Re: Incense Road (Custom Tac Mod Map - No Flags)

**BigGaayAl** · 06-26-2006, 12:51 PM

Loyalguard. I've read your interesting ideas and plans.

There are two suggestions I would like to make.

1 You could maybe have a flag or flag with large radius. Since the max radius seems to be 100, it may be possible to make flags interconnected; so that greying one flag will grey them all or something like that.

2 If you do not want to use any flags, then I think there is only one, but a very cool way to create an incentive to conquer ground: create positions by using terrain and models, that are so well defendable, that they are worth the effort of occupying them.

I cant imagine someone saying:" Squad secure those plains!" I can imagine "Squad secure that hill with the bunker/sandbags on it".

That would be lovely; letting people decide what areas they feel are strategically important. It could work, but only on tacmod, only on TG.

PS: if any others are lookin for an idea to make a map, I have an idea. Our clan had this training center map on medal of honor. The map had: 3 shooting ranges (one outside, one like police use, one with targets that pop up), A CQB practice areas with cardboard enemys that you had to all shoot (they flew to pieces when shot), and a deathmatch arena (built +- like a stadium) with a timer and glass walls around the fighters. We had some great fun on this map and it was great fun to get together on it before a match(or scrimm). It was also good for really getting to know the cone of fire of your weapons, improving melee combat in the arena, improving squad cqb tactics. Forgot to mention, that in the police shooting range, you'd hit a switch and the target would zoom right up to you so you can see where you hit. I kinda doubt though that you can do all this in a bf mod due to the anticheat measures.

**Acid** · 06-26-2006, 01:12 PM

But WHY would they want to secure those plains or those well defendable hills if they could sit near their own UCB?

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 06-26-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Pokerface

There is zero incentive to leave the closest defensible position from where you spawn. The risk of getting shot is far to great, and doesn't come anywhere close to the reward of shooting the other guy.

The ONLY shot this map has is if there are defensible positions facing toward the enemy relatively close to the enemy's defense, and even than I'm sort of wary.

If your team is down on tickets and the clock is ticking their is incentive to make a push. It would be the equavilant to knowing the enemy is about to have reenforcments coming in. YOu sit tight in your fox holes with less tickets and you lose when the timer is out.

I know what your thinking, Could a team have a good 60 ticket advantage and retreat from the enemy and possible head back to the UCB? so as to run the clock out.
This would not be good tactics to retreat from a position cause you know the other team is going to make a last stand at you and put everything they have at you and if your back is to them and not in your defensive fox hole then you may get shot. PLus, like the Dude said, we are here to attack not camp in our UCB.

I do not understand your quote at all. I think the problem is that i am trying to role play and try to experince a more realistic mechanized battle here as other people want more fast pace action that is nearly non stop. The team that keeps up fire on enemy positions by acting as a unit will do well. Will this mean that you will spend a lot of your time laying prone and looking through your sights waiting for a lone enemy soilder to show its self, no. I'll do that, someone else can go flank them and probe and perhaps attack their poorly covered flank.

Again gang, loyal is trying to make a more realistic battle, that most likly would only work on this server. it would be cool for TG to play a ranked pub server on this map and see how things go. I predict a TG victory.

Thank of this as a whole platton or Company going out to destroy each other, simple as that. Many times in battle a Company will get orders to go to a location cause the enemy is there. And do you know what their orders are? u guessed it, destroy them, with minimul causalities. Many times they do not raise a flag and declare victory, they saddle up and leave never to come to the location again.

**Acid** · 06-26-2006, 01:21 PM

If your tickets are running out, the only way to win is to kill the enemy more than they are killing you in this map. So why would your team want to run OUT of their foxholes and directly into enemy fire?

**Pokerface** · 06-26-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rick_the_new_guy

If your team is down on tickets and the clock is ticking their is incentive to make a push. It would be the equavilant to knowing the enemy is about to have reenforcments coming in. YOu sit tight in your fox holes with less tickets and you lose when the timer is out.

I know what your thinking, Could a team have a good 60 ticket advantage and retreat from the enemy and possible head back to the UCB? so as to run the clock out.
This would not be good tactics to retreat from a position cause you know the other team is going to make a last stand at you and put everything they have at you and if your back is to them and not in your defensive fox hole then you may get shot. PLus, like the Dude said, we are here to attack not camp in our UCB.

That's an EXCELLENT tactic, if timed correctly.

Presuming for a moment that the most fortified defensive positions on the map are at or near the UCBs, it makes MORE sense to (maybe) get shot in the back, (maybe) drop 5 tickets, and take up position further back waiting for the clock to run down. I've got:
1) a better defensive position
2) likely more support as more of the team will be there and
3) I've just put the whole map between the me and the enemy, meaning that they need to haul 500 units across the map to come get me to do it again so they have a prayer of dropping the ticket count further before the clock ticks away.

Again gang, loyal is trying to make a more realistic battle, that most likly would only work on this server. it would be cool for TG to play a ranked pub server on this map and see how things go. I predict a TG victory.

Realistically, battles aren't fought just to decimate the other team.

Thank of this as a whole platton or Company going out to destroy each other, simple as that. Many times in battle a Company will get orders to go to a location cause the enemy is there. And do you know what their orders are? u guessed it, destroy them, with minimul causalities. Many times they do not raise a flag and declare victory, they saddle up and leave never to come to the location again.

They fight for a greater objective. The battle still has a POINT in the overall scheme of things.

If this were part of a singleplayer campaign, I'd say let 'er rip, because the maps before and after it might be affected by the outcome of this one. But since MP maps are played in a vacuum, we judge this on its merits and flaws, and without internal objectives beyond "kill the other guy lots" -- even if that killing is somehow tactical -- it still falls outside the scope of just about everything else TG has to offer.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 06-26-2006, 01:38 PM

@black death5
Well not right into enemy fire, but maybe have the whole Team flank from the north and get behind them. Hey, what can i say, it sucks when your getting beat down.

Think about in a football game. It is the fouth quarter, your down by 3, less than 2 minutes left. YOur C.O. i mean coach could go for the on side kick and risk it all on that one play or kick off in hopes of having the team punt. That one call could decide the entire game.
The onside kick was succesful!! Your team is still in this thing, keep digging, keep fighing, keep presure on that HILL!!! good!! squad 3 supressive fire due east over that noll, keep those punks suppresed. SQuads 1,6,7, do not stop!! clean out that hill side we need that spot to set up the 50 cals!!
However, if you go for the on side kick and the enemy, i mean other team gets it your done for. All they need to do is run the clock out and it is theirs. Sucks for one team but rules for the other. By the way, football is not boring to me. I always watch the end of close games cause both teams brought forth a good effort.

I think people are assuming that the C.O. function will be empty on this map. Do not see it happeing.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 06-26-2006, 01:51 PM

YOur right Pokerface, that would be a excellent tactic under certain conditoins and timed properly. If you know the enemy is far away this would be wise.

Another good observation about the POINT of the battle. The big picture? Instead of saddling up, i'll role play that the whole map that my team won or lost now belongs to the enemy allowing them a better foot old into my terrritory or losing a foot hold into their territory.

**loyalguard** · 06-26-2006, 02:09 PM

@Pokerface

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If this were part of a singleplayer campaign, I'd say let 'er rip, because the maps before and after it might be affected by the outcome of this one. But since MP maps are played in a vacuum, we judge this on its merits and flaws, and without internal objectives beyond "kill the other guy lots" -- even if that killing is somehow tactical -- it still falls outside the scope of just about everything else TG has to offer.

These are excellent points Poker! When I was working through the concept in order to avoid this map becoming just a death match, I kept referencing in my mind the game play from Close Combat (My first RTT game) where the object was to advance to the other end of the map as part of a multi-staged campaign. My goal was to try to re-create that with this map by giving each team an objective to keep them focued on tactics while still allowing for the battles to occur anywhere on the map. I'm not trying to turn BF2 into a RTS or RTT, but I though the concept was cool.

I do see your point that each BF2 game map is in a vaccuum from every other so advancing to the other end of the map does not affect the next game. But, one team or the other would still "win" (just like they do now), it's just that the way the battles play out would be different.

**Pokerface** · 06-26-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by loyalguard

I do see your point that each BF2 game map is in a vaccuum from every other so advancing to the other end of the map does not affect the next game. But, one team or the other would still "win" (just like they do now), it's just that the way the battles play out would be different.

The same could be said for Counter-Strike, but you'd be shot in the face for suggesting a map like that get playtime on a TG server. :P

**JMJ** · 06-26-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by loyalguard

@Cing - If I understand the BF2 editor correctly (which is dubious at best) I believe the biggest map can only be 1024x1024, So I couldn't triple it but definitely double it. But, I think 500m should be decent. I have designed a couple of test maps and 500m sq seems to be a good infantry only size. The terrain will make it impossible to shoot from 1 UCB to another. I also think that if one side has the other pinned to their UCB line, that I don't want the attacking team to have to trek super-far to get back in the action (since they will have no flag's nearby to spawn at, only SLs)

As long as you have terrain to block a straight line of fire, that will ease up on the sniper fest. If the map is clear like FuShe or Dragon Valley you can see people at 400m+, and that just invites people to see back and take target practice. I can already tell you that's what I'd do

**aculle01** · 06-26-2006, 03:36 PM

You could make a map where one side's CP's are capturable and the other side has UCB. Keep the number of CP's low and place them on the far side of the map but with a few multiple spawn points forward towards the center of the map at key positions giving defenders a chance to set up defensive positions away from their flags but at key points. Place bleed on the side that has the UCB's and they have no choice but to attack and take out the defending side's other CPs.

One problem that arises is that the defenders, even when under pressure, could spawn at the forward points and flank the attackers unless there is a way to make it a one time spawn.

Personally, I dont know why anyone would want to stay in the UCB. I dont need a computer to sit around doing nothing for 45 minutes. Yes, there could be a point where a squad finds the "perfect" position to defend and wont want to move. Besides there are plenty of guys and gals here who are more than willing to attack a well dug in team rather than sit on defense. We aren't here to win but to enjoy playing tactically. As long as the map is enjoyable to play, I dont see a camping problem developing.

**Strag** · 06-26-2006, 04:40 PM

In a ticket-based game like BF2, the objective is to eliminate all of your opponent's tickets before he does the same to you. I always thought BF2 would be interesting if it used the "domination" style of play like GRAW has, but retain its existing ticket system. The problem with GRAW's implementation of domination, in my opinion, is that it has too many "zones" for a team to hold. It would be interesting to see a BF2 map where there were only five or six zones.

Each team could start in a UCB in its own zone, and it would receive no credit for holding this "home zone." To begin elimination of the opposing team's tickets, a team would have to move out and capture zones by occupying them with a force numerically superior to that of the opposing team. The more zones a team held, the faster the opposing team's tickets would drain.

Zones could be very large and/or very small, depending on the mapper's intent. Zones could have varying shapes, with natural features (canyons, cliffs, lakes, etc.) and man-made features (buildings, walls, dams, etc.) providing chokepoints and battle lanes. This would offer a good means to simulate the holding of territory, as well as provide incentive for the attack. There could also be vehicle depots and airfields scattered about the various zones, so that some zones would have more significance than other zones. Zones could be marked on the mini-map so that players could see their boundaries.

**loyalguard** · 06-26-2006, 07:21 PM

Here is my new “theoretical design”. I have taken a little bit (and in some cases a lot) from all the suggestions made above so again many thanks to you who have weighed in on this map concept so far.

I think I may have found the best of both worlds being discussed in this thread: 1) Make a map where battles don’t just occur at scripted locations (directly on or around a flag) AND 2) Ensure that there is incentive for each team to advance and engage their enemy instead of just hunkering down in their UCB’s.

Now, to my unwavering supporters, I must tell you upfront that this new conceptual design does include capturable flags. Please don't view this as a sell out. As as I stated above, this should not dictate where the battles will occur. How? See below:

Revised Conceptual Plan
==================

-Infantry with light jeeps only (Open to debate to add armor).
-512m x 2 map (Open to debate to increase to 1024m x2).
-Each team has a series of UCB’s at opposite ends of the map (Most likely 3).
-There are four “zone” capturable flags, divided into quadrants (NW, NE, SW, SE).
-Each zone is has a spherical circumference of ~250m (BF2 flag capture zones can only be spheres or hemispheres).
-There are no spawn points except UCB’s and SL’s.
-Works with current tac mod flag capture logic.
-The objective is to advance and engage the enemy in an attempt to control the map.
-If you control the entire map (all four quadrants) you inflict heavy bleed on your opponent.
-If your opponent controls the entire map you must coordinate closely to try to break out and push your enemy back.

Here’s a diagram (Note: actual terrain and objects will be modified):

(Yes, I know that there are some gaps in quadrants but this shouldn't be an inhibitor to the concept - I do not want to add more than four zones for simpilicty sake)

The important thing to keep in mind is that the flag is not important here, the zone is (as emphasized by the latest tac mod logic). I have discovered some possible methods to make the flag itself nearly “invisible” to further reinforce this. So, hopefully this will allow battles to occur where they naturally occur and in accordance with sound tactics and strategy but avoid the game from becoming a death match by assigning an objective to each team.

There are still a lot of details to work out but I think this can work.

Thoughts?

**asch** · 06-26-2006, 07:39 PM

I believe that latest depiction with the four zones would work better. A zone is so large that you aren't defending a flag pole. You can also make the flagpoles invisible or look like other objects so that they aren't seen.

Also, if we had several maps similar to this, a new "campaign" game mode could probably be created in the tac mod where the outcome of one map dictates the next map to follow. So let's say we had five maps in a linear fashion. The campaign starts in the middle and can go either direction. Maybe have the three middle maps with no UCBs and the end maps only one team has the UCB.

**Acid** · 06-26-2006, 07:44 PM

You could stick one inside a tree, we all know how much clipping already happens in BF2.

@ Asch: That would be fun to implement! I'm just wondering how people would feel joining a team half way through that's already disadvantaged. I would be fine with it, same level of teamwork, even more if you are behind, but would it deter some people?

Thread Tools

Display