Realism Campaign Maps - a MUST READ!

M

Mookie!!@!

I made one post
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
26
I'm kind of complaining, kind of not. The campaign maps this time though are so defensive sided its kind of demoralizing. Next campaign could you guys please make it a little less 1 sided of maps. The only one I can remember that was actually do-able for offense is hillside. There are plenty of big enough realism maps that aren't so impossible for offense. Idk how many people agree with me, but I've talked to plenty and they do. Its kind of boring knowing ur going to lose attack.

P.S. IF you guys do decide to make attack a little easier. I propose retaking territories. If the defense loses, they get to attack back the next week. Kind of make it more like VIE used to be. (Victory in Europe) the league that used to be for dods realism. They had a map and everything where u see which spots u controlled. Just a thought.
 
The maps are selected by the command staff off of a map list before the campaign starts, we purposefully select maps that are sided to our side because we want to win.

Through a series of complicated pulleys and levers, also known as "Point System" Anti and I decide where to attack throwing your useless lives to the front line every battle (Also called bidding a # of points against a defensive point number) we can think of.

There are already a few rules set in place to make the defense harder already, you cant place to many rules to make the attack easier Also we have a map, if you look through the Realism HQ you can see an updated map

The Allies won their Week 2 attack, and have Italy, but I can attack Italy at any point. I just choose not to because I hate [Pizza].
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's about making attack easier necessarily, but I definitely think the maps should be a little more neutral so that we don't go into every match knowing which team is going to win. The axis attack map last week made it near impossible to get even close to the midline without losing half of the team, and we knew it was going to be like that from practice. It's just kind of lame to go into practice with the mindset of, "We're going to spend ~10 minutes practicing this map because there's no way we're going to win". I know that the maps are chosen by leadership and that they're chosen based on how easy they are to attack/defend, but to have a map that bottlenecks at the mid-line or sits on top of a hill almost makes it too easy.
 
Last edited:
Compton basically summed up why each team chooses hard to defend maps and other junk.

I think it's natural to want an even playing field. However, "even" is a relative term considering the intrinsic differences between the Axis and Allied teams. Map selection is only one of they key roles the CINCs have to perform-- and their performance is what drives the campaign.

I think that the only way for map selection, gameplay, and player selection to become more balanced is for more Tournament Admin (TA) supervision and complete neutrality. This means TAs reviewing dozens of maps for pre-approval, reviewing the maps after CINC approval again for final approval, having neutral TAs not allowed to play in the campaign, having said TAs spectate the match, and a bunch of other measures that are a pain in the butt for the said TAs.
 
Perhaps it's not so much the map selection that needs tweaking (I enjoy occasionally playing on some of these more obscure maps myself), but rather the conditions for victory and/or # of rounds, etc. I don't have any ideas personally at the moment, but just thought I'd throw it out there to present a different angle.
 
Honestly because this is a realism campaign it is in my opinion more realistic. did you ever hear and allied commander go talk to the axis commander about finding a spot easier for the allies to attack.......NO. even in real life they chose areas that were we defendable its not called realism for no reason. Realism means realistic positions, realistic defense stratagies, realistic attacks and so on. so please remember this in the future think of each map as your D_Day your chance to prove you have what it takes to overcome any odds. only other thing I have to say is remember too the allies are ahead 1 map, why complain when your team is winning it makes no sense. If and when the times comes for your turn at Cinc during a campaign arises I think you will understand more.
 
A bunch of preset, varying difficulty maps in the countries by TAs may be cool instead of purposefully bias picking. With the same map being used for both sides it would allow a fairer in game atmosphere, a feel the tug and pull of the war, as maps are retaken and captured as time progressed), and deeper strategy by command staff (e.g. should we attack with more points though tough defence map X in France this week as we will be weaker next week and will need a strong base, or go through that easy route in North Africa, and risk it being taken next week?)
 
Last edited:
A basic rule of attack is to attack with three to four times the # of troops than the defense has in place. With roughly the same # of bodies on each side it is easy to see why attack is so difficult. That being said when you do win an attack it makes you feel that much better, and you want to hold on to that advantage for the rest of campaign if possible. This is not the first campaign to my knowledge to have such limited exchange of territories. Let me assure you that the staff in charge do as much as they can to make sure the teams have an even playing field.
 
Last edited:
it doesn't matter whether they're preset maps or chosen by the CO's.

In the beginning, we had the TA's go through literally 100's of maps before each campaign to try to make the maps more "neutral". I had a feeling Ronpaul, blue Stealth, and Sumac were going to kill me for telling them to do that. But for almost 5 campaigns or more they did it.

The point is, the end result was exactly the same. Attacking is always hard to win.

One campaign, we decided to try to modify this by adding a tie breaker round. This ended up being just too tiresome as each saturday we would have 5 hour realism nights.

Another campaign, we decided to edit the point system to allow for partial points so that even a failed attack can result in partial points, determined by how many soldiers fell and how many survived. This was in hopes that we would have more territory swaps as Cincs would have more points to play with. This again failed. Maintaining points was just too complicated and even then, territory swaps were a minimum.

I remember back in the day, I had an idea to implement a mandatory territory swap rule. This would have incorporated the complicated point system above and whoever had the most points remaining on that territory would win despite the outcome of the attack/defense of the territory. This would make it so the points would be the ultimate factor and not the on-field results. This would also mean that the Cinc could basically win or lose the entire campaign if he/she didn't know how to utilize their points properly.

Either way, as I said, many different ideas were tried and the end result was still the same. Defense always wins, 99% of the time.
 
Last edited:
MatzWhat said:
A bunch of preset, varying difficulty maps in the countries by TAs may be cool instead of purposefully bias picking. With the same map being used for both sides it would allow a fairer in game atmosphere, a feel the tug and pull of the war, as maps are retaken and captured as time progressed), and deeper strategy by command staff (e.g. should we attack with more points though tough defence map X in France this week as we will be weaker next week and will need a strong base, or go through that easy route in North Africa, and risk it being taken next week?)
Click to expand...

I agree that the TAs should pick maps and perhaps keep them secret from the command staff until after the bidding. It is more realistic to have to defend both easy and difficult areas and also realistic (in WWII) not to have intel to determine the ease or difficulty of attacking a particular area.

An alternative would be announcing all the maps at the beginning so the command staff can try to make a global plan based on ease of maps, and ares to be captured. What I mean by this, is make the direct route to Germany difficult while the long way (requiring more wins) easier.
 
Last edited:
The only maps we know are the ones we pick, I have no clue what maps Anti chooses, and unless I attack one territory the entire campaign I wont know what maps he has on certain territories.
 
I think the key to an entertaining campaign is to match the game skill levels of the commanders. If its a high skilled command staff on one team it has to be the same on the other team. It doesn't matter what the skill level of the commanders are as long as it is equal.

For example this campaign compton, matz, and St0rmy are good leaders but casual players, while the other team commanders Anti, Rufio, Chuck (also in a leadership-like role)played the game more competitively. This inconsistency will cause a less entertaining campaign.

Agree or disagree with me if you wish but pick the command staff arbitrarily too many times and realism will just be an unhappy memory.

Balanced teams should have 1 successful attack each
 
The key to a good campaign is not getting so wrapped up in winning or losing. I enjoyed watching the community come together to create something big that was complicated to put together, but included so many players and was executed seemingly flawlessly.

I loved thinking about the game I love in a very different way. I hate to admit this, but I would get butterflies on Saturday mornings knowing that I had a big battle coming up tonight. My stats show that they didn't work in my favor, but it was awesome to get excited about the game in a way I haven't been since I first picked up a garand.

I could care less what map we chose. I could care less if we got slaughtered or the other team didn't get a single kill; it was fun regardless.

It's one thing to suggest changes to enhance the event, but to get so wrapped up in what rooms were off limits or how unfair maps were...it doesn't do anything to further the event. It just shows that you are missing the point of why so many enjoy this game.

I can't say it enough, but thanks to everyone who put it all together and all who came out to play.
 
The Campaign is over, I'm sure your questions and ideas have been answered, and we've all gained an understanding of how the campaign map-selection process works.

Leave it be, and move along now ladies.

I'm sure if you're as mad as I am, you've had enough with people complaining about the campaign. :cursing:

Tah'rah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top