and Europeans. Or Englishmen, Frenchmen and Savages, if that sounds better. Another approach could be to take some identifiable spot and make a threefold kaleidoscopic image of it. How about a triple Italy surrounding a three-bay Mediterranean? Or a triple Iberian Peninsula with the Pyrenees in the middle, surrounded by seas?

As a GAME starting even is the goal. I believe HTC wants their maps "even" when submitted as everyone that has been added in a long time is. Either that or these map makers are going out of their way to make even sided maps and HTC couldn't care less.

Making a map that has 3 Italys is as far fetched as some of the maps we have now. The post was about using "real" maps not modifying real maps to to accommodate the "rules". Changing the rules to make "real" maps more even thru added base counts or positioning of bases might be something HTC could do.

[Bizman]

As a GAME starting even is the goal.

I stand corrected. 

Yet I wouldn't consider the triplicated map idea equally far fetched as the fully imaginary ones: There would be identifiable landmarks which could add something to the game. I believe it would be more motivating to protect "our" Rome or to capture "their" Rome than just doing the same for A27 or A66. But of course that is just my opinion and I don't make maps so what would I know anyway.

[Heater]

HT...

All I can say is. it's about time, but your code.... well.... you can't  I mean it's like you are still on a vic 20

[ImADot]

About unbalanced, real-world maps...

If the maps weren't balanced with land mass and numbers of bases, everyone would pile onto the side with the advantages as soon as the map shows up, so they don't have to work so hard to capture bases. This would not be good for gameplay.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

About unbalanced, real-world maps...

If the maps weren't balanced with land mass and numbers of bases, everyone would pile onto the side with the advantages as soon as the map shows up, so they don't have to work so hard to capture bases. This would not be good for gameplay.

Do you really think people would switch countries for that?

[LCADolby]

Do you really think people would switch countries for that?

I'd bet 25% of the arena would

[zack1234]

As a GAME starting even is the goal. I believe HTC wants their maps "even" when submitted as everyone that has been added in a long time is. Either that or these map makers are going out of their way to make even sided maps and HTC couldn't care less.

Making a map that has 3 Italys is as far fetched as some of the maps we have now. The post was about using "real" maps not modifying real maps to to accommodate the "rules". Changing the rules to make "real" maps more even thru added base counts or positioning of bases might be something HTC could do.

The game is 'NEVER' even based the fact that Knights are always outnumbered 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I'd bet 25% of the arena would

So the solution is to remove the 'war winning' aspect which clearly causes problems in the game if people are gamey enough to destroy the game balance just for this.

Base takes could be made attractive simply through awarding perks and score to people who participate to the fight in the area. And to avoid gaming the game by all hording to one side, make perk/point rewards directly related to the numbers. If you're in a 10:1 horde in the sector when base take happens you get awarded 1 perkie, if you're 1:10 under dog when base take happens, award 100 perkies. Only dumb people would horde after that as balance would be more beneficial whatever way the base take would happen.

As an idea bases could be tied to certain planetypes (i.e. own base A1, get use of Spit16, Pony D...) for example, which would make fighting over strategic bases interesting even without the 'war winning' aspect. Just like losing your last port rips you off of a CV capability.