Should they bring back Steel Thunder?

[JohnnyPissoff]

Yes "Thunder" was a clean map and I'd like to play it again.

The map I really wouldn't mind playing again is; "Oasis" It was a tight little map and the only one that I really found the artillery to be useful and not merely an annoyance.

As an aside, I played on "Karkand2" the other day playing W@W, and it brought back a warm inner smile.

[Hfett]

I have plans to audit this map and make a community mappack with maps from older releases

But first i need to finish some other jobs

It will not be on a official release, since most of the new PR map's are much better than the old ones, but we will have a mappack =)

No tanks, just infantary and apc's on 64 layout
and a 32v for infantary only



this was a testing layout, i will change it completly

[Rhino]

nice work, but it should be "cpname_st_" not "CP_ST_"

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

cool, nice to see

[dbzao]

Looks like too many CPs close to each other... it's just a 1 min run between these CPs in the east side.

Some options:
- remove Dam and TempleVillage
- remove TempleVillage and Warehouse
- remove Warehouse

Also I would think that transport choppers in this map wouldn't be that bad with all the open spaces between the forested areas. Feels a little like vietnam

Maybe make it asymmetric like Qwai. Perhaps since the chinese are invading, they have air superiority (transport choppers) while the Brits are on the defensive and don't have too much heavy equipment.

Also, think about a scenario version of this map

[hx.bjoffe]

Maybe make it asymmetric like Qwai.

Huh? Isnt Qwai about as symetric as you get it? Did not quite get that...

[Hfett]

Qwai= one side got tanks, the other does not =P

Yeah DB, but i need information on building a scenario map(i think i know how but not 100% sure)

About the layout, i will do those changes, in fact, this minimap is old =)

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

The river down the centre splits combat up too much, creating in affect 2 smaller maps.
Although combat does occur around the south and north bridges, it is really limited to those small areas along the river.

Combat on each side of the map is good but forests mean combat generaly occurs at less than 50 meters which leaves very little room for serious tactics - you really need to see your enemy when they are 300m away first to successfully use suppressing fire and flanking tactics.


How well can one utilize a full range infantry tactics: to a limited extent, namely one can use massive flanking and CQ tactics but the use medium to longer range tactics is extremely difficult.

How well can one utilize a full range of armored vehicle tactics: also to a limited extent, namely one can use wide flanking and defensive tactics but again long range combat and use of terrain is difficult.


Overall conclusion of map for both infantry and armour combat:

Tactically Limited.


For this reason i voted not to bring back steal of thunder.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

Seems like you've named all the features of this map and decided thats why its a bad map

I liked the excessive cover given by the trees and the excessive firepower. The river was a great feature, a natural standoff and a break in cover

[77SiCaRiO77]

if it dont have the tanks abattles then im not interested .

[Soulja]

wow, spend a while away and everything changes, even the forum. But ,anyway, Steel Thunder was a nice map and had a great atmosphere but had lag issues. It doesn't need the armor taken away because that's what made it great. Remove the helicopters is my opinion, they don't offer anything really and just get annoying if you're China because the littlebird is so much better than the China version. It just needs a revamp because it had too many trees and lags.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

The tanks, the trees and the helis are a trio this map depends on imo.
They are all connected and a counter to each other (along with AA on the heli)

You alter any of those and its going to be a different map

[Col.Hale-=Marines=-]

No i never did really like that map