Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on November 16, 2003, 12:50:26 AM
-
I'm designing a new MA on paper (no ah2 editor yet) and want to get a more feedback on primarily base spacing, but also gv spawns, strat cities and factories, carriers etc etc.
two oposing views say close fields are better, the other says distant fields are better.
I think a combination of both is in order ( with close fields on a center furball section and a variety of close and distant fields on flanking and hq zones.
ive heard the extremists on each side what about the quiet middle majority's opinion?
-
and what about hq? should it be closer to the action since it can be rebuilt to encourage more organized buff runs?
-
As far as field proximity goes, I love FesterMA. Easy to find a fight without flying for 20 minutes, and if the furball dies before I get there I can go to another field without having to refuel. If one base's fuel is porked, there's probably another one close to my target that I can up from. You have to pork 2-3 bases' fuels to stop an advance. A little more distance between fields would be fine, but 25 miles seems like too much to me now.
Just to throw my $.02 in on my personal desire for a map: I'd love to see more high-alt fields. Not a 10k field next to a 2k field, but maybe an 8k field next to a 6.5k field. AKPizza tried this to some extent, but some fields just had rediculous alt differences; an 8k field near the coast makes CV attacks on that field almost impossible. I'd like to see a gradual stepping up of the alts as a team gets farther into an enemy's homeland. This would give the defenders an advantage as their country started to falter, and slow the advance of the steamroller hordes that get going once one country is weakened. Actually give an advantage to the people trying to push back the invaders; not huge, but 1 or 2k right off the runway.
The other reason I'd like to see this is to give the high-alt fighters a chance to show their stuff. We all know that lalas and tiffies are fast on the 0k deck: what if that deck was at 8k though? People aren't as familiar with plane performances at alt, and this might give planes whose performance was optimized for the more historical mid- to high-alt (152, jug, 109, etc) a chance to operate at their intended altitudes. Might add a bit of variety to the planes we see all the time once the hordes see that their uber-lala's wep is useless at the alt they're flying at.
Glad to hear you're working on another map though. I hope it's as much fun as (or better than) your first one.
-
Disregard la7's
-
how about more gv land?
-
Yeah,
* High alt plateaus that stretch a hundred miles, see Tarmac^
* Deep river canyons with Bridges
* Fictional names for Regions and Islands
* Different plane skins
* Anything to create more organized buff runs and a reason to
:cool: -cooley 367th
-
You did an great Job on your first Map Fester .
On your next Map , Just build it where people can Furball or fly stategy , good Bomber takeoffs , good GV assault spawnpoint .
Everybody is happy .
Keep on the good work Fester . :aok
svalan 242 Squadron (canadian)
-
Also, remember what i suggested about the strat target being in the middle of 2 posing GV spawns to simulate urban warfare..
Possibly move out the 2 side by side GV fields in the middle of the GV strings and place it in between there? Don't do it for every 2 spawns though, because that'd make it too easy to milkrun with the GVs..
How'd the work on multiple VHs turn out? any luck?
Add some more high points and low points in the GV string, (not micro terrain features, actuall large hills) so taking the high ground could be easier than scaling the valley :eek:
Hills the size of the ones outside of the actual town in tank town, but inside the ring. not as frequent as Pizza's GV ring hills though.
-
If there are bases further apart with a close in section for furballing... what will the Alt monkey, BnZ dweebs (majority of rooks) shoot at?
All the furballers will be in the middle furballing, and the dweebs will just whine that they have no targets.
-
la7 and niki factories :D blow a countries la7 and niki factories up and they cant up those planes for 30 min or so. actually insert any plane, i just see to many of those hehe.
-
A couple ideas:
Make the bases that are close to each other AKA "furball zones" large bases with maybe more strats. Seems lately all the countries just go suicide pork the strats.
Put a few high alt bases near the mid-rear of each country as to allow a high take-off point for bomber missions. I really think its awesome when there are 15-20 group bomber missions, I think it really adds a cool aspect to this game, but most people dont like the fact that they have to climb for 30 minutes to get to bombing alt. Of course I think that level bombing might be obsolete as of late due to all the Lanc dive bomb runs Ive been seeing.
Ive seen this one before but maybe make some bases along each countries front line have only limited aircraft.
And make it where only 8 MAW are allowed in any 1 sector at any given time. This will help to eliminate the 50 MAW pork and grab missions.
-
Fester,
The proximity of bases on your current map make it impossible to execute a couple of attacks reliably.
1) JABO base pork has no effect since there are 2 to 5 other bases within 25 miles. Can't take the heat off an area.
2) Buff missions are essentially pointless. Flying through RADAR the whole time in NME territory is sure to be an exciting time in the gun turrets but pointless for actually bombing.
3) NOE strikes deep into NME territory are impossible. Again bases are bunched so bleeding close together that at least 2 are flashing most of the time.
Your current map caters to the lo-alt furballing SPIT/N1K/LA crew. It does so in a way that is extreme. While it can be fun it gets old fast. I've only played your map for about 3 hours so far before I get bored senseless and switch back to the CT.
I'd like to see bunched up furball bases in the middle. NO GV spawns to them or from them. Stick them up around 8K alt and give each side like 3 or 4 bases like this all clustered in middle. Make these fields large airfields with the town and VH right next to the Airfield. These can be the furball bases. Maybe even ring them with 20K cliffs or make non-standard fields with NO bomber spawns from them.
Put HQ in a place that is actually reachable that includes gaps in radar coverage. Not big bomb me signs but paths that a smart buff driver can exploit. Do this with about half of the factories as well. Be careful about keeping this fair. Too many maps have the important strats like fuel and troops stuck in out of the way places for 1 country and right out in the open for the others.
Tone down the overall Vbase path to glory effect you have going on. I enjoy a good GV fight as much as anyone but the setup you have going on has a "Pizza" like feel to the Blitzkrieg effect. Perhaps setting a limit of like 4 to 6 bases strung together in GV spawn links and then a break.
Last making the 163 base a small airfield might be interesting. Missions could include a small JABO component heading in before the buffs to smash fuel at the field and deny the 163s. Simultaneously this sets up situations where the 163s could get caught engaging these JABOs which would be one hell of a fight. STICK A SIGN on the 163 base for each country as well. Drives me crazy trying to keep track of which field is the magic field on each side.
Second N8Dogs comment regarding hi alt buff bases. It takes freakin forever to grab in a buff and many pilots resort to the lo dive bombing in them because of this. If you don't want to make hi alt bases then just set AIR STARTS for the bombers from certain bases.
Flame Disclaimer: I'm not a buff pilot, JABO dweeb, fighter puke, or ground pounder. I operate all with some skill. Don't give me any grief over having an apparent bias because I don't.
-
How about a a gv back door battle area.. Could make them small airfields with limited plane set that flank out and around the main area. IE along the unpopulated edges. This would cut down a bit on the constant jabo a thons of the gv paths we have now but keep something such as il'2 and ju87 and maybe spit 1's.. dunno just pondering... would have a lot more options than the traditional path. I would love to see some of the majot gv fights we saw the first week of this map Now folks fly in more jabo's than gv assault. Keeping some dedicated aircraft adds some purpose while limiting the dweebery down.
-
dweebery
LOL I like that. I think you just created a new word.
-
mmm.. nope, been around for a while :p
-
i think thats the best compromise for next map and even when i rebuild my first map for ah2.
for festerma i will most likely keep the middle section (furball area) the way it is but will change the other zones and make them more distant.
I like fast furballs but I like longer missions too and I want to choose at will between the two on the same map at any given time.
seems best way to do that is with longer fligth times on the coastal zones and hq area.
-
One of the things all mapmakers should consider is the natural advantage that the northern (to a greater extent) and western (to a lesser extent) countries seem to have on the larger maps. It's particularly noticable on Trinity - and Uterus and Baltic, though smaller maps - and Pizza tends to this. How to correct this bias, I do not know, unless it's possible to have the whole map gradually rotate as if the centre of the map were the North Pole. That might be interesting, for you trade 24 hr sun for frequent bad weather (consider restricted planesets and landing in a white-out on skis).
I would like to see many more factories on larger maps. But instead of having a multitude of factories linked to one key field - Pizza is very bad at this - which leads to milkrunning way behind the front, have only a few factories, maybe even just one in certain cases, linked to a nearby field.
I dislike the constant canyons of Pizza.
I'll wait until I see how AH2 models field fuel before passing judgement on the distance between fields save to say that scjazz has a good point about bomber raids and radar.
N8dog has a good idea, but I think that these should not just be at the rear but dotted throughout, which would make the map more strategic. Having some Table Mountains around might be fun.
Have shore batteries inland - think pillboxes - covering likely ground attack routes.
Multiple 163 bases.
-
Any way of incorporating multiple terrain tiles? e.g. centre of map is desert, next area outward is a browny green, then lush green, then furthest out is snow covered. Be nice to be able to fly over different ground colours.
-
One of my many peeves is the inablity to defend towns at bases on some maps. The towns are too far away from the field, or at such a different elevation they can't be seen from the field. Some hidden towns have enemy spawn points located just beyond them so GVs can destroy the town and take the base without anyone knowing about it. Air defense isn't affective when these fields are nearly vacant, and an understaffed country doesn't have the resources to protect them all by air. The result is a series of sneak attacks, such as that which the Pizza map is famous for. If you want a game to be based upon land grabbing, you should provide the means to defend them.
More manned ack that's harder to kill.
Manned ack in or near towns such as you set up next to VH bases.
Friendly spawn points to some towns located remote to the base.
I think strat targets should be located in the rear of countries. This adds incentive to move the battle line toward the rear. This makes it more necessary to plan bombing missions instead of pesky repetative individual attacks. If the strat targets were located nearer to the front lines, the Knights would never have DAR.
Locate more defenses at strat targets. Your spawn points are great. Now add some manned ack there too.
Close and chained fields are great. but these can be alternated with more distant bases, especially towards the rear.
Give shore guns a greater range of cover. Allow them to be used for defense against GVs and landing craft also... great fun for the gunner then.
As it is now, bases have little or no defense against the hordes. Once they deack and kill the VH, it's all over. If they want to capture bases, make them work for it.
grizzly
-
I like the shore battery pill box thing.. as long as thier hardness is decreased i think it could work.
-
What I'd like to see is less emphasis on airfield targets (other than the hangars themselves), and more emphasis on strat targets. What I mean by that is that someone porking random bases shouldn't kill a country's front. Instead, maybe dropping all fuel tanks at a field means no plane can take off for 5 minutes. Perfect for a well-organized mission: drop the field and a couple surrounding fields, but drop those troops fast or you'll have a swarm on your hands.
Have several fuel/ammo/whatever factories that serve the same function current fuel/ammo/whatever tanks already do. As those factories are destroyed, the bases connected to them have less and less fuel/ammo/whatever available to them. That would make level-bombing (and dive-bombing dweeb lancasters, I suppose) a fun and useful sortie. As it stands, right now I don't notice if our cities and factories are leveled. It doesn't really affect my play.
Maybe change radar factories to radar bases with extended range, and remove the radar from fields themselves. (Have radar bases cover a two sector radius, that'll make them pretty important targets to furballers and strat guys alike.)
Hm. Re-reading the thread, I came across this:
for festerma i will most likely keep the middle section (furball area) the way it is but will change the other zones and make them more distant.
I like fast furballs but I like longer missions too and I want to choose at will between the two on the same map at any given time.
What if several of those "furball fields" are tied to an external field's town? If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you can still come up with ways to combine fields that share a single map room.
-
What Replicant said, snow please.
-
Originally posted by qts
One of the things all mapmakers should consider is the natural advantage that the northern (to a greater extent) and western (to a lesser extent) countries seem to have on the larger maps. It's particularly noticable on Trinity - and Uterus and Baltic, though smaller maps - and Pizza tends to this. How to correct this bias, I do not know, unless it's possible to have the whole map gradually rotate as if the centre of the map were the North Pole.
There were some "mistakes" made in field location that made the southeast country in Trintity more vunerable. When I added airfields, the SE country got medium fields, the other 2 countries got small. Unfortunately, the other problems (such as A1 being located in 3k pass in the mountain buffer zone) means that the new fields had little impact. I hope to address these issues when the map is redone for AH2.
Fester...
I would suggest that you look at improving the GV battles. Counter spawns can really make GV fights a lot more fun (it really is a great way to deal with spawn campers). With the setup you used, adding a few more spawns per GV field would greatly improve things.
-
Problem with having the coastal bases only better for strat is they gonna know your coming cause it's next in the conga line.
How about keeping the furball area a decent distance away so the coastal bases are reasonably safe from the furball horde but the center can still be used to launch buff raids to the coast---or vise versa , coastal bases could have decent distance to launch buffs into the center.
-
not reading all these posts.... too drunk lol
i know my opinion is watermelon noone carse about it but IMHO:
NO airfields with a GV spawn to somewhere without that base being able to spawn back... IE 1 way spawns.
nothing in AH is more worthless IMHO than an airfield that has GV spawn ponits into it with ZERO outgoing spawn points.
why bother defending it..... they will just bring GV's instead of planes, or both.
if they can attack in a certain way you should be able to counter attack in the same way.
balance
i believe thats what you were looking for in the first map you made.
what i have stated above is the BIGGEST reason bigisles is a pain in the arse map. pretty much with all the "large" maps there is the same thing. look at the small maps. this is almost not prevelant.
side note this ONLY applies to AIRFIELDS. their VH is harder to kill than a viehicle base only. also they have airplanes to defend. IMHO a Vehicle base alone in the center of a bunch of bases SHOULD be able to spawn anywhere.... just not lone airfields.
oh well another lame thought by yours truly.
-
Throw in some new aircraft skins if at all possible :)
Many players have contributed excellent skins for Special Events. Why not throw some of those in?
If this next map is for AHII, then nevermind. Different skins will become available once approved by HTC.
-
keep the base distances!
Wider fronts would be nice.
The only thing I can think to complain about with festerma is the lack of interesting terrain at low levels. I feel rougher terrain makes things more interesting.
-
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread.
Dunno if it's been mentioned:
Shore Guns. We'd like some please.
Ya know that huge amount of sea that's completely unused? How bout some more islands? Not too close either, the rest of the map is nice and close together, lets have some not so close bases as well.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by JB73
NO airfields with a GV spawn to somewhere without that base being able to spawn back... IE 1 way spawns.
nothing in AH is more worthless IMHO than an airfield that has GV spawn ponits into it with ZERO outgoing spawn points.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Ever seen Kanttori's excellent fin rus map? where the GV spawnpoints from each base spawn directly opposite eachother seperated by a small GV battlezone (similar to the middle bit of trinity but smaller with only 2 spawnpoints).
maybe you could consider bringing something like this to MA where the bases are seperated by a small battlezone such as this -would make attacking bases a whole lot more fun.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1069070810.jpg)
The area on FinRus map
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1069070874.jpg)
My (crappy MS Paint) idea showing defensive/offensive GV
spawns.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Ever seen Kanttori's excellent fin rus map? where the GV spawnpoints from each base spawn directly opposite eachother seperated by a small GV battlezone (similar to the middle bit of trinity but smaller with only 2 spawnpoints).
maybe you could consider bringing something like this to MA where the bases are seperated by a small battlezone such as this -would make attacking bases a whole lot more fun.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1069070874.jpg)
My (crappy MS Paint) idea showing defensive/offensive GV
spawns.
That's so crazy, it just might work! :D
One thing I like about FesterMa map is that there are factories along the GV base "alleyways". That's an idea that should be retained. With the overlapping spawnpoints, that idea would really be a lot of fun to try.
I also like the fact that, from launch to being directly over an enemy base, the altitude attained is approximately 10-12,000 feet in a Spitfire IX and P-51D.
I would suggest more ports, with a carrier port and battleship-only ports. And shore batteries. And PT boat spawn points.
Instead of open ocean, why not a Great Lakes style so that captured carriers can't be hidden so easily?
-
cit... I am thinking that with close bases only at the center that most of the time when I log on those bases will be overrun allready and that I will simply have a worse version of pizza map to deal with. Even if it is my country that is ahead (has the most players).... I will simply have long flights to nowhere just like we have now on most of the other big maps.
lazs
-
I like the idea of stepping the terrain. Back when I played in Fighter Ace 2.0 that was one thing they had that worked great. The rear bases were at an altitude of close to 8,000 feet and the terrain sloped off gradually toward the middle area. Granted there were 5 countries all meeting at a central point but there were only I think 8 bases per country with many small "towns" and factories all over the country that could be captured.
BUT I digress. If you give the defenders a gradually increasing altitude advantage from their rear launch points it should help them. From the central area you could have three co-alt bases on three separate high mountain peaks like we have now with your current FesterMA map. Then you drop down to low altitude and then start working your way into the countries with a gradual stepping up of altitude. Although you don't want to make a "wall" of 8k bases and then another section of 15k bases. I would put in a series of stair step plateaus with a final area of 3-4 bases in the very rear that have about a 3-4k altitude advantage over the bases just in front of them.
Is it possible to have a HQ for each Zone of Control? Is it possible to tie that HQ into a base and that way have the ability to capture a HQ? Then when the Zone gets taken the various factores for it also get switched over to the team that holds the Zone HQ as well as the majority of the bases in the Zone.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Any way of incorporating multiple terrain tiles? e.g. centre of map is desert, next area outward is a browny green, then lush green, then furthest out is snow covered. Be nice
to be able to fly over different ground colours.
didn't read all the replys, but i think this would be great. what about adding some winter/snow terrain? have yet to see that in the MA, in my opinion they look quite nice in the CT. other than that, people are still gonna whine no matter what.
keep up the good work S!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cit... I am thinking that with close bases only at the center that most of the time when I log on those bases will be overrun allready and that I will simply have a worse version of pizza map to deal with. Even if it is my country that is ahead (has the most players).... I will simply have long flights to nowhere just like we have now on most of the other big maps.
lazs
You should really see someone about that ADD of yours, it seems like it's really bad.
Afraid a flight longer than 3 minutes will have your mind wandering elsewhere?
-
If you’re going to set up strat targets for bombers, keep in mind the routes and things the bombers look for, things like wind direction, number and layout of strat targets and radar coverage along the route. There usually isn’t time to do the necessary cross wind corrections after fighting a running gun battle for 75-150 miles.
Keep the strat targets toward the rear of the zone to a) prevent milk-running and b) keep the runs exciting. It also means the defenders are more capable of hitting back as their territory is captured.
My biggest complaint about the current FesterMA is the dive bombing Lancs coming from A21 when the map first comes up. Hordes of suicide Bombers are spawned from that center base whenever the map resets yet there are no other high bases for countries to launch bombers and save time grabbing.
-
Thanks for accepting input, Fester
I'd be in favor of consistency with GV spawns. Some put you right on the enemy's city, some no where near at all. I've never understood why some do and do not.
I've enjoyed the GV battles but feel some are too close to towns...and some that aren't available near a base should be. Perhaps make vehicle spawns be available at *all* bases, but a tad further than they are now? Maybe a compromise?
Just a thought...I've enjoyed the map a lot, just find that GVs crawl into our base frequently...and when I want to return the favor, no such spawns exist at the bases we have
-
so rut... what you are saying is that it doesn't matter that I'm right... long flights are fine with you? We allready knew that. Festers map/s try to ease the bad situation of the other maps not clone those situations. You feel that the the other large maps with their lack of action are great... I would submit that it is you not I who is in a rut.
but then... you really can't answer so I put the question to fester... what wpould prevent the situation I have described if only the central bases were close? seems that every country is overrun to a certain extent every time I log on.
lazs
-
Lazs... how much time have you spent on fester's map?
MiniD
-
What do folks think about how to make a better gv battle area? I'm thinking of limiting aircraft use . mult spawn points.. maybe pillboxes...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so rut... what you are saying is that it doesn't matter that I'm right... long flights are fine with you? We allready knew that. Festers map/s try to ease the bad situation of the other maps not clone those situations. You feel that the the other large maps with their lack of action are great... I would submit that it is you not I who is in a rut.
but then... you really can't answer so I put the question to fester... what wpould prevent the situation I have described if only the central bases were close? seems that every country is overrun to a certain extent every time I log on.
lazs
Yes, you were right.. that's why we're asking for some moderation now that your master plan has been put into effect, right?
And nothing would prevent people from not playing your way, because they wouln't be forced to.
Scary, huh? The game caters to more than furballers. Deal with it.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
What do folks think about how to make a better gv battle area? I'm thinking of limiting aircraft use . mult spawn points.. maybe pillboxes...
Pillboxes, strat-sized towns between two opposing GV spawns for some light urban warfare.. Thinking about it now, strat targets wouldn't work, because there'd be mass milkrunning from the enemy side.
-
rut.. if you were asking for moderation then I would think you would be asking for more places that were furball friendly in the rest of the big maps. They show no moderation whatsoever and "force" people to play only one way.
The current fester map forces nothing. it is all about opportunity.
it appears that what the few who dislike festers map dislike about it is that it doesn't force people to play with em.
lazs
-
Well first look at all the good/bad things about the 4 big maps.
Fester:
Closer bases(in some cases too close)
Closer zone controls( no more zone bases controling airfields 4 sectors away)
Vh vs. Vh
Trinity:
Fair base distance
Nice use of mountains( sometimes a bit excessive)
Some mountain ranges act as too much of a barrier
Zone control thats 4 sectors away
Vehicle spawns that dont reciprocate
AkDesert
Good base distance
Good elevation changes( i know, some are a bit whacked, but at least they tried)
HQ elevated to make NOE hard
Vehicle spawns 3 sectors away
Big Isle:
Excellent carrier ops
Fields too far apart
So in conclusion i would make these points:
Make bases close enough to find action yet far enough to make covering them from another base a real factor
Airfields are for planes, Vbases are for gvs. Use the Vbase HUB design. Keep vhs at airfield for defense, not for attack.
If a base is on the coast and can be hit by cruiser guns, for gosh sakes, give it shore batteries to defend itself
Elevation makes for fun and nice scenery
Keep zone controls tight. Nobody like taking a base thats supplied by a zone base 4 sectors away
My last point might be somewhat niave as i am not a map designer myself. Is it possible to mix up terrains? I mean have some green rolling hills, some desert, maybe even some tundra all on the same map. Its not like we have to worry about weather and growing seasons in AH anyway.
-
I have no problem finding furballs that arent over a base, aren't at 30k and consist of at least 10 planes when i feel like it. (Save for bigisles) The different is, i'm willing to fly farther than half a mile to get to em. You aren't.
You just don't wan't the strat players to have equal opportunity to find something to do as the furballers do in festers map, and you can't stand that your utopia might be mussed up by the strat players being happy.
The argument is the exact same for both sides of this, you should know that by now - The furballers claim strat players have a chance on festerma and the strat players claim the furballers have a chance on the other maps.
I really don't give a damn if furballers have thier ideal environment any more than you do about strat players having thiers.
-
FesterMA is the only map I enjoy now.
Lets make the map more fun with names for locations. I'll bet if a base is next to MAW mountain it would be very difficult to extricate from the the MAW's.
I like DREX gulch too. Don't forget to put in a nice Fester bay.
One of the things that has been missing from AH is the fun.
-
Can you make it when someone whines to much there name apears in RED
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it appears that what the few who dislike festers map dislike about it is that it doesn't force people to play with em.
lazs
Once again... an odd thing to say.
And, once again, how much have you played this map lazs? For as much defending of it as you do... how much have you found it to enhance your gameplay? How warmly are you really receiving it. Do you have even more than 1 hour on it?
You're arguing about the "good" of this map simply because you argued that the changes would be good before they were even made. Now you aren't even giving it an honest look to see how they've affected things. But that doesn't stop you from arguing about how great it must be since the changes were made.
I love it when the guys that don't play anymore say the map they aren't playing right now is so great.
MiniD
-
It's your map Fester, build it how you like. You did an outstanding job on your first attempt and I think you will do just fine on your own for subsequent attempts =)
-
i like fester map, it keeps the fighting low. spending 30 min climbing to 20k just to have someone dive down and run away isnt that fun.
buff and jabo whiners just need to learn how to fly.( ie up from fields behind the lines so you can get alt in that b17, since most people will be down low anyways.)
-
yes fester HQ raids i rarley do cause of the distance on the big maps..i think 5 -6 sctrs would not be too bad for HQ runs...(and im always down for more me 163 bases:))
only thing i have noticed is like i read..more space between the HQ bases and the front line bases...
if you had a border like ur VH bases on ur map..near th eHQ i think it would work well...and not let the countyr getting attaked get steam rolled as quickly..
fester..i hate you and want you to leave AH.. ..but your map i have the most fun on..and always look forward to its rotation..if i want quik furball i can..if i wan tto lift for long flight i can..now if u can get rid of dark ....
Salute
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by Citabria
and what about hq? should it be closer to the action since it can be rebuilt to encourage more organized buff runs?
Put a HQ in each zone so we can organize more buff/escort missions to a strat that actually matters. the zone HQ's would affect the radar in that zone only. the big maps are bad in the sense that it takes litarally hours to hit the HQ of an opponant.
I really like the format of your map here tho. It puts gv's right on sight of cities and factories without a 30 minute drive. Good for milkrunners? Maybe, but Ive noticed that if 3 or 4 gv's spawn for a good milkrun, 3 or 4 nmes spawn for a good gv battle, which is what ive had on this map, time after time. WTG!