A Map idea.

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Hicks359]

Considering the mapping forum is more about people who are developing maps, i wasnt quite sure where to put an idea forward for a map.

I personally cant build maps, and dont have the time myself to learn how to map, but i had a thought of a differing map style that somebody else could take up if they liked.

Has nobody thought to make an Infantry biased map?

As in, maps that heavily encourage the use of Infantry, and punish the use of Vehicles. This would be done in the manner of severely limiting Vehicle use by not letting them get around very well at all. They would still have a support use, but use of indestructable objects (And lots of them) would leave them a bit lacking.

I put this forward because i've always wondered how an Infantry focused game, with the right environment, would roll out in an EiRR game...

I'm well aware i'm likely to be hit by atleast half a dozen shout ups of why it wouldn't be practical on the balancing line... The point is that its a new design to try out. Of course it could go tits up. Then again, it could be something new and promote less vehicle heavy companies, so there is a wider spectrum of companies around.

Thoughts?

[Dnicee]

Well we have Carentan and that map dont let any tank escape! Cant think of any bigger tanktrap then that one! 

[Malgoroth]

As much as I hate vehicle spam, I don't think punishing players who prefer it as a play style with a vehicle hating map is a good idea. It'd just be an allied rape-fest since support weapons would dominate and axis are superior in that regard. 

[deadbolt]

yay encourage vet 3 gren spam some moarrrr

[Mysthalin]

Agreed with malgoroth - there's no need to have a map which can be won by simply using 3 HMGs, a mortar a shrek, just in case a tank or howitzer somehow manages to butt itself into the battlefield and a nebelwerfer.

[Blitzen]

industrial heartland, there you go

[Hicks359]

As much as I hate vehicle spam, I don't think punishing players who prefer it as a play style with a vehicle hating map is a good idea. It'd just be an allied rape-fest since support weapons would dominate and axis are superior in that regard.  

I'm primarily an Allied Armour player, with 2-3 Pershings.

I like use of Vehicles, however i also like use of Infantry.

I find that Infantry these days, with exception to Elite Infantry, is rather limited in use as theres a larger focus on Vehicle use.

Agreed with malgoroth - there's no need to have a map which can be won by simply using 3 HMGs, a mortar a shrek, just in case a tank or howitzer somehow manages to butt itself into the battlefield and a nebelwerfer.

And i wonder how that Support spam would hold up to a focused Infantry company using alot of Grenades, the terrain, and thier own Mortar or two.

It's a case of you wouldn't know 'till you tried it out with a handful of competent players.

Carentan and Industrial heartland hinder Vehicles use, however they dont put it to a near negiligble point.

I mean a map that is so full of buildings and indestructable objects that you'd be hard pressed to put your Vehicles anywhere other than a handful of main roads.

In the grand scheme of things, it was a simple idea to help spice things up a little owing to how people are saying how apparently stale things are. That's all.

[Malevolence]

Yeah but that would specifically punish people who rely on vehicles. Maps should be (theoretically) balanced for all playstyles.

[Mysthalin]

Look me in the eye and tell me these things :

.30 cal at least= MG 42
US mortar at least= WM mortar
Full buff riflemen at least= zeal grenadiers

A proper RCA coy with the mortar emplacements, 25 pdrs and wickers suppression could possibly hold out against a WM company. Commandos with zeal riflenades could also probably hold out. But US(possible exception of RAAB riflespam), RSE and PE even setting foot on such a map? I severely doubt it.

[Dnicee]

but still it might be fun to have one map thats all city.. i dont know, could be fun to try at least. But i doubt that anyone got the what it takes to make a 100% city map when we dont even have enough ppl to make "real" maps. 

[Hicks359]

Yeah but that would specifically punish people who rely on vehicles. Maps should be (theoretically) balanced for all playstyles.

A well built map, this is true.

However, Vehicle specific maps could also be built... It would punish those who use Vehicles on an Infantry favoured map, or Infantry on a Vehicle favoured map... But the point is that not every environment or situation is going to be suited for the needs of what you have to hand. Specific maps as i mentioned could re-iterate this. It also gives those that decide to try a different play style could be rewarded with a proper environment to back them. It's all about flavour, in this case, more of it.

Look me in the eye and tell me these things :

.30 cal at least= MG 42
US mortar at least= WM mortar
Full buff riflemen at least= zeal grenadiers

A proper RCA coy with the mortar emplacements, 25 pdrs and wickers suppression could possibly hold out against a WM company. Commandos with zeal riflenades could also probably hold out. But US(possible exception of RAAB riflespam), RSE and PE even setting foot on such a map? I severely doubt it.

The .30cal has nothing on the MG42, neither does the US Mortar have anything on the WM Mortar, nor does the FB Riflemen have anything on Zeal Grens...

However, this sort of map could bring up just how badly the imbalances are. We know about them, we accept them, yet not alot is done. When people see WM MG42's insta-supressing in an Infantry only set out, something may start to be done.

Or, people may start to rethink tactics, and try out new things instead of counting with equal units.

Also... Whats to say that a near 100% building environment wont make perfect placement of MG's a total bitch, and favour those with manouverable Infantry?

The point is we dont know how this is going to play out until it's done. Maybe doing it will help prove a point. Or perhaps it will just spice things up for a few days. Either way, whats to lose by attempting?

[Tymathee]

I've wanted dto make maps but i can't get my wb to work, if someone could help me out there, i might put my creativity to some good use

[AmPM]

However, this sort of map could bring up just how badly the imbalances are. We know about them, we accept them, yet not alot is done. When people see WM MG42's insta-supressing in an Infantry only set out, something may start to be done.

Except that those may not actually be balance issues when you compare price and the other units available to said force. Many maps already favor certain tactics, a map that negates a company entirely is retarded.

[CrazyWR]

and how would you make a map thats not favorable to infantry anyways?

[Hicks359]

However, this sort of map could bring up just how badly the imbalances are. We know about them, we accept them, yet not alot is done. When people see WM MG42's insta-supressing in an Infantry only set out, something may start to be done.

Except that those may not actually be balance issues when you compare price and the other units available to said force. Many maps already favor certain tactics, a map that negates a company entirely is retarded.

Knowingly walking into said map with a company not suited for it, is also "Retarded" wouldn't you agree?

I'm trying to invoke something with a bit of difference in it, the point is NOT to engage in this map with a Vehicle heavy company. You'd be suicidal to do so. This is a map where you'd dig out one of your other accounts which isn't already Vehicle heavy for.

It's like me choosing the most open map possible while i'm up against enemies to which i know have multiple 88's and Flakvierlings while i'm using an Armour Company. It would by all rights make me a fool to attempt it.

and how would you make a map thats not favorable to infantry anyways?

Make the map filled with buildings and obstacles that cant be rolled over by any Vehicles - Basically giving the Vehicles the hardest time possible, and the Infantry an easier time, in comparison to eachother.

[tank130]

The problem with your theory is: we don't know the map until we get in game.
Unless it was agreed in the launcher and you came in with a specific build, it couldn't work.

Often arguments about a map occur, could you imagine the hassle if this was the case!!!!

[AmPM]

Or until you play on it vs people with tons of flame tanks/hts....not to mention nebel and mortar hell...

[brn4meplz]

The urban areas in most EiRR maps have more sectors anyway, and thats about as deadly as it gets for tanks. Someone mentioned Industrial Heartland That was and remains the only map i would never willingly deploy my Tigers onto early in a match. Nothing says lost vet like playing against 57's on that hell hole of a meat grinder.(Fuck you AmPm, lol-still i enjoy the map)

Besides the obvious balance issues associated with a map of this type. you`d also have the problem of people will always try to consume their Armour pool to it`s greatest extent. Even if they cannot full utilize those vehicle they will still be present on the map and require that you hunt and destroy them. I can almost guarantee that any match played on a map like that would play in excess of 60 mins almost every time. If not 90 mins+ Maps that are typically restrictive to Tanks are beneficial to Support spam(constricted movement for tanks means narrow appraoches for Infantry=canalizing effects on infantry=HMG spam=Mortars= support spam)

[Hicks359]

The problem with your theory is: we don't know the map until we get in game.
Unless it was agreed in the launcher and you came in with a specific build, it couldn't work.

Often arguments about a map occur, could you imagine the hassle if this was the case!!!!

Owing to the nature of the map, you would absolutely have to agree on it before diving into it, or hell, even arrange before hand to play the map.

Or until you play on it vs people with tons of flame tanks/hts....not to mention nebel and mortar hell...

Flame tanks/HT's would be hit by the problem of piss poor mobility, thier threat would be rather limited when they keep on getting caught on indestructable Tank Traps left right and centre. Spamming them would more than likely lead to you feeding somebody elses vet.

Nebels and Mortars would indeed be useful, but not exactly base line forces. Forgetting to cover your flanks in an urban environment is an easy way to lose Nebel's and Mortars.

Brn, while you will have to hunt and destroy them, they wont be getting around that easy at all, and being caught by any form of AT in an urban environment can lead to a very quick kill if you dont have a pre-planned escape route.

Infantry would only be tunneled into canals if the map was laid out with that design. A map can easily be packed with buildings yet not have specific lines of advance. Simple gaps between buildings can stop that.

[3rdCondor]

why the hell would you want an infantry biased map? I'm not trying to be mean but how would that benefit you?