Zielona Gora should have been larger or wider; with REAL karelia trenches instead of ditches, more flags and some armored cars
My solution to this problem:
Zielona Gora is a lousy map in my opinion. It has no tactics used in it whatsoever. It's just a round robin of flags that gives people their Quake 3 deathmatch fix. If I wanted that, I'd be playing Quake 3. Without SMGs, the map might be a bit better, but even so, you'd just have nade spamming.
The real problems with Zielona Gora don't tie to the kits available, but to the map design overall:
1.) The map is WAY too small. It's fine for, say, a 30 player server, but any more than that and you have steadily diminishing benefits.
2.) The map is laid out in a way that makes no sense. There is zero tactical reason why any of the flag points exist other than "Because I put a flag point and some buildings/stuff there."
Because of the above two factors, you end up with a lot of spam/rambo style behavior. People treat it like Q3 deathmatch. You run, you shoot, you die, rinse and repeat. It frankly bores the hell out of me when it isn't actually irritating me. With Karelia, at least you have a TACTICAL point to the map. Karelia plays worse, but it's tactically much better.
Yeah, agreed. The only things of any constant tatical importance are the hill and the bombed out house near the cabin. The idea of removing SMGs is just plain lame. Then what happens? Maps where you need an SMG, like Pavlov or ZG, you always get a rifle, and maps where you dont need them, they are pushed at you with the CQ and officer classes. If anything, make the map larger and remove the artilley. SPAM!
Or just remove the map altogether. It's just a pointless frag fest map. Doesn't feel like you're actually part of a war. It just feels like you're running around shooting people for no apparent reason.
Honestly, when designing maps (and this is easy for me to say since I never have tried my hand at designing), at least make the positions tactically relevant. Make the positions the next step in a chain towards a larger objective, or make them strategic points on the map. But just slapping down flag points in a circle at random doesn't really do much.
Like I said. If I want Q3, I'll go play Q3.
Make it larger and remove arty is a very good idea. I was think yesterday that it would be much better if the map was just larger.
That'd help some, but it'd still suffer the same tactical problems and the map would still play largely like a round robin game or musical flags.
There's nothing wrong with the map itself. It's great infantry combat, and one of the few FH maps where you have a chance to see actual front lines develop. Removing artillery would be good though.
The only reason you see anything remotely resembling a front line develop is because the map is so small. Look at the placement of the flags. There is no front line.
A map like The Storm, on the other hand, has clear front and rear lines. Unfortunately, it also has the ability for people to ninja raid flags, so tactics CAN be foiled sometimes. Regardless, the map is laid out tactically so as to create a true front line.
Zielona Gora on the other hand is just a circle of flags around a hill. If it were a real front line, the hill would have a flag too.
Zielona Gora creates the IMPRESSION of a front line, however, because it's so small that it concentrates all fighting at basically two points. This is why some people seem to like it -- they don't have to run very far to get to a fight, and the fights are fast and furious. In my opinion TOO much so.
The map itself is just too small. If you expanded it, it would show that tactically the flags have no real value other than their mere existence.
The way I see it, flags should be placed in locations that make sense tactically. IE: if you've got a hill, you put a fort there, some artillery, and a flag. Why? Because high ground with artillery units has clear tactical value.
You also have to consider the "path" of the battle. why would a particular out-of-the-way location have a flag? Why would anyone have chosen to garrison troops there or put up a fight to keep that particular plot of ground? Does it control a vital crossing point over a river or canyon or a road? Does it present a wide field of fire for units placed there? Is the map just a rendering of battle lines (IE: Tobruk, Charlie Sector, etc.) through which one side must break? In short, why are we fighting here?
Zielona Gora annoys me because a.) it's too damn small for a 52 player server (like Wolf), and b.) it can't answer the question of "why fight here?" The answer to "Why are we fighting here" is simply "because this is the map we're playing." That, to me, shows a map lacking any real tactical point.
I totally agree with you, Solo.
The objective flags the map designers NEED to consider using when making a map are:
Hills Bunkers Bridges Passes
Random objective flags annoy me to no end.