Highway Tampa for PR?

[youm0nt]

How about the devs convert Highway Tampa into PR, increase view distance, vehicle respawns, gameplay dynamics of the map, etc. Now, I know most people will say, "Just play Kashan Desert or Al Kufrah Oilfield." Well, why not another tank based map? According to BF2S wiki, the map is bigger than Zatar Wetlands. Since Zatar Wetlands is in PR, why not Highway Tampa?
http://wiki.bf2s.com/maps/battlefield-2/highway-tampa

[pasfreak]

eh...we have so many desert storm type maps already
besides...it isn't a real place isn't it?

we need to see more urban fighting, like deep deep urban like fallujah or ramadi, with trash on the streets and complex interiors. doesn't have to be a huge map, maybe only 500m or 1 km.

[nillazsuck]

I agree walking or driving across huge maps only to be sniped by a tank or blown up by a plane is fun for awhile but it would be nice to have some close quarters infantry maps. A map with destructible buildings and enterable buildings. I know this is a little off topic but, is it possible to make a building have a working door only useable by enemy forces which is also destructible.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

we need to see more urban fighting, like deep deep urban like fallujah or ramadi, with trash on the streets and complex interiors. doesn't have to be a huge map, maybe only 500m or 1 km.

I agree walking or driving across huge maps only to be sniped by a tank or blown up by a plane is fun for awhile but it would be nice to have some close quarters infantry maps.

Why is it that people more people go on about close quarter infantry maps and raely ask for massive infantry only maps.
THe engine prevents leeening and all types of general realstic character movements. It is these things that play a very big role in how realistic and fun close quarter combat it but play a significaantly less role in long range combat.
Why not play to the game engines strenghts rather than weaknesses.

Also firefights dont exists proper in close quarter combat in PR. The number and length might improve as buildings are given mulitple levels, roofs ext. But i dont see that for a while.

Firefights on massive infantry maps can be brillaints. However at present the maps that are large enough, limit infantry combat by:

Too Liniar (e.g ejod, Sun Set City ext.) - flanking possible but serverly limited.

Balance between cover and open space lmits fluid movements and wide flanks (e.g open desert, city or "mountain" - rolling hills or low level buildings then higher as enter city ext. - type of area (built up or countryside) changes too rapidly)

COmbined with Heavy armour that make infantry movemnets in the limted open areas too dangerous (infantry cant flank easily and cover is too simplistic).

BUT i know many maps that should overcome these present map limitations are being made.

I just hope the DEVs seriously consider the impact of armour on infantry combat on large maps. Also the different types of armour and there indervidual effects.
E.g IFVs/ APC can assit infantry combats in many situations.

[Rhino]

As soon as a new map comes out I review i for PR, part of my job and this one would not fit PR at all well, let alone the quality of it. Not going to see it in PR when we have 4x4km armor battle maps.