Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Clifra Jones on October 15, 2006, 01:06:43 PM
-
256 mile map. Targeted primarily for the EW.
My idea is that fields are no more than 3/4 sector apart.
(http://www.bbri.com/images/other/map.bmp)
Comments please.
-
Insufficient data...can not compute.
-
Looks nice...but needs markings for fields.
Clifra...check your PMs...
-
i really like it :)
any chance of making the fields CLOSER than 3/4 of a sector?
problem with EW is the speed of the planes. if you're aiming at the EW make the fields really close ;) but i really like it, good job :aok
any idea on the number of fields?
-
Mountains & valleys BETWEEN the fields... Please, pretty please, with sugar on top an a couple cherries?
It would be ever so lovely to fight over somthing besides flat terrain or water
-
Originally posted by Atoon
Mountains & valleys BETWEEN the fields... Please, pretty please, with sugar on top an a couple cherries?
It would be ever so lovely to fight over somthing besides flat terrain or water
yeah, i agree with that :)
some rolling valleys, tall mountains and twisting trenches are always great fun :)
-
OK, haven't got to fields yet but as I said, "no more" than 3/4 sector apart. Some will definitely be closer.
As far as hill and valleys yes I will, I have to pay around with the filters and see how that works. I'm thinking some nice canyon's up in the mountains.
This is what I'm thinking regarding base placement:
Each continent divided into 2 zones, Small airfields and v-bases fairly close together on the perimeters of the zones, then inside that medium airfields & v-bases slightly further apart and then inside large airfields & v-bases even further apart. Again, not more than 2/3 sector.
As far as # of bases I'll have to see how the spacing works out.
-
Good looking layout, however I think its about 4 x too big for EW arena. Knock it down to 1/3 or 1/4 its current size and you probably have something.
-
Well I tried that. The other choices are a 128 or 64 mile map. If I take this map and just reset the map size take a look at what happens for a 128 mile map.
(http://www.bbri.com/images/other/map128.bmp)
Now your talking a about a map that is 5 sectors wide. Even in the EW I think that is just way to small.
My thinking was not to build a map targeted towards the low numbers in the EW, but to build a map that will attract more players into the EW.
For any Arena map I think 256 is as small as we'd want to go.
-
Vortex, I think I mis-interpreted you. If you mean take the 256 mile map and then reduce the land mass size, yes that culd be done. I will look at it.
-
Let me recommend that you make enough room at the narrow spots so carriers can go anywhere on the map
-
AFAIK all MA maps have to be 256 or 512 miles wide and fields at least 3/4 sector apart.
-
Cliffra, what alt are you proposing for the fields? Higher fields will make some fights start a little sooner, instead of driving 1/2 a sector on the deck.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Let me recommend that you make enough room at the narrow spots so carriers can go anywhere on the map
Yes I know. There is a problem with the northern peninsula on the western continent and the eastern edge of the eastern continent. I am going to fix that.
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
AFAIK all MA maps have to be 256 or 512 miles wide and fields at least 3/4 sector apart.
Have not seen that posted but I agree 256 is the smallest you want an MA map. As far as field spacing I can't find anything officially posted in the TE forum.
3/4 should be MAX for an EW map. For an LW map 3/4 wuld be a good min. I'd say 1/2 for MW.
HTC, can you clearify?
**Edit**
Ok Found a reference to an old post by HT. Yes, he states that fields should be between 3/4 and 1.5 sectors. 3/4 is still long for EW.
HiTech, can you clearify this? Have not placed fields yet.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Cliffra, what alt are you proposing for the fields? Higher fields will make some fights start a little sooner, instead of driving 1/2 a sector on the deck.
This is a fairly steep terrain, hence the name "The Highland". The shorelines rise quickly up to 4-5K. This needs adjusting but the centers of the continents are fairly high, 15-17K with mountain peaks up to 25K
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Well I tried that. The other choices are a 128 or 64 mile map. If I take this map and just reset the map size take a look at what happens for a 128 mile map.
Now your talking a about a map that is 5 sectors wide. Even in the EW I think that is just way to small.
My thinking was not to build a map targeted towards the low numbers in the EW, but to build a map that will attract more players into the EW.
For any Arena map I think 256 is as small as we'd want to go.
I think you may be surprised. I come at it from the other angle in that with a smaller map to start with players will be more likely to log in and stay. Reason being is they can find action easily. In time one would hope that you would have to increase the size of the map slightly to accomodate increased numbers.
I just find that by starting with a really big map it is very hard to draw players in and have them stay. Action is just too hard to find in that big an area. for the numbers that the EW see's i think a map anywhere between 15-25 sectors is probably perfect to start.
That's just my two bits though :)
-
I think anyone making a workable map should be rewarded with 2-6 months free play. - The game is CLEARLY in DIRE need of maps. ESPECIALLY with the new format- I have no time to even think about learning how to make maps- and is PAINFULLY obvious HTC doesn't either. Let's reward those with the time that put for the effort & achieve success:aok :D :cool: :) ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Have not seen that posted but I agree 256 is the smallest you want an MA map. As far as field spacing I can't find anything officially posted in the TE forum.
3/4 should be MAX for an EW map. For an LW map 3/4 wuld be a good min. I'd say 1/2 for MW.
HTC, can you clearify?
**Edit**
Ok Found a reference to an old post by HT. Yes, he states that fields should be between 3/4 and 1.5 sectors. 3/4 is still long for EW.
HiTech, can you clearify this? Have not placed fields yet.
I have seen HT post more than once that the minimum distance between fields is 3/4 of a sector.
A quick call to HT at the office and you will have your answer.
-
Less than 3/4 of a sector between airfields and you can have ack shooting at you from an enemy field before your hardly off the ground.
-
perhaps HT will allow distances smaller than 3/4 sector for the EW, because the planes are far slower?
please HT?
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Less than 3/4 of a sector between airfields and you can have ack shooting at you from an enemy field before your hardly off the ground.
Well, we certainly do not want that, 3/4 it is.
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
perhaps HT will allow distances smaller than 3/4 sector for the EW, because the planes are far slower?
please HT?
I believe Ghost is right, less than 3/4 and Ack will shoot at your from the other base. Closer fields would mean a change in Ack settings and I doubt that is gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by Vortex
I think you may be surprised. I come at it from the other angle in that with a smaller map to start with players will be more likely to log in and stay. Reason being is they can find action easily. In time one would hope that you would have to increase the size of the map slightly to accomodate increased numbers.
I just find that by starting with a really big map it is very hard to draw players in and have them stay. Action is just too hard to find in that big an area. for the numbers that the EW see's i think a map anywhere between 15-25 sectors is probably perfect to start.
That's just my two bits though :)
Do you mean 15-25 linearly or square sectors? A 256 mile map is 10 sectors wide or 100 sq. sectors. A 128 mile map is 5 wide, or 25 sq. sectors.
-
any map that has most or all of the fields 3/4 of a sector apart and allows cv's will be the best map we have for, at least the early and mid war... Not so good for the lw and fluffers but... who cares about late war and fluffers? give em the old big maps.. pizza and infinity are fine for the borg.
Somehow tho... biggles being able to get to me faster is not comforting.
yep... any map with closer fields will be a huge improvement.. the terrain... not so important...canyons? yeah... mountains? naaa.. no use for em.
new planes and new maps with closer fields are what EW needs.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Somehow tho... biggles being able to get to me faster is not comforting.
Hehehe :t
Great fights last night BTW, . I can't believe you got away the second time, those bloody F4F's are built like tanks :) It'd be fun to try and start a mini FT in EW, best fights are found there i reckon.
-
If it were me, Id make a rough draft and send it to Hitech for approval before actual building it. Save some heartache if rejected.
-
If you put air fields closer than 3/4 miles we will not accept it.
-
Originally posted by hitech
If you put air fields closer than 3/4 miles we will not accept it.
3/4 mile or 16.7 miles (3/4 sector) ?
-
Originally posted by hitech
If you put air fields closer than 3/4 miles we will not accept it.
:(
-
Originally posted by hitech
If you put air fields closer than 3/4 miles we will not accept it.
Agreed, I remember when we did the FF thing in the old CT and the bases were real close. Ghost is right the ack will fire at planes on the runway in the other field. That would be a bad thing.
3/4 sector is what it will be.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
If it were me, Id make a rough draft and send it to Hitech for approval before actual building it. Save some heartache if rejected.
I am, I'm working on a bmp map with proposed field placements. Shoulld be done by end of week.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Do you mean 15-25 linearly or square sectors? A 256 mile map is 10 sectors wide or 100 sq. sectors. A 128 mile map is 5 wide, or 25 sq. sectors.
15-25 sectors total for the entire map.
On a related note I don't think one needs bases any close than the minimum limit already in place. You just need less area, and accordingly fewer bases, for people to disperse themselves too.
-
Originally posted by Vortex
15-25 sectors total for the entire map.
On a related note I don't think one needs bases any close than the minimum limit already in place. You just need less area, and accordingly fewer bases, for people to disperse themselves too.
25 total sectors would be 25 sq sectors whicj is a 128 mile map. this is quite small.
I'll try that on my next map.
-
Clifra ... I am quoting this from the other thread ...
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Quite correct Lasz. The problem that I have been encountering trying to make a map to these requirements is that it is difficult to get every adjacent base at the 3/4 mark. What I have done is make every base have at least 1 field at the 3/4 mark. So that any field will have at least an airbase, v-base or port 3/4 sector away. That was the best I could do.
I should have a base layout done by tomorrow.
Let me ask this ... why even put in vehicle bases ? ... every air base can have vehicles that can spawn anywhere you want them to.
So, if you eliminate the vehicle bases and replace with air fields, you could pretty much get all the airfields 3/4 of a sector apart (not including the ports) ... right ?
I don't know if HT has a requirement that a map must contain vehicle bases, but I can't see why it would be a hard requirement.
Is this map intended specifically for EW and/or MW ?
-
Originally posted by indy007
3/4 mile or 16.7 miles (3/4 sector) ?
It's 3/4 of a sector. You can't place bases at 3/4 miles. Bases are 1 mile square and need to land in the center of a 1 mile grid. So 3/4 of a mile is impossible to properly place a base.
-
Oops ment sectors
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Clifra ... I am quoting this from the other thread ...
Let me ask this ... why even put in vehicle bases ? ... every air base can have vehicles that can spawn anywhere you want them to.
In a word, political correctness. If it was up to me I would do just as you say but I am not sure if HT would accept it. You know there are those who will whine. Currently there are only 4 v-bases / continent and one on each island. The islands could change.
So, if you eliminate the vehicle bases and replace with air fields, you could pretty much get all the airfields 3/4 of a sector apart (not including the ports) ... right ?
No not quite. It just has to do with the available place for the field. Placing it on the 3/4 line for one field may put it inside the 3/4 line for another field. That is basically the issue. Some bases may have 2 or even 3 bases on or near the 3/4 line, other may have only 1. I agree, eliminating v-bases would increase that number slightly.
I don't know if HT has a requirement that a map must contain vehicle bases, but I can't see why it would be a hard requirement.
I don't know. I suppose I could search for it or Hitech can tell us and save me the time.
This is basically my layout.
Each continent divided in to 3 sections.
each section has:
5 small fields along the coast. 0-4k alt
2 med airfields back from the coast ~ 5-8K alt
1 large airfield up in the mountains ~ 10-15K
1 port
1 vbase
So each continent has a total of:
15 small airfields
6 med airfields
3 large airfields
3 v-bases
3 ports.
The 3 central islands have a small airfield and a v-base. that could change. I was going to put 2 airfields on there but changed that for PC reasons.
Also, no vehicle spawns across water. If there is no land route to the base you will not be able to spawn vehicles to that base. PT's yes but not vehicles.
Is this map intended specifically for EW and/or MW ?
EW was the original intent. It could work out well in the MW. It could even work in the LW but it would be a mad dash to the reset.
The key to each continent are the high alt large air fields.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Oops ment sectors
Could you comment on the v-base question? I am happy with my current layout but I want to be clear on a few things. Is there a ratio of required bases?
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
......The key to each continent are the high alt large air fields.
Remember there is a general 5k limit for air bases in the MA.
There are some exceptions, but 5k is usually max.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Oops ment sectors
We knew that. I was just translating for people who don't speak HiTechese. :)
-
Originally posted by NHawk
Remember there is a general 5k limit for air bases in the MA.
There are some exceptions, but 5k is usually max.
I believe that FesterMA has one 12K base.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I believe that FesterMA has one 12K base.
That's why I said there are some exceptions.
But have you ever tried to get bombers off the ground at 12K? Best use the LONG runway. And pray there aren't any trees or hills in front of you. :)
-
Originally posted by NHawk
That's why I said there are some exceptions.
But have you ever tried to get bombers off the ground at 12K? Best use the LONG runway. And pray there aren't any trees or hills in front of you. :)
There are a few maps with 10k bases. I would tend to agree that 10-12k is about as high as you would want.
-
As far as I can tell be this map. Created by SuperFly that the 3/4 spacing rule only applies to air bases. Knowing this make thing a lot more workable. I can add more v-bases now.
(http://www.bbri.com/images/other/sfma.bmp)
-
Cliff Jones: I would use 6k as max alt for air bases.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Cliff Jones: I would use 6k as max alt for air bases.
Roger that.
-
Max elevation for this terrain is going to be lowered based on what has been discussed here. As per HiTech max base alt will be 6K.
All strat are behind the central mountains.
Each land mass has it's advantanges and disadvantages.
This is just a drawing, I haven't begun placing objects on the terrain yet.
(http://www.bbri.com/images/other/base_design_map.bmp)
If you notice the 2 northern island almost make a fighter town arrangement.
-
I posted the lastest revision of this map in the TE forum. Clipboard map along with some fight screen scotts.
Please comment in that post please.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2218372#post2218372
-
Clifra, now that it's fleshing out, It's starting to show promise.
-
Thanks,
Man, I should have proof read that last post!:huh