Ok, here's a thought that I had the other day, and I don't know if it's been suggested, done, WIP, or anything else of the likes. I really would like to do a forest map since my CSS map that I am working on is getting good reviews. It takes place in King County, WA with typical Seattle weather. I don't have any screens (not the place) BUT.......

My idea was to do a map for the Battle for Hill 400. But....there were areas that needed to be secure before reaching Hill 400, E.G. Huertgen Forest and Kall trail.

So....basically do a series of 3 maps, that you would basically want to run in a series on a server that would give you the feel of accomplishing something. Even better would be to have a script written (if possible) that depending on the outcome of who won the map, if the map would go the the next map in the sequence, or if it would just change the map to the next map in rotation.

For example: You start off on the Kall Trail. Let's call this map dod_kall_trail. Axis and Allies battle it out. Allies win. That would set the nextmap to dod_huertgen_forest. Let's say the Allies win again. That would then set the next map to dod_hill400, which would be the final map in the series. This would set the nextmap to whatever map.

Now, lets say the axis won either of the first two, then the allies would not be able to advance to dod_hill400, so the nextmap would be the nextmap in the map cycle.

Does this make sense to anyone? Is it a good idea, bad idea? Wouldn't work? Anyone care? If you have suggestions, comments, ideas, please do so, and be critical if you wish. I can handle any comments.

Also, if anyone thinks that this is a good idea, is there anyone out there that would like to collaborate ideas and put these maps together?

Here is a website that I got some info on: http://home.scarlet.be/~cv920172/ScoWeb.htm

If anyone else has information on these, that would also be helpful.

i cant help you here but i think thats a pretty nice idea!

A simple idea, but VERY good! Would be great playing a kind of "campaign", instead of the typical map change. Now we just need some people who are able to put these maps together... And giving it the right "feel".

I attempted this at one point, someone signed up to help but it didn't work out. It would be better off to do it all your self, the map would look a lot more contiguous anyway. And with HL2sp entities it is possible to link maps together (obviously) so I'm pretty sure it can be done. It just would be a momentous effort :) Give it a go though, start small first! Perhaps a series of the tank maps or something.

Formologic that is a brilliant idea!

I like the idea of progress to next map only if conditions are met. To give a possible alternative, fwiw, even if, as in your example, axis won the first map - perhaps the 2nd map could still be played, however in this case the weapon loadout for allies was significantly hindered, thus making it harder for allies. (this would rely on the scripting as you couldnt build it into the map itself since the loadout would be different if allies won the first map. heh, complicated but a great concept of yours. nw

like guiness-Brilliant

ive always thought of making a campaign for dod. like start at the blitzkrieg and go from there.

This goes back to something Tim Holt (Waldo) and I talked about ages ago...a way to make a dod_dustbowl-like map but tie it to a "mission" of sorts rather than just three levels with a gate between them. Sounds like a good idea. ;)

Kinda how zalec was how u could only get the fountain first then work your way to the other section of the map!!! Man I miss ZALEC!!!

Im just bouncing ideas... so feel free to bounce them right out of the box into the crap heap ;)

Would there be a way to force uneven teams? Say, as a condition in the 2nd map in series - the loosing team of the 1st map would loose 2 players and the winning team, gain 2 players (representing casualites and maybe captives or reinforcements)

Maybe even somehow force the teams to be filled based on the previous team loadout? ie, players couldnt choose teams in 2nd map.

This could serve to bring out the same element of a war over a number of battles, which would keep in theme with this pretty unique idea. If Mr Fuzz and Waldo have thought of it before, there sounds to be a possibility of some experts lending a hand :P (i cant map unfortunately, but i do come up with some ideas fwiw heh)

excellent idea formologic ! :D
Kudos!

i do miss the forest maps :(
and i also miss the big big maps.

I had this all designed and described in high detail for a series of Normandy maps, just after the release of Source. But my mapper can't finish one project before starting another and it fell by the wayside.

I'd fully support this type of endeavor though. Any kind of cohesive feel from map to map really elevates the enjoyment factor.

Originally posted by Pistoleer
Im just bouncing ideas... so feel free to bounce them right out of the box into the crap heap ;)

Would there be a way to force uneven teams? Say, as a condition in the 2nd map in series - the loosing team of the 1st map would loose 2 players and the winning team, gain 2 players (representing casualites and maybe captives or reinforcements)

Maybe even somehow force the teams to be filled based on the previous team loadout? ie, players couldnt choose teams in 2nd map.

This could serve to bring out the same element of a war over a number of battles, which would keep in theme with this pretty unique idea. If Mr Fuzz and Waldo have thought of it before, there sounds to be a possibility of some experts lending a hand :P (i cant map unfortunately, but i do come up with some ideas fwiw heh) While this idea is pretty cool, whether it be weapons or teams or damage or whatever.....Here are a couple of things that I could see being a negative side effect.

First, the losing team on the first map could have non team players on their team, causing a loss. This would upset these people. So....on the nextmap the losing team is at a disadvantage again, causing more irritation and then you have an empty server.

For the unbalancing aspect, who would you choose to switch. Probably be at random, but what if the couple of people that were working together got seperated, and then you get the "I want to be on this team" crap, and it could become a disaster.

I like this idea, and the more the merrier for sure. I know that there was a setting that we used on our CSS servers that wouldn't allow you to go into spectate, so you would be forced to join a team. I am not sure if you could prevent anyone from joining a team or keeping all the clients on the same team.

But.....you could do something like CAL does and have switching after a round or something like that proabably, so that maybe everyone can get a chance to play both sides. (I think there is a SourceMM plugin for something like this, but it doesn't switch flags, just spawns.) In order for that plugin to work I guess, you would keep all the flags neutral on round start, then go from there. Hmmm........

We did a similar thing a while back with our clan where the first map was a beach map and if allies full capped we moved on to an inland forest type map and then to a village, town and so on, if at any time axis held the map we went back to the preceeding one, just as if the invading force had been pushed back.

Was great fun, but you do need an admin on for all the map changes as theres no way to automate it.......

We're doing something like this for RnL basically put you'll start in say Eglise then if it's not won by the allies you start over again then if it is you move onto the next map and so on.

Originally posted by Sly Assassin
We're doing something like this for RnL basically put you'll start in say Eglise then if it's not won by the allies you start over again then if it is you move onto the next map and so on. Sweet, I'm waiting for this.

Originally posted by Sly Assassin
We're doing something like this for RnL basically put you'll start in say Eglise then if it's not won by the allies you start over again then if it is you move onto the next map and so on.

It would be quite cool for the axis to be able to win in said scenario and then have the axis push the allies back to some other place, re-writing history :D

RnL = ? I forget sorry

Resistance and Liberation

Originally posted by Ca-Chicken-Soup
It would be quite cool for the axis to be able to win in said scenario and then have the axis push the allies back to some other place, re-writing history :D

RnL = ? I forget sorry

Thats what custom maps are for ;)

Good idea, (I don’t know if you still can) there was a map in original dod that when you advanced so far, the playing field was in the new part of the city, all the spawn would move as well... for example, if the axis were overrunning the allies, they capture a flag, the axis spawn moves up and the allies move back, and they keep moving back and forth until the other team runs out of room to fall back on and the winning team is the one that takes all the city!

Originally posted by Sword
Good idea, (I don’t know if you still can) there was a map in original dod that when you advanced so far, the playing field was in the new part of the city, all the spawn would move as well... for example, if the axis were overrunning the allies, they capture a flag, the axis spawn moves up and the allies move back, and they keep moving back and forth until the other team runs out of room to fall back on and the winning team is the one that takes all the city!

Zafod?