Tactical maps

[GreenAsJade]

Is it the case that:

- every tile in the CMC game has to have a tactical map to play CMBB on

- all CMBB tactical maps have to be hand-made? (IE a campaign designer can't just ask CMBB to generate underlying maps).

?

Thx,

GaJ.

[76mm]

The answer to your second question is definitely, yes, each 2x2 CMBB tactical map must be handmade.

I suspect that the answer to your first question is also yes, but I wonder if it will be possible to defer the creation of some of the maps until you need them. For instance, if you create a 40x40km operational map, you'll need to create 400 (!) CMBB maps. Many of them in remote corners of the operational map may never be used, so it would be nice if there is some kind of break/save when a CMBB battle has been initiated to allow you to create the maps before beginning the battle. That way, you could start by creating the 200 most likely maps and then create the others on an as-needed basis. [EDIT: This would obviously only be done for roll-your-own campaigns, not commercial]

Also, I wonder if you can do a CMBB "map recon" of the CMBB map before deciding whether to attack, etc. on the operational map?

[GreenAsJade]

People are going to have to learn fast map creation, eh?

At the moment map creation is lovingly done and takes ages, and then those maps are playtested till they "work properly". Admittedly, the criteria for "works properly" are far more difficult for a standalone map than a tactical tile, but still, there's a fair bit of effort for every hand-drawn map.

My impression is that you don't get to see the tactical map till you're pretty much committed to a battle on it. Which makes sense, since that's the only time you have troops there to actually look at it.

GaJ

[Sergei]

Of course, you could just auto-generate a map and then modify it... but that wouldn't be the same, now would it?

[76mm]

Yeah, but at least for areas behind your front line, you'd think that commanders would have at least a passing familiarity with the terrain (gee, this would be a great place to position a rear-guard...). Most auto-generated CMBB maps that I've worked with have really (realistic) broken up lines of sight, and if I knew that a particular tile had some nice long shots, that might we where I put the 88s...

[Ike]

If you've battled over that particular piece of terrain before, you should have taken one or two screen shots and turned them into maps for yourself.

[Brent Pollock]

Maybe you don't need enemy forces to generate a CMBB battle?

What I am getting at is that if a CMC map section is occupied by one of your units, but not the enemy's, you might still be able to hold a CMBB "battle" on it that simply lets you open it up and peruse it...come to think of it, it could be that all of the CMBB map underlays can be viewed at any time in the CMBB editor, so you could view it at your leisure. If so, it'd be neat-o-cool to prevent one or both players from doing this with some tiles to represent the shock of entering unexplored terrain.

Originally posted by 76mm:

Yeah, but at least for areas behind your front line, you'd think that commanders would have at least a passing familiarity with the terrain (gee, this would be a great place to position a rear-guard...). Most auto-generated CMBB maps that I've worked with have really (realistic) broken up lines of sight, and if I knew that a particular tile had some nice long shots, that might we where I put the 88s...

[Ike]

Well, there are two situations:

(1) Playing one of the pre-completed campaigns that come with CMC: on the CMC level map you have a certain degree of matching between the CMC map and the CM:BB map. How much is anyone's guess.

(2) Playing on a "home-made" campaign map: if Mapping Mission is used for all the map-making in such a campaign, then you'll have four regularly-tiled CM:BB 1 km x 1 km maps that will make up the CMC map square and I expect that the terrain will be visible, although reduced in size. If Mapping Mission isn't used or some similar program and if the person who creates the campaign's maps doesn't use CM:BB maps to make up the CMC maps, then it's anyone's guess as to how much relationship there will be between the maps we will see in CMC and the actually CM:BB maps we'll fight on.

[Steiner14]

The operational player that looks at the tactical BB maps first, and orders his units where the best tactical terrain in CMBB is, will have a huge advantage over the player, who only judges terrain via CMC.

Which could turn into real labor and take a lot of the surprise out of the battles, if tactical players do so, too.

[General Bolt]

The old Scenario Depot used to have a map section. I'm sure GJK's Scenario Depot Phase II will have a section for maps. Hopefully he adds a section for CMC.

[PzKpfwIII]

The comments on "tactical surprise" regarding terrain seem ill informed. Modern armies travel in the field with several advantages soldiers of previous eras did not have;

a) detailed maps (not always accurate, especially in the Soviet Union)

aerial reconnaissance

c) entire units and subunits dedicated solely to reconnaissance

Operational commanders (commanders of field formations) had headquarters staff whose only job - whose sole function - was to interpret the terrain that lay in their path. They did not command troops, they did not drill or handle weapons, they studied maps and aerial photographs and the comments of prisoners of war or local civilians. Not only did the armor and infantry need to know where to go and where to fight, but artillery observation battalions had to interpret terrain to find likely spots for enemy artillery to be hiding, rear area services had to find covered terrain to set up in after the next advance, etc. If a divisional commander was being "surprised" by the terrain ahead of him, he wasn't doing his job.

In fast moving operations, these kinds of preparations were not always possible. German maps of Russia were also in some cases notoriously poor. However, even a short-term gain in information would be sought by local commanders reconnoitering ground, either personally, in anticipation of an attack or when laying out defensive positions, or by using units specifically set up to gather information and intelligence - be it the scout section of a battalion or an entire armoured reconnaissance battalion of a division.

In CM:C terms, I would think that a fair way to explore the battlefield would be to allow the player to click on any CM:C tile and be either taken to the 3D world, or given a screenshot of the map. Optimally, IMO, the program would give a map-type representation of the 2x2 3D world every time a CM:C tile is clicked in such a manner. Headquarters staff would study this kind of information as far in advance of actual operations as possible.

Should the player be able to see CM:C terrain in detail before fighting a battle? I would say yes, and in more detail than the minimaps would provide. Not necessarily a make or break if for simplification's sake it can't or won't be done by the programmers, but logically there is no reason not to include such capabilities.

Mapmaking capabilities also existed for units in the field. The Division Ib in a German division, according to Büchner, was responsible for "production of maps for use in supplying, etc."

The Divisional O3 (3rd Assistant Adjutant) was responsible for the divisional map unit - which included a printing platoon for both production of maps and duplication of maps - captured maps could be copied, overprints could be printed, and Büchner also mentions shot tables for artillery units.

[ October 20, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Russophile:

(snip)

a) detailed maps (not always accurate, especially in the Soviet Union)

aerial reconnaissance

c) entire units and subunits dedicated solely to reconnaissance

Operational commanders (commanders of field formations) had headquarters staff whose only job - whose sole function - was to interpret the terrain that lay in their path.

That is exactly the information each commander will have as soon as they see the CMC campaign map. The minute details of terrain will present themselves to the local commanders as the game unfolds.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Abbott:

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

(snip)

a) detailed maps (not always accurate, especially in the Soviet Union)

aerial reconnaissance

c) entire units and subunits dedicated solely to reconnaissance

Operational commanders (commanders of field formations) had headquarters staff whose only job - whose sole function - was to interpret the terrain that lay in their path.

That is exactly the information each commander will have as soon as they see the CMC campaign map. The minute details of terrain will present themselves to the local commanders as the game unfolds. </font>

[Steiner14]

I don't agree. In RL the informations were much worse, than a look at a CMBB map. No chance to check LOS.

But the 'problem' i see is less, if it is realistically to have so much information tactically or even operationally, but more a perspective of gameplay:

the one who is willing to look into the cards, means loading all maps in CMBB before moving his units operationally on a new square, will have a huge advantage over the player, enjoying the surprise-effect.

[ October 20, 2005, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[TheVulture]

Maybe it's just because I haven't played enough, but I find that simply looking at a CMBB map doesn't contain that much information. You can certainly study it in great detail for approach routes and whatever terrain fun you can extract from it. But for me at least, that has very little use in the actual battle. In the fight, you discover that that one small ridge in the ground is vital cover to get your men to an important position. That the hut that you thought would be a great MG position is just about in exactly the wrong position to reach the one critical open area. I'm sure everyone has been here - discovering that one map feature out of thousands that makes a difference.

Some of that depends on the disposition of forces for a given battle - routes chosen by various sides, or where they place their defences. A different setup radically alters which terrain features matter.

But no matter how much you look at the map, it seems that some of this information doesn't come until you play it. And some of it only counts for one battle. Which is fair enough. If you've fought hard to gain the ground, you understand the subtleties of the slight variations in elevation, the position of the woods etc. in great detail and can use that to your advantage on the defensive.

Now if someone takes the time for fight a TCP/IP battle with a friend on the map they are about to fight a CMC battle on, that's a different matter. That would give you information that wouldn't realistically be available. I guess you have to rely on people not to do that.

[PzKpfwIII]

Hello Vulture;

I think your assessment is on the mark and is another reason for revealing detailed map information before battles commence - and in fact, before units are even earmarked for battles. This information would almost always be available to a real life commander in at least the most general terms.

As you point out, LOS issues really come into play during play itself. One workaround may be to give a peek into the 3D world before Campaign orders are given, but prohibit players from making LOS checks while in the 3D world; this would also mean preventing the maps from being saved and opened in the map editor. Perhaps some sort of "Campaign Save" function like the current Tournament Save for scenarios would be in order to prevent the kind of "cheats" you describe so well.

This may even be in the works already for all we know.

[Abbott]

Hello and good morning (morning here, anyway) Russophile,

I believe I understand your point (s) and I find them of interest. Due to BFC's normal attention to detail I am going to expect HTS to be paying attention to detail in the BFC tradition. That means each side should have information available to them conveyed by the Campaign designer and the CMC map. Further information of a local nature will be gained as the Campaign sees progress and information funnels into the side-commanders view.

No point sending your tanks into a 2x2 tile full of swamp (which would likely not show up on the minimap or CM:C map as you call it) if there is hard ground one tile to the north.

I don’t see this as a problem as I expect a Campaign designer to drop a “marsh” icon (of some type) onto the CMC map where appropriate. Unless of course he sees reason to not do so, then such accidents of the ground will have to be discovered by each player thru reconnaissance. It seems to me that up to “4 different types of Icons” will be available to mark each 2X2 click tile.

But sometimes, a crafty staff will save you from such a disaster also.

Otherwise, we may see "gamey" recon of adjacent 2x2 tiles similar to the "jeep rush" of old, where a ME of a single platoon forces a battle to unfold simply in order to get a look at the terrain next door. Some may argue this is realistic, since after all, that's what recon units do.

That is about what a crafty staff would do. It seems Russian and German reconnaissance platoons; cavalry and infantry platoons would be screening a main advance. I would expect them to take some casualties from the auto-resolve feature rather then to force a 60-turn battle where one side withdraws their Recon. Platoons while the other side gives chase. That would become redundant and force many unusual and un-wanted events. Just how HTS software plans to handle this, of course, I do not know.

I would think that some type of “Gamey” situations may occur and those issues will have to be discussed and agreed upon by the community or individual groups of community members after release as usual to limit their in-game appearance.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Russophile:

Perhaps some sort of "Campaign Save" function like the current Tournament Save for scenarios would be in order to prevent the kind of "cheats" you describe so well.

This may even be in the works already for all we know.

Good point!

Below is a quote from another thread that relates to this issue. Recon. elements (number and size) will be determined by the Campaign's designer at start.

Originally posted by Hunter:

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

Just to be sure...no splitting means that if the author of a campagian deems the ME to be company size, then I am stuck using the whole company throughout the campaign. I couldn't leave one platoon behind after a battle, and continue attacking with other two?

That's correct. </font>

[Pinetree]

I'm wondering if you can update the CMC map during the game.

Then, instead of having gamey situations, you could get your recce element to tell you your map is only so much percent correct and then corrects it for you, taking into consideration what it's observational skills are, etc

That's probably asking for too much this release,but you never know

[Steiner14]

Do you know, what happend '41 before Leningrad?

Two german Pz-Divisions were moved around a heavy fortified front just to discover, when they were ready to roll again, that the streets in the maps simply didn't exist.

It's fact that often only a rough estimation of the terrain was operationally available.

But a look at a CMBB-map where you immediately can see ambush-positions before you even have to move any units over there, is unrealistically.

And recon elements are mostly to recon the enemy, not to describe the terrain in detail.

That's impossible anyway, because the commanders have to see the terrain with their own eyes for tactical judgements. And that makes it necessary to move their units over there.

IMO no recon unit can do, what a player can do with a look at the CMBB map.

I think we will simply have to live with the fact, if players want to inspect the maps prior to operational movements, then they will be able to do so. It's the same as ladder playing: you have to live with the fact, that in case a premade-scenario is played, you don't know if the unknown oponent will look at your units.

Maybe a declaration of honor from every player prior to a campaign could prevent from that kind of cheating.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Do you know, what happend '41 before Leningrad?

Two german Pz-Divisions were moved around a heavy fortified front just to discover, when they were ready to roll again, that the streets in the maps simply didn't exist.

It's fact that often only a rough estimation of the terrain was operationally available.

But a look at a CMBB-map where you immediately can see ambush-positions before you even have to move any units over there, is unrealistically.

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Not allowing players to see the maps in advance robs the player of the very real benefits of aerial reconnaissance, mapwork, divisional staff work, personal reconnaissance by unit commanders, and the work of recon units, be it a battalion recon platoon or a divisional armoured recon battalion.

You are correct that ambush positions and detailed info would not be available until a battle was in progress; however, Vulcan's comments are apt - much of this is not apparent even when one looks at a map in advance of a game.

It will be a tradeoff between too much info and not enough info. We obviously disagree, but my position is that not enough info re: terrain will be more unrealistic than the opposite.

And recon elements are mostly to recon the enemy, not to describe the terrain in detail.

If you have a reference to back up this assertion, it would be of interest. I'll post some stuff from my sources later on. I think your understanding here is poor. The recon elements are there to assist the commander in understanding what lies ahead - that can mean what enemy units, it can mean location of the enemy, it can mean strength of the enemy, it can mean finding a ford in a stream, or even locating the top of a hill.

That's impossible anyway, because the commanders have to see the terrain with their own eyes for tactical judgements. And that makes it necessary to move their units over there.

Or the commander will conduct a reconnaissance personally; a good commander will do this in most circumstances, time and circumstance permitting. It might only be a "map recon" but he will endeavour to put eyes on the route beforehand, possibly walking to the forming up point and startline in advance, or even crawling beyond, to test lines of sight, suitability of the ground for heavy vehicles, scout for command post locations, wounded nests, etc. A bad commander would simply gather this info after X-Hour.

IMO no recon unit can do, what a player can do with a view at the CMBB map.

This is a valid point, but as Vulture says, the information one gains is not as useful as one might think, in game terms. As stated above, it's a trade off and I come down on the side of too much info. I guess we part company on this issue.

I think we will simply have to live with the fact, if players want to inspect the maps prior to operational movements, then they will be able to do so.

I haven't seen the finished game yet, have you?

It's the same as ladder playing: you have to live with the fact, that in case a premade-scenario is played, you don't know if the unknown oponent will look at your units.

A Tournament Save as described earlier would be useful for this I think; for all we know, it is "in the works.'

Maybe a declaration of honor from every player prior to a campaign could prevent from that kind of cheating.

Knowing what forces or terrain you are facing doesn't make you a better CM player though. Tactical outcomes will still depend on the decisions you make during the game.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Russophile:

Not allowing players to see the maps in advance robs the player of the very real benefits of aerial reconnaissance, mapwork, divisional staff work, personal reconnaissance by unit commanders, and the work of recon units, be it a battalion recon platoon or a divisional armoured recon battalion.

He get's enough of an impression to judge by the data CMC provides.

By looking at the CMBB map, he sees too much.

You are correct that ambush positions and detailed info would not be available until a battle was in progress;

But nothing else is my argument: looking at the CMBB-map gives way to much info.

however, Vulcan's comments are apt - much of this is not apparent even when one looks at a map in advance of a game.

I usually know quite good how my tactical plan must look like, after i've inspected the map long enough.

Surprises during battles are therefore minimal.

And the longer i study the map prior, usually the better are the results afterwards.

With winning around 70% of my PBEMs and so far having lost not a single battle as defender since CMBB, i think i have enough experience to judge the importance of maps.

If i magine, i could select one of three maps, with a fixed unit-composition (which is the case, if i would look at the CMBB-maps) and that the oponent doesn't do the same, then i.e. i could simply decide, on which of the three maps the tank battles should take place. There i would wait for him.

I think everyone can imagine, what that means, if one player can choose one from three maps, while the other choses his one blindly. Now accumulate that probability over a campaign and you know the result, before the first battle even has begun.

The difference will be huge.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And recon elements are mostly to recon the enemy, not to describe the terrain in detail.

If you have a reference to back up this assertion, it would be of interest. I'll post some stuff from my sources later on. I think your understanding here is poor. The recon elements are there to assist the commander in understanding what lies ahead - that can mean what enemy units, it can mean location of the enemy, it can mean strength of the enemy, it can mean finding a ford in a stream, or even locating the top of a hill.</font>

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Thanks that you say yourself, that recon units are in no way a substitute, for a look at the battlefield of the commander himself.

And what did i say?

I guess your understanding of what i said is poor.

You obviously aren't grasping what I'm saying. I suspect there may be a language barrier, but regardless, we are both on opposite sides of the issue, so there is no point beating this to death.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I haven't seen the finished game yet, have you?

No. Why?</font>

[Ike]

Speaking from personal experience on the battlefield, let me tell you all that maps are nice and useful to the HQ staff at Division, Brigade, and Battalion; they are nearly useless to the tactical unit leader at Company and certain useless at Platoon and Squad levels. Why? Because terrain features of significance to the "units" which actually fight a battle are never visible and cannot ever be visible on any map from HQ. Because those "units" are the individual soldiers or perhaps a 3 or 4 man fire team and the individual AFV, machine gun team, and field gun/mortar/howitzer crew. I can hide an entire combat engineer platoon complete with bazookas, satchel charges, and Bangalore torpedos in a field that shows to be entirely clear and level on any map the HQ is likely to possess. And guess what? That ability, based upon relatively tiny terrain features, is what terrain is significant in combat.

CM:BB isn't real life combat, but the terrain of significance is likewise that which covers and conceals the individual squad, gun team, and AFV, not what shows up as significant on a map.

That may inject a bit of cool air into what seems to becoming an heated debate about the efficacy of maps in CMC and the merits of what we presently perceive to be the game's features. No offense intended to anyone here; just a little reality check from someone who's been in a battlefield environment over a three-year continuous period at the tactical level, using what was essentially up-graded WW2 military technology.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ike:

CM:BB isn't real life combat, but the terrain of significance is likewise that which covers and conceals the individual squad, gun team, and AFV, not what shows up as significant on a map.

Actually, if you command a battalion or more, a map is most useful. Features not showing on a map are too slight to be taken into consideration. Just because a platoon could happily camp there, doesn't mean that it'd be a useful building block for a larger defense line.