|
|
Post by Created-=Of-God=- (Matt) on Jan 3, 2009 13:13:24 GMT -5
Since AA 3.0 isn't scheduled to be out for a little while, I've decided to have another go at making a map. ;D For those of you who followed my last map [SF Forest Invasion], you might remember how bad it was.  hehe I have a couple ideas for a cool map, but what would you guys like to see? Here are the three major things I want to do: - Modeled after a modern theater [Iraq, Afghanistan, lesser known unstable areas]
- Realistic situation [no counter-strike or COD4 remakes
 ]
- Humvees or Civilians possibly?
Any ideas, screenshots or other brainstorms would be great...I want you guys to be involved.  -Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Learner-=Of-God=- on Jan 3, 2009 13:50:04 GMT -5
Its been suggested before, but maybe like Mogadishu from Black Hawk Down? Or has that already been taken?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx-=Of-God=- (James) on Jan 3, 2009 14:04:34 GMT -5
There already is a "Blackhawk Down" style map: SF_CSAR. I like that map because I get to use the RPG I really gravitate toward unique maps like Steamroller. The vertical combat makes that map seriously intense and sniper vs. sniper battles end up being epic. I think if you want to create a new map, you'll have to do something new and fresh. I have two ideas already. First, a sniper/counter-sniper mission. Classic ambush and counter-ambush situation in a heavily forested setting. First squad patrols through an area and tags waypoints along the way in order (like the objective markers in MOUT McKenna). Second squad sets up ambushes with snipers and machine guns along the trails or likely avenues of approach. Alternately, there could be a humvee in support of the patrol with dismounted infantry screening it from fire. Second, an Afghanistan map. Lots of open space, very sparse cover, a briefcase in a village in the center of the map. Both forces move in on foot, but since it's an open map, engagements can take place at extremely long distances, really testing the marksmanship of your teammates. |
|
|
|
Post by Endurance-=Of-God=- (Ben) on Jan 3, 2009 14:14:31 GMT -5
My vote is deffinitly for a Black Hawk down sort of map. The objectives could be changed and have a stagered introduction. Also, Humvees would have a great effect. They need to be used how they are today... in the cities. It would be great to see them in an urban setting instead of just in the desert of Snake Plain. Civilians would also be very realistic. Also, a map like that, I would beleive, could be either co-op or head-on. Maybe an assult vs. defenders, or of course an assult vs. assult. IDK anything about map making, but i'll certainly be a beta tester for your map Matt ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Created-=Of-God=- (Matt) on Jan 3, 2009 16:40:59 GMT -5
I really like the idea of a Afghanistan-style open area. It would allow for some pretty awesome sniper/marksman battles over a long distance. Long hills and rocky outcrops would make it very unique.
One thing I forgot about the civilians is how much they slow down the map. They require a lot of CPU time, and therefore make it lag a lot.
Humvees would be VERY cool, but since AA has this whole thing with "the enemy is always the insurgents", and maps that have a insurgent team are not allowed to be considered for honor status, having an enemy with a U.S. Humvee wouldn't make much sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Endurance-=Of-God=- (Ben) on Jan 3, 2009 17:15:50 GMT -5
I really like the idea of a Afghanistan-style open area. It would allow for some pretty awesome sniper/marksman battles over a long distance. Long hills and rocky outcrops would make it very unique. One thing I forgot about the civilians is how much they slow down the map. They require a lot of CPU time, and therefore make it lag a lot. Humvees would be VERY cool, but since AA has this whole thing with "the enemy is always the insurgents", and maps that have a insurgent team are not allowed to be considered for honor status, having an enemy with a U.S. Humvee wouldn't make much sense. Yes, open area snipers do sound life fun! And I see your point with thee civilians..... and with the Humvees..... It's just to bad that we never get to use our only available vehichle ever! Maybe you could say that th enemy had stollen them? lol |
|
|
|
Post by Created-=Of-God=- (Matt) on Jan 4, 2009 14:12:12 GMT -5
Yes, open area snipers do sound life fun! And I see your point with thee civilians..... and with the Humvees..... It's just to bad that we never get to use our only available vehichle ever! Maybe you could say that th enemy had stollen them? lol mmm....not so much. haha So...so far I have the following ideas on my list: - Modeled after part of Afghanistan [Rolling hills, small wooded areas, rocky outcroppings]
- Unfortunately no civilians/humvees
- Specific objective [downed chopper, wrecked humvee, briefcase]
Any others? Now that I know what I'm modeling it after, pictures of areas in Afghanistan would help too. |
|
|
|
Post by Endurance-=Of-God=- (Ben) on Jan 4, 2009 15:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
plcbratboy
Former Clan Member
plg%%741298%%
Posts: 229
|
Post by plcbratboy on Jan 4, 2009 21:56:08 GMT -5
My vote is deffinitly for a Black Hawk down sort of map. The objectives could be changed and have a stagered introduction. Also, Humvees would have a great effect. They need to be used how they are today... in the cities. It would be great to see them in an urban setting instead of just in the desert of Snake Plain. Civilians would also be very realistic. Also, a map like that, I would beleive, could be either co-op or head-on. Maybe an assult vs. defenders, or of course an assult vs. assult. IDK anything about map making, but i'll certainly be a beta tester for your map Matt ;D This does bother me GREATLY because when I put forward to help with a Black Hawk Down Map..... BTW:You should have The Assault Team have Humvee and you should have the defense team have RPGs and alot of AK-47s and the Assault force have A complete Squad of SF and the rest have M16s and the Machine guns(..forgot name...) I wish to help make this make and be a potiontal Beta tester with your permission. Note that in Somlia in 1993 there was Delta Force, and Rangers which the DF had SOPMOD and the Rangers had regular M4 and M16. also they used M60 machine guns..  but what ever. I feel that the map should be based on Operation Iraqi Freedom with Airborne, M16,M4.... The defence force should like AK-47s and RPKs and maybe one RPG class.. |
|
-Cole- †
Former Clan Member
plg%%765193%%
Posts: 93
|
Post by -Cole- † on Jan 4, 2009 23:04:41 GMT -5
Humm, That Afghanistan Idea is REALLY a Great One. But About the Weapons, What About Like.. on Assault/Defense .. You Can Have Alpha Squad All Have SF's Then Bravo Squad Could Have a Sniper.. (S24.. 50Cal. Whatever  ). Sorta Like the Urban Assault, Insurgent Camp, and Woodland Outpost Weapon Layouts. But Let's Take Defense Side As an Example. Say Your Defending a.. Building With a Cache You Have to Incinerate. Let Alpha Squad Spawn in the Building, and Bravo Squad Have a Big Hill to Snipe on.. Trying to Defend the Building From Which the Enemies are Running Too. Also Another Hill on The Assault Side of the Map Would Also Be a Good Idea So They Could Snipe (or Try to) the Other Snipers, or Snipe the People in the Building. There Could Also Be Tunnels or Something Going to the Buildings. Alot Like the Map Radio Tower, I Guess is What I'm Looking At. But Now, Those Three OBJs You Gave For an Example Were BRILLIANT in My Opinion. I Don't Know if You Able to Do All Three.. But I'll Be Honest.. I Think That Would Be Cool.. . Really I Was Thinking Something Along the Lines of This ( I Don't Know If This Could Be Done.. But Still.. Im Making Suggestions). A Pilot Got a Radio of a Wrecked Humvee in the Area That Obtained a Very "Intelligent" Briefcase of Information That Located Mortars in Surrounding Areas, and Some Other Things. So, the Pilot Goes to Check the Scene of the Wrecked Humvee. But at the Same Time, a Guy is Notifying a Squad That is Patrolling the Nearest Village About the Situation. So Then the Pilot Radios In That the Briefcase is Nowhere to Be Found at That He Assumes the Enemy Obtained It. So Now, The Squad Patrolling the Village Has Now Been Told to Check All Assumed Locations of the Mortars and Destroy Them Before the Enemy Finds Them and Obtains Them, and They're Also Told to Locate the Briefcase and Retrieve it if Possible. Now, Let's Time Out For a Second Here.. (breathes) Okay.. Now If the Opfor Gets the Mortars and Get the Briefcase to Safety, They Automatically Win. And Same for The U.S., If They Get the Briefcase and Destroy the Mortars They Automatically Win. But, Say Opfor Got the Briefcase to Safety and the U.S. Destroyed the Mortars, or Vice Versa. What Are You Going to Do? It's a Tie? WRONG! That's When the U.S. Get a Message From the Pilot Saying I Have a Malfunction, I'm Going Down!! HELP ME! and At the Same Time the Opfor Got a Message Saying.. a U.S. Pilot Is Going Down Over Here.. KILL HIM! and So Then.. You Got Another OBJ on Your SAI. The First One That Completes That OBJ.. Will Win.. Lol. Then Again, You Could Just Kill All the Opposing Forces. Okay, Any Questions Class? No, No? Okay Good.. Sorry If You Don't Understand/Get It..   Anyways.. Thats My Suggestion LOL No Hard Feelings If It's Far-Fetched.. Because Ummm.. Yea.. It Is. Lol. -Cole  |
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx-=Of-God=- (James) on Jan 5, 2009 1:42:50 GMT -5
I would advise staying away from the Blackhawk down style maps. Like I said, CSAR already takes care of that theme and to do another downed 'hawk map would be redundant. Granted, you could have securing a crash site as an objective, but to have it as the sole focus of the map would not be a wise decision.
Let's take Afghanistan and roll with it. I also like the idea of infantry vs. SF; if it were possible to make it completely asymmetric, that would be even better. Let's say that Assault 1 was infantry. To the OPFOR (Assault 2), it would appear that A1 was mobilizing a force of regulars to attack a set of objectives, which could be a village center, a listening post, and a crashed chopper. To A1, it would appear that OPFOR was mobilizing a QRF of heavily armed commandos to recover and extract vital information before your infantry unit can reach it.
We could stage an epic battle between SF with carbines and heavy weapons and regulars with assault rifles and sniper support. I've always wanted to see what regulars could do with only iron sights and assault rifles. The SF would have the advantage of optical gun sights and heavy weapons like RPGs and AT-4s, but the regulars would have dedicated sniper teams, which are a very important force multiplier in open terrain.
Rolling hills and rocky outcroppings would provide good places for snipers to hide and a partly dry riverbed bisecting the map would provide cover to move between objectives. Vegetation would be limited to shrubbery around the flood plain but increasing to larger bushes and trees around the hills and in the village.
|
|
|
|
Post by Endurance-=Of-God=- (Ben) on Jan 5, 2009 2:13:57 GMT -5
I would have to say, James... that sounds... well, epic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Created-=Of-God=- (Matt) on Jan 5, 2009 10:33:47 GMT -5
I would advise staying away from the Blackhawk down style maps. Like I said, CSAR already takes care of that theme and to do another downed 'hawk map would be redundant. Granted, you could have securing a crash site as an objective, but to have it as the sole focus of the map would not be a wise decision. Let's take Afghanistan and roll with it. I also like the idea of infantry vs. SF; if it were possible to make it completely asymmetric, that would be even better. Let's say that Assault 1 was infantry. To the OPFOR (Assault 2), it would appear that A1 was mobilizing a force of regulars to attack a set of objectives, which could be a village center, a listening post, and a crashed chopper. To A1, it would appear that OPFOR was mobilizing a QRF of heavily armed commandos to recover and extract vital information before your infantry unit can reach it. We could stage an epic battle between SF with carbines and heavy weapons and regulars with assault rifles and sniper support. I've always wanted to see what regulars could do with only iron sights and assault rifles. The SF would have the advantage of optical gun sights and heavy weapons like RPGs and AT-4s, but the regulars would have dedicated sniper teams, which are a very important force multiplier in open terrain. Rolling hills and rocky outcroppings would provide good places for snipers to hide and a partly dry riverbed bisecting the map would provide cover to move between objectives. Vegetation would be limited to shrubbery around the flood plain but increasing to larger bushes and trees around the hills and in the village. Sounds great, but like I said in my first post, I don't believe asymmetrical maps are allowed to be considered for honor status. The Army doesn't want the player shooting at the good guys.  Any ideas in terms of size? I want a big map, but the editor keeps crashing for some reason when I create a very large terrain...If I do a big one, I will need to delete all the objects and volumes out of a standard large map and go from there. |
|
plcbratboy
Former Clan Member
plg%%741298%%
Posts: 229
|
Post by plcbratboy on Jan 5, 2009 16:20:11 GMT -5
I feel that the map should be based on Operation Iraqi Freedom with Airborne, M16,M4....
The defence force should like AK-47s and RPKs and maybe one RPG class.. Like the defence would be the Insugerants counterattck for Bagdad since the marines did capture the city in like less then 7 days it would make sence and for the Offence it would be lie the 82nd Airborne taking the city from the Baeth(can't spell it) Party members and regime....
|
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx-=Of-God=- (James) on Jan 5, 2009 16:25:07 GMT -5
By asymmetric, I only mean the force structure. Force 1 could be SF and Force 2 could be regulars. The only difference would be weapons. Force 2 would see their own weapons as M16s and Force 1 would see their own weapons as M4A1 SOPMODs and AT-4s, with some Indigenous Forces supporting them with AKS-74Us and RPGs. I believe some maps like Bridge are already set up like this, where one side does not have Grenadiers or RPGs and the other does. Regardless of soldier type (SF vs. regulars), you still see your unit as the "good guys."
|
|
|
|
Post by Created-=Of-God=- (Matt) on Jan 8, 2009 18:05:15 GMT -5
By asymmetric, I only mean the force structure. Force 1 could be SF and Force 2 could be regulars. The only difference would be weapons. Force 2 would see their own weapons as M16s and Force 1 would see their own weapons as M4A1 SOPMODs and AT-4s, with some Indigenous Forces supporting them with AKS-74Us and RPGs. I believe some maps like Bridge are already set up like this, where one side does not have Grenadiers or RPGs and the other does. Regardless of soldier type (SF vs. regulars), you still see your unit as the "good guys." Ok thanks for clarifying. lol Anyway, it would be interesting to see what Infantry could do vs. SF, but to make it fair, I would think either the Infantry team would need to have another major advantage, or all the guns should be generally the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx-=Of-God=- (James) on Jan 10, 2009 3:14:59 GMT -5
The standard infantry section has a more diversified weapon selection at their disposal than SF, as well as possessing powerful, dedicated sniper weapons. The force structure could be split thus:
Force 1:
SF carbine - Squad Leader
SF carbine
SF carbine
SF carbine
SF SAW - M249
IF carbine
IF carbine
IF carbine
IF SAW - RPK-47
SF carbine
SF SPR
IF carbine
IF VSS
Force 2:
Rifle - Squad Leader
Rifle
Rifle
Grenadier
SAW - M249
Rifle
Rifle
Grenadier
SAW - M249
Rifle
Sniper - M24
Rifle
Sniper - M82A1
The infantry unit would have more firepower at their disposal. Two grenadiers with multi-shot M203s and two M249s capable of providing accurate rapid fire, as well as sniper rifles that are almost guaranteed to kill with the first shot make them a force to be reckoned with. However, Infantry will not be good at fighting in extreme close quarters and are not optimized for breaching and clearing areas.
SF has weapons equipped to handle multiple situations, though they are not optimized for any particular situation. SF are geared more toward assault with their shorter-ranged weapons and indigenous support. Also, SF has the advantage of optics on their weapons and the option of spreading out their M203s so that if the Grenadier is shot, firepower is not dramatically reduced.
Depending on which side the player chooses, the play styles are dramatically different. The map would need to be geared to allow each side to play to their strengths for at least one objective for certain. The third objective can be difficult for both in order to focus the firefights on the map and keeping everyone in the action despite the long engagement ranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armies-=Of-God=- {Josh} on Jan 11, 2009 22:33:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Call-=Of-God=- on Feb 1, 2009 0:48:03 GMT -5
If it isn't too late to add to this. I am new and still learning what exists out there, but I tend to think it would be a good mission to go in and rescue someone of importance. I.E. Rescue a US Ambassador from an Embassy held captive by a foreign terrorist group? Of course, the mission fails if the Ambassador gets killed... I'd take a stab at it (and I may in several years) after I figure out what makes a good map.
|
|
]
). Sorta Like the Urban Assault, Insurgent Camp, and Woodland Outpost Weapon Layouts. But Let's Take Defense Side As an Example. Say Your Defending a.. Building With a Cache You Have to Incinerate.
