Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on April 03, 2004, 09:24:31 PM
-
Kurland...
Too few airfields, spread too far apart... Too many vehicle bases makes it easy to pork fields resulting in no real fights....
Really bad, this week needs to pass ASAP...
-
Yes....evAr...
-
And yes, we know it is a scenario map, and probably a good one, but it is truely awful as a CT arena map. Please pull it and replace with the same planeset in FinnRuss or Hungary.
-
Okinawa! :aok
-
Great map for CT use!
i can play gv all day long with jgay 3 guys:aok
-
It does, indeed, appear to be a dandy map for ground vehicles, if you're into that sort of thing in a flight sim.
Sux for air combat, though.
Splash1
-
I agree, nice looking map, nice for GVs but definitely not any good for the CT. Keep the planeset and dump the map.
-
It is planned to the SEA-scenario and Kurland Design team has noticed that it's not working in the CT. After scenario I modify this map suitable for the CT-arena with many more Airfields and removing about half of the V-bases away. This CT-week is just a test that we can see bugs and thas kind of field-problems. So be patient, Gentlemen!;)
-
Wouldn't it be common courtesy to load this map in the SEA during off hours and let those flying the event debug it?
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Wouldn't it be common courtesy to load this map in the SEA during off hours and let those flying the event debug it?
exactly.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Wouldn't it be common courtesy to load this map in the SEA during off hours and let those flying the event debug it?
Possibly so, but Kanttori has done well for the CT, I don't mind spending a week working this map. The plane set is a good one (altho' I think it would be a good idea to enable the G10 at more places...G6 is not competitive with the 9U); I just wish there were a way to persuade both sides not to cap bases.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
The plane set is a good one
Forgot to write: People should know that Brady enabled planes at most of the GV bases and ports. You have to trundle out of the hanger and find a good way to take off (I turn left, keep the tower on my right, fly for the space between the building and the big tree), but it saves you a long time getting to the fight.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Forgot to write: People should know that Brady enabled planes at most of the GV bases and ports.
Good tip, Oldman. I didn't know that. Makes a lot of difference.
Splash1
-
what oldman said, and the ack is awsome and very hard to see! Plenty of manable ack to ward of seasoned vulchers. Funny, its harder to fly around VH than it is airfield without getting hit by ack. Worse than CV acxk even!!!!
-
Possibly so, but Kanttori has done well for the CT, I don't mind spending a week working this map. The plane set is a good one (altho' I think it would be a good idea to enable the G10 at more places...G6 is not competitive with the 9U); I just wish there were a way to persuade both sides not to cap bases.
The bases were laid so the fighting would be over the front, i.e. the defensive V-bases. Most of the air bases along the front are 30 - 40 miles apart with the V-bases in-between as something to fight over and around.
The distances from the airbases to the frontline (v-bases) aren't any longer then in some of the other maps. Long distances with nothing to do are a problem but with this map flight times (distance to combat) to the front are comparable to flight times between airfields in the other maps. The defensive v-bases being as hard as they are to capture were to be the focal point of the fight rather then just over the air bases like it in other maps.
Distance to Combat and Distance between bases are 2 different things. Most combat in the CT is over a base, mostly air bases.
This map adds something between the airbases to fight over (the defensive v-bases). If 2 bases are 35 miles apart, and an objective to fight over is between, theoretically then its 17.5 mile to combat. The problems is that when looking at the map and seeing 5 v-bases crammed into a sector and 1 airfield the obvious assumption is “there’s to many v-bases”. It’s an illusion created by vbase density, if we removed a few it would be less obvious.
On Fork's setup on the France map that ran last week the 2 closest fields were 30-35 miles apart. The little time I was able to spend in that setup the fight was right over the French coast meaning the allies flew 30 miles to one way to get there.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1080978071_fran.jpg)
contrasted againt the most active area on the Kurland map:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1081144698_kur.jpg)
The main difference being the v-bases betwen the bases.
The map was laid out so that to capture the v-bases it would need both air and land components attacking, to defend them requires the same.
For example:
The attackers launch Jabos to level the vbase, the defenders launch fighters to kill the Jabos, The attackers send in fighters to cover the Jabos. The attackers send in GVs, the defenders launch their own GVs and send in their jabos to kill the enemy GVs, more fighters arrive etc. It was hoped the fight would develop in this fashion. It didn’t.
The idea evolved around creating a map that is difficult roll over forcing a giving level of cooperation. With the airfields vulnerable but in the rear we laid out the GV remote spawns as a sort of a road system. Using the v-bases we created choke points. I would have left out the C47 so that capture could only occur via the M3.
Within in 1 hour of setting the arena up it was clear that the premise behind the map was a bit much for the CT. For the most part folk flew right by the V-bases and went right on to the opposing field. Then the complaints began with "Its too far between airfields".
Against my recommendation the map was "adjusted". I had though that we should give it a day or 2 to see how it plays out and to give folks time to adjust and learn the map. For instance at p25 there is an airfield attached to that port. Many weren’t aware of it.
The adjustments resulted in fighters everywhere. In some case at v-bases less then 3 miles apart. The v-bases while difficult to attack became for the most part irrelevant.
The typical base porking resulted.
The map was in the SEA for a week. Besides the "bug" on this forum the map itself is exactly how I laid it out.
Kanttori simply produced a map based on my design. We learned, actually I learned that the design and idea behind this map is wholly unsuited for the CT. It will be adjusted and corrected.
If this setup sucks then sorry you aren’t having, Fester's new main map is up and this map only has 5 more days to run.
-
"The attackers launch Jabos to level the vbase, the defenders launch fighters to kill the Jabos, The attackers send in fighters to cover the Jabos. The attackers send in GVs, the defenders launch their own GVs and send in their jabos to kill the enemy GVs, more fighters arrive etc. It was hoped the fight would develop in this fashion. It didn’t."
the average CT'er aint no rocket scientist, thats fer sure. Your asking for a three tiered cooperative engagement. THis can only happen by a serious amount of preplanning, directives, leadership and execution (aka scenario). Thats simply way too much to ask of people who log onto the game after work (or school) and want to engage in straightforward combat. Its a pretty map and obviously has alot of thought put into its layout but the past few times online have not been rewarding in any way for me.
Shocking (isnt it)
-
That's not what I said at all.
Its more like a "snowball effect". One guy grabs a A20g and heads to the nearest enemy GV base and blows stuff up (there's lots of stuff to blow up on this map other then just proking airfields). Another guy sees it and grabs a fighter and heads there etc.. It all builds from there. Just like it does when one guy attacks a field and fighters spawn to get him.
One thing that needs adjusting is dot radar range to make it easier to see where the fight is.
But it sure aint rocket science...
How it ended up playing out sure flies in the face of those who call for strat and "cooperation" etc...
-
Give it a week, its been pretty decent so far.
-
Funny - I thought the map was one of the BEST I had ever played on. Historically correct (all that Flak is what a "REAL" battlefield looks like folks) and with selected aircraft availalble from the VH's and Ports makes it perfect.
Real issure here is most people here don't like to have to taxi their aircraft to a hole in the wall before leaving the VH. Don't know how many I seen eat the trees or a wall because they didn't take a few seconds to look in front of them. :rolleyes:
Dot Dar does need to be cut back a bit - as was stated - hard to find the fight at first glance and most folks don't have the patients or time to fly around looking for one.
If you re-do the map one suggestion would be to put a single runway dirt strip at each VH base and Port like on Kanttori's Fin/Rus maps.
Love the look of the tracks on dirt airfields and the reworking of ports with more shipping to use for targets. Really get the feeling of flying over Kurland. !
Only suggestion I could make is if you are going to leave the spawn point for a/c at the VH would be to add a "TURN LEFT" <------ roadsign on the side of the tower. ;)
-
I wouldn't even come close to saying that this map "sucks", although I don't think it is a good fit for the CT, I have been having fun with it. I do appreciate the effort made by those in creating new historical maps, thank you.
Also the fact the creators are aware of the fact that this map needs to be changed to be viable in the CT and are working on changing it is a good response to me.
I also agree with Batz that planes should not of been added to the VHs. I would rather see the GVs themselves removed. At least remove the Tigers from both sides, if the USSR and Germany were at armor parity at this point let's just use the Panzer IV, think it would create more interesting game play, imo.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
I would rather see the GVs themselves removed.
Ships next?
Why don't we just have everyone "Air Spawn" at 20K so we can furball constantly.
We can cut the maps back to just one field and each side can spawn at each end of the runway so you can start furballing as soon as you start rolling. :rolleyes:
Let's keep it a "Little" historical if you please.
-
Honestly I would like to set up a mission using GV's and use air support for them... but I don't ever see that happing. It's a great looking map, especially seeing it with my new computer. I haven't got to fly it online yet but have offline due to the fact of mission planning.
-
Only suggestion I could make is if you are going to leave the spawn point for a/c at the VH would be to add a "TURN LEFT" <------ roadsign on the side of the tower.
Brady allowed planes to spawn at the VH as short term solution to the airfields being far apart. Kanttori and Brady will go through and add additonal fields to make it more ct friendly.
The fields and town / Vbases are laid out historical.
Brady shifted the front around which had the unintended effect of under mining the choke points. Especially at V3. V3 was a blocking position for allied advances toward Tukkum. By making allied there was nothing blocking gvs to the factory or the airfield (A2).
The way the map was laid out was so that the vbases along the front faced each other. I had thought that since the vbases would be hard to capture that they would off set each other somewhat and that the "less defended" airfields would be protected.
The unintended consquences of the adjustments was to make all vbases airfields and moving the front undermined the blocking positions which put in some places airfields right on the front and in the case of A3 3 miles from and enemy field (V3).
I would have preferred that the map remained as designed and the only adjustments made would have been to give the Northern Islands to the allies (after Nov '44 they were in Soviet hands anyway).
Lets just say I strongly disagreed with the current adjustments.
I thought it may have been better to let it play out and in the mean while we would take the suggestions and the obvious flaws and apply them to the map in the next build.
They German and Soviet were not at "parity" in the pocket. The Soviest had for more of everything. Granted not tigers but they Had IS-2s.
I agree that the tigers are everywhere and some thought should have been made to restricting their availability.
But then again if the map kept the front as designed the tigers and all gvs would have went up against the vbases with 12 manned ack.
Anyway, I apologize if it was unfun, we have planes to make changes and if its run again in the future hopefully it will play better.
-
Originally posted by Jester
Ships next?
Why don't we just have everyone "Air Spawn" at 20K so we can furball constantly.
We can cut the maps back to just one field and each side can spawn at each end of the runway so you can start furballing as soon as you start rolling. :rolleyes:
Let's keep it a "Little" historical if you please.
Let's keep from over exeggerating, how about we do that? I prefer air combat, not GVs or furballing. Don't put words in my mouth and stick your :rolleyes: you know where.
-
I think the GV and ship issue is a lot like the balance issue. They can get out of hand, but you cant force players to pick a/c and not GVs any more than you can force them to switch sides.
Arenas are arenas, and they have those problems, but I too hate a 32-26 night where 1/2 if one side is in panzers, its a snore.
-
Speaking of ships, the post for the setup says:
"Fleats enabled for the Germans. "
And says nothing about Ruskie ships, so why do the Bolsheviks have fleets?
I just want to say that the map itself is awsome, really nice looking, my complaints stem not from the quality of the map, but rather its use as a CT map. Since it has been stated that it will be modified to better suit the CT the next time its used thats OK with me, I can live with it for one week, its not the end of the world. I just wanted everyone to know I was not trying to dissmiss all the work that went into the map with my complaints.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Let's keep from over exeggerating, how about we do that? I prefer air combat, not GVs or furballing. Don't put words in my mouth and stick your :rolleyes: you know where.
1. As for "We" - Don't talk in 3rd Person - makes you sound like a studmuffin.
2. As for "I" - You aren't the only one that plays this game. Weather you think so or not.
3. As for your last comment - Be careful - your "intelligence" is showing.
VOTE UGH!
-
LOL:)
-
lol:lol
Jester:aok
-
Weather??
Isn't it time for you to run off and make up next week's squad?
-
FIGHT!!!!!!
-
Exactly where in the manual does it say I am limited to the number of squads I start or belong to and what does it have to do with this conversation about the Kurland terrain?
If my friends and I hadn't started JG 54 there would be almost no organized Axis in the CT and you would be flying around with your finger up your Spitfire looking for some cons.
If I want to start a squad "One an Hour, on the Hour" that isn't really any business of yours till you start paying my $15.00 a month HTC bill.
Till then... well... you know what. ;)
-
Soft spot?
-
We did squad night, I must say I enjoyed the Kurland set. Didnt see any real issues with bases being too far away.
again Jester, good fight.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Soft spot?
(Repeat of above post for those too dense or imature to get it.)
-
Yes Warloc, was a damn good fight!
!
Out of the most intense large scale dogfights I have been involved in where I could identify the squad two of them have been against 880.
Would like to see how we would have gone with even numbers. Just too many Ruskies to keep up with.
-
Originally posted by Jester
(Repeat of above post for those too dense or imature to get it.)
I'm gonna take that as a yes, no need to get so emotional. You seem to be making a habit of that.
-
I think I'll fly for JG-54 in Kurland sometime before start Frame One and probably would be alot fun this time :)