Main page

Design a set of 16 or more 250m x 250m maps. Sprinkle each with debris, tank wrecks, hills, gullies, pools, etc. Rotate randomly. Then, to create a battlefield, drop 16 of them in a random pattern into a blank 1000m x 1000m space and let players battle away.

Should have the same load time as a regular map (same assets used) but every fight will be different. Players can learn to adjust to a changing battlefield. No more fixed strats of "run to the bush at K9, you know the one I mean, until they have passed the bunker at B5..."

At least initially you'd want to use map tiles that have the same elevation all the way around. But as you learn to use the tool, you could have tiles with rivers/water/hills on one side that would automatically have to connect to a similar tile at map creation time. Just look at how tabletop games like Battletech do their modular maps. Or look at how a tactical game like X-Com does its random tactical maps.

It is going to be horribly unbalanced, there is no guarantee of a map being balanced between the two team spawns.

In theory a cool idea, in practice it can never be done fairly.

Yeah put I prefer to know how to work the map in real life a mountain doesn't move in 1 day wtf cool.idea though

 Viruzzz, on Feb 20 2013 - 23:25, said:

Are you kidding me ??? since this game has had the crap balanced out of it to the point it is loosing players.

I think this is a great idea and the fact that a good sniper spot will not work 2 or more games in a roe would in a way make people think about where they are and what coud shoot them.

 Viruzzz, on Feb 20 2013 - 23:25, said:

I think it could be done fairly if the maps components are kept relatively open, emphasizing concealment elements rather than cover elements.  This would lend itself well to more "traditional" types of tanks battles.

 Viruzzz, on Feb 20 2013 - 23:25, said:

Improvise, overcome, and adapt.

This would be the new encounter battle mode. I like this idea as one play mode but not a substitute for all other things. To build off this though... how about using the same idea to create large scale maps that connect two or more static maps togehter.  Thus you can have larger maps without the time it would take to create and model those for implementation. On one side of the large scale map you might have Abbey.... on the other you might have highway. This will open up the maps for some real interesting strategic game play and would be really neat for tank companies. Obviously there would have to be other changes to consider like the total number ot tanks, time limits, etc... but it really would bring back some elements of the game that are now lost... like radio range.. truly scouting and spotting.. tactical movements and formations. WOT 10.0?
Edited by mushin77, Feb 20 2013 - 23:58.

This is actually a good idea. I approve. +1

The idea doesn't seem too out of reach or far-fetched. +1 good sir!

This idea is excellent. I believe the term would be isomorphic map, where all edges of the maps will align in any configuration. Several Avalon Hill board games used this feature and it made  the battlefields  dynamic.

As for it gimping one team or another?  Like the MM doesn't already do that?

 mushin77, on Feb 20 2013 - 23:57, said:

I like the idea but I think Abbey and Highway shouldn't be combined together, there should be a set few maps that could be combined together. For example, Abbey is somewhere in southern Italy (Sicily maybe) IMO, whereas Highway is on the Great Plains or Midwest in America. Abbey and Province could be interesting for example, Swamp and Komarin could be combined if they're reintroduced. You get the idea.
To the OP, good idea, it would give variability to maps and would ensure that the better team and more adaptable team would win. I thoroughly endorse this and would support making it a checkable option like Assault and Encounter. Please give this consideration WG.

 nking1299, on Feb 21 2013 - 00:15, said:

I always laugh when people take a example made up on the spure of the moment and think that people are talking specificly about an abstract idea. Sorry my friend you are reading a bit too much into my "example."  I just mean.. have static maps that act as the base. This also would be a GREAT way to handle the garage battle mode they were talking about implementing.  The respawn points would be somewhat random... the length of time for the battle to be completed would lend well to the large map... and there would be a set place to defend or group up for assaults on the enemy.

 mushin77, on Feb 21 2013 - 00:49, said:

I knew that it was a spur of the moment example, I was simply using it to illustrate that some maps simply wouldn't work together. Good idea on the garage battle, randomness is key to keeping some balance if one team is completely stomping the other.