If it had ramps, yes. If the airfield was only a larger part of a base, possibly hidden in some mountains, and the map had some implied purpose to existing, then no, it would not be a gimmick map.
using point_templates with those aircrafts is going to be a biiiiiiiiiiiitch i'd work on making the map itself look less ridiculously fugly first
Well, since we're on this... Both. The ramps are based on the steam catapults used for launching aircraft from carrier runways (hence the need for a small airfield on a narrow mesa, or a ship).
im in the "shitty maps are cancer to the mod etc etc" camp, but after sayin so for years i dont really think it matters what any of us think of the shitty* maps *synonymous with gimmicky
no. They don't use ramps for that. They use catapults, which are just cables that pull the aircraft, or JATO rockets (not sure if that's the right accronym). If there is a ramp, it's a back that comes up in the opposite direction to help give more thrust, as something for the engines to push against. Hell, that angle may actually be counter productive.
"Based on". I'm talking about having ramps with steam catapults. A bit implausible, but the same applies to emp_slaughtered (speaking of gimmicky maps...). Point is, you said it'd be gimmicky if it had ramps, and you said it wouldn't be gimmicky if it had a plausible explanation. If it has ramps with a plausible explanation, which would it be? Both, apparently.
when an airship is destroyed, is it possible to teleport it with a parented teleport brush? So instead of destroying it, it just goes out of play for a while. It would be easier than making a point_template for every single entity.
It may be possible. You'll never know until you try. There's also the logic_measure_movement entity, or just smothering the map with a gigantic teleport brush, as fits your fancy. A point_template works for up to 16 entities... Though I don't know what you would expect to happen to the pilot of a dropship that is destroyed.
It makes me cry tears of pride. Us, the British Navy, proving amerifags wrong. SKI JUMP AIRCRAFT CARRIER BITCHES.
Yes... British aircraft carriers are modelled on rainbow road - they were built with ramps for short runway Harrier take-off. I think they have now been retired though and the replacement F-35s will be using flat runways. I dont think we're getting our new equiptment until 2020.... so now's the time to attack us! (remember to drop mines at the top of our ramps for added impact )
Afaik that aircraft carrier has seen more direct combat than nearly any other aircraft carrier in the world, in the Falklands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05) I can't think of any other carriers that were actually directly involved in a conflict that took place at sea. None of the Nimitz carriers have had anything close to my knowledge, they just launched shit to attack land targets.
That's what aircraft carriers are supposed to do.... Well, the US generally sends out it's ships in groups. Like, battle ships and destroyers over a 5 mile radius around a carrier to protect it, while the carrier launches aircraft to blow shit up. If your carrier is being shot at, something has gone horribly wrong :/
My point being, that "ski-jump" aircraft carrier has seen more combat than nearly any other carrier since WW2. So it's hardly an unconventional design.
Wut? The US has been pissing people off with ships off their coast since 1903. I'm thinking Vietnam and Korea alone would constitute more combat than anyone else in the world since the end of wwII
Nimitz class came after Vietnam, KittyHawk served in it I think. Not sure how much combat they saw in terms of being close to enemy attack, but I think at least 1 of them launched a lot of operations into Vietnam.
I think joke maps like these and shandys are good for when the game becomes as big as CSS but its like when you got one server people will think this mod is as shitty as these maps.. Like imagine if you got CSS and the first time you play its a surf map.. You would be like wtf is this shit and quit playing.
