Even bigger maps?

[Ambervikings91]

Is it possible to create a map larger than the 81x81 maps? Has this ever been done?

[IceDreamer]

It's never been done, but nobody has ever tried either, to my knowledge.

[Ambervikings91]

Is it possible, I think it would be interesting to see a map where even the mavors range is limited

[Plasma_Wolf]

For as far as I know, you can't make anything bigger than 81*81. You also don't want it. 81*81 is the absolute limit of a player's sanity. You can have some enjoyable games and I mostly remember the 1v1v1 games I played with two of my friends on a map I specifically made for it: Triple road. This map allows for a 1v1v1 game that is either slow to start (outer spawn points) or quick to start (inner spawn points). It then also allows 2v2v2 games in a rather unusual setup (I never tried it).

Also: the Mavor range is limited on an 81*81 map. Just build it in a corner, then you'll see its maximum range in the opposite corner.

[Ambervikings91]

I would love to see a map larger than 81, I would want to try it out. Building multiple bases, would be a super long and interesting game becuz it would eliminate most game ending units from actually being game enders

[Deering]

Or you would just build a paragon and then fly/teleport squads of SCUs around spamming salvations, yolona oss would still be the same power too.

[ColonelSheppard]

You played 81x81 maps and then you want bigger maps? oO i'm scared of you now

[Mycen]

Or you would just build a paragon and then fly/teleport squads of SCUs around spamming salvations, yolona oss would still be the same power too.

Exactly.

Huge maps are fun, but after a certain point there is very little difference between a huge map and an even huger map. While the Mavor might have a limited range on a 120x120, most strategic weapons still will not. Also, as map size increases, the incentive to build more than one main base actually decreases, because in the late game, it is much more efficient (and easier!) to get extra resources from SCUs or fabs in your base than it is to capture and defend mass points, and larger maps make it easier to get into the late game.

All you would see in maps even larger than 81x81 is air power going the way of land and navy in an 81x81 (i.e. relatively useless offensively because it takes too long to get anywhere), and UEF and Cybrans being at an even greater disadvantage due to a lack of teleporting SCUs and an inferior strategic arsenal.

Without the introduction of new units and/or new mechanics, playing maps even larger than 81x81 increases the amount of work you have to do, but it doesn't really change the way the game plays.

[Plasma_Wolf]

In one particular 1v1v1 game on the map I already mentioned, I had 2 Mavor artilleries and they were continuously pounding one enemy base. Due to their inaccuracy at such a range (should be less of a problem now?), it barely did anything. What's more, my opponent was in the process of building a paragon, that got killed just before it was finished by a blob of strategic bombers from the third player.

While 81*81 maps are fun, this one took 2.5 hours for me to finish. If I were to do it again, I'd probably not build two Mavors, but just send SCUs across the field, put them in the water and then build a series of Fatboys. There's plenty of room for them to stay hidden, even without stealth field sonar systems.

[Hawkei]

In direct answer to the question. No. 81x81 km is perfectly big enough for even the greatest enthusiast of big maps.

Though I would suggest that multiple base construction is still feasible on 81 km maps. Infact, multiple bases is usually the superior option because it capitalises on one key strategic advantage when playing on such large maps... The lack of intel. Considering that an Omni sensor does not have very much coverage at this map size, it is not unusual for entire bases to go undetected.

Also, having spent some time playing 81 km games I can definitely say that naval and land units are not useless. The only difference is that land units are created from secretly built proxy bases, or sometime dropped as part of an "expeditionary force", or built as a static defence against the former. Naval is also useful, but tends to be used in a less conventional role. Very rarely have I every had a Battleship, or even a destroyer get into range where it can actually attack a base.

The navy tends to take on a different role. Because, at 81 km Nukes take so long to travel across the map it is far more practical to build T3 missile subs. Which can often sit off the enemy coast outside of sonar range. Considering the sheer amount of water which is in proximity to a base, and the number of bases which need to be protected. One very important function of naval forces is to control this water and prevent enemy missile subs from operating.

But perhaps the most important function of the navy on 81km is to service the aircraft which will be doing most of the work. Considering the distances planes need to travel building Carriers is essential. It is important to have a good mobile base of AA fire, to which strike planes can retreat, and Carriers for refuelling them and sheltering them, so that they cannot be hit. Which is the natural counter to the (Ever present) ASF swarm. Without Carriers, you strike craft a simply incapable of operating on 81 km because they will run out of fuel before they reach their target!

Naval and Land are not useless, they just need to be used differently.