I would like to highlight a difference between TA's and SupCom's map types with one video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL16XCdS ... 1C&index=1 As you may have seen, it feels very strange to be playing SupCom on a map that isn't extremely flat and is a possible topic for discussion. How flat or bumpy do we want our maps? While I do like TA maps, with the way the game played it become very very hard to navigate, but with SupCom the only real terrain you could even see from above was entire mountain ranges, often leaving ground units to shoot at the floor when you can't accurately see when the sloping hills are without going in to a cartographic view. Whats your take on it forum?
Perhaps it'd be good to start with overkill? I think it's safe to say that no one wants to play this kind of map:
I love TA maps. I'm sure that with a better pathfinding and with a command to reclaim wreckage in an area they would cause no problems at all. I always found SC maps are a bit bland and ( in addition to non-blocking wreckage ) they don't create these intense battle front like in TA.
I think it depends largely on the gameplay mechanics. If weapons doesn't shoot blindly into rocks, cliffs and hills if the enemy is behind them then you don't need to micro as much as you can focus on other things than looking if your units are actually using their shots for something useful. If units can traverse different types of terrain then I think that tools like these are important:Map elevation and path visualisation I would like to see as many different maps/planets as possible.
