Crimguy
Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003 From: Cave Creek, AZ Status: offline
|
Curious: I'd like both larger and smaller. Smaller maps can be good for certain tactical exercises, while larger would allow for more interesting meeting engagements, and create more desperate defensive situations where NATO simply cannot defend all approaches at once. Perhaps keep each sector the same size that are in the maps now, but some maps could have 6 sectors, some 12 (like they do now), and some could have 18. I had the same feeling in TacOps' original (version 1.0 - yes I was an earlier adopter on my mac) maps that I do here. Specifically, the feeling I get is that the designers of the scenarios made the maps just big enough to give the player possibilities to contend with, without allowing the attacker to go off on an expedition to find the undefended route. I find it kinda fun to explore those backwoods approaches. If they're a bad decision, let the game clock run out as a means of punishment. quote:
ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit. If you could change the map size, which way would you go? Call me curious, Rob. quote:
ORIGINAL: Crimguy I take it that, because of the 12 zones that are required for each map, that any future maps that are released (if ever) would be subject to the same size limitations?
|