Map size qualification

[Battlefront.com]

As you guys who read the Bone thread will know, we were planning on having maps of 5.6x5.6km max. Well, we've had to pull back from that. Suffice to say some machines could technically load the maps, but the wait time was unacceptable and the chances of it crashing a pretty good chunk of people was rather significant. And that wasn't even with a battle being played out!

Which means the "bad" news is that we're scaling back the max size. It will be larger than current CM games, but not as large as we had wanted. However, you will be able to have "deeper" maps at the expense of width because the new parameters are based on a surface area max size vs. a hardcoded length in any one direction. Let's say the current is 4x4km. Currently you can never have more than 4km on a side. Well, with the new system you can now have a map 2x6km because you sacrificed some on one side so you could add it to the other. That's currently not possible now. That being said, we do have a minimum ratio so we don't get people doing potentially "dangerous" things like a map 8m wide and the rest all in length. And you know you guys would try that

Our new plan is to let the dust settle on CMRT and then get to work recoding significant portions of the game so as to allow for bigger maps. In doing so there will be some performance boosts in several ways even if you're not playing super huge maps. Even though these fixes won't be a part of CMRT v1.0, they will be available for free when available. Those of you who bought CMFI might remember we put a couple of features into the Normandy v2.0 Upgrade that were available, for free, to CMFI owners. Same deal here.

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

That being said, we do have a minimum ratio so we don't get people doing potentially "dangerous" things like a map 8m wide and the rest all in length. And you know you guys would try that

That would be a long narrow road indeed. Would come in handy to test off-road vehicle reliability, though

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Still, pretty cool, in that we can now lay out a map which can be used to define the sector for a unit, and greatly facilitating such things as attacking through successive defensive belts or conducting mobile defense. In essence, we'd get much of the effect of the devoutly hoped for graphical map overlays.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Our new plan is to let the dust settle on CMRT and then get to work recoding significant portions of the game so as to allow for bigger maps.

Good news there.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the total map area allowed is still 16 km², but the dimension restrictions have been loosened? I think this is enough for WW2, for the most part. The problem has always been that 16 km² was only a theoretical maximum that was almost impossible to actually play on for performance reasons.

[sburke]

so much for my Olympic marathon scenario...damn

[Battlefront.com]

The map size will be larger than 16km2, but by how much I don't know yet.

Many of the issues we have with big maps is largely gone as of the performance improvements on the heals of Market Garden. Which is why we figured we could bump the size up. However, what we have discovered is that is true only for some customer computer setups, and more viable for Mac customers than PC customers. Although we don't have the time to change the equation right now, we have identified where we need to make improvements. We've even gone so far as to explore how to make them (they are very low level). So we're confident that, with release pressure off, we can do this as we did the previous round of improvements.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

So much for my 2000 km Road to Berlin campaign.

[womble]

Let's say the current is 4x4km. Currently you can never have more than 4km on a side. Well, with the new system you can now have a map 2x6km because you sacrificed some on one side so you could add it to the other.

Would 2km x 8km (the same 16 square clicks as 4km x 4km) be possible, or is the perimeter total length constrained as well?

[Fizou]

This is still good news. Im very happt that the map wont be hard coded in any direction. This way one can take a previous map and extend it (sacrifying another direction) which makes it much easier to create new maps from previous ones (in the direction you actually want).

[Aragorn2002]

Disappointing news, but understandable. CM isn't ready for bigger maps yet.

[Fizou]

Disappointing news, but understandable. CM isn't ready for bigger maps yet.

It will still be larger than today , and in the future plans for bigger is still there.

[A Canadian Cat]

Suffice to say some machines could technically load the maps, but the wait time was unacceptable and the chances of it crashing a pretty good chunk of people was rather significant. And that wasn't even with a battle being played out!

Sorry to hear things did not work out quite as you wanted. I am glad to hear that you have plans for more improvements and that they will make all play better not just big maps. Frankly this just another example of you guys being responsible and caring about our gaming experience. Thanks.

[Battlefront.com]

Disappointing news, but understandable. CM isn't ready for bigger maps yet.

As Fizou pointed out, we are increasing map sizes. And better still, dramatically increase the size in any one direction. So yeah, it's going to feel VERY different than previous CM games even though we've had to scale back the maximum size. For now, because we are going to fix that part too

Yes, a 2km x 8km map is theoretically possible. We're not sure what the minimum map side length will be, but we're going to to try roughly 2km and see if there is anything unexpected that results from it. In theory there shouldn't be because the game's limitations are on total surface area of the map + the complexity of the terrain + units + amount of action at any one time. Having the map be 4x4 or 2x6 shouldn't have that big an impact.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

We're not sure what the minimum map side length will be, but we're going to to try roughly 2km and see if there is anything unexpected that results from it.

I just want to point out that currently you can have maps that are 300m by 400m so a minimum of 2000 meters will be - ah inconvenient for maps like that. I am hoping you mean there will be a minimum ratio side lengths.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, I should have qualified my minimum comment. For sure you can still make super small maps. You simply can't do really small in one dimension and crazy long in the other. I was using 2x8km as an example of a possible cutoff point. We will likely use a ratio (in this example 1:4) to constrain the two sides when one of them is over the "square" size. Otherwise no restrictions will apply, just like now. So for example, you could have a 500m x 4000m map, as you can now, but not a 500m x 32,000m map.

Anyway, we're still playing around with the constraints. Whatever we wind up with will result in more surface area and more shape flexibility than is currently possible.

Steve

[Erwin]

I wuz waiting for a sign from god to get that new computer. Thank you, god.

[SlowMotion]

People really want maps bigger than 4km x 4km???

[sburke]

People really want maps bigger than 4km x 4km???

usually it is the people who don't make the maps who want the larger maps.

Seriously yes.

The point isn't just to make a bigger map for battles, but to do what has become increasing practice with MG- master maps. There were a few attempts in CMBN (LLF and Broadsword worked on a combined 8x4 map each doing a 4x4) but the advent of the overlay really kicked it off. 16x16 km maps exist for MG and even larger at a great scale for CM. If you want to create a campaign with maps that are contiguous it is much preferable to create the master map and then cut from it the individual maps. The consistency really adds to the overall feel and you don't have to try and duplicate stuff. It is really helpful. As to actually playing on it.. well as numbers of unit and size of the map both add to overhead, you eventually end up with having to decrease unit density as you increase the map size. Pretty soon you have a handful of units wandering an epic size map which could be an enormous amount of effort for the mapmaker.

[Battlefront.com]

Bigger maps have two primary audiences:

1. Those who want to do more operational level gaming with external rule sets.

2. Those who want to play big, wide, sweeping maneuver battles where one never knows quite where the enemy is. Recon is a big part of such battles. On smaller maps it's easier to figure out what the enemy might do before the battle even starts simply because there's less space.

Separate from this there are the different proportioned maps. The primary use of this is for narrow front, deep battles. If any of you remember one of the CMBB demo scenarios (modeled after Kursk battles) where you had to take a bunch of German forces through indepth Soviet defenses. The point wasn't to maneuver left or right, it was to get to through multiple layers of defenses. This is best done with a very long map that isn't very wide. We're planning on some of these for the Soviet campaign, in fact.

Steve

[SlowMotion]

If you want to create a campaign with maps that are contiguous it is much preferable to create the master map and then cut from it the individual maps.

Ok, I understand this.

As to actually playing on it.. well as numbers of unit and size of the map both add to overhead, you eventually end up with having to decrease unit density as you increase the map size. Pretty soon you have a handful of units wandering an epic size map which could be an enormous amount of effort for the mapmaker.

I played some such huge map PBEMs with CMBO and during most turns nothing or very little happened because units were spread on such huge area. Based on my CMBN experiences 1.5km x 2km or maybe 2km x 2km would be still playable, especially if at least one side uses mostly motorized units. I tried playing one game using one of the master maps and my PC basically stopped. Got maybe 1fps. Just not enough power to handle maps that big.

[Pete Wenman]

Just a few thoughts on big maps, which I have to preface with stating that I don’t know what the maximum size will be in game.

But if we work on the basis that the current max is 4k x 4k, maybe it’s not unrealistic to hope we might see this increase to 5k x 5k

On this basis a 5k x 5k map comprises of 390625 action squares which is a lot of clicking in the editor to create a good quality map of that size – Ask me how I know (with a 6k x 6k map being 562500 AS – over half a million.)

To put this in perspective, excluding the Arnhem Rd bridge map which was only small, I made three large master maps for MG. Two being 3k x 2k the other being 3k x 2.5k for a total of 19.5 square kilometres. These combined are still significantly smaller than the 25 square kilometres that the 5k x5k map produces. So one map of this size is larger than my three previous largest maps combined. It really is a BIG

CM2 is of far higher fidelity than CM1 in both terms of terrain and units and so large maps are a very big investment in time to build, but also I’m starting to think that they will also play very differently than they did in CM1.

If victory objectives are set at the tactical level (which imo they should be, because that’s the level at which the game works) then this will mean getting down dirty, and up close personal across a much larger battlefield. To do this well in CM2 will take time and appropriate force size, so bigger maps will mean longer and more complex battles. I’m looking forward to that, but others may feel it’s too much work.

But the good news is small maps will still abound so everybody wins!!

Just my 2p

P

[PanzerMike]

Bigger maps, longer and more complex battles. This of course sounds great. But the flip side of the coin is it takes a lot of time to build the map and make a good scenario on it. Don't even mention playtesting monster scenarios. And finally, playing it will also take a lot of time. I sometimes start up a scenario, see the huge number of units involved and can hardly bring myself to start playing it, no matter how great the scenario potentially is.

To each his own of course, but I am not a real fan of monster scenarios. There are ways to mitigate some of the drawbacks of large scenarios. Like bringing in the involved forces piecemeal or not allowing the defender to place his units where he likes in setup zones. I have done the latter in a few scenarios. That way the player is not tempted to build his perfect defense that literally takes hours and hours of setting up. It forces the player to start playing the scenario almost right away. Some may not like that, but the comments on my scenario were that it indeed saved them a lot of time and they did not mind at all.

Just my 0.02

[womble]

I sometimes start up a scenario, see the huge number of units involved and can hardly bring myself to start playing it, no matter how great the scenario potentially is.

In the absence of a "TO pop-out", it would be great if all scenarios had enough space to tidily organise what forces you're handed. And even better if the designer offered (where possible, of course) the forces in an orderly manner within that space. Obviously I'm not talking about dismantling a carefully-proposed defensive setup; that's already orderly and comprehensible, but mostly on the offense where the attacker has great freedom. Sometimes it seems like the troops are just dropped in a cramped mishmash.

[SlowMotion]

I sometimes start up a scenario, see the huge number of units involved and can hardly bring myself to start playing it, no matter how great the scenario potentially is.

Agree with this. The biggest scenarios in MG module are pretty much the upper limit of what I like to play.

[Migo441]

Good points here.

If there's one thing we know, it's that players and designers will push the envelope of scenario size in every which direction they can.

Which is one of the reasons I'm so enamored with the idea of co-op play. You can turn a "too big" scenario into two or three concurrent "just right" scenarios with the added fun of teamwork and coordination challenges.

But... sigh... Battlefront indicates the technical challenges are significant and particularly so in relation to the limited number of players who would be attracted to the feature.