asch: i'm going to start learning the map editor. i think using existing models from the current bf2 resources is a better start, for me anyway. perhaps the wiki could have a "maps under construction" section? sign me up for "Khobar Towers" map. i've thought it over and feel that it would be a fitting tribute to the 19 airmen and soldiers killed by that truck bomb; permitting USMC players some virtual payback.

turbo: thanks for the link, lots of good information there

i agree with all of the points listed in the poll, and think the proper approach is to first create the rough map, play it a few times, then refine and repeat. the benefit of this approach is that a more realistic map would reveal natural chokepoints, instead of engineering the perfect level playing field. as in war, troops adapt to their surroundings.

for example, lets imagine together an empty parking lot surrounded by chain link on the edge of a housing complex. one or two holes may exist in the fence, but you'd be foolish to run up to them in the open. a couple of snipers could be left to watch that spot or spots, preventing opfor from penetrating. now, as a map designer, i could put a couple of barrels or burning hummers to provide cover to the fence holes. to make it more "fair". but why do that? we all know that unconventional tactics can work. now imagine two FULL hummers come speeding through the parking lot, 50 cals blazing, smoke bombs... squads exit the hummers, provide covering fire from behind the hummers pinning down the snipers while a few squadmates slip through the hole. once inside, they find cover behind concrete barriers... and so on. which option would be more fun? EITHER. it comes down to teamwork, execution of a plan, luck and a thousand other variables which are constantly changing and evolving.

also, i'd place the artillery assets next to the enemy spawn. why? because i hate artillery.