Author Topic: Perhaps the worst CT map ever... (Read 1589 times)

Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:24:00 AM »

"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)

Batz · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2004, 05:02:32 AM »

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...

Slash27 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2004, 06:26:29 AM »

Give it a week, its been pretty decent so far.

Jester · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2004, 06:36:10 PM »

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.

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.

TheBug · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2004, 06:54:05 PM »

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.

Jester · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:08:43 PM »

Quote

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.

Let's keep it a "Little" historical if you please.

o0Stream140o · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:38:18 PM »

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.

Batz · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:39:06 PM »

Quote

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.

TheBug · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:59:36 PM »

Quote

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.

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

you know where.

Squire · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2004, 12:13:46 AM »

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.

Grits · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2004, 09:10:56 AM »

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.

Jester · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2004, 06:04:14 PM »

Quote

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 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!

brady · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2004, 06:43:03 PM »

LOL:)

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2004, 07:47:24 PM »

lol:lol

Jester:aok

TheBug · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2004, 08:49:35 PM »

Weather??

Isn't it time for you to run off and make up next week's squad?