6781
General Discussion / Re: Picking the mod up again
« on: 10-04-2009, 23:04:59 »
L2P...
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
6782
Off-Topic / Re: TANKS! Documentary Series.
« on: 10-04-2009, 19:04:11 »
I've got the whole TANKS! series on DVD. Not too bad documentaries, but they arent the best either. Their biggest flaw is that they are just too long and repeat same things you have already heard and learned about either before watching the documentary or during the same episode. Episodes are too long for my taste as when it starts getting dangling to very small details, it gets very numbing. WaW for the win.
It is not a bad series (same goes to the whole BATTLEFIELD series) but the episodes (which afaik were supposed to be in episodes when viewed via TV, but in DVD they are just one long episodes) are way too long to keep the interest up from start to finish.
It is not a bad series (same goes to the whole BATTLEFIELD series) but the episodes (which afaik were supposed to be in episodes when viewed via TV, but in DVD they are just one long episodes) are way too long to keep the interest up from start to finish.
6784
Gaming / Re: Screenshots of games you play [big pics, 56k warning]
« on: 08-04-2009, 21:04:21 »
Third best mod for BF42. 
6785
General Discussion / Re: Which map do you want the most?
« on: 08-04-2009, 18:04:48 »
I am finnish, yes.
Ah yes, the "Grand Summer Assault" as I like to call it. Now I understood you.
And I do get your point with the El Alamein example. Here it is thought, if you were to make a map "Tali-Ihantala" and have it in feasible size so it is neither squeezed down nor its not too big, it would still be huge and of course too tightly packed to really work out nicely. I originally wanted to make the Tali- and Ihantala portions of this campaign into a map, but I had the problem with engine limitations and the lust for perfection I have. So I decided to cut the map in two, first map would be about battles from Tali-Talinmylly-Portinhoikka, generally the armoured battle around lake Leitimo, then the later would be Portinhoikka-Ihantala-Pyöräkangas based map. But in the end the plans were scrapped as I lost the heightmap I had been working on when my computer crapped out. Anyways, point being that I tried to include too many known battles and points of interest into this one big "great battle" which just cant work with the limitations we face with BF2 engine.
Back in 0.7 I had this heightmap for Tali-Ihantala map which had all locations, even the pretty unknown battlefields from that campaign. The map was _huge_. It was just insane. And Im not afraid to brag that it was and most likely still is the most accurate rendition of the whole area in any video game, ever. Yet again, to my loss... I lost that heightmap with the computer crash. Hopefully Natty still has the map somewhere...
Anyhoo, point being that a map named "Tali-Ihantala" which would be what it is named after, is just not possible unless they are squeezed down insanely. Instead, I see it would (hell, it IS) be very possible to see maps like "Portinhoikka" or "Battle of Tali" or any other well known battle from the campaign of Tali-Ihantala as those scales are very possible to create and hopefully we will see Battle for Ihantala sometime with the historically accurate features specified for this certain battle.
Ah yes, the "Grand Summer Assault" as I like to call it. Now I understood you.
And I do get your point with the El Alamein example. Here it is thought, if you were to make a map "Tali-Ihantala" and have it in feasible size so it is neither squeezed down nor its not too big, it would still be huge and of course too tightly packed to really work out nicely. I originally wanted to make the Tali- and Ihantala portions of this campaign into a map, but I had the problem with engine limitations and the lust for perfection I have. So I decided to cut the map in two, first map would be about battles from Tali-Talinmylly-Portinhoikka, generally the armoured battle around lake Leitimo, then the later would be Portinhoikka-Ihantala-Pyöräkangas based map. But in the end the plans were scrapped as I lost the heightmap I had been working on when my computer crapped out. Anyways, point being that I tried to include too many known battles and points of interest into this one big "great battle" which just cant work with the limitations we face with BF2 engine.
Back in 0.7 I had this heightmap for Tali-Ihantala map which had all locations, even the pretty unknown battlefields from that campaign. The map was _huge_. It was just insane. And Im not afraid to brag that it was and most likely still is the most accurate rendition of the whole area in any video game, ever. Yet again, to my loss... I lost that heightmap with the computer crash. Hopefully Natty still has the map somewhere...
Anyhoo, point being that a map named "Tali-Ihantala" which would be what it is named after, is just not possible unless they are squeezed down insanely. Instead, I see it would (hell, it IS) be very possible to see maps like "Portinhoikka" or "Battle of Tali" or any other well known battle from the campaign of Tali-Ihantala as those scales are very possible to create and hopefully we will see Battle for Ihantala sometime with the historically accurate features specified for this certain battle.
6786
General Discussion / Re: Which map do you want the most?
« on: 08-04-2009, 16:04:21 »Ok Flippy. Hypothetical situation here: You can have 2 maps featuring Finland. Any of the 3 wars, all equipment available in the battles will be made. What 2 battles would you pick, making sure there is some variety, and why?
Of course a battle of Äyräpää-Vuosalmi which would provide the players with
1) Infantry battles
2) Aerial Combat to keep em whiney flyboys off your back bitching for more flight maps
3) Tank Combat
4) Variation to terrain with;
a) Thick forests with hills and cliffs ideal for infantry combat in tight and rough terrain
b) Open fields with farms which are of course best suited for the tank combat
c) Key locations from historical events such as the Äyräpää railway station and a ruined church near Vuoksi beach
d) Slight dose of naval combat as the map would be divided by a river. Landing across Vuoksi would be amazing.
5) Artillery was a big part of this battle, so it would give those spotter-boys and artillery-heroes like myself something to do
Why I picked this instead of *gasp* Tali-Ihantala, which you all know I love so dearly? Because I think Tali-Ihantala would be either hard to do, or it would not provide enough variation to the gameplay. With Äyräpää-Vuosalmi, you could keep everyone happy, even feature some naval warfare on top of that (OK there were only sturmboots and russian made pontoon ferries... but at least you would actually have the water as an important element to the map. This map would also remind people from 0.7 Karelia as it would have the river crossing and landing possibilities, but it would be much more bigger. Not to mention the importance of this battle, not only was it the second biggest battle during the Continuation War, but it was also the last battle to be fought on Karelian Isthmus.
--
My second map would be something you wouldnt guess that easily. I admit the first one is just an easy one to pick out as most of you know how dearly I love the battle of Äyräpää-Vuosalmi. But this one would be from totally different war. It would be Summa from Winter War. Located on the Mannerheim line, Summa would provide the players with a totally different setting: A map from a war not seen in a Forgotten Hope game. Not only would this map be different in both weaponry, layout, looks and feel but it would of course play totally different. One of the biggest and toughest battles of Winter War were fought in Summa, and I think that would make it a suitable candinate.
Summa would bring the players:
1) The chance to see Winter War first time in Forgotten Hope (Minor plus side, but still a plus side)
2) It would be totally different to the previous idea in many ways
3) Weaponry would of course be different as its 1940
4) Infantry warfare is always appreciated among the public
5) Planes for both sides
6) Infantry & Anti-tank vs tank combat opposed to many tank vs tank maps we have
While this map would lack the naval warfare of Vuosalmi, it would still be a very interesting map as it has very cool locations that were fought over. Of course the main theme would be mainly the same, gameplay wise the map would play similar if not the same as the previous idea (but dont they all?) with finns defending against the red army attacks and then making counterattacks to regain lost grounds.
Anything specific you were looking for in my answer, Uranium?
6787
General Discussion / Re: Which map do you want the most?
« on: 08-04-2009, 16:04:36 »
Battles of Tali and Ihantala were more than just finns sitting in a treeline and killing russians. How you just described it, it just sounds another generic.
Also, what exactly _is_ Viipuri-Petroskoi offensive? Do you mean the attack phase in 1941? Or perhaps the russian offensive on isthmus and olonets in 1944?
How I understood, you mean the attack phase when finns were advancing. Well, it wasnt Viipuri-Petroskoi offensive as the main weight originally was towards Ladoga's Karelia and to reach river Svir. But from the main attack formations a new group was formed in order to take Petroskoi and then move to Seesjärvi region at Maaselkä. Offensive on Isthmus was launched a lot later than the original attack towards Ladoga's Karelia.
How could you make such idea into a map thought? Again, you would have to pick a battle from the attack phase and base a map on that. Just having a "Viipuri-Petroskoi Offensive" as a map name would yet again be very generic, and thus unrealistic.
---
Now that you opened pandora's box, I must say that the campaign of Tali-Ihantala would alone house roughly 30 different maps set on real battles, and those are only the big noted battles if you tie several battles together into one map. If you made one map for each known battle from the campaign, you would have a hundred. And this is not counting all those hundreds of small firefights that were going on all the time around the clock, only the really important battles are taken into the count. So slapping finns to defend a random treeline with fausts Suomi's against the russian tank assaults, name it Tali-Ihantala and yet you would have another generic and historically inaccurate map which doesnt light my fire. FH2 is well known from taking real life places and turning them into maps. Names of places you can find from google, wikipedia and google earth. Some of these maps are also highly accurate resemblances to the real life locations. So with the idea of yours (no offense, its nothing personal, just a great example of exactly what I meant in my previous post) the map would just be real in any sort of ways.
Of course there are people around who will say screw history and realism, lets have a cake and a fun map. FH2 has proven that historically accurate maps can and ARE fun. Not only do they create immersion and grab you in the moment you are loaded (minus Aberdeen, Bardia...) but with realistic enviroments and locations, players can actually have an idea what these places are like in real life and how they were in the 40's. That is why I love FH2's map design and dedication to historical accuracy because they can also educate people on a some degree.
Again, someone can and will most likely say to me "ok so what finnish map would you want then mr goodie-two-shoes when our ideas arent pleasing you?", thank god I have been diving in and out the battles of summer -44 so much I can name a whole release-worth of battles and map ideas.
Old timers of this community can just guess which battles I would throw on the desk.
Peace out!
EDIT: Finnish Sturm's didnt fight against IS-2's. Sorry. IS-2's were _very_ rare on the finnish fronts.
EDIT #2: Please notice that this isnt a bitch message towards Paavopesusieni, nor anyone else.
Also, what exactly _is_ Viipuri-Petroskoi offensive? Do you mean the attack phase in 1941? Or perhaps the russian offensive on isthmus and olonets in 1944?
How I understood, you mean the attack phase when finns were advancing. Well, it wasnt Viipuri-Petroskoi offensive as the main weight originally was towards Ladoga's Karelia and to reach river Svir. But from the main attack formations a new group was formed in order to take Petroskoi and then move to Seesjärvi region at Maaselkä. Offensive on Isthmus was launched a lot later than the original attack towards Ladoga's Karelia.
How could you make such idea into a map thought? Again, you would have to pick a battle from the attack phase and base a map on that. Just having a "Viipuri-Petroskoi Offensive" as a map name would yet again be very generic, and thus unrealistic.
---
Now that you opened pandora's box, I must say that the campaign of Tali-Ihantala would alone house roughly 30 different maps set on real battles, and those are only the big noted battles if you tie several battles together into one map. If you made one map for each known battle from the campaign, you would have a hundred. And this is not counting all those hundreds of small firefights that were going on all the time around the clock, only the really important battles are taken into the count. So slapping finns to defend a random treeline with fausts Suomi's against the russian tank assaults, name it Tali-Ihantala and yet you would have another generic and historically inaccurate map which doesnt light my fire. FH2 is well known from taking real life places and turning them into maps. Names of places you can find from google, wikipedia and google earth. Some of these maps are also highly accurate resemblances to the real life locations. So with the idea of yours (no offense, its nothing personal, just a great example of exactly what I meant in my previous post) the map would just be real in any sort of ways.
Of course there are people around who will say screw history and realism, lets have a cake and a fun map. FH2 has proven that historically accurate maps can and ARE fun. Not only do they create immersion and grab you in the moment you are loaded (minus Aberdeen, Bardia...) but with realistic enviroments and locations, players can actually have an idea what these places are like in real life and how they were in the 40's. That is why I love FH2's map design and dedication to historical accuracy because they can also educate people on a some degree.
Again, someone can and will most likely say to me "ok so what finnish map would you want then mr goodie-two-shoes when our ideas arent pleasing you?", thank god I have been diving in and out the battles of summer -44 so much I can name a whole release-worth of battles and map ideas.
Old timers of this community can just guess which battles I would throw on the desk.
Peace out!
EDIT: Finnish Sturm's didnt fight against IS-2's. Sorry. IS-2's were _very_ rare on the finnish fronts.
EDIT #2: Please notice that this isnt a bitch message towards Paavopesusieni, nor anyone else.
6788
General Discussion / Re: Post your FH2 Screenshots
« on: 08-04-2009, 15:04:28 »
After that, they moved on to sheeps, as ammocrates werent satisfying enough.
6789
Off-Topic / Re: Picture of the Day
« on: 08-04-2009, 15:04:42 »
Finnish Tupolev SB bomber mg-gunner in his mg-cupola.
EDIT: Wasnt a bristol blenheim, Töris and GooGeL screwed up.
6790
General Discussion / Re: Which map do you want the most?
« on: 08-04-2009, 14:04:41 »
When people say "Karelia" do you mean Karelia as a map from 0.7 which was a godawful generic map (gameplay wise fun but historically accurate just a generic map in the midst of many others) or do you mean something specific?
Karelia has many regions. The regions which were fought over were divided to Karelian Isthmus, Olonets Karelia and Ladoga's Karelia. So how I understand it, by saying Karelia, you just want some half-assed generic forest map with finns vs russians and slap a name Karelia on it?
Be more specific. Name a battle for starters.
/rant
Karelia has many regions. The regions which were fought over were divided to Karelian Isthmus, Olonets Karelia and Ladoga's Karelia. So how I understand it, by saying Karelia, you just want some half-assed generic forest map with finns vs russians and slap a name Karelia on it?
Be more specific. Name a battle for starters.
/rant
6791
Community Polls / Re: Next Theatre
« on: 07-04-2009, 18:04:07 »
Finland.
And to be precise, the romanians and italians too.
And to be precise, the romanians and italians too.
6792
Community Polls / Re: Next Theatre
« on: 07-04-2009, 18:04:45 »If Barbarossa - 3 armies from scratch and tons of statics.
Fixed.
6793
Suggestions / Re: Good normandy aa guns
« on: 07-04-2009, 17:04:00 »
It's just a bloody sherman... what the hell it matters which version it is? You will end up abandoning them all over the countryside anyways when the Panthers come around. Pffft.
6794
Suggestions / Re: Alternate History Maps Suggestion Thread
« on: 07-04-2009, 17:04:37 »
I think all maps currently are alternate history maps because both sides have the possibility to win, no matter what the history really tells.
But I got your main idea and I must say I disagree. I dont think FH2 should do such things, not even when finished. They should be from people who work on a spin off for FH2 instead, like FHSW used to be.
But I got your main idea and I must say I disagree. I dont think FH2 should do such things, not even when finished. They should be from people who work on a spin off for FH2 instead, like FHSW used to be.
6795
General Discussion / Re: The complete and utter history of the mod we all love???
« on: 05-04-2009, 14:04:41 »and some terrible snowy russian map.Soletschnogorsk! I loved that map. Too bad no one seemed to grasp the idea how it was to be played. Too complicated for the masses me thinks.
One of the best maps ever made in FH History.