What if: the seamless world.

[otomotopia]

I have been thinking for a while now... what if Planetside Next's non-sanctuary area was just

ONE
HUGE
SEAMLESS
MAP.

By this, I mean one, streaming globe to fight in. One that you could, theoretically, fly from one point and reach that same point by going in a straight line for hours.

I mean, if naval combat is added in, you can add in oceans and Island bases, maybe some ranges for planes so they have to land (after a long time, of course) so that (With enough resources) a battle fleet with an Aircraft carrier and destroyers and subs would be necessary to take over island bases, which would be necessary to launch airborne invasions to enemy held-coasts... GAAAAH SO MUCH AWESOME POTENTIAL IN HERE!!!!

When Smedly said that he was very excited, this could be one BIG thing he was excited about. I'd be on cloud nine if this was here. I'd be... just... gone with anticipation.

JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

EvE has done it with 4000 people fighting in the same area and others experiencing only a small lag spike, rather then a huge game-breaking one. Darkfall had kludgy code but had done it all the same. It's entirely possible.

Obviously, if SoE hadn't started with this idea, its impossible now. Sanctuaries would have to be implemented as some sort of off-shore base, or be located off the battlemap somehow without directly interfering with the battle space.

BUT IF THEY DID, and if it worked... what would you guys think? Would you support it over the current map system?

[ArcticPrism]

I have been thinking for a while now... what if Planetside Next's non-sanctuary area was just

ONE
HUGE
SEAMLESS
MAP.

By this, I mean one, streaming globe to fight in. One that you could, theoretically, fly from one point and reach that same point by going in a straight line for hours.

If it were to take hours to fly from one point to the other side of the map that means the game is way too large. Spending a few minutes depending on what you are in just to travel across a continent now is more than enough. Traveling isn't a fun aspect of the game. They'd have to design getting into the action very well.

Add in oceans and Island bases, maybe some ranges for planes so they have to land (after a long time, of course) so that (With enough resources) a battle fleet with an Aircraft carrier and destroyers and subs would be necessary to take over island bases, which would be necessary to launch airborne invasions to enemy held-coasts... GAAAAH SO MUCH AWESOME POTENTIAL IN HERE!!!!

This would only work assuming ALL aircraft(not just ones launched from naval) had limited flight time and could not land anywhere very near like current air tower system. Otherwise "naval" islands would just be large air fights.

When Smedly said that he was very excited, this could be one BIG thing he was excited about. I'd be on cloud nine if this was here. I'd be... just... gone with anticipation.

JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

EvE has done it with 4000 people fighting in the same area and others experiencing only a small lag spike, rather then a huge game-breaking one. Darkfall had kludgy code but had done it all the same. It's entirely possible.

EVE doesn't have seamless world. It has thousands of zones. or terrain and many of the game's calculations are server side rather than client. The only reason you can have 4000 players in a map on eve is because you can play the game using only the menu.

Obviously, if SoE hadn't started with this idea, its impossible now.

BUT IF THEY DID, and if it worked... what would you guys think? Would you support it over the current map system?

Cyan stuff.

[Bags]

I'd love it but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Would fit in with the "no sanctuary" design in its traditional sense. Could have a "sanctuary", but it'd be part of the continent and thus near the fighting.

Where did he say they were adding naval combat?

[otomotopia]

First of all, I do agree on the bottom two points. That's why I said "If it was possible and balanced." I don't agree that a couple hours is too long because we will need strategic depth to fight in and through either way. But I am speaking in general themes here because the idea of HAVING that feature is what I was really asking about, not the specifics. Thanks for keeping me honest all the same ;).

But would you support the feature itself, again, if it worked?

*Edit* I can't find the source. And I can't find the source, I should just edit it out.

[I SandRock]

Mixed. I like the idea of fighting for one big seamless planet. But I also like how you fight for different planets with completely different atmospheres to them. And how you can capture this one zone, which links to another. You could do this with one planet too, but if you start working in zones it becomes very artificial and already loses some of that seamless world feeling

[Evilmp]

well, Arctic, that's true, but another huge factor in having that many players is the fact that the maps are mostly completely empty. the only static objects are few and FAR between.

also, everything is small.

edit:

i imagine they will bring the game into a new world that is or was inhabited by the ancients. hopefully it will incorporate a full free range world, but that would be a massive project if we're talking about planetside's scale.

SandRock: planetside used to be based on just one planet, Auraxis. the "planets" you see now used to be different continents, each with its own environment. it worked very well and i personally had no trouble with it feeling artificial.

[I SandRock]

SandRock: planetside used to be based on just one planet, Auraxis. the "planets" you see now used to be different continents, each with its own environment. it worked very well and i personally had no trouble with it feeling artificial.

I know, but planet/continent it remains the same concept. Which did work well, but is different from the seamless world suggestion. Because each continent was an independent individual zone. If the world was seamless you would not have real zones, you can't have a volcano bursting with lava right next to a valley full of snow. You can still have both, spread out on the world. But you'd lose that 'zone' feature. Which means you can't really do the whole continent linking, can't really capture an entire zone, nor have the bottle neck gate ways. It means it's all one huge big world you can traverse.

I actually quite like the more artificial zones which you teleport too and are all an individual isolated whole. That's not to say I don't like the idea of a seamless world. But both have their pros and cons and I'm not sure (atm) which one I would really like more than the other. Not to mention it seems like a huge feat to pull off which could strain resources.

Perhaps an in-between option would be best. Instead of one huge seamless world have several smaller planets that each function as seamless worlds. Best of both worlds? :D

[CutterJohn]

How do you enforce population limits with an open world? Invisible force field that keeps you out?

Nice ideal, but it won't work because you do have to limit the number of players that can congregate in one spot.

[Baneblade]

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

[CutterJohn]

Except if you can't load. Thats the question. You are travelling a across the water, but the poplock is solid, so you are still in the queue. What happens? Do you stop at an invisible wall? Get to go in and bypass the queue?

[Hamma]

The thought of a seamless world I will admit is quite appealing. I would love to see this in the game, but I am not so sure it is feasible with the type of game this is.

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

If it was to be done this is probably how it would be done, I think that type of setup could work fairly well.

[Sifer2]

It's actually not an outlandish idea. Since server technology has improved since the original Planetside. The load can be shifted now so that if more players move to one spot several servers take over handling that spot of the world automatically. Instead of the old days where it was just one an would crash until some IT guys manually went an added more blades or whatever.

However while the server might be able to handle it can your computer? How many people swarming one spot can it handle before your frames per second becomes a slideshow? I'm sure SOE is aware of both of these things an I doubt were going to get an entirely seamless world. If they do i'll be impressed though. Would definitely need game mechanics to encourage spreading out though.

[ArcticPrism]

well, Arctic, that's true, but another huge factor in having that many players is the fact that the maps are mostly completely empty. the only static objects are few and FAR between.

also, everything is small.



That's something PS:N could improve on. Create more objects of interest on the landscapes other than towers. Something that the empires will want to fight over. Towers that aren't near bases are usually just farm spots.

They could also have better base placements. Searhus is a good example of this. There are lots of bases very close together on the east side of the map, but the bases on the west are extremely far apart.

[Grimster]

Well to be honest I don't find it that appealing with one large seamless world as it for me at least don't provide that much benefit other than being a cool factor.

I think the drawbacks will win over the advantages because in my opinion a seamless world don't make that big of a difference in the end other than possibly taking the pace down in the game and providing a lot more idle time that I know we all love to hate.

Because if you think about it. What differences does it make if you traveled to your destination through a warp gate or over the ocean?

The only thing I can think about is that the ocean method would probably take more time. :)

[I SandRock]

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

What would really be the point of it being seamless then?
Just more travel time rather than teleport to a warpgate on the continent?

The idea is nice because it becomes a more realistic thing, but I'm not sure if gameplay-wise it'll add more flavor and perhaps even detract from it. It's also very risky to just try it out. If it doesn't work, it could cost a lot of production time, money, resources etc.

[Baneblade]

What would really be the point of it being seamless then?
Just more travel time rather than teleport to a warpgate on the continent?

The idea is nice because it becomes a more realistic thing, but I'm not sure if gameplay-wise it'll add more flavor and perhaps even detract from it. It's also very risky to just try it out. If it doesn't work, it could cost a lot of production time, money, resources etc.

It adds to strategy, logistics, and overall flow of the various theaters of war. It doesn't feel like there are seperate fights, but one interconnected war.

[I SandRock]

It adds to strategy, logistics, and overall flow of the various theaters of war. It doesn't feel like there are seperate fights, but one interconnected war.

That's only if it was truly seamless, I was replying to the semi-seamless suggestion where it is one world but you can only access the different zones through the water which acts as a loading time basically. You don't have any added strategy, logistics or overall flow of various theaters of war any more than you already have in that scenario.

See my earlier comments why I'm not that fond of the actual seamless idea :p

[Baneblade]

That's only if it was truly seamless, I was replying to the semi-seamless suggestion where it is one world but you can only access the different zones through the water which acts as a loading time basically. You don't have any added strategy, logistics or overall flow of various theaters of war any more than you already have in that scenario.

See my earlier comments why I'm not that fond of the actual seamless idea :p

What else would continents be connected by?

[DviddLeff]

Check out this article on travel times:

http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/4971/Meaningful-Travel-Make-Your-Own-Meaning.html

I like the idea of a seamless world; it gives rise to amphibious assaults from unexpected directions. But overly long travel times are a chore for those players who do not have hours to spend in game, so as long as the continents are relatively close together I do not mind.

It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to form up with your outfit where ever they are in the game world if you choose the fastest mode of transport.

[I SandRock]

What else would continents be connected by?

You're losing the focus on the overall discussion and are only giving arguments to my individual replies which basically means we're now talking about semantics while the point is gameplay.

I don't care if continents are connected by molten lava, water or melted cheese, it's the implications it has for gameplay that I find important. You said your seamless world idea wouldn't function as a fully seamless world (where you could fly anywhere you wanted anytime you wanted etc.) but it would give the idea of being seamless by all being on the same planet and having invisible loading times (travelling through the sea) but still functioning as individual zones like we are used to.

I don't see the point to that. And if you are talking about an entirely seamless world in it's full sense, then I gave my opinion on that in one of my first replies. Which basically said I'm not sure whether I'm opposed to the idea or not but I don't really see it offer that much more benefit than the current system and probably an even amount of negative gameplay effects, combined with the risk of trying this new method out and failing I'd have to (personally) say no.

[Valverde]

LMAO; Semantics you got to love there general comedy.

[Hamma]

melted cheese
Excellent. This I can support!

[SwanOrAPanda]

Just want to clarify that EVE does not allow 4,000 people to fight without lag in a zone at once.

I think the max recorded in Jita (one of the major business hubs in EVE) was 2023 players, but there's hardly ever fighting there. If they all were fighting at once it would cause extreme amounts of lag.

Right now the devs say the capacity is 800 with fighting going on. Honestly, at that point it probably lags a lot, and if there's a battle of 300 or more the devs have to rearrange resources so that the zone the fighting is in won't lag.

The reason players in other areas don't lag is because each zone is seperated. The world in EVE isn't seamless.

So yeah...

[BlazingSun]

I remember when I thought I could fly to Solsar from the Sanctuary with my Moskito. "Powerlink is getting weaker!" - "What?" - *huarrr* dead.
:stupid:

[Hamma]

At one point very early on that was broken and you would fly until you hit an invisible wall. :p

[Baneblade]

You're losing the focus on the overall discussion and are only giving arguments to my individual replies which basically means we're now talking about semantics while the point is gameplay.

I said that as far as gameplay is concerned, there would be a seamless world. The difference would be purely technical.

I don't care if continents are connected by molten lava, water or melted cheese, it's the implications it has for gameplay that I find important.

Explained this already.

You said your seamless world idea wouldn't function as a fully seamless world

Actually, I said that is exactly how it would function. The point is that it would not technically be seamless, just appear that way.

but it would give the idea of being seamless by all being on the same planet and having invisible loading times (travelling through the sea) but still functioning as individual zones like we are used to.

Right, which is where I lose you...

I don't see the point to that.

I don't see the point to having multiple continents, primary color armies, and sanctuaries. But that doesn't mean there isn't a point for someone else.

Which basically said I'm not sure whether I'm opposed to the idea or not but I don't really see it offer that much more benefit than the current system and probably an even amount of negative gameplay effects, combined with the risk of trying this new method out and failing I'd have to (personally) say no.

And I said that it would change the game in awesome ways, but I never said any of them would be important or relevant to you.

Not everyone is the same, but declining to improve something when improving it does nothing to you negatively is the pinnacle of passive aggressive selfishness.

[I SandRock]

I said that as far as gameplay is concerned, there would be a seamless world. The difference would be purely technical.



Explained this already.



Actually, I said that is exactly how it would function. The point is that it would not technically be seamless, just appear that way.



Right, which is where I lose you...



I don't see the point to having multiple continents, primary color armies, and sanctuaries. But that doesn't mean there isn't a point for someone else.



And I said that it would change the game in awesome ways, but I never said any of them would be important or relevant to you.

Not everyone is the same, but declining to improve something when improving it does nothing to you negatively is the pinnacle of passive aggressive selfishness.

You missed the bit where I put (personally) in bold. I was afraid you'd take it personal, which it isn't.

I see upsides and downsides to a seamless world, where in the end it tips to the "don't do it" side. But that is my personal opinion, I fully respect and endorse people having their own opinions. And I fully agree that if it is the majority's consensus and SOE sees possibility and viability in it then it should be tried out. But if I were Mr. JSmed I'd.. personally.. say no :p



Oh and the bit you lost me is based on your quote here:

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

Which to me seemed to suggest there was no difference between how the system functions now (individual isolated zones) as it would in your suggestion except there is no loading screen, you travel across water while the zone loads.

[CutterJohn]

I could see having a zone boundary you can cross in the middle of the ocean. I don't see how you can get around the need for a queue or population limits. Much as 800 man battles would be fun, it just isn't going to happen.

So.. middle of the ocean. Zone wall. You enter it, poof away and enter the queue, then enter the next zone pretty much where you left the last one at, and be on your way. I could deal with that, and would open up some interesting gameplay.

[Sifer2]

Hitting a zone wall in the ocean an being refused entry due to pop cap would actually be less immersing than the gate not working though. Unless it was like you could pick any nearby continent to travel to.

[otomotopia]

Hitting a zone wall in the ocean an being refused entry due to pop cap would actually be less immersing than the gate not working though. Unless it was like you could pick any nearby continent to travel to.

It'd be awesome to travel to the battle in a massive formation though ^_^

[Baneblade]

Hitting a zone wall in the ocean an being refused entry due to pop cap would actually be less immersing than the gate not working though. Unless it was like you could pick any nearby continent to travel to.

There are a couple of methods of handling population control without actually saying the section of the planet has too many people in it already, please go away.

There could be a mechanism dealing with fuel. You have to stop at a fuel depot and get a charged battery to cross the ocean (playing off the current PS mechanic of no energy out there) and if the continent is already full, simply have the depot not give any batteries. Make it a soft cap though. As in if you make the soft cap at 500 per empire, make that the point at which batteries are no longer available, but provide a buffer of say 50 allowing for passengers and logins who skirt that. Once the hard cap is reached, throw in mechanical issues etc that provide a more immersive reason to not be able to make it.

[DviddLeff]

Thought I would bump this thread as since the producers letter and the way they keep banging on about the massive aspect, I keep thinking:

"what if they actually do have a massive, WWIIO style world?"

You are looking at whole new levels of strategy for PS players, something which I would be happy to see.

[Mightymouser]

Which to me seemed to suggest there was no difference between how the system functions now (individual isolated zones) as it would in your suggestion except there is no loading screen, you travel across water while the zone loads.
I think the primary difference would be that, instead of having a guaranteed location where everyone knows you must enter a continent from you can instead attack (or come to defend) from anywhere along the coast of a continent. Of course the lattice would still limit which bases you can actually hack, though; somewhat reducing the impact of this...

Personally, even if a "seamless" world was put in place (in any fashion) the Warp Gates should remain in place. They are a very useful concept for moving forces across a 'Massive' landscape; and removing them would be a step backwards in my opinion...

[otomotopia]

Thought I would bump this thread as since the producers letter and the way they keep banging on about the massive aspect, I keep thinking:

"what if they actually do have a massive, WWIIO style world?"

You are looking at whole new levels of strategy for PS players, something which I would be happy to see.

This is what I was trying to get at. The lattice system would automatically create a front-based war, and the front itself is always shifting. If we had a world geography similar to ours, with multiple massive island continents and smaller islands that could be used for a form of a fuel mechanic, It'd be like what Planetside did for FPS's- taken it to the next level. If vehicles needed to top up on NTU, it'd be excellent for this idea. Mind you, I don't want this to be a hindrance in land combat, but rather something that would need to be payed attention to for truly long distances. Setting limits on population would be the major issue, or at least a way to split the population so that there can't be a massive, full pop push against one faction.


Adding naval power would serve to make this idea even better. Maybe outfits could be the only ones to build/buy some form of massive support ship used to attack across the sea instead of island hopping? One that would have naval, air, and land vehicle spawn points, defenses and such? Have it carry a resource silo that is very slowly depleted as it moves, and more as things are spawned? That way the viruses and NTU drains become much more effective and can take out this mobile threat. Give a ton of BEP for destroying it, but make it heavily armored so that it takes a concentrated effort to kill it. Have it be able to accept NTU from an ANT-like source, so a possible attack strategy would be a stealthy NTU drain and keeping the NTU replacement sources away.

[Heaven]

I think your onto something here with the seamless world idea, I just find it hard to imagine a planetside game without any kind of sanctuary or safe zone, as what happens if you have never played the game before you log on and you your empire has no bases or any where for your team to spawn, I think the game needs to implement some kind of idea that there does need to be safe zones maybe some big outpost where we can respawn and equip, and an outpost that yes is kind of a sancuary/safe zone but it takes no loading time as you could just walk, fly, or drive into it, sorry for my example but you know like a city in WoW, just walk on it equip spawn new vehicles etc... I think the outpost would have to have a forcefield or something like that so they cant be taken over, because if theres nowhere to spawn when you 1st log in then your going to be stuck plus for new players that have no clue about the game their going to want to have somewhere to figure things out, I think the outpost would have to be pretty big as they would need to be able to support 100s of players at once, I just cant see the game having nowhere for your empire to just chill for a few minutes and plan an attack and load up galaxys etc, but im just having a stab at what they could do if the game did turn out to be a big seamless world.

[Baneblade]

All Sanc actually has to be is a large base with a force dome on an island.

[otomotopia]

I think your onto something here with the seamless world idea, I just find it hard to imagine a planetside game without any kind of sanctuary or safe zone, as what happens if you have never played the game before you log on and you your empire has no bases or any where for your team to spawn, I think the game needs to implement some kind of idea that there does need to be safe zones maybe some big outpost where we can respawn and equip, and an outpost that yes is kind of a sancuary/safe zone but it takes no loading time as you could just walk, fly, or drive into it, sorry for my example but you know like a city in WoW, just walk on it equip spawn new vehicles etc... I think the outpost would have to have a forcefield or something like that so they cant be taken over, because if theres nowhere to spawn when you 1st log in then your going to be stuck plus for new players that have no clue about the game their going to want to have somewhere to figure things out, I think the outpost would have to be pretty big as they would need to be able to support 100s of players at once, I just cant see the game having nowhere for your empire to just chill for a few minutes and plan an attack and load up galaxys etc, but im just having a stab at what they could do if the game did turn out to be a big seamless world.

I was thinking if the sancs were large island-like territories with massive defense networks, it would work well. Utilizing a large network of sea-based/floating automated turrets would provide a massive deterrent that would be impossible to penetrate. The sanctuaries themselves do not necessarily have to be on the battlefield, they could be off-map. Or they could be located in one hub area with sectioned staging areas. Maybe even add a structured 30 v 30 platoon firefight for outfits, complete with tournament events? That would give outfits something to brag about-throw in extra BEP for winners and some cool flair, it'd be golden. I am thinking somewhat like what Global Agenda did with their Dome City. But with the open-world persistent war we know and love, it'd just be a substitution for the current sanctuary system.

The sancs and persistent battle map should have separation, but they should also have the ability to drop in via a HART-like system. Maybe even add the ablility to HART in the entire outfit's army at a distance away from the battlefield?


WWIIoL did an excellent job of having a persistent campaign in an open world, and I'd love to see Planetside shamelessly build off of that base.

[otomotopia]

I think your onto something here with the seamless world idea, I just find it hard to imagine a planetside game without any kind of sanctuary or safe zone, as what happens if you have never played the game before you log on and you your empire has no bases or any where for your team to spawn, I think the game needs to implement some kind of idea that there does need to be safe zones maybe some big outpost where we can respawn and equip, and an outpost that yes is kind of a sancuary/safe zone but it takes no loading time as you could just walk, fly, or drive into it, sorry for my example but you know like a city in WoW, just walk on it equip spawn new vehicles etc... I think the outpost would have to have a forcefield or something like that so they cant be taken over, because if theres nowhere to spawn when you 1st log in then your going to be stuck plus for new players that have no clue about the game their going to want to have somewhere to figure things out, I think the outpost would have to be pretty big as they would need to be able to support 100s of players at once, I just cant see the game having nowhere for your empire to just chill for a few minutes and plan an attack and load up galaxys etc, but im just having a stab at what they could do if the game did turn out to be a big seamless world.
The sanctuaries themselves do not necessarily have to be on the battlefield, they could be off-map.


I was thinking if the sancs were large island-like territories with massive defense networks, it would work well. Utilizing a large network of sea-based/floating automated turrets would provide a massive deterrent that would be impossible to penetrate. Maybe, to capture a sanctuary, an enemy must cut off the power to the defense network by capturing special generator facilities, and then capture (if naval combat was included, oh God please let it be included) a naval base and air base to launch an invasion force. The attackers would need to get close enough to use naval and air bombardment, and then launch a ground force to capture one of the three main HART compounds, and then the other two.


Or they could be located in one hub area with sectioned staging areas. Maybe even add a structured 30 v 30 platoon firefight for outfits, complete with tournament events? That would give outfits something to brag about-throw in extra BEP for winners and some cool flair, it'd be golden. I am thinking somewhat like what Global Agenda did with their Dome City. But with the open-world persistent war we know and love, it'd just be a substitution for the current sanctuary system.

The sancs and persistent battle map should have separation, but they should also have the ability to drop in via a HART-like system. Maybe even add the ablility to HART in the entire outfit's army at a distance away from the battlefield?


WWIIoL did an excellent job of having a persistent campaign in an open world, and I'd love to see Planetside shamelessly build off of that base.

[Furret]

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5526/persistantworldplan.png (http://img830.imageshack.us/i/persistantworldplan.png/)

Yes, i resorted to paint.

Basically, you stick with the separate zones for each continent, but you allow people to enter the continent from different sides instead of only from the warpgates.

HC stands for Home Continent

The pink arrows are a possible attack plan involving multiple flanks

The gray area is not on the map, and nobody can travel there. The sanctuaries could still have a warpgate to the neutral continent nearest them to allow players to travel from sanc to battlefield quicker instead of having to fly across multiple continents (although it would be more realistic).

[Nephilimuk]

single shard one world - events and actions define strategy - devs just provide the world the rule and all the mechanics everything is in the domain of the players.

That would be epic but tough to deliver - still can you imagine the stories which will be generated.

[otomotopia]

single shard one world - events and actions define strategy - devs just provide the world the rule and all the mechanics everything is in the domain of the players.

That would be epic but tough to deliver - still can you imagine the stories which will be generated.

That's why I love the possibilities this idea can generate.

I still remember the battle stories from Planetside... but I remember the entire campaign from WWIIoL because it had a developed strategic element that Planetside lacked. Planetside's grand strategy became pre-programmed. But WWIIoL was different- I remember when the Axis created a virtual Battle of the Bulge just because it happened like that, but it happened 100 miles east of Bastonge in the 'Summer of 1943,' and then they won handily by using their other assets to the north and south to create two pockets of allied resistance rather then one axis bulge. I remember that the northern advance was pinned down by the Allies' top sniper and small tank contingent. The supreme command sent an AT platoon asset to deal with it, but the sniper pinned us down. I volunteered to grab a kit from well behind the lines and hoof it up to the advance point so we wouldn't fail- the allies were already starting to out flank our flanking maneuver. It took me 25 minutes to get there, and then to maneuver into a great sniping spot. I killed him, we advanced, and we hit Paris the next day.

It was a great game, and to remember the maneuvers that GOT us to the action rather then just the action is really, really cool to me.