Evasive? Only when I’m flying defensively:). As far as being “full of” ourselves…well, those who are given the responsibility and granted the authority to make decisions are often viewed that way by those who aren’t. I don’t think starting the conversation with disparaging remarks is conducive to meaningful discourse, but I’ll try to get past it:D.
Lazs said:
ok... first off, I have zero puter skills.
No crime there. However, it might be a good idea to go through all the different arena settings available in the Set Up GUI. It would provide a better foundation for your participation in these discussions.
I also believe that my ideas are not only simple to say but to implement. How tough is drawing the fields closer together say?
Then do it. Draw it up on a piece of paper and post it here, and in the Terrain forum. I’m sure if you approached NUTTZ and politely requested his assistance, he could probably help. Of course the CM Terrain Team is already making a BoB map, but that’s for scenarios. It may or may not fit your image of what the BoB terrain should look like for CT play. Your statement, “How tough” could it be is salient. There are a lot of things to consider. First, how many fields and what types? How would
you arrange them (i.e. how close together and where). How many ack at each field and what type? Will some be man-able? Will you include a VH at each? A radar dish? How many hangers/fuel tanks/ammo bunkers/barracks objects will each field type have? Will this notional terrain have convoys and trains for auto resupply? What hardness will you use on all these objects? What downtimes will you use for each type of object? All of these affect the arena game play dynamics, and must be built into the terrain. These factors will determine not only how hard it is to find a fight, but how quickly the map will reset. Will the map you designed allow a couple guys to get on-line at 2:00 AM and reset the fields by themselves? Remember as you design this map that you must work within the framework of the existing code. For example, downtime is currently built into the terrain itself, it cannot be changed on-line. There may be an upper limit to the downtimes allowed, by the way, so better find the answer to that while you’re researching the rest of this.
Now... what would I make? We are talking CT here? Allied vs axis? Ok, fine... the BOB planeset is one of the very few if not the only worthwhile (parity and choice) plane set for "historical" setups. That is a given.
The planeset was handed to you guys on a silver platter.
Be specific here please. List exactly the aircraft you’re talking about, and substitutions you’d make (if any), and tell us whether there would be any ground vehicles/pt boats/ships involved. Would all aircraft for each side be available at every airfield? Take the time to lay this out, so we don’t have to peruse through past scattered posts, please. I disagree with statement that the BoB planeset is the only viable one available, btw. And as popular as it is, most will get bored with it after a much shorter time than you may think. Just my opinion, of course.
I would most likely set up a map with a 1/3 sector "channel" between "england" and the rest. fields would be about 1/2 or a little more from their oppossite number across the "channel".
Would this terrain have the historically correct landmass shape? If so, your two closest opposing airfields might be 1/2 sector apart, but only those two. The rest will be farther and farther away as you move north and south from the Dover/Calais area. If it doesn’t at least resemble the actual shape of the geography, many will likely not approve of it. Remember: your choices need to appeal to the widest audience possible. That means those who want an immersive experience that goes beyond simply having the correct historical planeset. One half sector is rather close in my view, but you’re designing the map.
fields would be destroyed but not captured (nod to strat guys) and when all fields but one were down the war would be over.
This part has me confused, I’ll admit. This statement by you from the General Forum discussion of the current BoB set up,
I mean.... what is with the make fields useless so that the slow early war planes have to fly twice or maybe even three times as far to get to a fight thing??
Followed by,
Does this mean that a field can be captured but it is then useless to either side? If that is the case then the only real effect of this "feature" is to lengthen the time it takes either side to get to a base/fight.
led me to believe you wanted bases to be capture-able or indestructable in a BoB set up. As Rip points out, wouldn’t your idea to allow bases to be permanently put out of action (in the current set up, at least the original owners can get them back if they need to) work against the your goal of limiting flight times? Again, what about milk-running?
MA radar.
No problem here. The code allows it. However, what range for dots and bar-dar would you use? What altitude would radar coverage begin? In other words, would radar go right down to the ground/sea, or would you set a minimum altitude to allow NOE attacks? What update rate would you use? Yes, you could simply copy these from the MA, but is that what you really want? Be specific, and know what you’re asking for. You have to design a HQ into the terrain as far as I know. What hardness would you make it? People will try to destroy it, so think about that as you put your plan together.
MA or slightly shorter icons.
You only have two choices here, either long (MA) or short (CT/SEA). You don’t have the option to make it “slightly shorter.” Which would you use?
No CV's until a6m2 and F4f are created.
Fine, just don’t put them into your terrain. Would there be any ships at all? If so, don’t forget to add a port for each fleet.
this is how I would do a BOB in the CT using the CT guidlines od allied vs axis. I believe that it would be the simplest setup yet.
Not so simple, I hope you see. I’m not trying to discourage you, Lazs; just educate you. Every set up we run goes through this kind of analysis. In the case of terrains that we don’t have a hand in creating (most of them, by the way), we at least have to understand all of the above to determine if the terrain and set up will be viable in the CT environment.
Questions?
I’d say so. And all the questions above would need to be answered by you before HTC would likely approve you map for use in the CT, and before the CT Staff would agree to run the set up. Why do we have to agree? Because if it fails and drives people away, it will be our fault as much as yours. With authority comes responsibility.
Sabre
CT Staff
