Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

Thread: Map suggestions

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In a little box somewhere else
    Posts
    4,439
    Was it channel 43 or 44 that had an attack the sub-pens target for reds?
    "Which button makes this thing go?"

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    I think it was 43... But there was another one using the Italy Online map. It had Beaufighters and Mosquitos.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    below sea level
    Posts
    2,657
    Biscay43 you mean?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    Yes that'd be the one. There were some sub targets... a few anyways.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    below sea level
    Posts
    2,657
    I have a version of that map with the subs already moving, plus a couple of AI flights. Will try to dig it up tomorrow if you want?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    I have to admit it wasn't my favorite but maybe with moving bits it'd be more interesting? Dig it up and dust it off if you'd like

    EDIT: Wasn't it for UK-2 anyways?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Place where no one disturbs me.
    Posts
    294
    Where is the information of the submarine damage model Ice? Sorry to seem rude but I havn't hear of that.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    634
    Are there any maps which are set in the early soviet vs japan theatre? I suppose they didn't really become 'enemies' until the onset of barbarossa, but could it throw up a few exciting planesets (zeros and migs?) I know it is probably hypothetical, but there have been hypothesis maps before (e.g.1946)

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Ki-27 Vs I-15 now there would be a match.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Berlin,Germany
    Posts
    1,740
    Isnt the the Khalkin Ghol map ?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    Yes that would be Khalkin Gol ...actually it's called Nomonhan on the server for the Nomonhan Incident where the Soviets and Japanese had a brief skirmish. Neither side officially declared war but there was definitely hostile action with considerable combat between the Ki-27 and I-15 and I-16 fighters.

    (also I hate to sound like a broken record...but there is no UK-1 anymore...Battle-field1 )

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    UK-1 Will live 4EVER ..

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    634
    How hard would it be to occasionally move the targets on existing maps? My experience from playing a lot of them is that they become (for real addicts) a matter of progression with little thought process involved, in that the target locations are well known, grab a certain plane, go to that location and rack up the points, others on the opposite side know full well to grab a fighter and go straight to that location and hammer the ground attack planes. Maybe if the targets 'moved' occasionally, or were 'tweaked' with a few surprises it would give need for more (alternate) thought and planning on the part of the ground attackers, defenders etc. It is easy for me to say, as I don't make maps and I appreciate already the hard work put in. I also appreciate that part of the attraction of the maps is that they are well known. Just a thought.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    Hi Remer, I definitely tweak the maps when there are problems but often times the targets are a finicky thing to get right and if they are working fairly well then I like to leave them alone. Don't fix what isn't broken sort of idea. If there is something wrong or the target becomes very tedious... sometimes then its a good idea to change them up. Its easier these days to copy and paste or move a target... but its not something I want to do all that often. I'd rather build a new scenario.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    64
    How about a carrier vs. carrier battle like Coral sea. It could be interesting. Would also get the A5M and TBD into play for the guys that have SAS.
    The pearl harbor map, right now it doesn't work. Its just a turkey shoot for the red planes. Because lets face it blue cannot surprise the red team. So how about change up history just a little bit. Have the Japanese do an amphibious landing on the Oahu. The targets for Japanese bombers would still be the same, take out air and sea power to prevent them from interfering with the amphibious landing. Have targets for the red bombers be the Japanese beach landing area.
    Last edited by Dolphin; 16-03-2014 at 00:58.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Leeds - Some of the time
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-IceFire View Post
    Hi Remer, I definitely tweak the maps when there are problems but often times the targets are a finicky thing to get right and if they are working fairly well then I like to leave them alone. Don't fix what isn't broken sort of idea. If there is something wrong or the target becomes very tedious... sometimes then its a good idea to change them up. Its easier these days to copy and paste or move a target... but its not something I want to do all that often. I'd rather build a new scenario.
    Just adding to remer's idea and perhaps throwing idea into the mix that might create extra 'unwelcome' work but here it is ..... creating different sets of the same maps that have the targets changed (even making them unknown .. as in no definite map grid given) and running a different map 'set' on different days (can it be randomized?) so no one knows where the targets will be on any given day on any map .... ?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphin View Post
    How about a carrier vs. carrier battle like Coral sea. It could be interesting. Would also get the A5M and TBD into play for the guys that have SAS.
    The pearl harbor map, right now it doesn't work. Its just a turkey shoot for the red planes. Because lets face it blue cannot surprise the red team. So how about change up history just a little bit. Have the Japanese do an amphibious landing on the Oahu. The targets for Japanese bombers would still be the same, take out air and sea power to prevent them from interfering with the amphibious landing. Have targets for the red bombers be the Japanese beach landing area.
    Interesting idea. I'm not opposed to tweaking the Pearl Harbour map... but I am hesitant to as its one of those fan favourites that we've had on the server for a long time. It was not in rotation for a while and there were many requests to bring it back so... again, hesitant to do anything. I tried a different variation of Pearl but it wasn't liked nearly as much.

    Carrier vs carrier I've been meaning to do. Its a difficult one to setup actually but I will prioritize it as my next map. We already have Midway which is sort of a carrier vs carrier battle although not exactly as Midway is the Blue target.

    Interesting side note that the A5M fought its last battle at the Battle of Coral sea. I didn't know that until I looked it up. It was also used later for kamikaze work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
    Just adding to remer's idea and perhaps throwing idea into the mix that might create extra 'unwelcome' work but here it is ..... creating different sets of the same maps that have the targets changed (even making them unknown .. as in no definite map grid given) and running a different map 'set' on different days (can it be randomized?) so no one knows where the targets will be on any given day on any map .... ?
    Interesting idea. Some prefer that everything stay the same and others, like yourself, have suggested that we try and randomize a bit. The trouble is that its a huge amount of work to implement across the board. It's also a doubling or tripling in size of the current set of maps which is already starting to get a little unwieldy in the server software. I think this is where FMB triggers would be useful as it could be possible, with the right kinds of triggers, to program a variety of outcomes on the same map. Something we might be able to do with Battle of Stalingrad but not in IL-2 1946.

    There are over 60 scenarios in rotation and I do try and update them and keep them fresh without disturbing things too much. So that should keep people busy. I figure with 60 you're unlikely to see the same thing too often.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    london england
    Posts
    634
    I recently have been toying with an idea-the maps developed for the servers are historically accurate and are linked to actual battles that took place. What if (and it is only 'what if' so shoot me down if I'm being thick) maps were made not based around specific battles, but around specific squadrons that existed, either Axis or Allied. Maybe this would allow more freedom to develop large skirmishes that 'could' have taken place, rather than fixed battles which did. Having this perspective would liberalise the scope of scenarios and might freshen up the game somewhat. just an idea thrown in for discussion.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    15
    I don't think you are being thick unless I am too:-)
    As long as the maps are somewhere within historical probablility (whatever that is) it should be fine.
    As a matter of fact, don't we already have what-if maps - I am thinking of a couple of Northern Finland scenarios, featuring the Finnish Air Force in places where they never operated historically as far as I know (Petsamo, Kola, Murmansk).
    Also we have one of the western front scenarios in a Baltic map, apparently to overcome some of the limitations in IL2 maps.
    But the plane sets and the situation are historical enough, and the maps make sense as a "history" game.

    So I vote for not excluding the what-if scenarios, but would draw the line this side of "Zeros versus 109s".

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas, the original continent.
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by remer1957 View Post
    I recently have been toying with an idea-the maps developed for the servers are historically accurate and are linked to actual battles that took place. What if (and it is only 'what if' so shoot me down if I'm being thick) maps were made not based around specific battles, but around specific squadrons that existed, either Axis or Allied. Maybe this would allow more freedom to develop large skirmishes that 'could' have taken place, rather than fixed battles which did. Having this perspective would liberalise the scope of scenarios and might freshen up the game somewhat. just an idea thrown in for discussion.
    Yes, without new actual maps, we've nearly run out of fresh unknown battles not simulated several times. I'd be in favor as well of a 'might have or could have happened scenario' more often than not. Any map making volunteers would be welcome to give it a shot.
    Why be normal when you can be happy?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •