Zielona Gora -1 reply

Please wait...

Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

It's not just that, though. Bunkers, bridges, etc. all should be in places that make sense. IE: why would you instruct your troops to capture a particular bridge when it doesn't connect any two important parts of the battlefield? Why would some bunker in the middle of nowhere be a strategic point in the first place? I mean, if it make sense because it commands a particular view of the terrain and you can use it as an artillery spot, great. But otherwise, why are we fighting here?

Ultimately, that's all I want map designers to keep in mind. Think about why real soldiers would've fought over a particular location. Think abotu the strategic value of that position or if it has any. Otherwise, your map, especially if it's small, will turn into just a run 'n' gun DM map.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

Yeah. This shit is annoying as hell. Its like Russian Tarawa, a fuckin' wild goose chase.

"YAY! We got a flag" "Fuck, they capped another one" "We got it back" "Shit, there goes the last one"

Maps, especially the pacific ones, should be much, much larger. Hell, Id love it if every map was the size of Breakthrough.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

Well, on island maps like that, the circular battle is understandable and ok by me. The tactical value of positions along the coastline of an island is pretty obvious. The problem you have THERE is one inherent to the BF1942 engine -- defense isn't rewarded. If people got extra points for kills made in defense of a flag, they'd defend. As it is, no one bothers, so you get the round robin thing.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago

Push maps are a viable solution to that, and I would love to see that implemented.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago

True, but push maps only work in certain circumstances. What I'm curious about is the following.

Let's say you've got the following layout of flags:

1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8

With push mode, can you set it up so that you can capture any ONE of flags 5-8, then 2-4, and finally 1? In other words, you've got essentially three rows of flags there. Is it possible to set up push mode to simulate that you've broken through enemy lines? Maybe, require that you capture at least two flags from 5-8, then one from 2-4, and then you can capture 1? That would seem to be ideal to me.

Also, on a map like Gazala, for example, push mode wouldn't really work. The way that map is laid out, it makes sense that any of the flags can be captured at any time. The british can take the one flag across the ravine, drive across the bridge, and link up with their troops coming down from the top village flag towards the middle of the bottom three flags.

Likewise, the Germans can exploit the same strategy. In fact, most of the DICE maps, now that I think about it, wouldn't really work in Push mode. They're all set up so that the terrain itself promotes taking any flag whenever you can. Maybe on El Al, the Brits would have to capture that first outpost, but after that, it's anybody's decision which flag to take. One of the few execptions that I can think of is Tobruk, and that one would follow the question I posed above -- can you do push mode to simulate breakthroughs?