Another map question (with pic)

[ParaBellum]

I took the pic below from the CMC website. It shows the 2/2km squares, and I added the (yellow) 1/1km sectors and a german tank unit (sector 6) attacking the soviet infantry unit in sector 7. Now what I would like to know is what sectors the battle map (2/2km) would be made of in this situation?

[Renaud]

My semi-educated guess would be 2,3,6 and 7.

These 4 CMC sectors would be simulated by a single pre-made CMBB 2x2km map with the river down the middle, a bridge, etc.

Did I get that right? Anyone?

[Reichenberg]

Can there be another option than 3,4,7,8??

Just because the CM:BB maps (outlined red) have to be drawn already.... so, no CM:BB map 7,8,11,12 will be possible. You would (more or less) play on one quarter of the CM:BB map - at least having the set-up zones for the Russians and the Germans in this one quarter.

Uwe

[ParaBellum]

Why not 6,7 and 10 and 11? Change the situation so that in sector 11 is a battery of 76.2mm AT guns. Now think about what the commander od the red army would say if he had to defend 2,3,6,7 instead of 6,7,10,11.

What I would like to know is how CMC decides what sectors to incorporate into a battle map, and what these factors are.

EDIT: Reichenberg's comments make sense.

[Reichenberg]

I think CMC can only pick the predrawn maps 2kmx2km of CM:BB - and these are the ones outlined in red!!

6,7,10,11 are actually one quarter each from 4 different CM:BB maps.

AFAI understood it, your 76,2mm AT guns in field 11 would be worthless for the defending unit in field 7, because it is not on the same CM:BB map. Maybe it is in as some kind of off-map artillery....but than the attacker has no possibilities against it.

Uwe

[76mm]

And what about the river between 6 & 7 (see my other thread)--does the panzer just appear on the Russian side of the bridge, or would Sovs have a chance to defend the bridge?

[ParaBellum]

Reichenberg, my comments were directed at Renaud's answer. I saw your post only after I had submitted mine, therefore my EDIT. I agree with you...

[General Bolt]

I second Reichenberg guess (3,4,7,8)for the same reason - the RED box.

Here's a thought: in order to have a fight both sides will need to be within the same 2km box (the red box) But as long as your units stay on their side of the red line NO battle takes place until some one crosses over. This sounds a little gamey.

[lame joke on] Wasn't that a movie? The Thin Red Line [lame joke off]

Also it seems like the red lines could lead to a WWI type battle quickly.

Map making question:

I understand how a 2x2 square map is used but it the battle crossed over red lines like the other guys guessed, the maps must all have edges that line up exactly.

What if the edges don't line up?

[securityguard]

I'd hope you could engage a tactical battle on 1km x 1km any time you wanted, so that way the nano second the tanks are behind that bridge you could begin moving into position. Even if they moved most fo their stuff past the bridge before you could engage them it'd give you a remote chance...

[Reichenberg]

ParaBellum, my problem that I just need too long to type an answer You had already edited your answer in between me reading your unedited post and sending out mine.....

Stupid lags.

Uwe

[Renaud]

Originally posted by General Bolt:

[QB] I second Reichenberg guess (3,4,7,8)for the same reason - the RED box.

Wouldn't a 3,4,7,8 scenario substantially cancel the benefit of defending the bridge between 6 and 7? One wonders how the setup zones would be laid out for the 3 sov units in 3,7,8. I would hope for some dynamic combination of parts of 2x2 CM maps to allow a 2,3,6,7 battle and other adhoc combinations. I realize this is probably wishful thinking.

Hopefully someone in authority will be along shortly.

EDIT: On further consideration, you could get around the bridge-defense problem by making your 2x2 maps with the actual river course running 500 meters to one side of where it appears on the CMC map...so the setup in quadrant 7 would have the german setup zone firmly on the friendly side of the river, forcing the germans to make a tactical bridge crossing. This does give an advantage to the defender when attacked from 6 into 7, and disadvantages a defender in 7 when attacked from 8, for instance (since most of 7's setup will be on the attacker side of the river).

[ October 14, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Dook]

Anyone consider the possiblity that maybe the battle will be resolved on just square 7? The armor unit is attacking from 6 into 7, after all. Does the FAQ say that the battles themselves will all take place on a 2x2 km map?

[Renaud]

That's a possibility, but what I said before still applies. A battle in 7 would deny the sov unit the advantage of defending against a german tactical bridge crossing, unless the river runs through 7 to some extent.

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Dook:

Anyone consider the possiblity that maybe the battle will be resolved on just square 7? The armor unit is attacking from 6 into 7, after all. Does the FAQ say that the battles themselves will all take place on a 2x2 km map?

I too agree. It would be 7. The only way to add at least 8 is the the units in 8 are advancing foward into 7 or/and I would also go for 4 if it was advancing into 7.

[Boris Balaban]

The map sizes are from 1km X 1km to 2km X 2km.

Also 1km X 2km or 2km X 1km.

[Liebchen]

Why do the CMBB maps need to be precisely lined up to the red lines, though? Don't operations use large maps, with the scenarios (i.e. engagements) using only a portion of the entire map? The way I see it, CMC could use a humongous map and cut out a portion of it for any particular engagement. It is, we are told, involved with the CMBB coding, after all.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Liebchen:

CMC could use a humongous map

Maximum map size for CMBB is 4x6 sq.km.

[ParaBellum]

4x6 km already sounds pretty homonu...humounomo... big.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Boris Balaban:

The map sizes are from 1km X 1km to 2km X 2km.

Also 1km X 2km or 2km X 1km.

An ideal solution (and one that might be in if the above is true (sorry, don't know if your info is first hand or not - no offence), would be that the CMBB maps are actually 1x1, and are pieced together into whatever size the game needs at runtime? Anyone able to clarify?

[76mm]

In this thread:

Map Making Pointers

I think that Moon says you make 2x2 maps.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

4x6 km already sounds pretty homonu...humounomo... big.

Yep, but even 2x2 is large. During Kursk,

The [soviet] battalion defensive region (2 kilometers frontage and 1.5 to 2 kilometers depth) provided the basis for the three defensive positions. In turn, the battalion region was subdivided into company and platoon strongpoints. (Glantz)

When attacking, the density would be much higher - several battalions, even regiments in that small area.

[russellmz]

from another thread

Originally posted by Hunter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by russellmz:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

When you look at this:

...you will notice that you can get a whole lot of variations in this way. The grid you see in this shot is the main 2km by 2km grid.

Martin

Moon, just to be clear. one red isometric square is a 2km x 2km map, made up of four 1km x 1km?

parabellum asked suppose in the east, a german tank tried to cross the river(and the red line) from the 1x1 square with the three grain fields to the southeast and attack the infantry unit with the two vertical yellow bars. would the map used be the east red 2kmx2km tile?

here is his with a better image/explanation. </font>