Jump to content

Bud Backer

Members
  • Content Count

    3,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Bud Backer last won the day on April 27

Bud Backer had the most liked content!

About Bud Backer

  • Rank
    Micro-Battles Comic Writer Beta Tester

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    WW II, History, Photography, other things. Fiction writer.

Converted

  • Location
    United Provinces of Canuckistan

Recent Profile Visitors

4,872 profile views
  1. Bud Backer

    Distant Guns and Jutland naval simulation videos

    Is anyone still making - and keeping current - WW1-era naval elevate games?
  2. The fortress atop the mountain above Dinant has a very interesting underground museum. Or used to anyway. 😛 When I took the screenshots I realized they would not do certain things justice, the mountain in particular, but I didn’t want to flood someone else’s thread with my maps.
  3. A couple of you asked about the map I mentioned making. I didn't ignore or forget those comments, I was swamped with some unpleasant stuff and was only able to reply to posts while at work, where I don't have CM. 😝 I never uploaded the map anywhere. I don't have a login for uploading sites; I never thought anyone would care about my maps. Here are a couple of screenshots - they don't do it justice, the topography is tricky, with gentle and steep rises and folds in the land, vegetation variation, impassable terrain, and towering over the village, a mountain, hence the map's name, "Black Mountain"
  4. I think the word you’re looking for is compartmentalization. I’m very curious what your map’s final appearance will have. While I agree with the notion, and it can be achieved in a wholly imaginary place, if one were to re-create a natural location, the compartments are whatever the withdrawal of the glaciers have left us with, and the players themselves will mentally compartmentalize the map as suits them. What becomes interesting is the interplay between what I may choose as my compartments as, say, attacker, and what the defender may choose. When it’s not deliberately a part of design, such as you are attempting, but adaptation to circumstance, the two players may see the map very differently, and often do, which is a key part of planning and often a sizeable determinant in who succeeds and who fails.
  5. Which can be done by discussion rather than design, which is not a bad thing as then the possibilities are limitless - what you and I may want to do will be different than what I and Bil may do or Bil and IanL. On the same map. The key is to give it meaning for that one engagement. You don’t need an editor, just an imagination.
  6. There is no shortage of non-meeting engagement QB maps. And meeting engagement QB maps can be very interesting, if done well. Asymmetric starting points and objective location and values can create some delightful dynamics when given sufficient thought. One of the things I really enjoy when playing QB’s (99% of my play is QB against a human) is to contextualize the battle. To discuss with my opponent what we’re trying to simulate, whether it be past of a historical battle, or a theme of light forces skirmishing, or why some objectives may matter in the context of what is happening in the wider war that would be off-map, so that they are not just green blobs on the map.
  7. This ^^^ ! Real terrain is... well... real. It’s like saying Damned Normandy, too many hedgerows! Or that a flat map with nothing but wheat in it is “too realistic.” It’s far more likely that the choice of terrain and location was not going to make an interesting playing field, rather than it’s overly realistic. The reason I make this distinction, as I realize it’s a fine one, is that when we are discussing maps, and how they may not work, we need to be certain our terms of reference are the same, or we waste time and energy debating and discussing at cross-purposes.
  8. I agree. I spent some time arranging tombstones in a small graveyard. As a family plot, going back quite a few decades, it made sense to me that a few would not be quite aligned with the others, so I deliberately put them slightly askew. Probably no one would really pay attention to that but when I was making the map it was part of feeling like I’m actually there. It’s also the sort of thing that makes it unlikely I’ll ever make a 2000x2000m map. A very small map is still well over 100 hours work for me, I can’t imagine scaling that up by a factor of 20!
  9. A huge part of the challenge of good map design is to achieve reasonable believability that what one sees could be found in nature, and balance for play. For CMFB I spent many hours coming up with what I thought looked like a very convincing part of the Ardennes, but was utterly miserable for proper play. Making a map that is focused solely on mimicking real terrain can be visually satisfying, but unsuitable for play without considerable effort to make it workable and fair. Much depends on whether one wants to make a full fledged scenario, with AI plans, etc, or a map that can be selected for QB. My own preference is for smaller battles and smaller maps. I enjoy trying to imbue a sense that when one is playing on my maps that they feel as if someone really lives (or vacated recently) the location. Flavour objects are something that I spend many hours on but that to me become part of an immersive experience. I think it’s important, when making a map, to not present the players with obvious things created for play balance. Yes, the map needs to be balanced for its intended use, but if done well, it should not look like anything but a slice of the planet served up on the computer screen, rather than having obvious spotting locations, places of cover, and movement paths. The designer must think of these things, but then make it look to the player like it was never a consideration, or it really does cry out “just a game.” If the player is thinking carefully, they should discover these things through observation and analysis, rather than it being clear from the moment they see the map.
  10. Bud Backer

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    Those are brilliant!
  11. Thanks for the reply. I’ll have to try what you suggested in the future as I got it working a different way. I was helping a friend and had to resolve this right away as he lives in another city and getting together is a challenge. After an hour of mucking about in terminal, looking at the activation script and trying to piece together why it isnt working, I realized that it needed to game file to be in a particular folder structure. So I moved the game file to where it needed to be, pasted the script into terminal and it ran successfully. Bigger issue is that the script doesn’t seem to work. I was able to do it but many people will be frustrated and unable to make it work. I’ll have to check Mantis and see if there is a bug filed, and if not, report it.
  12. I’m trying to activate CMRT from a fresh install. Downloaded the big bundle and it installed fine. The 3.01 activation code worked fine. But I can’t get the activation window to show up to input the 4.0 activation code. the activation “shortcut” just opens as a text file. This is on MacOS.
  13. Some of what you want to implement - retreat, for example - goes outside being a map and enters the territory of a scenario. The distinction may seem irrelevant, but it does change what one can expect. A map in QB would allow a player to pick their forces, but a scenario would not. Similarly, victory conditions beyond losses and terrain objectives become impossible in a pure map. Force size is purely dependent on what you would like to create. A small encounter, a recon in force, an assault against prepared defences will give very different force size recommendations. Those comments notwithstanding, the idea is intriguing and I’m interested in how this develops.
  14. As someone playing these games for several years, it’s refreshing to see this scenario through a newcomer’s eyes. I remember struggling with similar issues to what you are describing. I lost the first time I played. Maybe even the second. It was an eye opener, as I came to CM from the same game as you, MOW:AS. Looking back, what I see as sage advice above, was not so obvious to me back then. A couple of points: you don’t need to edit this scenario to win. You have the forces and time needed to win handily, if you don’t lose your cool and take your time. finding your enemy is more then half this battle. You really do need to split some squads, and move them carefully forward. But remember that spotting requires sufficient time for actually looking. Moving units can spot stuff, but still ones spot a lot better. if you’re taking fire, try to bring sufficient units to hose the area you think the fire is coming from. It may expose the enemy unit as they try to move or back away, and then you have them. everything seems to take more time in these games than in MOW. That’s normal. I know you want more time, but I suspect if you slow down a bit and see your enemy and can engage them effectively you will end up needing less as you won’t bog down as easily.
  15. Bud Backer

    Technical question

    If I haven’t replied to this by Saturday send me a message. I can’t look at this at the moment, sorry.
×