Author Topic: I made a map  (Read 281 times)

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
I made a map
« on: December 15, 2019, 04:27:44 PM »
The headline may be exaggerating things a little. It isn't finished. It looks boring everywhere, and many details aren't done.

But technically it is "complete", in the sense that it contains everything I think it should contain. Hence it is a map, and i made it, and the headline is correct.

https://www.halos.de/~ceh/files/847722713427c4b295daac02b16a71230d3146b4677446e573241adb5d4e052c/bmbrtwn.res

It is a little unusual. Strat targets located at the center (hence the the name), guarded by high mountains. Relatively short distances to targets, but also easy to defend, with known attack routes. Fighter town becoming a bit more meaningful with bombers thrown into the mix. A kind of long-distance high-altitude purposeful fighter town.



The map is even more unusual with some weird field layout, where fields near the front practically cannot defend themselves, and suitable attack routes are completely asymmetric (if A can easily attack B, B cannot easily attack A). Also, increased opportunities for planes to fight planes, and GVs to fight GVs.



GVs get their own playground to fight each other, close to the airfield towns. Being slightly elevated, the playground offers some protection from local planes, increasing their effort. A suitable defense needs fighting GVs. Possibilities to resupply are also slightly limited, with supply trucks having to go through the same combat zone that the attackers need to go through (woops, screenshot doesn't show the town in the top left; the other three circular grassy areas are the spawn points).




Before I spend any time on details. Does it make sense to continue, or is it far to exotic, rule-breaking, frame-rate killing, ... for any practical use?

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10655
Re: I made a map
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2019, 08:03:13 PM »
The more terrain builders the better imo.
Couple of things to think about.

Quote
A can easily attack B, B cannot easily attack A
This produces what I call the pinwheel effect that drives the fight away from one country towards another in the helpless wheeling. More likely the fight will be over shacks on the ground than opponents in the sky.

With the factories in the center, there might be a fight there, but the strat system is likely to be disabled early, and kept down until a reset. And it's too perfect for off-hours point harvesters.

I have no idea what Hitech would say, but these are the worries I would have.

 :cheers:
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
      • DethKlokDave
Re: I made a map
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2019, 12:24:42 AM »
CCVI,


You are way further than I am. I haven't gotten far enough to place bases yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Re: I made a map
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2019, 04:53:19 AM »
This produces what I call the pinwheel effect that drives the fight away from one country towards another in the helpless wheeling. More likely the fight will be over shacks on the ground than opponents in the sky.

Not sure I do get this. Maybe you're reading the A and B as countries, where I intended them to be understood as fields. Check the 2nd screenshot. The airfields a25/a23 have easy access to v24 to attack/defend. v24, however doesn't have any attack path back to either a25 or a23. Likewise, v27/v22 can attack/defend a23, which cannot easily fight back (at least, there are better options).

Fights between two fields end up either at one of the other, creating asymmetric fights. A fight in between is pretty meaningless. This layout pulls the action to a sort of "neutral" place, even if that happens to be owned by one side.

I am worried though that it is nearly impossible to capture the v-bases. Getting a goon to target to capture requires solid air superiority. Forward GV-spawns would pull the fight down to the ground, so there aren't any. But with proxy-dar this might be a necessity.

With the factories in the center, there might be a fight there, but the strat system is likely to be disabled early, and kept down until a reset. And it's too perfect for off-hours point harvesters.

There's at least one other map with GV spawns to factories at the moment the map is initialized. Compared to that, destruction of strat targets is much harder here. And there is an option to defend them, too, by fighting, not resupplying like on the other map.

Harvesting points works much better by dropping on towns than factories. Factory buildings have too much empty space between them.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11784
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Re: I made a map
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2020, 11:57:41 AM »
I would leave out gv paths to factories.

I don't see any issues that I would say no to , except possibly the 3 runway fields being to close and to many. But I do think it will be wildly criticized do to central factories. Buzz saw had it that way originally i think.

Also I need to see a full map of the layout , please put sector lines makes it easier to gauge distances.

HiTech


Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Re: I made a map
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2020, 05:30:31 PM »
Thanks for the feedback!

I would leave out gv paths to factories.

Misunderstanding I guess. In defense of center (forward) factories I was referring to another map (buzzsaw) that has GVs spawns to factories, as prior art for factories under high threat. I don't like those (especially with offense/defense spawns on opposing sides, allowing simultaneous destruction and resupply), so I'm surely not adding them (except possibly with a similar scheme applied to the towns - but not on this map, here factories are bomber targets, maybe another one).

I don't see any issues that I would say no to ,

No carriers is valid (I didn't see a rule for that anywhere)?

Also, it may need a closer look on the front line fields.

I think I'm slightly exceeding the normal limit for base/town distance, but the common mountain they are sitting on hopefully makes the dependency sufficiently clear. The town is elevated 2kft above the field, and town and spawns are surrounded by another 1kft mountain. This is intended to provide some protection for the GVs fighting over the town from local fighter bombers. Access to the town is only provided from one side, so GVs cannot get there without meeting the enemy first.
(A long time ago I had a wish list item to be able to turn the spawn heading separately from the spawn bearing. That was to be able to spawn the GVs facing the crossroads area, the local ones from the field spawn "backwards".)

The vbases are presented on silver plates, err, little islands without trees to the air forces of the adjacent air bases. Supply-roads end at the lake (I tried canals with barges, but once they reach the lake, they submerge. Could the barges from ports be used for vbases?)

except possibly the 3 runway fields being to close and to many.

I have no religious feelings about those, they are just there to fill up the map, to get the areas intended for the actual fight to around 20% of the fields. They're not intended to be used, except to launch bombers from, and to counter-attack after having lost the bases intended for the fight. Should any country lose a significant number of those, that would be synchronized with bbs-whines about two other countries being allied.
Note that the end points of the GV forward spawns need some more refined destinations (priorities to work on things - less relevant items to be detailed last), but the intend is to place them in way to make it much easier to re-capture possibly lost fields than it is to capture enemy fields. Fields further to the back come with an altitude advantage, too. This is intended as a natural barrier to prevent one country from dropping far below ~60% (losing the front line fields intended for the fight on both sides, but no(t much) further than that).

But I do think it will be wildly criticized do to central factories. Buzz saw had it that way originally i think.

Ok, similar to what Easyscor said above. I would think so too, if factories were just sitting out there in the open as food for 30k+ buffs from the other side of the map, or nearby enemy fields. But that's not the idea.

The topography is intended to limit attack paths, the snowy areas in the center are 22k (when turned into nicely looking shapes probably around 20-22k), and I'm thinking about a cloud layer on top. This both limits the flight time for bombers (no reason to spend time climbing above), and allows defenders to react on short notice, with bar dar giving intentions away clearly.
The closest distance to the relatively meaningless refinery is 3 sectors, with defense available within 1 sector for the important targets. With a reaction time to read the dar bars of 1 sector that leaves 2 sectors to go for the bomber, which should provide sufficient time to climb from 5k (air base) to 20k (cloud cover) for the defender.
Having things (relatively) close together reduces the time for flying and increases the ratio of the time fighting.
Maybe the factories could move slightly further out, but they would probably need to get closer together. What's the minimal distance between factories?

Also I need to see a full map of the layout , please put sector lines makes it easier to gauge distances.


Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11784
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Re: I made a map
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2020, 08:26:24 AM »
What will happen when the inner fields like A3 are captured?

HiTech

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Re: I made a map
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2020, 05:30:44 PM »
What will happen when the inner fields like A3 are captured?

Dopamine for everyone. First, for the attacker achieving the impossible by capturing a field by troops from a goon against an opponent caught off-guard not using the very close in forward spawn to resupply. Then for few who might be able to roll during a tight time window. Finally for the players in the home country to mass-deploy GVs from the close in forward spawns against no practical possibility to reinforce from close by, especially no resupply. Everyone is guaranteed to achieve something, while being hurt only to a limited degree (factories are not going to take a big hit because pkayers are going to defend instead, the side losing the field back to the home country won't feel bad because that field is practically impossible to keep long-term).

Thinking about it, v5 might be an issue because while very tough to capture it is also somewhat difficult to capture back. Vbases can't be taken by flooding them with GVs like towns can. Placing the forward spawns from the uncapturables ones on high ground with a clear view on the field should do the trick (not the case in the currentt prototype).