Take a 16 player map and remove all of the boundaries. What you end up having is very intense frontline warfare with the possibility of outflanking your enemy, at the risk of getting flanked yourself.
One of the reasons I had a big problem with BF2 (as opposed to DC and BF1942... complete classics imho) is that the warfare never seems "massive". Even on a 64 player server, you rarely ever see prolonged stalemates.
The reason I emphasize prolonged stalemates here is because that is where the true fun really is. If you ever played the map Stalingrad for BF1942 or Oil Rigs in DC.. or even 73 Eastings in DC, you'll know exactly what I mean.
Stalingrad (BF1942)
The map had only 3 or 4 possible directions you could go. An additional possibility was trying to wade through some barbed wires, but that rarely succeeded once you were spotted. Both teams simply swarmed the flags and it truly felt as if you were in stalingrad, fighting it out. A stalemate usually occured down the center. As soon as you took a flag, the enemy spawn was closer to it so it was much easier for them to swarm you again and take the flag back.
Most of the people that played this map in a full 64 player server -- I'm sure can agree that the last thing they were thinking about was score. Your primary goal was either a) Get the flag! or b) Locate bunched up groups of enemy and try to cut them down.
Snipers really stood out here as well because they kept their distance but timed their shots. Usually people didn't have a second to spare to pay attention to a lone sniper so they just kept running. Although if a large portion of your team went sniping you would get crushed.
This map was successfull because it limited the players options for movement and forced everyone to concentrate on one area. Mix that type of map with BF2's graphics and you have an extremely immersive map that keeps you on edge the whole way through.
Oil Rig (Desert Combat)
Now this map was something. It really felt like an Operation. Totall immersive map. It was a fairly large map but had no landmass whatsoever. There was an oil rig in the center that you could run from end to end in about 10 seconds. The Rig had 4 levels (including topside). You could get into the rig from below, which took some extra effort because of the long ladder climb. There were a large variety of pipes and openings that only a good Littlebird pilot like myself could have sneaked into and make great drop points (heh, i practiced alot).
Whenever the map started, there was always a silence for about 20 seconds. That silence was the littlebird pilots loading up troops and flying their way towards the Oil Rig.
It was very hard to take all of the flags on this map because of the sheer amount of ways you could go. And even though there were so many pathways, the combat was always concentrated. People loved the idea of moving together to make it feel like a real life military op.
This map was successful because it created an environment that inspires teamwork. When you join a map that feels like a run-and-gun environment (ie: every single map in BF2, especially karkand).. that is exactly how you're going to play. It's all about the atmosphere you create around the player in my opinion. Just the fact that you only have 2 ways to get to the objective (boat or chopper) -- both of which require a group of people working together, it subliminaly (sp?) forces you to act as a team and the feeling kind of sticks.
73 Eastings (Desert Combat)
This map was pretty much nothing but desert. There were 2 main bases on each end of the map with 4 or 5 APCs, and 4 or 5 tanks. US also had a couple of MLRS units and the Iraqis had the SCUD and their version of the MLRS (forgot what it was called) -- not to mention the usual assortment of HMMV's, buggies and trucks. In plain words, this map was ALL vehicle with plenty of manned artillery and plenty of tanks to form a powerful column.
The thing about this map was, although there was so much room for movement, the flags forced you to stay on target. There was no reason to create stupid chokepoints like they did in BF2 (making the map seem extremely artificial, as opposed to the immersion i was talking about before). So basically, as long as you were going to the same place (only 2 to choose from), a group of tanks always seemed like a tank column.
The wide open desert + the fog really made it feel like you were in a huge desert, with alot of room for maneuvering.
This map was one of the most popular ones for Desert Combat. It was successful because it immersed you into the battle. There are a few set objectives and the only way to get them was to move together. If you don't move together.. well.. you can't not move together. If you don't move with everyone else, you'll be in the corner of the map picking your nose
Yes, things like that sort of exist in BF2, but they dumbed it down because they want the average joe (read: stoned 12 year old with ADD) to enjoy the game. One of the more interesting things they came up with was creating large craters for tanks and APCs to take cover in. You would drive your tank or mobile artillery cannon into this crater and you only be able to see the "head" of the vehicle. At that point, your camo comes into play and it was fairly difficult to ID an entrenched target at a distance. This I hear is a real tactic in desert warfare when entrenching a defensive line.
By the way, my fav. moment in the map was grabbing the Scout kit and sneaking behind a lone rock overlooking the middle base (the one that was fought over the most, with the most entrenched enemies usually). I would spot the target and an MLRS would roll up. It would take him a couple rockets to zero in the target.. but once he did... HELL was rained down! It was an amazing site. Much better than the corny artillery in BF2, because you know that it was you spotting that target and watching it through dirty binoculars made it all that more rewarding for some reason.
Why the hell did you type all of this?
Just to give an idea of how much I LOVED playing desert combat and BF1942. It little to do with the theater of war for me. Futuristic, modern day, world war 2, world war 1 (Battlefield 1918 was just as an amazing mod in my eye)... I'm a fan of them all. Each theater of war has something great about it that's fun playing. Only thing that needs to be done is giving it a shot and playing.
The reason BF2 dissapointed me was all of the pure BS they've added. They tried too hard to "revolutionize" things and mucked up in so many departments it's hard to begin.
And the end of the day, what matters is the amount of fun people get from playing the game. Realistic or not, it has to be fun. For example, am I all that excited about the stamina meter in BF2? No.. not really. It's half assed. It's a limitation, not a feature. If you want that kind of detail, Americas Army pulled it off very well. BF2 can't pull it off with engine limitations, but if it could... that would be awesome. But if not, why even bother?
It's things like this that really get to me in BF2. There are countless little details that were added into the game (through movement, maps, vehicles, etc) that just make things more annoying than they do fun.
Desert Combat and BF1942 succeeded because they were still fresh ideas. They didn't beat that horse to death yet, so they didn't have time to re-analyze a million little things. They made the game and everyone loved it.. it was that simple.
Ok, what does that have to do with maps?
Everything.
As yourselves a question and answer honestly... do you really pay attention to detail in BF2? Do you notice all the cuts and corners in the city maps.. or the realistic variation of plants in the jungle maps?
So here is my request to the mappers:
When you are mapping, you are the architect. You are literally building a "world" that people will get to know and remember. Clans will plan their strategies and analyze your map for weak points. Your maps are 70% of the game.
With that in mind, instead of trying to think professionally and concentrating on logic (chokepoint here, chokepoint there, gun here with field of view of that, etc) -- try to think of it as a real city -- or real jungle. -- or real military operation. Here are some examples:
1. Convoy is pinned down in an urban city. You can either spawn in on the convoy that is surrounded by enemy spawn points or you can spawn at a fairly distant spawn that will act as the "reinforcements".
2. Airborne operations? POE pulled this off very well in BFV, with airborne spawns at different ends of the maps.
3. If you can't do objective based, maybe have flags representing a location? Maybe an embassy or radio complex.
4. Completely demolished urban city. Make the city feel truly big. Buildings need to be taller -- larger. Karkand seems like a midget town for some reason. The city could be divided on 2 ends with a "No Mans Land" in the center (the concept is rarely used, but always ends up working). Anyone that steps into No Mans Land on their own is sure to get a beating. At the very tip of No Mans Land is a control point.. think of it as a Beachhead of sorts. Taking that CP should be fast once you get across.
When I say destroyed/demolished city.. I mean this:
Berlin '45
Grozny '96
Kosovo '99
