Enhancing Capital Battles

[VerbotenDonkey]

I was just thinking, Capital Battles are probably the most important Battle in the whole War, so why are they treated like a normal Map with just extra games required? Hemorrhage is still Hemorrhage. I think we should spruce it up a little, add some fortifications, a Falcon, extra Armory, little bunkers around the Map, etc. The Maps don't feel like Capitals really.

Thoughts?

[Carpe Vexillum]

A good idea! I like this, it would make it seem more 'capitol' like. And it would be fun in my opinion. =]

[Mythonian]

Well, technically a Capitol should be a large urban city, or maybe an elaborate army HQ... A sparse canyon like Hemorrhage isn't realistic to begin with, and a couple of bunkers and such will only do so much.

The best idea to do if you want a realistic-looking Capitol is to make a custom map that actually suits it, and choose that instead of Hemorrhage... >.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Could do that, except for the Capitals are technically just main headquarters on Reach for each Army, so it would be a landing zone for troops. An open canyon is perfect for landing troops on from Frigates and Carriers in Space. Instead of a Capital, it could just be the dropoff point for REDD's land-based attack? We wouldn't have city Capitals on Reach since it's not like it's either Armies home. I think adding some Falcons and forging in some bunkers and space vehicles perhaps will make it look authentic. Although forging a custom HQ wouldn't be a bad idea either, I just think that people aren't going to put in the time to make something like that; simply forging in some aesthetics onto an already created map is easier and more doable.

[silversleek]

this builds upon the realistic war-like maps. A "good" capital battle should have, in my opinion, the following:

a asymmetric style.
a heavily defended, defender advantage side
a defendable, but slightly weaker attacker side. (LZ)


a standard map with two fully build bases like hemorrage just isn't believable. The defenders should have the advantage too, as they would have logically secured their capital. i think it would also add a bit of cool RP elements. The final push to overwhelm the heavily defended capital.

[Nocte]

We need to tap into a forging community, there I said it.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Silver, I was thinking the same thing, however on one-sided objectives, then the Defenders would have to use the weaker side. I still think the Defenders should have a more heavily defended zone, but it wouldn't fit with one-sided objectives and I dont like that =(

[UNLUCKY NUM13ER]

I like the sound of this, if some good forgers get on this i think itll make the next war the best yet.

[Carpe Vexillum]

Myth I have that one city map, it would just need some decoration =} Oh and just redo one side of it to make it attackers.

I think capitols should be INTENSE territories matches. Because all the war movies you see, the attackers secure one place then move on to the next until you get to the main area. Fuck it, its basically invasion... too bad you cant have no elites =\

[Captain Poder]

perhaps a store for added advantages such as an extra sniper on your side, extra barrier or cover for a specified ammount of Army Credits

[Carpe Vexillum]

Yay, FC the new 3D tower defense mini game. xD jp.

[Captain Poder]

these advantages would have to have a limit of 1-2 advantages for the entire map, and they would be very expensive to counteract the balance issues this might cause.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Myth I have that one city map, it would just need some decoration =} Oh and just redo one side of it to make it attackers.

I think capitols should be INTENSE territories matches. Because all the war movies you see, the attackers secure one place then move on to the next until you get to the main area. Fuck it, its basically invasion... too bad you cant have no elites =\

Yes but they have physical attributes, such as cover, vantage points etc. Maybe if the territory was a sniper roost or an Armory, or a vehicle hub it would be applicable. But taking a random plot of map? Doesn't seem very likely. Which is why some of our game-types just don't make sense =P


perhaps a store for added advantages such as an extra sniper on your side, extra barrier or cover for a specified ammount of Army Credits

Problem with that is one-sided games, when we switch sides. Then the other team would have access to your weapons you buy. Unless we abolish one-sided games.

[Mythonian]

We will almost certainly not allow any intentional imbalancing of maps to give an advantage to one side. This includes allowing purchasable weaponry or structural changes.

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

I think I made a suggestion like this in the H3 wars at some point. It'd be cool if we gave the respected Army a limited number of Forge credits to add their own fortifications to the capital map to make it "their own" almost.

[Gargoyle]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure that our testing is as great as it could possibly be now with regular maps. Although I love the idea of an actual capital to be played, balancing issues I think would be too much.

[Carpe Vexillum]

Yes but they have physical attributes, such as cover, vantage points etc. Maybe if the territory was a sniper roost or an Armory, or a vehicle hub it would be applicable. But taking a random plot of map? Doesn't seem very likely. Which is why some of our game-types just don't make sense =P



Problem with that is one-sided games, when we switch sides. Then the other team would have access to your weapons you buy. Unless we abolish one-sided games.

=p I never said a random plot of map. I agree it would have to be major structures.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I think I made a suggestion like this in the H3 wars at some point. It'd be cool if we gave the respected Army a limited number of Forge credits to add their own fortifications to the capital map to make it "their own" almost.

I remember we actually had an entire spreadsheet of weapons, abilities, and some other Forge options with money alloted to each one. It never took off though =/

I do think we should let each Army forge in some fortifications or bunkers onto their more open maps or "war-sim" like maps, if we do include those. I think it lets each Army leave their own mark and forge it into some architecture that displays their style best. It wouldn't be game-changing, some extra barriers or a small machine-gun emplacement wouldn't totally ruin the gameplay, and it lets each Army expand more and not become some solitary feature.


To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure that our testing is as great as it could possibly be now with regular maps. Although I love the idea of an actual capital to be played, balancing issues I think would be too much.

I don't think some extra defensive features would be too groundbreaking. Maybe if we started adding power weapons into the mix, but some bunkers along the side wouldn't destroy the Map. Just make people play more tactically.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Anyone ever play trench wars?

Well, the territories in that map are basically symmetrical and your have to push, assault, take, and defend every territory you capture. It is very difficult to take a trench passed your enemies front trench.

For Capitols we should have to use territories, and make positions that we have to take look important (ie: base, anti-air gun). That would probably play more like a capitol map than normal.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I think it would be fun if it played like that. Only, the Capital was in fact SEVERAL Maps. The Squads are split up to defend/attack different portions of the Capital. Like maybe one Platoon would be sent to specifically play on a part of the Capital where they have to rush a bunker, while another Platoon has to attack an Anti-Aircraft emplacement so they can reach the final part of the Map. Then we can split it up, and the attacking Armies needs a certain amount of wins on each part of the "Capital" to win. This way we can make the Capital Map 'larger' without restricting it, since it would be made of multiple maps.

[silversleek]

hmmm i could see a lot people being pissed off at that.

i dont think that would work

[Choca Cola]

I think it would be fun if it played like that. Only, the Capital was in fact SEVERAL Maps. The Squads are split up to defend/attack different portions of the Capital. Like maybe one Platoon would be sent to specifically play on a part of the Capital where they have to rush a bunker, while another Platoon has to attack an Anti-Aircraft emplacement so they can reach the final part of the Map. Then we can split it up, and the attacking Armies needs a certain amount of wins on each part of the "Capital" to win. This way we can make the Capital Map 'larger' without restricting it, since it would be made of multiple maps.
I was this close to posting something similar, and then I read this. Fail for me :P

[Nicholas Sapien]

Well, technically a Capitol should be a large urban city, or maybe an elaborate army HQ... A sparse canyon like Hemorrhage isn't realistic to begin with, and a couple of bunkers and such will only do so much.

The best idea to do if you want a realistic-looking Capitol is to make a custom map that actually suits it, and choose that instead of Hemorrhage... >.

someone get on this

[Choca Cola]

^ already on it don't worry, someone always does something about it. ^