[CMBN maps way too small!]

Thanks for the answer, Steve.

I indeed played a CMMC game where there was a regiment of inf + AT support versus a Bn of enemy elite Italian paratroopers. It was great. The only issue would be ammo if the game was too long. This has improved in CMx2.

Needless to say I am a huge fan of your work

[CMBN maps way too small!]

MikeyD, of course, I speak about PBEM, no AI or real time...

I think the AI handles wrongly big maps and long scenarios.

[CMBN maps way too small!]

MikeyD, I tend to agree that to play on a big map requires accepting a bit of plot work.

Myself I don't care if I need 1/2 an hour to plot, I do it listening to podcasts. :-)

I disagree about the "20 turns before action" or "500x500m" argument though. Some CMx1 battle are not like this. The 80 turn battle I am playing is full of action since turn 4, and the manoeuvering is all it is about (for now). You have to either delay your advance to destroy enemy surrounded pockets or progress and infiltrate quickly inside enemy lines.

I also advise two scenarios, both with CMAK: "Lehr Left Hook" (July 1944 I think) and "KM-South of Hafid Ridge" (1942). Both of them are action packed from begining to end.

Polo

[CMBN maps way too small!]

Actually, I am currently playing a Bn+ sized batle on a 4x4 km map, North of Rome, June 1944, in CMAK. 80+ turns. Pretty extreme, as the terrain is very rough too.

Quite very playable if you want to know, 22 turns done so far.

Sure CMx2 needs smaller maps, but 2x1.5 km seems good. "Armor attacks" is a great scenario (althought I haven't played it yet) playing on (somwhat baren) 2,5 x 2 km map.

[CMBN maps way too small!]

Yeah, we established on the first page that the engine was capable of up to 4km x 4km. Nobody has said they actually wanted maps that big.

Actually I do. I never play QB, I find them boring (see above pic! Boring map), but I have played several km² or more sized scenario maps.

[CMBN maps way too small!]

What "inherent problem" are you talking about, please?

[CMBN maps way too small!]

I already discussed the point in another thread, but it was among other stuff, so I prefer to create a new one to make my point and have opinions about it.

I hope I still am wrong about it, but I have the bad feeling the maps we are shown in the different AAR are much too small for a good fight. It was even worse in CMSF with all the automatic rifles and guns, and dead-precise gunnery, but it will probably be the same with CMBN.

On my point of view we can only reach a "realistic" combat feeling if the maps are at least 1 or 2 km across. I think the best CMAK scenarios were reached with maps several km across, which is the only way to either leave some room to manoeuver, be able to obtain realistic tank vs tank combat, hide lines of defense, promote the use of AC for recon, allow reasonable possibilities for the infantry to withdraw/counter-attack, increase tactical value of long range MG fire for interdiction etc.

I know I criticize before I see the game, so people who know I hope will prove me wrong.

What do YOU think about it?

[Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy Video AAR 3, Turn Based/WeGo]

Well JonS, actually, considering the situation of the combats, it seems quite sure that the village is "Le Dézert", it matches the environment.

I don't really know about the place, I just remembered the excellent "Lehr's Left Hook at Caplainerie" CMAK scenario.

http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/ledezertus2.html

Well, I would have preferred some comments about my second point actually. We in fact we don't care too much about a village name which spelling was probably anyway a misspelling of "Le désert". (the desert)

Edit/Delete Message

[Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy Video AAR 3, Turn Based/WeGo]

Hi to all, I don't want to be mean, especially for a first post in this forum I am following for quite some time now. Don't get me wrong I love what I see and read and there is a very positive feeling in all the comments here.

So now for the comments:

1- The name of the town is "Le Dezert", not "Le Desert", (if you want it with accent: "Le Dézert"). Not a big deal as you see.

2- I don't have picture of how the place was in 1944, but I have one from today, and it was probably quite the same in 1944. But obviously it was MUCH bigger than this small map.

http://www.cartesfrance.fr/carte-france-ville/photos_50161_Le%20Dezert.html

I read SO many people whining about realism, how many screws in the left wheel; would the radio react in 10 seconds or 20, what about the armor slope modelling or I don't now what else.

For my part, I request just one thing for realism: give us BIG MAPS!! This one is ridiculously small, the final picture of the Sherman and the Panther nose to nose shows it quite well.

If you want realistic Panther vs Sherman results (probably way more unbalanced in RL), realistic infantry casulaty rates (way lower in RL), longer battles (much longer in RL), just give us realistically designed maps, i.e. bigger ones.

If I want an arcade game, I don't play CM. If you want to give us a realistic "simulation", give us real situation. I can just imagine what would be a BF re-creation of the battle of Carentan with two companies defending a hamlet. I hope I am wrong about this feeling.