Spring RTS Engine

Hey guys, here is a map concept if anyone would like to make it.



One shade difference = vech passable. Two shades difference = bot passable. Black is water, darkest grey is passable shallows (subs, vechs, bots, everything).

Obviously, this is a further exploration of my desire to make maps that fluidly mix sea and land. The sand banks in the middle should mean fighting in the shallows doesnt slow you down too much.

Smells like tang turned 90deg.
What is the max and min water depth for bots, vecs, and boats?

Nah, because the middle is passable, which makes it quite different to tangerine. There is also contested metal, and if you lose the ford, you have a second hill to porc up on (and pray your sea player can knock them out of the middle).

Water depth? You should know you've made enough maps with shallows havent you?

In CA, the sweet number is 15. Big ships and subs have a minimum of 15 and most stuff has a max of 22. Fleas/ticks have a min of 15 so they dont submerge entirely (especially roach, means you cant kill it *_*). We were considering making it a hover so it doesnt sink (skuttles along the surface) but i dont think hovers can have a max depth (we dont want it to be a FULL hover).

Anything between 15/22 is fine though.

Im only asking cause the last time i mapped for you, there were big differences between ba and ca water depth tolerance, and also slopetolerance as well.

an 18x12 I presume?

I would make it 18x14 just for more flanking room

id also put more metal in middle. btw the corner player is going to steal his neighbors mex spot up on the highland there every game.


too bad nobody likes to play ocean

Dont want it too big, some of your latest maps have been just way too huge hunter. *_* Ill leave size up to whoever makes it though.

But the restricted land due to the water should make the battle more tight and focused so i guess it could afford to get bigger.

It could possibly do with more metal, or perhaps higher than 2 m per mex, but i wanted the centre to not be too heavy on metal, because i wanted it to be possible to hold that rear hill for long enough for the sea player to do something. Its not meant to be a 'Pass the ford for GG' sort of map, ala Altored. You're meant to be able to hold off for the comeback.

As for mex stealing, i designed it to be flexible. Either player can choose to fortify the hill and not compush down onto the flats. One can fortify the hill while the other takes the low lying mexes, or both can push forward.

Of course, in CA you have communism where it doesnt matter who takes the mexes (Honestly, its bloody essential on maps like Tabula since you always end up with really asymetrical metal ownership).

You only need one sea player per team here. The problem with Scorpio was that it was really a lot like SSB with fords and a large bridge. You really need someone in each ocean or the sea play feels sort of disjointed, and the map wasnt designed to have two sea starts.

Beherith wrote:Im only asking cause the last time i mapped for you, there were big differences between ba and ca water depth tolerance, and also slopetolerance as well.

Not big ones. There was a problem with metal extractor water depth but that existed in BA too AFAIR. The problem as i remember was that you tested with core uwmexes, which can go in the puddles- but arm mexes, which are taller and thus have a higher min depth, cant. In CA this is no longer a problem, there is only one mex, and it floats and has no water depth restrictions. We try to keep close to BA levels because we dont want to make life any harder for mappers or make any maps unplayable.

Hovercraft slope tolerances were different but we had to revert that since mappers arent going to make maps to that low a slope tolerance for shorelines.

If we do go back to the lower slope tolerance for hovers it will be because we have ramps now. You can easily make a ramp between any two points with any con, so accessing any island is just a matter of BP and E.

16x16 isnt hueg

narrowness is what makes for porc tho. distance between starts can be irritating if too long, but DSD gets away with it from having typemaps. you can also cure that by having the start positions away from the edge of the map, but that makes rambo comming much more viable.

The reason I compared it to tang, is that it suffers from a low amount of contested metal. the 5 center mexes are the only really contested areas of this map.

I like concpet.. whole sea is contested as middle is ship passable (so its not like tangerine). I fear however that sea control is of utter importance (which i like). Team which controls sea here wins game in 90%.

I like that it looks like it could be played North/South as well as East/West

Raxxman wrote:I like that it looks like it could be played North/South as well as East/West

le4ts play speedmetal N vs S

Beherith wrote:The reason I compared it to tang, is that it suffers from a low amount of contested metal. the 5 center mexes are the only really contested areas of this map.

There are 3 mexes in front of the hill, its meant to be possible to at least deny the enemy from taking them- perhaps even bombard them with ships. The map is designed to allow the land players to fall back to the hill so that the sea game can continue to be fought for a comeback. I dont know how often this will happen, but once you make it past the shallows its not meant to be 'instant victory'- in fact, thats one of the reasons why i didnt put that much metal in the middle. The sea players also have 2 contestable sea spots each.

On the other hand, tangerine had NO contested metal.

Team which controls sea here wins game in 90%.

Remember that the 3 land players can block off the sea player just as easily. If you lose sea to nooby skeet rush or something, you can still hold off the ships in the middle and retake it.

well i am convinced.. someone make it plz

might be an idea to have shallow path going to the far out islands as a roundabout flanking route, just to increase the surface area a porcer would need to cover

what is the average max depth of bots and vech's in ca?

Forboding Angel wrote:what is the average max depth of bots and vech's in ca?

Said it earlier, guess you missed it/skimmed:

Saktoth wrote:In CA, the sweet number is 15. Big ships and subs have a minimum of 15 and most stuff has a max of 22. Fleas/ticks have a min of 15 so they dont submerge entirely (especially roach, means you cant kill it *_*). We were considering making it a hover so it doesnt sink (scuttles along the surface) but i dont think hovers can have a max depth (we dont want it to be a FULL hover).

Anything between 15/22 is fine though.

Though i dont know mapping. So you may want to test it. Its the same values as BA too to preserve backwards compatability, only their flea has a slope of 5 (impossible to cross ship-passable water).

Look in the evo or gundam bos scripts (easier to find in evo), basically over land the unit acts like a normal land unit, over water, it sinks into the water and acts like a hover. So yar, that would do it for you.

yeah what makes a popular ba map for 16 player games is no flanking room :S

aka not good combat opportunity