I have been making maps based off of famous battles. I need to know what I should give up.(it is hard to have both) When I make it accurate there are lots of bumps and things are cramed. when I go nice ness it is hard to tell which battle it is. Which would the community preffer? the reason I ask is I made a trench wars map.(sure some things could be better) I put no cover in no-manland except for fox holes and people complained about the lack of cover. You could ask anyone from the war, no-mansland is flat (all veterans are dead now, but) and there were a couple of bumps (ran out of items) and people complained. What would people preffer???
Make it more realistic and accurate, but try to make it at least somewhat functional for gameplay purposes.
Gameplay > Aesthetics. Cardinal rule of forging. Yes, a flat noman's land is realistic, but there's no motivation to cross. People will just sit in the trenches, like at Alsace-Lorane. And you don't want a Halo match to last as long as that did. So make it playable first, and pretty second.
Well we already have maps with alot of gameplay. If your not making it for gameplay you should obviously be making it for asthetics so therefore you should go for accuracy. Keep in mind people might not want to play it if it has bad gameplay.
if it was any other map id say make it neat but since its trench wars make sort of messy but so much that you cant play it and dont take take any notice of people how say it needs more cover. why? Because there was no friggin cover in no-mans land. the only cover there would craters and destoyed vehicles etc. so the way your going is right. i mean when are you going to find anything in a small strip of land the has had the **** bombed out of it.