Jump to content
Guster

We could really use some more smaller maps

Recommended Posts

Back in the day, the original IL-2 Sturmovik sported a nice collection of small dogfight maps. While I love the Stalingrad and Rheinland maps for their detail and variety, I'd really love to have some Lapino-sized quick 'n' dirty mayhem arenas with just a couple of airfields in each end, for the sake of quick loading and stutter-free online game play - and for those of us with less than state-of-the-art rigs.

 

Something like the middle of Rheinland around Venlo and Duisburg or Utrecht and Arnhem. Perhaps one with Stalingrad in the middle, or when Normandy is ready, a Dover-Calais cutaway for some fast-paced Spits and Messers Channel action.

 

Would this be a lot of work?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the suggestion: a possible simpler option would be to just provide the existing maps split into quarters.

 

In MP we rarely use more than 1/8 of the large maps, and the improved loading times and ease for mission building would be nice.

 

Want not a need I think though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely no. The purpose of a "dogfight" is to gain air superiority in order to gain reconnaissance on the enemy and effect the course of the land battle. Take that away and there is no point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

Definitely no. The purpose of a "dogfight" is to gain air superiority in order to gain reconnaissance on the enemy and effect the course of the land battle. Take that away and there is no point. 

 

To me this appears to be a textbook paraphrase of the air superiority doctrine of The Great War, however, this scenario, and many others can be achieved without the long commute and loading time. If I'm not mistaken, WWII in the air was more about strategic bombing and close air support.

 

18 hours ago, -RS-Nolly said:

To add to the suggestion: a possible simpler option would be to just provide the existing maps split into quarters.

 

In MP we rarely use more than 1/8 of the large maps, and the improved loading times and ease for mission building would be nice.

 

Want not a need I think though

 

Exactly. I also like the idea of these 'This Could Be Almost Anywhere'-types of maps without any names of towns and cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guster said:

 

To me this appears to be a textbook paraphrase of the air superiority doctrine of The Great War, however, this scenario, and many others can be achieved without the long commute and loading time. If I'm not mistaken, WWII in the air was more about strategic bombing and close air support.

 

The Lesson of WW2 was that if you do not maintain air superiority you cannot effect the battle field with ground assaults from the air. The debate over which to emphasis raged in many country's military in Europe, but I hardly see how it is relevant or germane here.  

 

This is a combat simulation; it is not for those suffering from ADD. There are a great number of players who enjoy the bombing/ ground attack aspects of the game which cannot be achieve if everything is on top of each other. 

 

So bother with airfields, just have everyone start in the air at the combat zones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

This is a combat simulation; it is not for those suffering from ADD. There are a great number of players who enjoy the bombing/ ground attack aspects of the game which cannot be achieve if everything is on top of each other. 

 

 

 

So then play on the larger map...no need to overthink this.

 

We made good use of both small and large maps in the old IL2.

Plenty of nights were spent on longer, more realistic missions...however sometimes, if one once in a while it was fun to boot up that little "Pacific Islands" map and just have fun shooting each other down for a few hours.

 

This isn't actually WWII, there isn't actually a land battle going on...so whatever floats your boat.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

So then play on the larger map...no need to overthink this.

 

We made good use of both small and large maps in the old IL2.

Plenty of nights were spent on longer, more realistic missions...however sometimes, if one once in a while it was fun to boot up that little "Pacific Islands" map and just have fun shooting each other down for a few hours.

 

This isn't actually WWII, there isn't actually a land battle going on...so whatever floats your boat.

 

 

 

This is a silly recurrent argument This is a simulation. There are other platforms if instant gratification is what you seek. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

This is a silly recurrent argument This is a simulation. There are other platforms if instant gratification is what you seek. 

 

There is no argument.

If you like or are in the mood for a bigger map/more realistic missions, then do that - that's where I usually fit in.

If you're in the mood for small map shooting match, then do that.

 

What's silly the notion that every other player has to conform to what your idea of the simulation is.

Small maps have always had their place...as I said which you conveniently ignore, we made good use of them in the old sim.

 

That said I have no dog in the fight here as to whether or not they should happen...I'm simply saying that if present, they're a nice option sometimes.

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, It isn't my idea at all nor am I saying you have to conform to my ideas. I am here because the development of this game is consistent with what I am looking for. Moreover, I am not developing the game nor do do I have any impact on their approach or course of development. I find it odd to asked the developers to 180 their direction because you lack patience. There are other venues for that type of game-play. This game has a a very specific demographic in mind and I doubt it will do an about face especially where there are other games that has what is being asked here. I didn't ignore your comment; It isn't germane. In my short time here reading the diaries, I don't think this is going to happen. 

 

Anyway, you do not need a small map to do a dogfight.Just set up a MP server. create a map where the airfields are really close and go at it. If you really want to get into, have the planes spawn in the air about 10 K apart. You DO NOT need a small map for that.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason why this has to be a zero-sum argument. Small maps are desirable because they load faster and take up less resources. I'm not requesting the devs to take away or alter the existing maps in any way.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 1:34 AM, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

This is a combat simulation; it is not for those suffering from ADD.

 

Playing the diagnosis card is just silly and doesn't really support your point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guster said:

I see no reason why this has to be a zero-sum argument. Small maps are desirable because they load faster and take up less resources. I'm not requesting the devs to take away or alter the existing maps in any way.

 

 

Playing the diagnosis card is just silly and doesn't really support your point.

 

This

On 2/10/2020 at 7:24 PM, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 I am here because the development of this game is consistent with what I am looking for. 

 

 

There are already 2 smaller maps

 

The rest of your post is not germane. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The rest of your post is not germane. ;)

 

 

On 2/3/2020 at 1:11 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

Oh no, someone make it "plable" please.

 

This is your thing; childish remarks. I would think someone with an Il2 tag that you are capable of better behavior than this. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

 

This is your thing; childish remarks. I would think someone with an Il2 tag that you are capable of better behavior than this. 

 

 

 

 

...and perhaps your thing is impotently reaching for another tactic once your original silly position has been soundly refuted.

Horses for courses.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok,... Explain to me how these two maps in any way changes the approach to the development of the game.Also explain to me how a larger map cannot have a more narrow focus as a choice of the MP designer?

 

Try answering without an ad hom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

This is your thing; childish remarks. I would think someone with an Il2 tag that you are capable of better behavior than this. 


Says the guy who made a childish remark about people suffering from a neurological disorder earlier in this thread...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

ok,... Explain to me how these two maps in any way changes the approach to the development of the game.Also explain to me how a larger map cannot have a more narrow focus as a choice of the MP designer?

 

Try answering without an ad hom. 

 

 

Excuse me while I pick up my eyes that have rolled out of my head and down the hall at the last comment.

 

Now if it's time for adult conversation...these maps DO NOT change the approach to development...which is the point. The developers already realize their utility.

Smaller maps (and again, I don't much care if they come or not) load faster as someone else pointed out, and can be creatively laid out to provide a bit more of a 'condensed' fun factor, base placement, etc.  A larger map is created with a different focus in mind, and while usage of larger maps as you suggest can and obviously does happen, this doesn't mean that a smaller map doesn't have it's place for various reasons. I can speak to this since again...we've used them in the past ALONGSIDE larger maps and more realistic missions back in the day.

 

The assertion that this 'different style of game play' that doesn't fit into the current sim, or can only be enjoyed by someone with ADD, and arguments supporting them are "silly" is utterly, demonstrably false, and indicates a lack of history/understanding of not only this simulation and how it's utilized by a wide range of users, now and historically.

 

You seem to assert that including smaller maps DOES somehow change the development focus, and this simply is not the case. Inclusion of such maps in no way threatens the existence of the larger maps, furthermore you're not forced to fly on them if you don't wish...so what's the deal?  Why put others down who see the utility if such maps? Assert that it's YOU who knows what the ultimate purpose of the sim is and they don't? Call their positions/arguments silly? Then cry foul when it's turned back on you.

Let's move on.

 

 

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:


Says the guy who made a childish remark about people suffering from a neurological disorder earlier in this thread...

 

It was a factious comment. 

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Excuse me while I pick up my eyes that have rolled out of my head and down the hall at the last comment.

 

 

Why do you feel this sort of commentary is necessary. We could have a cordial light- hearted discussion, but you insist on turning this into something more. Show some maturity

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Now if it's time for adult conversation...these maps DO NOT change the approach to development...which is the point. The developers already realize their utility.

Smaller maps (and again, I don't much care if they come or not) load faster as someone else pointed out, and can be creatively laid out to provide a bit more of a 'condensed' fun factor, base placement, etc.  A larger map is created with a different focus in mind, and while usage of larger maps as you suggest can and obviously does happen, this doesn't mean that a smaller map doesn't have it's place for various reasons. I can speak to this since again...we've used them in the past ALONGSIDE larger maps and more realistic missions back in the day.

 

The assertion that this 'different style of game play' that doesn't fit into the current sim, or can only be enjoyed by someone with ADD, and arguments supporting them are "silly" is utterly, demonstrably false, and indicates a lack of history/understanding of not only this simulation and how it's utilized by a wide range of users, now and historically.

 

You seem to assert that including smaller maps DOES somehow change the development focus, and this simply is not the case. Inclusion of such maps in no way threatens the existence of the larger maps, furthermore you're not forced to fly on them if you don't wish...so what's the deal?  Why put others down who see the utility if such maps? Assert that it's YOU who knows what the ultimate purpose of the sim is and they don't? Call their positions/arguments silly? Then cry foul when it's turned back on you.

Let's move on.

 

 

I nearly ignored you after the first sentence. If you want an adult conversation, you need to conduct yourself throughout. 

 

I will repeat myself again because in your eagerness to be obnoxious you seem to miss my point. The smaller maps (design for Tank crew/ battles) would be all that is required if all you want to do is dogfight in the air. The feature already exist. The land is irrelevant in this scenario. You also do not need a small map where any map will suffice. You simply pick to airfields, place assets there and off you go. There is absolutely no reason to develop a smaller map unless you want to create greater detail at the ground level which is something that Tank crew would require. Aerial operations requires a much larger map. The developments of numerous aircraft capable of ground assault and bombings would be a waste of development.  

 

If the focus of the development team is to provide a platform for dog fighting only, then smaller maps would make sense. However, this is clearly not their intentions.  

 

Just to be thorough:

"The assertion that this 'different style of game play' that doesn't fit into the current sim"

It is just a dog fighting sim. It is just part of the equations. Outside of recon and training planes for both sides, the sim offers a full range of experiences. A smaller map would remove that full range of experiences, but a larger ma does not hinder the other. 

 

So, in a nutshell, there isn't a point to create a map where developed aircraft would be difficult to operate on. It is that simple. Moreover small maps already exist and it does not require a another small map if your interest is just to fly and shoot at people. Lastly, we do not need smaller maps, we need more larger maps that can represent this battles for the aircraft that already exist in the game. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do wish that sometimes folks would step away from the keyboard for a little while to regain perspective.  Yep I'm guilty of keyboard bashing too...

 

To me the idea of smaller maps has a great deal of merit.  See https://il2missionplanner.com/ and look at the various maps, then consider how much of each map it used when you're online.  It wouldn't necessarily condense the fun though because even a 1/4 map is still a huge playing area.

 

Better might be new "small" maps say *cough* Malta and Sicily or Kirkenes to Murmansk...

 

 von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 4:47 AM, [JG.77]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

The smaller maps (design for Tank crew/ battles) would be all that is required if all you want to do is dogfight in the air. The feature already exist. The land is irrelevant in this scenario. You also do not need a small map where any map will suffice.

 

I disagree for a couple of reasons.

 

Firstly, yes, the feature already exists, and we have some very nice smaller maps that emulate different parts of the former Soviet Union, but for immersion and some level of historical accuracy it would be nice with bits of the Rheinland map, the upcoming Normandy map and some of the other suggestions made here. I think a lot of people would love a small Channel map for example, that would actually be mostly water and a couple of airfields.

 

Secondly, consider how fast the small maps load relative to the big ones, leaving RAM for other types of content, and better performance for low-end machines might attract more customers.

 

I'm rather curious as to why you oppose this - I for my part take no issue at all with others enjoying products and content that I have no cravings for whatsoever. Jason has announced a lot of Normandy content that I have absolutely no interest in, but I realise others have and the whole package is what is needed for the devs to put meat on the table. I'll pick it up myself just for the map and the Mossie.

 

Speaking of money, I wouldn't mind paying for collector maps, should they turn out a particular idiosyncrasy.

 

Forgive me for going back on track. I'm sort of in the business myself and more than often get these kinds of questions; but I'd simply love to know if making, say, a 100km by 100km square from an existing map is a lot of work?

Edited by Guster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...