You love Green land or Dessert POLL

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

do you guys know whats the best?

Lemnos contains all those types of terrain: you have bigger mountains, green forests, villages and cities and open or desert terrain.

It is actually a perfect mix

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/PT_Finlay/ArmA_Sahrani_Map_Large.jpg

http://arma.atreid.cz/download/Sahrani-map_144dpi.jpg (3.5 MB)

This type of terrain with more landmass - win.

[sic-disaster 311]

Getting very tired of the colour brown in realism games.

Shake it up, people! Declaring war on someone doesnt make the world a grey, rainy hellhole in an instant, nice days still exist!

At the same time, enough with the bloody desert already. I need some green, the desert is depressing.

[purepassion 22]

please note that BI used colour filters in their screenshots like the "movie day" module in OA, so the original colours could be different

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I tend to not vote in biased polls. So I didn't.

I think both has its charms, but I have to admit I prefer fighting and planning in Takistan map compared to Chernarus, even if Chernarus is far more beautiful. However, I want warfare and tactics. When I want beautiful I play Oblivion or upcoming Skyrim (which has the buildup of snow which some asked for).

Although I love trees and fighting in the woods (soldiers camouflage works much better), the trees they use make it unbearable to fight there as you can't see anything. Most conifers have a long part of stem before the branching begins, while in Chernarus there were too many saplings with branches all the way down to the forestbed. Making gamed warfare impossible, especially when forced to use low resolution textures.

In Takistan, the big charm is many avenues of approach for wheeled warfare, where you can find natural cover by using the terrain. In Chernarus, despite all the woods, you always felt in the open. The grass was often also an issue in Chernarus. Grass is an obstacle also in real life, and can be planned for in the game, but for many usually the solution is to turn it off to make AI less effective. I think we are far too effective as it is already compared to AI, so I prefer planning around it (typically have units at a vantage point to suppress enemies where grass is an obstacle to the units up front, but not always possible due wooden areas and treecrowns blocking the view).

So, a summary on good and bad things about Arma2 maps below.

Chernarus:

- Feel of open fighting in vehicles.

- Too many saplings (young trees).

- Tall grass limited choice of approach route while dismounted (which is real btw).

- Little to no support for armored warfare.

- NOE flying is difficult due all the forested areas.

- Some user missions turned/forced grass off. I just tossed these away.

- Only one decent airport.

+ Very pleasing on the eye.

+ Awesome forests.

+ It had access to open sea, and an LHD on Utes.

± Rolling hills are nice to look at, but present no thinking challenge.

Takistan:

- It looks boring with its barren appearance. But life can be boring too.

- Sometimes there are no alternatives to become a slow mover. Guess that is realistic too.

- Can be difficult to get up close and personal with the enemy.

- No access to the sea.

± Steep mountains are nice to look at, but also present a tactical thinking challenge (do you want to become slow?).

+ Excellent tactical choices for approach routes due to all the steep valleys.

+ NOE flying is fully possible almost everywhere.

+ It's easier and more fun to plan something out, due to all the choices.

+ Nobody turns off grass in Takistan :D

+ Two airports, giving more choices to create TvT/CTI scenarioes.

+ Supports armored warfare pretty good, even if the steepness in the terrain is a problem for less powerful vehicles.

So although both have pluss and minuses, and despite OPs biased poll, I find Takistan a much better place to fight in overall. Besides, Takistan isn't a desert landscape, it's a barren arid rocky one. It is more similar to east Egypt (east of Suez) area, compared to western Egypt with its vast deserts. Hell, there was more desert in Arma1 :D

Edited May 22, 2011 by CarlGustaffa

[oldbear 390]

I will not vote on this poll !

1° The questions are biased , such as "will you play against a ferocious opponent armed with a scythe :

a-with a Swiss knife

b- with a Mk.48mod0 " ... :p

2° For being a map-maker myself, I know quite well you can build a desert terrain where you can hide or a green area with nothing to hide ! :rolleyes:

3° For being a Mediterranean guy myself, I can tell you is quite possible to hide on such RL environment :cool:

[metalcraze 290]

do you guys know whats the best?

Lemnos contains all those types of terrain: you have bigger mountains, green forests, villages and cities and open or desert terrain.

It is actually a perfect mix

So far no screenshots showed any forests and Lemnos looks quite barren in Google Earth too save for a few places which look barely like a forest.

[tom_ 10]

You can say what you want but this is the fact:

Desert terrain = boring

mixed terrain with deep forests, grassland, cliffs = interesting

I really hope we get some forests, but I also can't see any forests on Limnos :(

Just imagine how epic it would be to fight in a deep rainforest like in this one:

forest

Edited May 23, 2011 by tom_

[therev709 10]

Doesn't matter once the community gets involved, we're going to have it all.

What I'm excited about for this game is the deep blue sea!

[jgbtl292 0]

ok - i see the community loves green ;)

[antoineflemming 14]

Thing is, judging from the screenshots, Lemnos will have both. Not desert but pretty brown terrain as well as green. If its anything like or better than the user-made island Isla Capraia, then it'll have a lot of variety. :)

[Militant1006 11]

I voted for dessert cause it tastes nice ;)

[Alwarren 2767]

Can't we just wait for the game or at least more solid intel until we say we don't like it? After all, from what I understand, the ARMA 3 island will be based on Lemnos, but not be Lemnos, and there might be significant derivations from the "real thing".

[Blackhawk998 10]

Personally I prefer Urban environments. They offer a huge amount of cover and at the same time have a lot of variability. There are multiple levels to buildings and so many places to hide. At the same time you don't have all the stupid trees and bushes getting in the way and vehicles and infantry have to work together in close proximity. Not tanks sitting on a hill 1000m away.

Like this: http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Baghdad+Calm+After+Volatile+Fighting+Sadr+-s1dxoK-1A2l.jpg

Although I'm sure it is very intensive to run considering all the objects