-
11-27-2009, 06:49 PM #31
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
The main areas of interest each have their own personality.
Are you planning on adding detail to transitional non flag areas?
The BRDMs and BTRs will only be useful in antiaircraft and anti personnel roles as far as fire-support goes? I think the British AA vehicle can laugh with impunity as 14.5mm bounces off? Not a issue, just a interesting dynamic.|TG-12th| Namebot

-
11-27-2009, 08:42 PM #32
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
"Are you planning on adding detail to transitional non flag areas?"
not a huge amount.
There will be some wreck statics and other interesting things along the roads, but imo there is actually something to be said to fight over a nice open area, especially with vehicles.
-
11-27-2009, 09:03 PM #33
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- United States of America
- Posts
- 982
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
Something I found seriously enjoyable was walking around in the half-destroyed village. That will make for some VERY interesting infantry CQB in all the rubble.
-
11-27-2009, 10:57 PM #34
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
While I'm too busy to download and test this map at the very moment, let alone load up a game of PR, I'm truly loving your work by the description and screenshots.
A few questions, for quality of your map both aesthetically and gameplay wise:
1) Is it possible to import a ground texture? A lot of BF2's default desert textures and so far most of the ones used on a lot of PR maps tile miserably. Take a look at one of your overhead screenshots, like the one of the factory where the pipes come in from the right side; the ground outside of the factory, due to being barren, is noticeably repeated. If it is possible, I would be more than happy to do some photoshop work with the tile texture to lower the contrast of the tile (removing the lightened and darkened portions, to make a more uniform texture) and send it back. This should make the ground look a bit more believable, something that's always irked me about PR's maps.
2) Right now, the harsh yellow/gold of the sand contrasts well with the blue sky, but the saturation black hole that is the fog o' war is really killing it for me. Is it possible to make the fog blue like the sky, so that it looks more like the desert continues on and that the fog is the actual horizon, rather than it being grey and trying to 'blend' the two? With the sort of harsh contrast between colors, it really irks me that there is a lack of contrast at the borders, making a very 'blah' sky.
3) I'm really all for the flatness, honestly I would say try to keep things as flat as possible (some sloping is good, but keep it flat so that when riding over the terrain there isn't always an unsettling bouncing). With the flat, open ground, it should make for some interesting armor battles, since it could be a viable tactic to fire on the move at a target. Obstacles, the objectives, and terrain levels should really dictate the ground war, but the ability for a vehicle to fire on the move (at least while the driver is keeping a steady speed and course) would be a welcome addition, in my eyes, to open up some different strategy.
4) On the contrary to my last statement, don't be too afraid to rough some areas up in regards to terrain. While the majority of it should be flat, being desert and all, areas that might actually build up sand should be looked at, for aesthetic/realism reasons (for those, they shouldn't be too huge, but like a small mound of sand on the outside of a sheet metal fence would add a bit to it (in a sandstorm, the sand would pile up against the outside of the fence more than the inside, right?). And also for variation, having some minor dune areas (large enough to notice, easy enough to avoid if desired) could throw in just a bit of spice to the terrain.
5) Absolutely loving the asset differences. Could you perhaps post the asset list for each team? I'd love to know just exactly what you're going for, but I can't check the map out myself, at least for now.
-
11-28-2009, 12:36 AM #35
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
1) the highdetail textures are more complex afaik, but the lowdetailtextures.dds are basically plug and play, I suck with PS, so if you want to have a play about and send me the .dds I'll apply it (easy) and have a go!

2) I am using the Korengal fog and sky atm (with differnet clouds) But sure, I think I can do that. and I agree with you
3) Trust me, I've spent ages smoothing the terrain, its nice and smooth. Some of the TG boys and I had a go today, and firing on the move is easier than on say...kashan. But its not perfect. If the CA FCS was implemented, maybe then it would definately work, but time will tell.
4) I've got one large hilly area, the idea being that its a rockbed casusing the raised ground, symbolised by rocks.
5) All asset lists are completely subject to change, as I think this will probably be decided by the PR staff if the map gets to that point, though my input will be taken seriously afaik
here's the idea so far
64 - Full assets, Deplayed spawns will be included in a few cases to avoid having everyone in a vehicle and no boots.
Brits 5 tanks, 2 APCs, 1 Scimi, 2 stormers, 2 log trucks, 2 lynxes, 1 merlin, 2/3 air somethings (choppers or jets, dunno which yet)
MEC, 4 Tanks, 2 BMPs, 2 BTRs, 2 BRDMs, 2 Gaskins, 2 Skycows, 2/3 Air Somethings.
32 - I'm gonna just leave that open for now because 1) the version I made with choppers is bugged :P, 2) want to just leave it open for original ideas.
16 -
Brits, 6 WMIKs, 4 Support Rovers, 1 Lynx, 1 merlin
MEC, 2 BRDMs, 4 MEC techicals (placeholder for lolz) 4 Support UAZs
-
11-28-2009, 03:09 AM #36
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- United States of America
- Posts
- 982
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
Quick copy/paste of my post at realitymod.com:
After some extensive testing with others today, we've found out a few neat things about this map as well as loads more bugs we'll be able to fix:
Neat Thing 1) The terrain is smooth enough in most places that armor can engage other armor while still continuing to move at full speed with minimal shaking of the gunner's sights, even at long range. This is realistic, and, well, awesome.
Neat Thing 2) The Lynx is especially suited to dodging AA fire and while the MEC will already be dug in gives the british a signifigant air transport advantage.
Neat Thing 3) Aircraft bombs + Village = Win. The resulting destroyed statics make for AWESOME, mazelike infantry combat.
Something to note though is that assets aren't anywhere near what they'll actually be when it's finalized, nor are the flags. Rudd's going to redo the colormaps too I believe. There's also some stuff that needs retexturing here and there.
PS: If anyone has any subversion experience, we're having a bit of trouble with it -- we're using unfuddle.com and TortoiseSVN.
PPS: Possible asset distribution:
64Layer
British:
x5 Challenger Tank
x2 Warrior APC
x1 Stormer AAV
x3 Logistics Truck (2 main, 1 FOB) -- maybe tempspawn at Britfob initially?
x1 Lynx
x1 Merlin
x1 Eurofighter
x1 Tornado
x2 6-Man Landrovers
= 20 asset slots assuming ALL heavy assets manned
Assuming 62 players, 32 on each team, 12 infantry slots/two full squads
MEC:
x5 T-72
x2 BTR-60
x1 BRDM
x1 Gaskin AAV
x1 Skycow
x1 Eurocopter
x1 SU-27
x1 Frogfoot
x3 Clowncar (2 main, 1 bunker complex)
x3 Logistics Trucks (2 main, 1 bunker complex)
= 22 asset slots assuming ALL heavy assets manned
Assuming 64 players, 32 on each team, 10 infantry slots/2 5-man squads
-
11-28-2009, 11:44 AM #37
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
How about limiting it to maybe a tornado for the british and a Havok for the MEC as the only armed air vehicles in the map. I would like to see this because they will not get hung up on chasing each other around the map like they do on kashan these days but instead be at the disposal of the infantry. i like the terrain since it allows for good armoured combat too. I would like not to have too many aircraft. Kashan 64 have a good amount they just end up fighting each other and therefore get shot down instead of helping the inf.
You could also just give the MEC 2-3 tanks, 2 BMPs, 2BTRs and 2 havoks while the british keep their 5 challengers, 2 warriors and a tornado. This way you would have a heavily armoured British team and the MEC have more air support but less armour
The brit FOB seems weird to me. Don't know what it is, I am going to take a more indepth look at it later today.
I would also like to have some more uneven ground inside the bunker complex.If people are becoming so bored when playing that they have to resort to this immature behaviour I will give them something to do, call it a project. The project is "appeal a ban". - Wicks









-
11-28-2009, 01:13 PM #38
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
Qinling and Monchegorsk prove that Attack heli vs jets with AA missles = lots of dead attack helis
-
11-28-2009, 02:40 PM #39
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
I think it would be great to just be an armor slugfest, without being dive bombed by apaches or jets.
-
11-28-2009, 03:34 PM #40
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
That is the beauty of being able to make multiple layers!
This map can play many different ways depending on which assets are on it.
Maybe:
1mig and frogfoots vs multiple tornados?
No MEC tanks, instead they only get BMP-3s?
Warriors and stormers vs BTR-60s BRDMs and Havoks?
A lot of interesting possibilities available, I wonder what Rudd has in mind?|TG-12th| Namebot

-
11-28-2009, 04:35 PM #41
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- United States of America
- Posts
- 982
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
The issue with APC combat on this map is that the British really don't have a TOW-capable APC, so we can't really put BMPs on it without risking unbalance. BTR/BRDM vs. Warrior/Scimitar is also unbalanced but faaaar less so than BMP vs. Warrior/Scimitar
-
11-28-2009, 04:56 PM #42
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
I'm not sure of this but I have heard that the british warrior can have TOWs mounted on the turrets, and there is a variant of it called the desert warrior that has an LAV-25 turret with two built in TOWs but i don't know if the britsh use it.
|TG-69th|chrisweb89









-
11-28-2009, 05:26 PM #43
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- United States of America
- Posts
- 982
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
There are numerous British antitank APCs, such as this one which can fire MILANs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV103_Spartan
But none in PR currently.
-
11-28-2009, 09:23 PM #44
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
Is it possible to send me the texture itself (or where I would find it within PR's files) so that I can start up the 'Shop. I'm not sure what the highdetail/lowdetail mumbojumbo you said means to me... low detail as in the textures seen when farther away (like the textures seen from higher up?)
Is it possible that the editor is aggravating the problem and is actually only applying the high detail texture even when that high up, or do you know if it is using the low detail in the editor.
Good to hear what you're working on for the terrain, hope it all turns out how you want it to.
Might I suggest:64
Brits
5 tanks, 2 APCs, 1 Scimi, 2 stormers, 2 log trucks, 2 lynxes, 1 merlin, 2/3 air somethings (choppers or jets, dunno which yet)
MEC
4 Tanks, 2 BMPs, 2 BTRs, 2 BRDMs, 2 Gaskins, 2 Skycows, 2/3 Air Somethings.
Brits
5 Challengers, 2 Warriors
MEC
3 tanks, 2 BMPs, 2 BTRs
This way, the sides will be balanced (number wise, at least) on the armor.
Or, give one side a less capable armor but a bigger air advantage. (British has 3 tanks instead of 5, with the above setup, but have a bomber, whereas the MEC do not have a bomber at all and only have fighter jets trying to gain air superiority.
I don't know if it's possible, but a thought I've always had is severely staggering asset spawns between the teams. Say, both teams start off with infantry assets, and perhaps other minor land vehicles and/or air transports (Ala Kashan 16). The MEC team also receives armor/air assets (Kashan 32, only one attack heli). After XX minutes of the Havok's spawning, the British team gains either armor support or an Apache (not both), as well as a small set of AAVs (1 or 2?).32 - I'm gonna just leave that open for now because 1) the version I made with choppers is bugged :P, 2) want to just leave it open for original ideas.
After XX minutes, the MEC will receive a small set of AAVs. In XX minutes, the MEC gains a fighter jet (or a bomber, or a fighter and bomber). In XX minutes, the British team gets another set of AAVs, and a jet (if MEC has bomber, British gets a fighter; if MEC has both fighter and bomber British gets the same or 2 fighters, etc etc)
This goes on until the climax of your choosing; these 'heavy' assets do not respawn; instead, they only spawn once and the team must be careful to use these assets with extreme caution; if they do good, they could keep that advantage the entire round (armor could respawn, but perhaps high respawn timers might be in order).
This setup would encourage strategy and gameplay changes throughout the round to account for the other team's advantage. For instance, the MEC will want to push hard in the beginning, to gain a territorial advantage with their assets, while the British will want to dig in to what territory they can keep, and try to use their infantry kits to stave off the attacks (HAT, LAT, AA). After that, the British will either have to fight a ground war (with their armor assets) against the MEC, being careful to keep an AAV or set of them in high-priority areas to try to level the MEC's advantage, or will have to fight for air superiority (with their Apache vs the Havok) and push forward on the ground by the apache working to take out enemy armor in the infantry force's way.
If they play it right, the MEC can keep a good advantage the entire round, whereas the British will have to work a little harder to level the playing field (since they are the attacking force, they will be 'behind schedule' on receiving assets,) but if they work with both the infantry kits on the ground and the assets they gain, they can take the advantage from the MEC, and keep it for themselves.
Of course, none of this is a step-by-step process, and you could choose when and what each time gets.
-
11-28-2009, 09:34 PM #45
Re: al muthana WIP, Rudd would like your input
you are right, these are the textures shown after 50m or so.
You'll find the lowdetailtexture.dds in the client.zip of each map
Al Muthana is using the defaultlowdetailtexture,
I haven't actually tried applying kashans...which might be an idea.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)





Reply With Quote




Bookmarks