Map types? Take a look.... -1 reply

Please wait...

CMSGT Johnson

I need an Enola Gay,can I?...

50 XP

4th October 2003

0 Uploads

244 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Ok Ive got an interesting question... but let me lay out a couple a things. Right now we have some awsome 'historicly' based maps. Meaning a battle took place, and we tried to recreate the battle's elements. Now my question is, What do ppl think of haveing maps that involve 'types' of combat, requiring you to fight in a certain type? For example: Trench warfare, you have a map called Trench warfare, just a small map involving trench after trench and bunker after bunker. Another example: a Wolfpack scenario: Axis get 3 german subs, 1 german destroyer, and 2 corvettes. Allies get 6 frieghters/tankers, 3 destroyers, and 1 cruiser. The idea is for the Axis to sink the Allie convoy, and the Allies have to try and survive by getting from point A to point B. These types of maps would like I said, involve the feature of a certain 'type' of war/battle. And I think would prove not only to be a good addition to FH but would be fun as well. :) Opinions? Questions? etc...?




Shade_PW

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

761 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

No. If it isn't historically placed then I dont want it.




CMSGT Johnson

I need an Enola Gay,can I?...

50 XP

4th October 2003

0 Uploads

244 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago
Shade_PWNo. If it isn't historically placed then I dont want it.

Hmm, you sure you wouldnt want some historical 'types' of fighting? Some smaller situations (not an actual battle) like skirmishes of some form. Like in my examples.

Not alot of interest has come through yet... I want to see some more responses. I can understand if the Devs are going for more historical stuff, I like seeing that. But the truth of it is, if they arent being exlusive to that goal, then Imo it would be neat to add this as a new feature for certain types of maps. This would allow for greater attention to smaller situations inside a conflict.

(ok i admit it, this is a bump) *BUMP* lol




LIGHTNING [NL]

FH2 Developer

50 XP

30th May 2003

0 Uploads

9,811 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I don't care about historical maps really, a good map is a good map!




HeLmUt_KlAmKe

Hell on Muteā„¢

50 XP

29th August 2003

0 Uploads

729 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

Sometimes a map with an Atmosphere is better than historic map :)

...but only sometimes :rolleyes:




judge reinhold

BOY I SURE POST ALOT

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,112 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

well this is kind of double talk, since those scenarios can also be expressed in historical battles too.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

A german sub map would really kickass.

A good mix of historical and scenario maps are always good. Not every little tiny skirmish was documented.

Another cool thought could be a convoy ambush of some type. One side has a number of trucks as spawn points, along with an armoured escourt, and the other side has a small number of AFVs and large numbers of infantry. The convoy team has to protect the trucks (the teams only spawm points) and capture a number of flags along the route (simmilar to medina ridge). If the trucks die, the escourt team looses. If all the flags are caputered (maby mabe it so they cant be recaptured) the ambush team looses. trucks eather have to be very numorous, or very armoured/hp increased to balance things out a bit.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
Shade_PWNo. If it isn't historically placed then I dont want it.

So you want to say that there was never a trench-warfare (as given in an example) battle fought during the WWII? The fact is: there were so many, that it would be ridiculous to try to pin-point one of them to isolate as a scenario. That's why the author called it "type" rather then "specific battle"

I am for the idea.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

McGibsA german sub map would really kickass.

A good mix of historical and scenario maps are always good. Not every little tiny skirmish was documented.

Another cool thought could be a convoy ambush of some type. One side has a number of trucks as spawn points, along with an armoured escourt, and the other side has a small number of AFVs and large numbers of infantry. The convoy team has to protect the trucks (the teams only spawm points) and capture a number of flags along the route (simmilar to medina ridge). If the trucks die, the escourt team looses. If all the flags are caputered (maby mabe it so they cant be recaptured) the ambush team looses. trucks eather have to be very numorous, or very armoured/hp increased to balance things out a bit.

Cool idea.... but i can imagine TKers getting control of the trucks and crashing them, or a newb rolling the truck down the hill :( Maybe if we could add "automatic tracks" like planes in BG42, then that should work




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

I personally feel a bit dissapointed there are no maps like a wolf pack hunting a convoy, or a bombersquadron bombing a city or other objective based maps. A vehicle is only as good as the enviroment it is in !

Lots of vehicles of FH feel out of place in current maps. For example strategic bombers and U boats fought in specific enviroments, against specific targets and had specific enemies. They have no real value in maps with unnatural enemies and targets. Now you see tanks fight strategic bombers with their main gun, what is rediculous ! And strategic bombers were vehicles used in groups, you never found them flying alone, unless in serious problems !

Some vehicles would look/feel better in their own enviroment/ battle. And all vehicles should have their natural targets and enemies. For strategic bombers that is important war production facilities, sometimes softening up a battlefield before a big offensive or attacking important enough naval targets in dock. They did not attack infantry ot tanks, therefor should not even be in FH maps that exist now.

Even attack bombers more concentrated on infrastructure like railroads and trains, river transport ships, small ports, bridges, roads and enemy columns on roads, and coastal transport ships. So they have no real buisiness in most FH maps that exist now neither.

U boats hunt merchant ships, maybe a carrier......it is not designed to do battle with combat ships, nor is it efficent to use it that way. Some nations like jappan did however (ab)use subs for escort duty, for wich they were totally unadaquate. So you can't claim it should not be in bf1942/FH maps, but a sub would shine in it's natural role with natural enemies much more....

I have seen a FW200 condor in the vehicle pages.......awesome......but wasted if thrown as a bomber in just a FH map. It was used to hunt shipping, it was totally unsuitable for anything else, exept passenger liner. I have seen german rocket and jet propelled interceptors, ME 163, ME262, Ba 349......they were solely used to kill formations of strategic bombers high above germany. The fuhrer himself wanted otherwise too, but how do you bomb a tank with 700 km/h ? Thrown in just any map defeats any purpose of these models !

Don't misunderstand this is critcisism on the excellent models !!! I am just saying place them in maps they belong into. If these maps don't exist, then make them, it is well worth it !