So, now that I'm playing Empires again, I've picked up teh Hammer and I want to make another Empires map. I've always wanted to make a map similiar to duststorm, where you have wide open areas for vehicle combat, as well as pure infantry combat in areas too cramped for vehicles. So here: Comments on the plan?
Looks good but NF may have an advantage at holding those two refs in the that town whereas BE has to fight in the woods where they can't protect the refs above.
needs a third 'base' in bottom left to balance it out. so either team can rush there and setup shop. northern base looks much easier to defend then btm right base, imo. hope u get it balanced.
This gives me such a Command & Conquer Generals feeling.. (Maybe cuz it's the only game I've played the last 2 days). But back to topic: Nice layout, now go finish it!
No, I'm not really a fan of res-overwhelmed key areas in maps... if the resources are spread out evenly and/or there are some refineries close to base that are easy to defend, there's more focus on strategy and research.
I'd move both cities to where the bridges are to be honest. I mean I don't see much point in having an infantry heavy area if it's tucked out of the way, because there won't be any fighting there. If you put them over the bridges, then both sides will fight to control them so that they can get tanks through, it becomes not a matter of trying to capture the resources, but trying to capture passage across the river. You might even consider making only one river pass but making it wide, so that all the fighting is focussed there. With two bridges across the river I think what you will have is more a case of one team capturing each bridge and ignoring the other one, so that the NF attacks across the west bridge while BE attacks across the right, and your combat is split up on two fronts, and you don't get any big armies meeting. The game can also be easily won or lost by a concentrated push on either the emptier of the two fronts, or just on one at the expense of the other. Focus all the figthing into a central battleground, which can have infantry areas and tank areas if you want (perhaps with constructable roadblocks?) but I think that will work much better than the very distributed system you have now.
i dont really like the positioning on the center ref, I just dont think that it will like ever be used cause it just sticks up there for everyone too shoot at and fight over, reminds me alot fo the center refs on isle. this also looks like a ninja heaven map, cover everywhere and not linear at all, with duststorm you can see anyone coming for like forever away with just a couple large hills that you aim for to go to. I think making a city on the bridges is good, and I think you should make the river have like walls and just stairs up in a couple areas, somewhat like an inner city river way, or like the canals in HL2. Raiseable bridge or bridges maybe? so you have like each side of the river has a bridge and the controls are in a middle "tower" that the bridges connect too in the middle of the river that is basically only accessable too infantry, so you get some inf combat going. just a thought.
Make enough space so both teams can set up shop (pun intended) in the city. As a balance make more space for the BE one BUT ANYWAY NICE AND I LOOK FORWRED TO PLAYING IT!!!
I see no pun there I'm not so sure the theory of one bridge causing the fighting to be concentrated in that one area will work. With such a long accessible river, infantry can cross almost anywhere, build a vf, bypassing the bridge all together.
A VF is a large target and any such crossing attempt would be entirely without armored or spawn support. Either they get a barracks up, in which case you shell it into ashes with tanks which they don't have, or they get a VF up, in which case you shell it into ashes with the tanks that you have and can replace, which they can't because they have no drivers. If they get both a barracks and a VF up and then manage to put together a large armoured force then you're doing something very wrong and sort of deserve to lose. You could also solve that problem by putting in entrenchments along the riverbanks which have locations for MG turrets to cover the river. Even if your assertion is correct, you will have the same problem and more with the two bridge setup.
well thats why I said make the sides of the river like the canals, walled sides so you cant just cross anywhere, you'd have too go through either the bridge or up steps in various places. EDIT: and the pun...well a shop in a city...I hope everyone else gets it
is it me or does everymap looks like it's middle of no where in nowhere? like halo's red vs blue in that canyon i like to see a road that lead out of the map maybe blocked off or sumthing by land slide? yes more openfield for more tank//jeep LAWLS OH and if you can walk there, i can usally drive there
I think that generally has to do with a sacrifice of realism for gameplay. If you have a realistic setting you have to base your gameplay around the map rather than the conventional of basing your map around the gameplay design. I dont know if I explained that correctly but I hope you get the point. also the street leading out of the map would take up resources that dont contribute to the playability of the map. This isnt too say that I dont want realistic maps though, they just arent as easy or pratical to build around.
