Mount pleasant airbase poll

[=DECOY=]

Recently Razbam mentioned the possibility of adding Mount pleasant Airbase, since this base came after the conflict they want your input.

 

Now its over to us, simply vote on weather you think the base should or shouldn't be added.

[Megadyptes]

Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

[QuiGon]

Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

This! Having the base there would be really awkward when creating historic missions.

+1

Edited October 3, 2018 by QuiGon

[westr]

Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

 

I agree

[corvinus]

Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

[Jester986]

I am really aplit on this... I'm all about authenticity and I really look forward to the 1982 conflict, but the more utility the map has the better. I voted put it in because I can ignore an airbase, but whatever is chosen I won't be upset.

[Galwran]

Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

 

You can place obstacles on it

[corvinus]

You can place obstacles on it

 

 

That will certainly teach 'm! :D

[mattebubben]

I would much rather have the Island to 1982 spec.

With no Mount Pleasant airbase and with Port Stanley as the only paved runway.

 

 

Preferably with the Port Stanley runway the length it was during the war,

 

 

Though i would be Ok with the port stanley runway being given the extended post war length (it was extended using aluminium planking soon after the war ended to allow F4 Phantoms to be based there) if the alternative is adding Mount Pleasant as that would still make it so there is a runway able to accept most aircraft without changing the map in a more significant way.

[Zeus67]

My opinion is that Mount Pleasant allow for more options regarding missions that are not based on the Falklands War.

 

 

You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

[Mesha44]

Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

 

How about Razbam makes a "building" that is nothing more that a grass cover that hides the airfield.

[Kula66]

Could you ship very similar 2 maps ... one 82, one later??

[al531246]

I've voted yes but I'd still like to see the temporary airstrips used by the British / Argies on the map. The temp airfield at Goose Green for example is a must.

[Teeps]

I would say include it.

 

Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

Even in my wildest dreams I can't really think of a plausible scenario for for Warsaw Pact vs NATO on the Falklands ;)

 

Could you ship very similar 2 maps ... one 82, one later??

They could in theory. Practically this wouldn't really be feasible as maps are pretty huge in file size. Just to have the same map with and without a certain airbase isn't really justifying the doubled amount of disk space needed for two almost identical maps instead of one.

Edited October 4, 2018 by QuiGon

[SUNTSAG]

Before I start, this is a suggestion and a potential option only.

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

[Quadg]

Even in my wildest dreams I can't really think of a plausible scenario for for Warsaw Pact vs NATO on the Falklands ;)

 

in a future war with china the Falkland's are well placed to protect against Chinese ships and subs entering the Atlantic around cape horn.

 

so it could be the little island that defends the entire US east coast :)

[al531246]

I think this is the best idea honestly. You have an "82 war" map and a modern one to play with. Plus, you could tell customers that: "You get two maps!" :music_whistling:

 

Seriously, it must be minimal work to do that.

 

The British did some serious redevelopment work on the Falklands Islands following the war. It's not quite as simple as adding a runway and a building or two.

 

I liked SUNSATG's solution to include all airfields and then have the mission creator remove individual areas as necessary.

[QuiGon]

I think this is the best idea honestly. You have an "82 war" map and a modern one to play with. Plus, you could tell customers that: "You get two maps!" :music_whistling:

 

Seriously, it must be minimal work to do that.

The work to do that must indeed be minimal, but the problem is the demand on the customer on disk space, as I explained above.

That's why I think this would be a pretty good solution:

Before I start, this is a suggestion and a potential option only.

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

[Timo239]

Add it

[Lucas_From_Hell]

My opinion is that Mount Pleasant allow for more options regarding missions that are not based on the Falklands War.

 

 

You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

 

 

My thoughts as well. Ideally it would be optional somehow (maybe two versions of the map to pick in the Mission Editor?) but without Mt. Pleasant it'd be very hard to land high-performance aircraft anywhere outside of mainland Argentina.

[cordite]

Very hard to land high performance aircraft on a carrier? Probably not with practice.

[cordite]

How about Razbam makes a "building" that is nothing more that a grass cover that hides the airfield.

 

...

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

 

Perhaps Mithandra can comment on this?

[SGT Coyle]

How hard would it be to have at the airbase structures, taxiways, parking ramps and runways packaged as a scriptable preset(for lack of a better word)?

 

 

 

It could be added and removed by mission maker by use of a simple trigger.

[Home Fries]

I also agree that the airbase should be added, if only to provide more options for the scenery designer in a sandbox environment. Said airbase could be functionally disabled for 1982 scenarios, not to mention we're already taking liberties with the conflict in terms of available airframes. One more airbase won't be a backbreaker, but will give us potentially more flexibility in scenarios.