Objective-Push map

CobraPhantom · Post by **CobraPhantom** » 2005-05-24 19:24

I find it odd how these maps never really caught on. A lot of people still like it, but for your newer players, they probably feel its kind of forced, and linear. Ive always got a kick out of them myself.From when SWoWII came out with it officially(i remember on having to blow up some generators or something), to DC's weapons bunker, to DC's Medina Ridge push, to I believe was FH's Foy, and a few others. Saying that, I would like to see a comination of the 2. Having it a push map, til you reach the last flag, and you have to destroy an objective, say maybe an arms cache.
Perhaps even the people who like the idea of "breeching" can enjoy this by maybe adding doors to the last flag(which could be a house, warehouse, tall building, underground etc storing the "Objective") which have to be blown open.
Sorry if this is a repost.

LMS-G-Death · Post by **LMS-G-Death** » 2005-05-24 19:31

sounds awesome, maybe a hill too. Im working on a DCF map called DC_Deadmans_Hill i want to have a pretty nice sized town and the have the undergroud bunker with scuds, objectives would be very cool to see.

-G

skrip00 · Post by **skrip00** » 2005-05-25 03:43

Forcing players to do something isnt a very popular thing to do.

Objective maps are one thing. When one enemy defends, and one attacks, its fun. Like Battle of Britain.

Push maps are not fun. Basically when you see points: 1,2,3. You know nearly all of the oppo team will be waiting at point 1 for you. Going to points 2 and 3 are pointless as you cant do anything. So your stuck fighting a fairly predictable battle plan.

CobraPhantom · Post by **CobraPhantom** » 2005-05-25 03:49

So I guess teamwork is pointless to use then? Push maps arent fun cuz you dont have any teammates helping you out. Push and objective maps really root out those who are just looking for a killer score.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-05-31 03:13

objective maps would be awsome, that was the main draw to ET for me.

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2005-06-02 04:14

objective and push maps = good.

maybe....ambush map? us has to get from here to there (only like 4 lives per person of some limit like that) and bad guys spawn in fairly random spots to ambush them.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-03 00:50

Figisaacnewton wrote:objective and push maps = good.

maybe....ambush map? us has to get from here to there (only like 4 lives per person of some limit like that) and bad guys spawn in fairly random spots to ambush them.

that would be so cool. that would definatly ad a twist to gameplay.

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-06-12 05:17

I like playing linear maps. Medina Ridge was not about score padding. It keeps the action concentrated and requires a good team effort to pull through. Omaha beach was another fun linear map. One of things I like about the linear style maps is the long lasting firefight at a single choke point.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2005-06-12 05:21

One of the things we hope to achieve as stated in a few other threads is realistic enviornments (not just linear style maps) where players (if they choose to) can take tactical advantage of areas, just as soldiers would IRL to create a choke point using the 'lay of the land'; so to speak. Meaning that the entire map won't be one big choke point, but there could be many smaller places found all over the map which may be used as such. Providing for intense fire fights and the need to call in airstrikes/support to try break any stalemates which might occur.

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-06-12 05:22

Well, you don't need to make all maps linear.

Just throw in one or two.

trim · Post by **trim** » 2005-06-28 21:32

well with regards to reality objective maps would make more sence then any thing elce, more and more it seems that moder combat is more and more objective oriented, i iraq there were several advances into bagdad to take certan points, obviously it makes the most sence to go the most direct way(i.e. a push style battle, with out the respawn of cource) so it seems that the idea of these style of maps makes very much sence for this type of mod. But haveing every map the same way with just a change of venue would get old after a fiew maps so i would agre that not all maps need to be push\objective maps. that is what i think

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-07-09 22:11

Something like this could be interesting:

http://www.forumplanet.com/planetbattle ... id=1695314

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-07-10 02:27

wouldnt push style maps be a little restrictive? with choppers you would usually drop troops behind enemy lines to capture their supplies or airfield, a push style map would remove real strategy and replace it with slow grinding combat, which isnt always the best way.

CobraPhantom · Post by **CobraPhantom** » 2005-07-10 02:32

BrokenArrow wrote:wouldnt push style maps be a little restrictive? with choppers you would usually drop troops behind enemy lines to capture their supplies or airfield, a push style map would remove real strategy and replace it with slow grinding combat, which isnt always the best way.

I dont see how. Objective maps could still include any vehicles, be it land or air, as a supportive measure. Say puttin in a UH-60 compared to AH-1. Sure there should be stuff to help out the team. But a tank/jet/helo shouldnt be able to take out of the object, only support the troops going for it. Unless of course you want to get techincal. Then bunker busters and such would have to be implemented, and if you go that far, nukes are just as likely.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-07-10 02:36

no objective maps are fine, im talking about push maps.

for objectives there are many ways to do it, each sides commander would basically be playing a high stakes chess game against each other, finding different ways to attack/defend.

But push maps, attack point 1.... attack point 2 and so on would turn into grinding battles or mass base camping.

CobraPhantom · Post by **CobraPhantom** » 2005-07-10 02:47

But I love grinding battles. As long as maps arent linear, such as Bridge from DC, It would be a hell of a battle for each flags as you make your way to the objective, or last flag.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-07-10 02:51

well yeah, have you played the newer battle of foy map for FH? very well done, so if its going to be done, do it well, and make it non-linear, which push maps can become.

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2005-07-10 02:56

i think the main attraction to BF2 for me was the freedom. dont want that taken away. you can go anywhere and do anything you want in the battle. every style of fighter has his own wheather its defending on a pod or parashooting in on there base behind them.

dont like the idea of maps with fixed positions because it seems sensible to me that if you manage to get to another flag area you should be able to take control if you have the skills/teamwork behind you.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-07-10 03:01

well, think of it this way, youre USMC trying to take a chinese position. you start at your base and have to hit the first capture point. theres 3 bridges leading in, 2 from each side and one that goes from this CP to the next one up the line, youre troops have to make sure the first two dont get destroyed (say you have no air assets except a spotter chopper) and that the third stays out of action so that the enemy(with no air asets whatsoever) cannot get resupply from their main base, that holds their armor and vehicles. and you have to recon with your chopper and attack quickly and coordinatedly (word?) to get that cp and prepare to move to the next.

i think this sounds fun if we have a dedicated group of guyes who'll work together.