Close Combat Series :: View topic - Players Debate

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous 1, 2 :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#31: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: ssa2204,

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:38 pm
—
One problem I have with small maps is that when you are move onto a new map and the enemy is defending, often your space allowed to deploy is simply too small and confined. What ends up happening is your armor/guns/vehicles are way too easily destroyed by enemy guns or hidden tanks. Larger maps tend to insure much more movement.

Disadvantage to a really large map is if you have no armor, the game can move very slowly. I have had maps where my forces were weakened to the point I could not really move much. As the enemy just sat there as well the game was never ending.

However on a smaller map this is less often the case as you have a more defined area where the enemy may be located.

Personally I can tolerate a small map so long as I do not deploy in a space that easily allows the enemy to pick off half my team within 30 seconds. On a certain CC5 mod I am currently playing, this happens to be the case and it is very frustrating to say the least.

I think it comes down to small maps = good for infantry, large maps = good for armor. Armor on a small map is just pointless some as there is no place to move.

#32: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:17 pm
—
I liked battles on big maps in CCMT (in multiplayer, of course). They allow much more tactics.

#33: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: vonB,

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:29 pm
—
Large Maps:

Pro's: More room for manouvre, so less wham bam thank you ma'am...
Con's: Less challanging AI performance, particularly the tendency to camp on VL's. Can get tedious on a longer timer.

Small Maps:

Pro's: Better AI performance, and more 'close' combat. That's what this game is about?
Con's: Can't think of much. Maybe less room to manouvre.

One qualification:

Big or small, the AI performs better on the whole with fewer VL/s...

p.s. Mooxe, if you haven't already, how about a Plyers debate on the Timer? Short/Long and relative merits...? What's the 'best' (AI/H2H).

#34: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: pagskier,

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:29 am
—
I really enjoy the causeway maps

They don't have a lot of witdh but have a loth of depth
for long battle where you can fall back but don't keep walking around looking for ennemies

Similar maps with a bit more width would be even nice for other kind of battle Bretteville would be a good example

#35: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:29 pm
—
I like some maps of every size, but I think the medium ones are the best, example, CC3 maps and some CC4 maps. The perfect map size for me, and one of my favorites was the Kursk one in the Demo of CC3, other I like a lot is Foy in CC4 but my all time favorite is Schijndel Road from CC2.

Huge CCM and CCMT maps are not good for AI but they are impressive nevertheless. They must be great to play in multiplayer 3v3.

#36: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:54 pm
—
I wish I would have finished the CC5 battle of Betio. Scale-wise, Betio could fit on 1 giant CCM sized map, but I outlined breaking it down to 44 maps for the CC5 strat...I think the biggest map was about 1440X1440. I would have liked to have duked it out on that baby

#37: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:33 pm
—
I wish you would have finished "Race for Bastogne"

#38: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:35 pm
—
What makes it even worse is you said you lost everything in a computer crash.
Those gorgeous Vehicles,great looking maps.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous 1, 2 :| |: Page 2 of 2