More muttrah layouts.

[VTRaptor]

We need more Muttrah layouts. STD feels castrated and became boring honestly. So here's my take on missing layouts. Flags can remain the same, maybe except for INF. Tickets on ALT and LRG same as on STD, but reduced by 200 on INF.


INF (map above applies just to INF layout)
USMC (scopeless)
1x M1151 Up-Armored HMMWV .50cal (5 minutes, delayed)
4x M35 2.5 Ton (5 minutes)
2x M35 Logistics (5 minutes)

MEC (scopeless)
1x MTLB [7.62] (5 minutes, delayed)
4x Ural-4320 (5 minutes)
2x Ural-4320 Logistics (5 minutes)



ALT
United Kingdom
1x FV 510 Warrior (10 minutes, delayed)
1x FV 107 Scimitar (10 minutes, delayed)
3x MAN Support Vehicle (no respawn)
2x MAN Support Vehicle (5 minutes)
3x MAN SV Logistics (5 minutes)

China
1x Z-10 (20 minutes, 10 minutes delayed)
2x ZSL-92A 25mm (7,5 minutes)
3x Zhi-9B (5 minutes)
1x Z-8KA (10 minutes)
1x Dongfeng EQ1108 Logistics (5 minutes)
4x Landing Boat (1 minute)



LRG
USMC
1x AH-1 Super Cobra (15 minutes, delayed)
3x UH-1N Twin Huey (5 minutes)
1x MV-22 Osprey (10 minutes)
1x AAVP7A1 RAM/RS (7,5 minutes)
1x LAV-25 (7,5 minutes)
1x M35 Logistics (5 minutes)
1x M1151 Up-Armored HMMWV .50cal(5 minutes, delayed)
4x RHIB (1 minute)

MEC
1x FV101 Scorpion (10 minutes, delayed)
1x BTR-80A (10 minutes respawn, 15 minutes delayed)
1x BRDM-2 (5 minutes, delayed)
3x Ural-4320 (no respawn)
3x Ural-4320 Logistics (5 minutes, delayed)
2x Ural-4320 (5 minutes)

OLD ALT VERSION, CAN'T CROSS IT OUT OR HIDE BEHIND A SPOILER SO I'LL DO IT THIS WAY.
ALT (Sides swapped, MEC starts at the carrier)
US Army:
1x M1126 Stryker ICV MK19 (10 minutes, delayed)
1x M1126 Stryker ICV (10 minutes, delayed)
3x M35 2.5 Ton (no respawn)
2x M35 2.5 Ton (5 minutes)
3x M35 Logistics (5 minutes)

MEC:
1x Mi-28 Havoc (20 minutes, delayed)
3x Mi-17 (5 minutes)
1x SOKO HO-42 (5 minutes)
1x BTR-80A (7,5 minutes)
1x BTR-80 (7,5 minutes)
1x Ural-4320 Logistics (5 minutes)
4x RHIB (1 minute)

[Coalz101]

Interesting, the assets need a rework for your idea on ALT. Stryker will get demolished by any BTR, even through smoke and add lats running through a city, Stryker is a terrible idea. Maybe just 1 bradley vs 2 btr80a's?

[InfantryGamer42]

At this point, you are all going a bit overboard. Old flag layer was solid one. New flag layer is solid one. Only possible change that would make sense is to get new alt (or lrg) layer with MEC main placed on B13 road with flag on Fortress or old MEC main (lets call it Southern Suburbs).

Every other change must be with asset list and balance between selected assets.

[VTRaptor]

Interesting, the assets need a rework for your idea on ALT. Stryker will get demolished by any BTR, even through smoke and add lats running through a city, Stryker is a terrible idea. Maybe just 1 bradley vs 2 btr80a's?

I wanted to make use of MK19 variant as it's pretty rare. It made sense that without FCS this vehicle kept getting removed, but now since its adoption it should be more prevalent.

"Stryker will get demolished by any BTR". Same can be said about many other vehicles like warrior vs bmp-1 or 2, zsl-92 25mm vs cv90. This is not a laboratory where you compare DPS and conclude which vehicle "demolishes" other. Balance is asymetrical here, as strykers will work better against INF, BTRs can counter them but won't be wiping the floor with INF so easily as only the 30mm variant will be any good there.

1x Bradley vs 2x BTR-80A would have its own set of problems and is not ideal either.

At this point, you are all going a bit overboard. Old flag layer was solid one. New flag layer is solid one. Only possible change that would make sense is to get new alt (or lrg) layer with MEC main placed on B13 road with flag on Frotress or old MEC main (lets call it Southern Suburbs).

Every other change must have connection with asset list and balance between selected assets.

Go ahead and map it out, main in B13 in between objectives on south city, fortress and current MEC main? Exits would get camped all the time. This would be super weird.

[InfantryGamer42]

Go ahead and map it out, main in B13 in between objectives on south city, fortress and current MEC main? Exits would get camped all the time. This would be super weird.

And that is how different compared to experience of playing Muttrah last few years? MEC main got camped almost every game at least in some capacity, to the extreme point of you being unable to leave main.

That is more map issue, which different placement of main would never be able to fully fix, with only exception being placement of offmap main base for MEC in SW corner, which would then be connected by network of offmap roads with map area at A8, A9, B13 and (hypotethical) H13 road.

[VTRaptor]

And that is how different compared to experience of playing Muttrah last few years? MEC main got camped almost every game at least in some capacity, to the extreme point of you being unable to leave main.

That is more map issue, which different placement of main would never be able to fully fix, with only exception being placement of offmap main base for MEC in SW corner, which would then be connected by network of offmap roads with map area at A8, B13 and (hypotethical) H13 road.

Difference is, with main on B13 it'd get camped whether someone intentionally went there or just was in the area to fight over objectives. Currently there's no other option to camp MEC main but to intentionally move up on it. Besides, I'm 100% sure that DOD will expand to cover fortress since flag up there is no more.

You're also suggesting changes of actual map and its terrain which requires much more work than GPOs.

[InfantryGamer42]

Difference is, with main on B13 it'd get camped whether someone intentionally went there or just was in the area to fight over objectives. Currently there's no other option to camp MEC main but to intentionally move up on it. Besides, I'm 100% sure that DOD will expand to cover fortress since flag up there is no more.

You are forgetting D11 botleneck which you can block off with 2 mines, aka MEC main camping light. Expanding DoD will never fix that and that issue is one I am talking about mainly. Intentionally moving onto MEC main is not something common when people camp MEC main.

[VTRaptor]

You are forgetting D11 botleneck which you can block off with 2 mines, aka MEC main camping light. Expanding DoD will never fix that and that issue is one I am talking about mainly.

I'd like to see you stop me and my BTR/BMP with just two mines up there. You can put 20 if you like, I'll just drive around them or blow them up with C4. That area has nothing to do with the issue of camping main anyway.

[InfantryGamer42]

I'd like to see you stop me and my BTR/BMP with just two mines up there. You can put 20 if you like, I'll just drive around them or blow them up with C4.

I said that was main camping light, begginer strat, which did job against most people. From there camping can escalate with ambushing LATs, HATs and more mines at some weird spots in general area of D11. At this point only thing I still did not see is ambushing TOW, but would not be suprised if somebody tried even that.

TLDR If USMC are dedicated to locking D11, they will lock it. You maybe manage to get threw, but you are not going back same way home.

[VTRaptor]

I said that was main camping light, begginer strat, which did job against most people. From there camping can escalate with ambushing LATs, HATs and more mines at some weird spots in general area of D11. At this point only thing I still did not see is ambushing TOW, but would not be suprised if somebody tried even that.

TLDR If USMC are dedicated to locking D11, they will lock it. You maybe manage to get threw, but you are not going back same way home.

It's offtopic then and has nothing to do with camping main nor actual suggestion.

[InfantryGamer42]

It's offtopic then and has nothing to do with camping main nor actual suggestion.

It is de facto camping main. You do not need to camp main routes out of main next to main to effectively lock enemy into there main and de facto camp enemy main. That is what I am tryinng to point to you for few last comments and you keep not getting it (or accepting it).

Most people will never move onto MEC main to camp it, because they do not need to do that (they have D11 choke for that game experience). As such expanding MEC main to fortress is useless change, which will only remove interesting spot from playable area.

Also, simple put, this statement is wrong:

Currently there's no other option to camp MEC main but to intentionally move up on it.

Flipping the script and putting MEC into carrier assault possition also does not fix this problem (but MEC carrier assault map would definitly be interesting addition to game).

US Army is similar story. Yeah, you changed faction, but you effectively get really similar, almost same, deal at end.

Considering that we will most likely never get map rework, simplest way to change something on map is to go route of changing faction. But, it must be done totally. Why not PLA Marines layer? Yes, faction is still in development and it still lacks few assets (there track IFV and amphibious light tank), but it could work in both attack (replacing USMC) and defensive (replacing MEC) role.

[VTRaptor]

It is de facto camping main. You do not need to camp main routes out of main next to main to effectively lock enemy into there main and de facto camp enemy main. That is what I am tryinng to point to you for few last comments and you keep not getting it (or accepting it).

Most people will never move onto MEC main to camp it, because they do not need to do that (they have D11 choke for that game experience). As such expanding MEC main to fortress is useless change, which will only remove interesting spot from playable area.

Also, simple put, this statement is wrong:


Flipping the script and putting MEC into carrier assault possition also does not fix this problem (but MEC carrier assault map would definitly be interesting addition to game).

US Army is similar story. Yeah, you changed faction, but you effectively get really similar, almost same, deal at end.

Considering that we will most likely never get map rework, simplest way to change something on map is to go route of changing faction. But, it must be done totally. Why not PLA Marines layer? Yes, faction is still in development and it still lacks few assets (there track IFV and amphibious light tank), but it could work in both attack (replacing USMC) and defensive (replacing MEC) role.

No, out of lack of understanding what MAIN BASE is you keep derailing the thread to discuss one of many map specific tactics unrelated to GPO suggestion at hand, nor camping current main base. Sitting on fortress as USMC lets you camp ACTUAL EXITS OF MAIN BASE.

If i put my AAVP on B8 to block all ways north for MEC team, by your understanding I am camping MEC main base, so please refrain from further derailing...

[Corvin]

This +1 and add DoD at the western mountains. Snipers, HATs, AA and somethimes even whole FOBs camping there ruining urban experience of this map. Players simply should be banned from doing mountain climbing, especially because those hills working like magnets for freekit lone wolf that just want to sit there with sniper rifle and camp.

For ALT layer i would actually love to see British as defensive (they have strong alliance with Oman irl even having military bases there and offensive one being Chinese marines. That is really possible irl scenario

[InfantryGamer42]

No, out of lack of understanding what MAIN BASE is you keep derailing the thread to discuss one of many map specific tactics unrelated to GPO suggestion at hand, nor camping current main base. Sitting on fortress as USMC lets you camp ACTUAL EXITS OF MAIN BASE.

If you are preventing (or limiting) enemy from leaving there main and that is your main goal behand your actions, you are camping main in my book. It is that simple. Issue here is map specific, because MEC from there main to northern half of map (around which most of fighting is happening) has exactly four routes (swim, coastal road, D11 road, D11 walkway), out of which 2 are unusable in most cases. As such, area in which you can actually camp MEC main is much wider then usual "exits out of main base and area really near it" which is "feature" for most PR maps.

I am not derailing thread. I am pointing simple fact. Most people do not move on MEC main to directly CAMP ACTUAL EXIT OUT OF MAIN BASE, because they do not need to and it is extremely obvious (and you will most likely get banned on the spot).

Second, I am pointing this out, because your suggested new layer (and changes) do not fix that issue at all. Expanding DoD on fortress does not fix issue of MEC getting locked into there main. As such, it is useless change. My suggestion of B13 main base would at least open fortress area and H13 to being playable for players while not significantly impacting MEC main. Suggested layers also do not bring anything substantially new on faction side. Like I said, if you want to change something about factions, bring in totally new faction into play.

If i put my AAVP on B8 to block all ways north for MEC team, by your understanding I am camping MEC main base, so please refrain from further derailing...

I love when people start writing what is my "understanding" when they do not understand what I wrote and claim.

D11 is different compared to your understanding of what is my understanding in simple fact that if D11 is not even remotly close to actively played area, you can only be there with one goal. To preven (or limit) MEC team ability to leave main and get to the active combat area. It is de facto main camping and it is specific product of map design of Muttrah. Simple put, my understanding is that player with intention to camp can use specific map feature to do that relatively remotly from main exit.

[VTRaptor]

Making ever longer posts will not change definition of camping main base, regardless what is written in your book. Whole idea of expanding DoD is that without proper server rules to amend design flaws, a game can be ruined too easily and some DEVs actually asked for feedback and suggestions.

If you want to suggest layout with B13 MEC main base and discuss D11 camping problem, please, do so in a separate thread with an actual GPO map drawing, because right now this one is turning into a mess.

[BubblyNinja]

Layout and spawn is kinda cool, especially closing off the HAT/AA/sniper positions in the mountains. For a STD layer, it honestly is just easier to revert to the previous version of Muttrah's assets for MEC and instead replace 1 BTR-60PB with BTR-80 and/or replace beast with BTR-80A for MEC. Having that mountain section closed off would give US ground assets more freedom and a chance to establish themselves in the city.

How would Alt layer flags work? MEC invasion with US all flags capped or what. Because otherwise US is getting stomped on a conventional.

[VTRaptor]

The pic is just a suggested INF layout, I should've underlined it more clearly.

ALT and LRG would work just like STD. We should just see how it plays out instead of wondering which faction has advantage. There already are radically disbalanced layouts like Op Falcon witn NL vs militia, or Ulyanovsk with germany vs militia. Ras el Masri is totally weird and has its own place.

[Outlawz7]

I take putting MEC on USS Essex comes from MEC on Masirah? Cos we try to be realistic and Masirah carriers are supposed to be Mistral but are improvised with Essex parts.

Your LRG is basically the old layout and I take you'd keep current STD?

[ismaelassassin]

Layout idea!
MEC spawns on center-west with 3 flags on their possesion, one on mosque, one on north city and one on fortress/old main. they have to secure the flags furthest away. USMC has to attack the city in a 2-pronged attack, having to secure both flags in their flanks to keep advancing towards the center, closing in to the MEC base and closing them off from the rest of the city. At all times 2 flags will have to be captured to keep advancing, the initial MEC flags also cannot be re-captured by MEC.
Asset:

USMC: Various helicopters. AAVPs
MEC: Jeeps, trucks, various APCs. Maybe a tank.

[VTRaptor]

I take putting MEC on USS Essex comes from MEC on Masirah? Cos we try to be realistic and Masirah carriers are supposed to be Mistral but are improvised with Essex parts.

Yes that and MEC is fictional either way, but if that's something you want to avoid, then putting Chinese on this ship makes more sense, as they've already copied LHDs of american design.

Your LRG is basically the old layout and I take you'd keep current STD?

It's similar, but back then there were 3 BTR-60PBs, 1 MTLB [7.62] and 1 Boragh. Each one was borderline useless and the only APCs that meant something were the beast(every 15 minutes) and scorpion(every 20 minutes). What I tried to do here was reducing amount and increasing quality of the vehicles while keeping lower spawn times so crews don't have to be bored waiting or frustrated loosing them. If old layout had its 3 BTR-60s changed into 1 BTR-80 and scorpion got its spawn time reduced, it'd be totally fine by me.

I didn't touch STD to just fill the gaps instead, the only thing I miss from it is osprey but only because i personally like to use it. Not having it presents a challenge to trans squad and forces hueys to do logistics, when they'd normally just sit down and do nothing most of the game.