I prefer maps that have more realistic levels of terrain, 25,000 ft pyramid mountains and canyons from Mars don't have a place in a WW2 sim. Maps that actually represent a collection of real geographic locations and combined to make a map look good.
<S>...-Gixer
Ok, I don't like bases close to the water. Ports I can understand....tuff to launch a boat with out water, they did teach us that in the Navy one month :devil Is there really a need to have bases right on the water? If they are on the water it makes it far to easy for the NOE crowd to just run base after base because the water is much easier to fly NOE over.
GV spawns. Make them multiple pronged like in a TT, and increase the "random spawn area" at each spawn. The idea is to make it much harder to set up a spawn camp.
Maps that actually represent a collection of real geographic locations and combined to make a map look good.That's why I like Baltic (although it looks funny compared to our maps) and Mindanao. It's nice to be able to refer to a certain spot on the map with a name instead of a letter and a number. Historical accuracy doesn't count that much, there's a bunch of them to be used in scenarios and such.
Ozkansas is one of my favorite maps. The only real problem with it is having the airbases in Tank Town. We need a map that has 9+ Vbases on an island like that with no airfields close by.
Areas like Tank Town (maybe even multiple towns like that)
But oddly we have at least two "tank towns", including one perfectly shielded from enemy air intrusion, that are completely deserted all of the time.
But players still wish for it :headscratch:
But oddly we have at least two "tank towns", including one perfectly shielded from enemy air intrusion, that are completely deserted all of the time.
But players still wish for it :headscratch:
Both of which have incredibly horrible terrain to tank in. That is why I never wanted to play in them. They both have next to no cover and long drives just to get to the action..
Don't like that HT sits on a bunch of maps that people spent many days and hours making when some of the best could be of some use.
Don't like that HT supposedly sits on a bunch of maps that people spent many days and hours making when some of the best could be of some use.
Don't like that HT never put any red squares around TT FT vbases to save at least one base in those areas.
Don't like that HT supposedly sits on a bunch of maps that people spent many days and hours making when some of the best could be of some use.:aok :aok
Don't like that HT never put any red squares around TT FT vbases to save at least one base in those areas.
:aok
++++++++++++++++ :aok :aok
Don't like that HT supposedly sits on a bunch of maps that people spent many days and hours making when some of the best could be of some use.
We do not sit on a bunch of maps. There are not any maps waiting on us, although as of Friday I know of 1 that was almost ready for submission.
HiTech
We do not sit on a bunch of maps. There are not any maps waiting on us, although as of Friday I know of 1 that was almost ready for submission.
HiTech
I'm sure that's true, except for terrains that have been submitted, inspected and discarded. When a terrain is submitted, there is no feedback if a problem is found that eliminates it from the build/rotation. <<<< well thats just terrible
How about a simple status reply stating see # x, x, etc
1 Terrain put into rotation
2 Balance issues
3 Errors. Find help within the terrain community
4 CBM
5 Other (and a note from htc)
+++++ :aok :aok :aok
I know many maps have been made for our scenarios that work just fine. (AVA, FSO maps) Some are Very Good but the only time you can fly in them is on special days. I could be wrong but it just seems some of that artwork and their layouts could be expanded upon and used as main arena maps fairly easily.
Was thinking that some of the maps that are in use but quickly turned over due to winning the war in under 5 hours could be extended by adding a time limit before the map is changed and then determine a winner. (or just expand and improve on them to meet larger harder to win map needs)
Sure a few people would complain about the measly perks but so what. You got to be at the right place at the right time to get the perks anyway, whether you earned them or not.
I'm sure that's true, except for terrains that have been submitted, inspected and discarded. When a terrain is submitted, there is no feedback if a problem is found that eliminates it from the build/rotation.
And what is "CBM" ?
HiTech
After tonite, I think Compello exemplifies the worst quality that any map can have===only a very points out of 400 sectors where it is reasonable to have enemy contact, which means you either see 30 enemy planes, or nothing. Neither scenario is a plus for anything like dogfights
You are right.Montis is a fun map but too easily reset. It needs to be expanded upon to meet our needs
I would like to see bases with actual names instead of numbers; perhaps have them as names of historical battles, various WW2 heroes from all nations that participated regardless of winning or losing the war or named for a member of the AH community that has passed away.
I would like to see bases with actual names instead of numbers; perhaps have them as names of historical battles, various WW2 heroes from all nations that participated regardless of winning or losing the war or named for a member of the AH community that has passed away.:aok