From what I've seen, the only time you end up playing for skill's sake is when someone disrupts your attempts to be Maverick by destroying or attacking your airfield/weaps. fact.

Me? I'd have fun torching every structure in the opposing base while you guys buzzed around in your Orcas and Apaches.

Personal observances of aircraft on:

Complex: this is already a quick map WITHOUT aircraft. I've seen games done in five minutes on this one.

Canyon: Too cramped as-is. It'd be inviting a 30 (or whatever time limit) minute anti-aircraft fest. No fun at all.

Field: Go nuts. Just realize I'll have fun beaconing your structures while you take a ride in the Danger Zone, Maverick.

Mesa: too small to do any real good - going above the Canyon walls would make you almost in range of Ob/AGT fire from takeoff.

Islands: this is already a FT rush/Nuke Beacon map - the low mountains and usually very well-defended bases (chuckle) would make the skies a VERY dangerous place to be on this map.

Volcano: there'd only be one sensible approach on this map - through the Volcano. And while I know most people don't know this stuff, that hot of air into a chopper engine would overheat it faster than a SAM.

Hourglass: this is a twink map already. Air units would be almost useless in this map except to beacon spot/cover and recon. Nothing more.

What we NEED are new maps. City and Walls were chosen because they were the most conducive to flying units and the largest maps in the game. Field is the only map in the game where flying units could also work...but it'd be lethal, as there's no cover at all from AA fire.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: destruyax ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FHATODude:
they'd make tanks obsolete NOT ThaT I CARE

---

Hardly, they'd just make infantry the dominant unit in the game - not like it isn't already.

and making more flying maps might make the game lag more

------------------

i kill newbies