Idea on how to finish sige camping on field

[omega79]

A lot people, including myself, feel that Field is in 90% a sige camping map.

A team can easy be locked up to their base and the sige is very hard to break.

Even if you break the sige it is sometimes very hard to keep the field with the damaged

vehicles and infantery that is left on the field after the break through. while the other team

will rush out with fresh vehicles/infantery very quick and have easy to destroy targets.

I thought about a solution to this and came up with some tunnels.

The red tunnel do have 3 exits:

the Base exit which is slightly covered by each basedefense. makes it easy to sneak in but

is also not to hard to defende.

the ramp exit, close to the bunker it provides some sort of cover in close distance to a sige.

the field exit, sure the chance to sneak into the enemies tunnel or to attack the sige from behind

the green tunnels are sideways and offer an alternative path inside the tunnels.

they also feature a balcony and are probably used by snipers a lot

both tunnels have a good value to different infantery units and probably be frequently used.

so it sure is not a free ticket to enter the enemies base.

it also gives value to the less used parts of each base.

Those are just Ideas and suggestions ... feedback and discussion are welcome ... but please stay friendly, even if you not agree ...

thank you

[omega79]

just noticed that it will be imppossible for a nod unit to run from the WF to the BAR ...

so that is wrong in he picture above ...

that could be fixed with a destroyed vehicle there or a big rock ... if needed

but think it would be good if nod could not pass to the BAR

[omega79]

people seems to be neutral about this idea huh?

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Idk... I guess it could be fun, an additional tunnel leading to the Nod and GDI bunker... Only issue is, it makes field infiltration by foot even easier then it is already. It really isn't hard to get in the field without dying with a free character, quickly retake control of the silo and then C4 a vehicle.

[omega79]

well those tunnels are supposed to provide the possibility to attack from behind, the waterfall tunnel is still a tunnel that is more a frontal attack way.

and they even get a chance to destroy a building of a team that controls the map, i mean a more easy chance than the beacon through the regular tunnel ...

right now a team can almost entirely move out without taking too much risk of losing a building.

just say GDI has 7 Tanks on he nodbase, like 4 engis repairing the tanks, few snipers on field and the rest is in the tunnels ... the base has only those people who just respawned, no real defense ... the traffic in the tunnels is enough defense already

there is not much NOD can do ...

with those tunnels there is an extra path to sneak in ... so if GDI leaves the base they might lose a building

if GDI defendes better that means that at lest a few people stay in base what causes less infantery traffic on the rest of the map ... that might open gaps in the sige

^^ those are the thoughts about the tunnels

[ARC_trooper]

Would be cool to have an extra tunnel ending up on the other side of the waterfall? Between the bunkers or something like that, with 1 path to GDI and one path to Nod, so it will be easily defensible but still add another way out.

[omega79]

yes, alternate routes are needed ...

at the moment you feel like you are constantly in the Bangkok (New York, Tokyo, Peking, Seoul,...) rush-hour

Tons of not moving vehicles and millions of people on the sidewalks ...

[HaTe]

yes, alternate routes are needed ...

at the moment you feel like you are constantly in the Bangkok (New York, Tokyo, Peking, Seoul,...) rush-hour

Tons of not moving vehicles and millions of people on the sidewalks ...

Sounds like a sick City_flying V2 idea

Also, siege.

[RoundShades]

yes, alternate routes are needed ...

at the moment you feel like you are constantly in the Bangkok (New York, Tokyo, Peking, Seoul,...) rush-hour

Tons of not moving vehicles and millions of people on the sidewalks ...

Sadly, this idea works and aleviates the situation, in a 40 person game.

In a 12v12, it's fine. So, I am torn. Actually, I think more paths wouldn't hurt small games anyway, that's what mines are for.

[omega79]

I am sorry, I don not know whatr you intend to say

[Terekhov]

I'd go for this.

[omega79]

thank you, i would like to see it aswell ...

Field 2.0 ...

or

Field Extended

[SFJake]

I think that'd be a pretty good change, to be honest, but I really like any idea that would push Field just a little bit farther than it is since I just don't really like the map, its too simple in design for large games. (also needs the barn, what about linking the tunnels under the map and to the barn, too? yeah, too ridiculous I guess)

[omega79]

I do not like Field either ...

but it could be less painfull to play it if there were these changes ...

Field-X

[iovandrake]

I fully support and endorse this totally awesome idea. Field sucks and I've never really liked it. I've put up with 3+ hour Field matches in marathon before (old Ren). There is just so few tactics to the map.

[omega79]

Thank you ...

would be nice to hear a mapper about this

[Aircraftkiller]

What we need are fewer "tunnels" and more of a focus on open maps with areas that vehicles find difficult to navigate. It should be something that makes sense for the area. For example, when/if I eventually finish Metro (if the tools ever come out), I'm not going to just add "tunnels" for the sake of it - I want infantry to be able to harass tanks from alleys between buildings. I want grassy areas with some trees that tanks can't simply roll through easily. Places to hide. Making barren terrain in a field with some plants here and there isn't enough - you need foliage, natural cover. Places for people to go without immediately being spotted.

I've found over the years that "tunnels" are just a cheap way of avoiding the work required to make infantry compatible with vehicles in the field. There's nothing wrong with having them, but relegating infantry to "tunnels" while making them easy kills in the field means they'll stay in the "tunnels" - which makes them less likely to be on the field assisting the vehicles or attacking them.

[omega79]

but field is already there ...

i suggested the tunnels because they are "indeed" easy to add plus the general layout would still remain the same

and at the same time it will spread the people more over the map ...

cuz that is still the main problem of field .. too much players with not enough options to leave the base without the chance of not running into an enemy within the first 5 seconds

[Aircraftkiller]

You can keep the same layout while expanding the map. There's no reason not to do it, honestly. Field has always been too small - making the field area 1.5/2x larger would help substantially and give more room for infantry to maneuver around by freeing up space to add trees, rocks, bunkers, etc. "tunnels" wouldn't help anyhow as you'd be sniped before you made it across the field. You need more cover before moving across a map is viable for infantry.

[goztow]

You can keep the same layout while expanding the map. There's no reason not to do it, honestly. Field has always been too small - making the field area 1.5/2x larger would help substantially and give more room for infantry to maneuver around by freeing up space to add trees, rocks, bunkers, etc. "tunnels" wouldn't help anyhow as you'd be sniped before you made it across the field. You need more cover before moving across a map is viable for infantry.

Many, many, many trees? Sorry, could not help it .

[SFJake]

I don't agree with oversizing things simply because already I feel like Field is just that limit too large, making tanks consistantly out of range of artillery.

Part of the reasons why I think completely open maps like Lakeside are utterly stupid in Renegade. Yeah sure its great in theory.. except everything has such low range... except a few things which becomes utterly broken.

[ARC_trooper]

That range problem could be fixed if the projectiles "fall" when moving. Only the arty has that atm right? What if the others get that aswell, they missile wont explode in mid air but fall somewhere on the field? (For example a medium tank can't shoot it that far away, it lacks the "punch" to do so. So it cant be used to bomb the middle of the map )

[omega79]

Well with my idea snipers would have to monitor 5 potential areas from where infantery attacks ...

2 new tunnel exits

1 balcony

1 old tunnel exit

big base exit

and the lower field exits are very close, so if you miss a shot or more than 2 people rush from one exit to the other

the snipers will have problems ...

and if there a lot snipers out there, protecting the sige ... then the old tunnels might be the gap in the defense

[Aircraftkiller]

None of that is particularly hard to do for any sniper in the game that's played for more than a week, and the old "tunnels" will continue to be used constantly because of the threat of being picked off as people attempt to run across a barren field.

[omega79]

I doubt that any Sniper could do that alone ... even a veteran with high accuracy can not monitor all alone ...

specialy with the long reload time after 4 shots and a couple of enemy units leaving random tunnel exits ...

a team of snipers could do, thats true ... but then you have other ways ...

and even the 2 exits down by the river are so close ... if you mange to gather a group to sprint from one exit to the other you have a chance to even kill the snipers in tunnels (depending on how straight or winding/twisting those tunnels are made)

field is not, and never was, a great map ... but for the vintage feeling i would keep it in .. as it is ... with minor tweaks like the tunnels i suggested or the techbuilding

[Aircraftkiller]

Vintage feeling is far less important than making it fun and playable. Your ideas have merit, but the map needs to be larger to accommodate infantry. "tunnels" are a poor substitute for actual map design. Cover is important. Being able to help in the field of any map is important. Being relegated to hiding behind tanks or running through "tunnels" is poor gameplay.

[Evono]

Totally Support this Idea would make Field less camping and only Better !

[HaTe]

Renegade maps were made with a smaller player count in mind than 40 or 50 per server. I don't think it is the size of the field that is the big issue. It is the fact that there's only one vehicle entrance/exit for each team, and so seige warfare is used as a means to win 95% of the time. Add an alternative vehicle entrance/exit point for each team and the map instantly becomes 10 times more bearable/enjoyable. Hell, you can even have it merge with the field in the middle and go around the hills on both sides. Meaning one entrance from each base (end of the airstrip, just in front of the WF), and each exit in the middle of the field (so that you would have to go through a small section of the main field either way). Somewhat similar to what the op suggested (and believe me, I have thought about this many times for multiple different maps), but instead of more infantry pathways, it is vehicle and infantry pathways. It's the best possible thing the map could see.

[Eagle XI]

Adding one more front behind the base would made the map even worse.

You have to think it as more incoming artillery shells every second per additional entrance on defenders.

What could be done is 'broaden' the already playable area, there would be an one level higher side-path, narrower compared to main, that runs around the mid-field in the shape of an U, somewhat like a rice terrace(doesnt look like a rice field, nope!). With the ends joining in to the present gates.

To enhance this idea there can be made long infantry only tunnels, that begin near each bases vehicle production structure, to join in at the only entrance point situated at the middle-bottom of that U-shape. Hereby you'll have to make those tunnels like the present middle one, spacey inside. To better present a distance: It could be possible to snipe between this new tunnel's entrance and the waterfall exit. Perhaps just above this new entrance is located a bunker that can be accessed from inside only and helps infantry defending the access point.

EDIT: Oops. indeed i didnt check the first page, however i see mine included a vehicle traversable side path in addition to tunnels so ill leave this here.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Guest

[omega79]

@Eagle XI

you did not see first page huh?

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=73073#p126775

not exactly what you say but somehow sounds close

[HaTe]

Adding one more front behind the base would made the map even worse.

You have to think it as more incoming artillery shells every second per additional entrance on defenders.

What could be done is 'broaden' the already playable area, there would be an one level higher side-path, narrower compared to main, that runs around the mid-field in the shape of an U, somewhat like a rice terrace(doesnt look like a rice field, nope!). With the ends joining in to the present gates.

To enhance this idea there can be made long infantry only tunnels, that begin near each bases vehicle production structure, to join in at the only entrance point situated at the middle-bottom of that U-shape. Hereby you'll have to make those tunnels like the present middle one, spacey inside. To better present a distance: It could be possible to snipe between this new tunnel's entrance and the waterfall exit. Perhaps just above this new entrance is located a bunker that can be accessed from inside only and helps infantry defending the access point.

EDIT: Oops. indeed i didnt check the first page, however i see mine included a vehicle traversable side path in addition to tunnels so ill leave this here.

I wrote it with the assumption that the vehicle entrances into the base would be a 90 degree angle (or an angle with a centerpoint being the obi/agt) so that it is used for rushing, and siege warfare through that pathway does basically nothing (similar to hourglass, but an even sharper angle). You can't arty or mrls whore buildings while in the sight of the obi/agt very easily at all. When i have time I may perhaps draw out a little sketch to show you if you need further explanation.

You guys are trying to fix the problem of siege warfare being the only way of winning - but you aren't providing any change that would really allow it to be easier for either team to actually kill a building (which is why seige warfare is necessary in the first place).

[HaTe]

Ignore the shitty picture - it's the concept that's important.

Edit: you can even have exits to the bunker via a small tunnel for infantry on each side.

[omega79]

i did provide ways to either destroy a building or break the sige

//edit

so those are vehicle exits?

[HaTe]

Yes, vehicle pathways (like the side pathways on hourglass). You provided ways to sneak into the enemy base via infantry, given that the Field is already controlled or the team in the Field is oblivious (lets be honest - one arty spamming the tunnel to keep flanking infantry out is something that will be plentiful in Under as is). I'd much rather have them be vehicle pathways so that teams can actually:

A. Flank an existing siege.

B. Rush through 2 ways when in siege mode.

C. Sneak around a siege and rush the enemy base.

Right now it's just a matter of force vs force and siege vs defense (which is why nod wins on Field so often - the arty is clearly the most efficient siege unit on the map). There needs to be alternative ways to have access to attack the enemy base with some sort of rush.

*note that i believe the ramp next to hon is also gone in Renegade X iirc?

Essentially the same concept as your idea, except that the red lines in your image would be vehicle pathways (you can keep the green bunkers as infantry access points too, really), and the one on GDI's side would be in front of the ramp.

[omega79]

thats interesting ...

but i can not imagine how it could be added and look good ...

but in general not a bad idea ...

[Daxter]

im with "hate". this idea is actually pretty neat. nothing against ya omega79, but your idea wouldnt change the problems with the tanks on the field it would just give characters way more ways to kill tanks and other infantries. soon the field would be ruled by ravers / pics and havocs/ saks. hell no... dont want to have such a gameplay... "hate's" idea however give the tanks a chance to actually do something like flanking instead of just standing at the enemy entrance and getting shot by ravers/ pics.

the only problem i see is the tunnelentrance to gdi base: arty would easily take down agt so sbhs can rush in the base and take the rest of the buildings down.

[Terekhov]

TBF it's one of the few maps that really forces your team to work as a cohesive whole. Not necessarily a bad thing.

[SFJake]

But thats just the result of having map defenses which are hard to break through.