Same city, different mission & area

[CnC_Fin]

RA2 had a bunch of missions in Washington DC, only in different areas, but they included some same parts with each other. These missions were:
The first Soviet mission, Soviet mission where you need to take out traitor Vladimir, and one Allied mission in which you need to defend Pentagon and retake White House. I think those were the missions.

Anyways, Generals 2 could also have some missions in the same city, but in different areas. Let's say EU mission starts from south-west, and ends in the center of the city, and GLA mission starts from the north and ends in south, and so on.

What do you think?

[Alaskan_Viking]

I don't follow the question exactly?

Bu tin general, I do not like doing missions on the same map over and over again.

[Cypher[CS]]

The best example was Firestorm, which had actually alternating missions between GDI and Nod, where each faction responded to the actions of the other, on a different part of the map.
The best example being the Missions where Nod set free Tiberium lifeforms from CABAL's Genesis Pit near a GDI town, and then in the GDI mission, we need to protect that town and establish a base to evacuate it.

[Hawki]

It really depends on the nature of the story. Is it like old RTS's (e.g. Red Alert), where the player chooses one faction from the start and plays through it, each campaign's storyline having mutually exclusive elements? Is it campaigns occuring simultaniously to form a narrative whole, such as Firestorm and Tiberium Wars? Or is it like the original Generals games, where the campaigns progress in straight chronological order?

Overall, I'm generally indifferent to it. However, if maps are being reused, I'd rather it be because the story demands it rather than the developers simply recycling maps to save time and money.

[Plrsvek]

I'm not really a fan of reusing maps, unless it must've been done really well. The way Firestorm did it with the second GDI and Nod missions was great trough.

Tiberium Wars did this aswell. In the Nod campaign you take over the White House, while in the GDI one you take back the White house instead. The entire reason during the GDU campaign that they suddenly got attacked all over the place, was because of the Nod commanders work from the Nod campaign. Which I;ve found pretty great

One of the reasons why I didn't like games like AVP3 and Alan Wake: American Nightmare, was because of the constant reusing maps. The entire map is the exact same, only the enemies got replaced. Which just seems kinda lazy.

[Garbarsardar]

A few missions set on the same map would be nice, especially if they can make it so your troops and structures get carried over from one to another kind of like some of the Allied missions in RA or the giant ant missions. Say in the first mission you take back a city from the GLA as EU, then a few missions later you have to defend it from a new GLA attack, but your base which you built in the first mission is still there.

[Victimizer]

RA1 allied mission 2 and 4 had the same map, it was only extended in mission 4.

I am not opposed to re-using some maps if there's a good storyline reason.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

I don't want each faction to share the same maps, although having one or two missions like that would be alright. I was fine with it when they did it in C&C 3 (Washington D.C., surrounding areas).

What I would prefer is, instead, that the different factions play in different parts of a city, when the situation arises that you are fighting yourself in the same city.

[stephanovich]

What I would prefer is, instead, that the different factions play in different parts of a city, when the situation arises that you are fighting yourself in the same city.

Is that not what the OP is saying? I've read this post quite a few times now and that is what I gather from his post...not playing on the same map. Playing in the same city, but in various locations within the city.

[CnC_Fin]

Is that not what the OP is saying? I've read this post quite a few times now and that is what I gather from his post...not playing on the same map. Playing in the same city, but in various locations within the city.

Exactly, and here's a sort of explanation (beware my l33t paint skills):
1414
Everything inside the black box is the entire city, inside orange box is EU mission area, and inside green box is GLA mission area.

[Plrsvek]

What I did like was the Einstein mission from RA2 and YR. Because in this mission you pretty much swapped roles between the games. First you played the Allied to defend Einstein from the Soviet, but in YR you swapped your role to Soviet, where you had to destroy Einsteins lab instead.

It was also pretty fun to play against your ''Allied counterpart''. The AI pretty much played like a real player. Lots of expanding, sending good amount of troops, great defence. They even build around Einsteins lab, thats what a real player should do and not an average AI.

[bladexj]

I very much like this idea. It makes the game world feel more dynamic.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

Is that not what the OP is saying? I've read this post quite a few times now and that is what I gather from his post...not playing on the same map. Playing in the same city, but in various locations within the city.

That was what I comprehended at first, but then the last thing said


Anyways, Generals 2 could also have some missions in the same city, but in different areas. Let's say EU mission starts from south-west, and ends in the center of the city, and GLA mission starts from the north and ends in south, and so on.

confused me a bit. That image that was posted was helpful though, thank you.

Like I said, I'd be fine with a few missions like that.

[Moskvin96]

The idea is not bad, but is very repetitive or highly segido eg Washington, New York, London, Sarajevo or Chicago. (widely used).

Some sites prefer Paris Germany in Russia (Moscow not necessarily) China and Asia Minor