Project Reality Forums

Reddish Red wrote:Swimming makes you vunrable, but i suppose if you do the whole "One at a Time" thing

why there is the ford and the rope bridge also

Not to forget boats, cars and APC.

Ohhhhh im thinking Qwai, right? Sorry! Didnt mean to ...well, be an idiot.

I know there are other ways, but in my opinion, which admittedly isnt a strong one at all, I dont like having either a Bridge... or water to cross... in any way shape or form.. but, I know thats how war is and really, i dont think maps should be always changed to be balanced or anything. Certain sides will always have an advantage.

What id like to see is the focus not always be on winning. Like on a onesided map, the losing side would feel great pride knowing that they held out for 3 hours, or something.

Right now, it seems like you have to win to feel good about the match (generally, i know a lot of people have fun regardless, myself included) But I think itd be nice to see some one sided maps where if you were one side up against a bunch of tanks, you could have fun tryin your hardest to stop it with limited resources...

But really, I dont have a problem with RHINO's Ghost Train.

Geez, im so sorry...lol

Outlawz wrote:The distances are fine for RPs to be set down, it's the part, where everything is focused around the bridge on one part of the map, is what bothers me.

What's really annoying, is the fact, that IFV can go over that ford on the west side of the map and all of a sudden come out behind South Bridge.
More rocks on that area, so only infantry can pass

Uh, you want the mapping team (well, Rhino) to stop the IFV from crossing a ford with rocks because every time you play as the Chinese, your entire team are too lazy to walk down there with some mines?!

-------

The map is pretty damn good as it is; although I will say it's damn hard to get a pubbie server to use the simultainious-attack thing going, and if it's botched up then it returns to the "We hold this side and you hold that side" fragfest again.

I love it, it's one of my favourites... especially running around with a squad, using the SAW. A good flanking manouverer and a SAW hidden in the jungle will pop people down left right and centre

yep, Masaq has the idea

you can also sit on the shore line up there with a HAT also to stop them coming across

Yep, it's a great map for ambushes, since 90% of the players sprints all over the map with not situational awareness at all.

But I still think it needs a little expansion to the east and around Tempel and Trenches to make the bridge more central on the map, and give an even bigger area for flanking options.

Farks wrote:But I still think it needs a little expansion to the east and around Tempel and Trenches to make the bridge more central on the map, and give an even bigger area for flanking options.

its only a 512 map, beyond there is outside terrain.

If you guys think the fight is the same every time, check my older guide to OGT. I use a lot of things I've learned about that map to pull off unorthodox fights.

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:I love it, it's one of my favourites... especially running around with a squad, using the SAW. A good flanking manouverer and a SAW hidden in the jungle will pop people down left right and centre

Hehe, shotgun is awesome too, some people just run right past you and they get it in the back.

Is it possible for a flag's cap radius not to be a single area, but two (or more) separate ones?

E.g. On OGT there would be a bridge flag, with both N+S cap areas, both of which would have to be secured to have control of the bridge?

Would be interesting for breakthrough type maps, Hills of Hamyongang style, where instead of say the 3 front flags there would be a 'front line' with 3 control areas. If enough troops are in these control areas the flag will cap, respresenting a line being breached and remain strong points being bypassed?

intresting idea but not possible. you only have 1 captuer radius, you can offset the radius from the flag but the size you would need to make it to cover the entier bridge etc would mean you could cap it from below the bridge or from high in the sky...

Thought that would be the case.

Like i said, was thinking about it to be used to represent a defence line in maps, so say you had to secure a river crossing and there were two bridges, or a beachhead on an invasion map, you would only have to cap one as this meets your objective, no need to cap another flag whose value to your team is now essentially obsolete.

Ah well, BF2 engine and all...

Editted to ask another dumb question from someone who knows nothing about mapping:

Would it be possible to code it so that when X flag is capped, Y is as well? Would simulate the same idea.

Not really useful for OGT though, and you would need to defend X with more troops than the enemy has at Y to prevent it being recapped i suppose...