Map Sharing

[76mm]

for those of you creating meta-campaigns or even large scenarios, how do you plan to create all of the necessary maps? the process was tedious enough in CMx1, and while i haven't tried yet with CMx2, i understand it is much more time consuming. Maybe no big deal for the little maps used for normandy, but i think creating larger maps for east front games will be a real chore.

just so you understand, i created more than 100 3x3 km maps for a cmbb meta campaign, which would clearly be impracticable for CMx2.

so a couple of questions:

1) i assume there is not much hope of the devs creating more/better map-building tools?

2) at least are map-makers sharing by posting their work to the respository, etc.?

3) wonder if there would be any sense in developing some kind of amp template that would make it easier to share maps? i kind of doubt it but i'm rather desparate to think up something...

[womble]

1) i assume there is not much hope of the devs creating more/better map-building tools?

However, there is one community-created tool already for building the terrain in at least a semi-automated way from Google Maps images, if I have it correct.

[Broadsword56]

I can't speak to the technical questions, but right now I post all the real-terrain maps I make to the Repository, eventually, once I've played on them and made sure they're fun.

We all hope and yearn for more and better tools to speed the creation of accurate CMBN maps.

But even with the great user-made tools we have (like Stone Age's HTML mapping tool), in the end it still comes down to clicking hundreds or thousands of little tiles in the editor to make a CMBN map.

Having said that, I also have to say that making the maps -- for me and a few others -- isn't just a necessary evil or a chore to get over with ASAP. The mapping can be fun in itself, especially when I see what a difference a properly crafted and authentic map makes to the way CMBN plays. I also like the "battlefield detective" aspect of discovering the aerial photos and seeing how the landscape has changed, spotting outlines of old entrenchments, and learning how the terrain influenced the events on the ground.

What the community could use -- besides the tools to make mapping easier and more efficient -- is some better division of labor. The mappers could map, and then those who hate mapping but love coding could code AI to make them into scenarios and/or campaigns. Those who like to do those battlefield experiments and testing could playtest WIP maps.

(I don't expect this to happen, since this is just a game and it's supposed to be about fun, so the vast majority just want to play and want nothing to do with mapping or content creation.)

No one has ever created AI for any of the authentic maps I've posted, as far as I know, even though I always invite people to use the maps in their own scenarios and campaigns. It would be nice to see these resources used -- although the maps play great as HTH-only battles.

LongLeftFlank and I coordinated to make adjoining "master maps" and for the XIX Corps area. But I don't know of anyone else who's tried to make master maps or collaborate to cover areas this way.

Also, with the HTML tool and the patch to CMBN that supports full sized maps, it's really feasible now for collaborative projects that would map an entire corps or army area of operations. Using Google Earth coordinates and the system of 400m x 400m mega-tiles in the HTML tool, many different contributors could map individual segments and post them with the appropriate label showing where they fit into the xy coordinates of the 4km x 4km grid (for example, "map square 51,1").

If that data bank of mapped squares existed, any player could DL the squares needed to assemble a battle for any area of the operation. Maybe there could be a membership requirement, to incentivize the work and prevent freeloading: To have access to the database, you'd have to contribute X number of mapped squares -- and maybe they'd have to pass some sort of quality review to make sure they weren't just junk.

One other thing that would help: If BFC shared a Google Earth "placemarks" file that showed polygons of the actual outlines of every battle in every historical battle and campaign map that has shipped with the original game and the CW module.

A Google Earth file was generously posted some months ago for the Scottish Corridor maps , but it has pushpins marking the centers of the areas where the battles were fought -- helpful for taking a virtual look at the real terrain, but not useful if one is trying to determine the actual borders/orientation of the game map and then expand it in the editor to cover additional terrain for a custom map, etc. The only other way I've found to get this info is to place a game map into Google Earth as an overlay, do a LOT of scaling and fiddling, and then try to see where/how it fits onto the actual terrain.

[sburke]

Unfortunately even with some of the tools that have been developed, good map making is a long process as the level of detail for a truly realistic and immersive map is time consuming.

Until something else comes along I think we are simply going to have to depend on the community continuing to create and share. Broadsword has a number of good maps and a master 4x4 km map that would need details added, LLF has a similar map in the works of an adjoining 4x4 area in Normandy. George MC has a large recreation of eastern front terrain in "Bridgehead at Soloki" though I forget the full dimensions. I hope to recreate the AO of The Gamers Screaming Eagles in Holland covering a 16x16 km area in at least 4 maps. There are a bunch more.

Question is do you really need specific maps or are you just looking to create a larger campaign area? If not then any selection of fairly closely fitting maps should do (and you could edit existing one to conform the map edges.

The biggest deciding factor is scale. Something on the order of Noobs campaign may cover a really large area, but the 1km sq areas of Normandy 44 have only general terrain types. This can give you a wider variety of options using the existing map sets and QB maps. Broadsword56 as noted has a base 4x4 km map that if fleshed out is a huge amount of ground. I only opted for a set of large maps for SCiH as that is the size of the actual gamers map. I could probably get away with less. A campaign that covers a 4 hours to a couple days fighting can easily be done on a single 4x4 map and have a very large OoB.

Considering CMBN is only a year old it is encouraging to see how much material we already have. One question in the back of my mind is will maps be transferable between CMBN and CM: whatever is next (CM:win). If the bulge it would be nice if they were, but I suspect perhaps not.

[76mm]

One question in the back of my mind is will maps be transferable between CMBN and CM: whatever is next (CM:win). If the bulge it would be nice if they were, but I suspect perhaps not.

Yeah, this is a key question, and frankly I think an important one if they want to maximize playability of this series.

Personally I don't care much about historical maps/scenarios, but do want maps that are well-made.

[Broadsword56]

I can't say for certain or cite the post that said it -- but I'm pretty sure I recall BFC saying long ago that Bulge will be a new milestone in the series and not just an expansion module like CW and OMG. So I think we've already been warned not to expect any compatibility between Bulge and the earlier games. Makes sense, since with Bulge we'd get all the winter stuff. And that sets the stage for the Ostfront stuff later on.

On the plus side, if this is true, then maybe Bulge might give players some of the deeper engine improvements that they've been clamoring for -- but which weren't within the scope of modules (which have mostly been new units and patch-type improvements). Pure speculation here, with no evidence or inside knowledge whatsoever...

[Erwin]

"Pure speculation here, with no evidence or inside knowledge whatsoever..."

LOVE that line, must use it in all my documents and posts... as in "BFC has promised to take all CM2 players on an all-expenses paid trip to the Bahamas when OMG is released. Pure speculation here, with no evidence or inside knowledge whatsoever...

Imagine the possibilities...

[winkelried]

Map making is time-consuming yes. But I think that the main area of improvement should be in AI-domain. IMHO it is far more time-consuming to develop AI plans and to test scenarios than making maps. What would be nice too would be a mode where you could run a battle between two AI "players" to do some basic testing in an automated mode.

On the other hand i feel too that the notorious non-compatibility of "older" maps with new releases is annoying. BFC should get there an approach which treats scenario designers a bit nicer.

[StoneAge]

HTMLMappingTool can handle some changes in format in future releases of CMBN.

Seeing as the HTML mapping process is seperate from the Click Mapping Phase. A change in placement or new ground types will not make a diffrence to the HTMLMappingTool. A few tweaks and it should work again.

The HTMLMappingTool creates CSV files for each map. If one ground type is replaced with a new one. You can open the CSV in excel/open office and do a find and replace to quickly fix the references to the old one.

Same with the ClickMapMaker as it uses a CSV table to hold the references to where buttons are found. Moving a button just needs to have its reference updated and all is good again.

The only problem I can see is if the ground scale changes agian, but I dont see that happening in a hurry. (action squares and spotting routines will need bigger computers)

What I would like to see is a way to insert/export a Map into the editor without having to do the screen clicking process. XML would be great and while your at it can we have the same for force selection.

[Broadsword56]

HTMLMappingTool can handle some changes in format in future releases of CMBN.

Seeing as the HTML mapping process is seperate from the Click Mapping Phase. A change in placement or new ground types will not make a diffrence to the HTMLMappingTool. A few tweaks and it should work again.

The HTMLMappingTool creates CSV files for each map. If one ground type is replaced with a new one. You can open the CSV in excel/open office and do a find and replace to quickly fix the references to the old one.

Same with the ClickMapMaker as it uses a CSV table to hold the references to where buttons are found. Moving a button just needs to have its reference updated and all is good again.

The only problem I can see is if the ground scale changes agian, but I dont see that happening in a hurry. (action squares and spotting routines will need bigger computers)

What I would like to see is a way to insert/export a Map into the editor without having to do the screen clicking process. XML would be great and while your at it can we have the same for force selection.

Wow, that hadn't occurred to me but StoneAge is right. Once you've created those CSV files from your source maps/photos/etc, it won't matter what version of CMBN we're currently playing. The HTML tool simply would create the new map in the new editor and would put the tiles in the positions that the CSV files tell it to. Another great benefit of this tool -- thanks for making it!

[Paper Tiger]

I'd say that AI scripting is definitely the most daunting aspect of scenario construction, whether that be for stand-alones or campaign missions. There are plenty of guys in the community willing to devote the time of their lives to crafting highly detailed maps but not so many willing to do the AI scripting. But AI scripts are not necessary for maps for a meta-campaign as a meta-campaign will be played by two or more human players, am I right? That means you just need maps.

I don't really see why every map has to be as accurate as possible as it's almost impossible to recreate real life places exactly in the CMSF game editor. For example, we have a very limited number of angles available to us which seriously limits our ability to create road/wall/fence networks. If you want to recreate large areas in the editor, why don't you just create reasonably accurate maps without worrying about the detail and use the more detailed user-created stuff when it's available. That would really cut down on the time it would take to do a meta-campaign.

I'm currently working on a new set of maps for 'something' and I've decided to worry less about absolute fidelity and go for more of the spirit of things. It makes map creation a faster and more enjoyable business.

[sburke]

I am not so sure of that fidelity is so much the issue as getting the terrain to feel natural. It's the odd little things that can make a map more than just a 3d replication of a boardgame map. I still remember my second playing of Bois de Baugin and realizing JonS had stuffed crap INSIDE the barn. No I am not expecting folks to furnish buildings, but the flavor items, undulations in terrain, drainage etc etc all contribute to a more immersive playing experience.

You are right in that the meta campaigns for the most part are meant for HTH play. They can't be predesigned for the AI as you have no idea what the flow of the battles will be.

[Broadsword56]

I think there's room for all kinds of design philosphies with maps/scenarios, as long as consumers get the chance to know what they're really downloading from the Repository and/or buying with the game.

For me, since no AI is never going to give me as much fun and challenge as a human opponent, map quality and immersive historical settings are the main attraction.

Others have found fun in making totally fanciful maps depicting freeway interchanges, wide-open tank on tank sandboxes, you name it.

And then there are maps that capture the spirit of a place and are generally based on it, but where the designer has altered things for looks and play purposes. Those are fine too, especially in standalone battles.

It's one thing to say: I don't care about authentic maps beause they're more time and trouble to make, so I go for the feel of the place because it's faster and easier and more fun for me.

But it would be another thing to suggest that authentic maps don't matter, or that striving to make them as authentic as one could isn't worth the trouble because authenticity is an illusion and the CMx2 editor is too limited anyway.

No game map can be 100% authentic -- that would be impossible. It's always a matter of degree. So the question is, how far does one go and how far is worth it for the game result it delivers?

You can make an analogy here with the CMx2 engine itself, and its lofty goal to model the bullets and physics of combat in 1:1 instead of designing "for effect." We could say: Why bother, when it's so much more complicated and time-consuming to try and simulate combat this way, and when no engine can completely model all the physical world of combat? But BFC bothered, and, despite those inherent limitations, look at what a great game it's given us.

So, I like to know that a map is as authentic as the existing tools and resources could make it. Others might not care as much, or at all.

[sburke]

I am with you on preferring as accurate a map as can be done, but I also get Paper Tiger's pont. As a creator of campaigns, the focus would be much more on the AI. How's this for a suggestion. Contract out the areas you'd like mapped for a campaign, then all you need do is work in the OoB and AI portion. Best of both worlds

[Paper Tiger]

It's one thing to say: I don't care about authentic maps beause they're more time and trouble to make, so I go for the feel of the place because it's faster and easier and more fun for me.

But it would be another thing to suggest that authentic maps don't matter, or that striving to make them as authentic as one could isn't worth the trouble because authenticity is an illusion and the CMx2 editor is too limited anyway.[/quote]

I don't recall stating that authenticity doesn't matter in my post. :confused: Until I started crafting maps based on real world terrain for the CMSF NATO module, every map I made prior to that was fictional. But the maps that I made for NATO, and every CMx2 mission since, have been as close to authentic as it is possible for anyone to do with the editor. So I DO care about authenticity, very much. Probably every bit as much as you do.

I've just decided to stress less about absolute authenticity in the future. But even so, I'm still sweating the little details with my new maps. This thread is about getting a bucket-load of maps covering a large area for a meta campaign. I'm simply suggesting that this could be done reasonably quickly if people's needs for an accurate and authentic map were reduced somewhat. Otherwise, by the time the community has mapped out the American sector in Normandy from D-Day to Cobra in the level of detail that you find in your maps, we'll all be playing CMx3.

[Broadsword56]

@PaperTiger: No one respects and admires your work more than I do, so please take no offense and I didn't mean to mischaracterize your post.

I think I understand your question about shared maps and meta-campaigns better now. Here's how I would answer it:

You're absolutely right. Even if one were committed to the greatest authenticity possible for maps in a meta-campaign, there just aren't enough mapping hours and mappers in existence to fully map real campaign areas at CMBN scale.

That's the bad news. The good news: There's no need to do that anymore.

Now we have the ability to map only the areas where battles take place -- or an even smaller subset: the areas where only the most interesting or important battles take place that we actually want to play out in CMBN.

What makes this possible is StoneAge's revolutionary HTML Mapping Tool. If I sound like a shill for it, it's only because I've experienced how powerful and effective it is, and because I don't think the forum has fully realized yet what we have here. Even some dedicated mappers seem only vaguely aware of it, or may have looked at it and then been put off by the long help.htm file. But the file is only long because StoneAge really took the trouble to document every step and explain it, include illustrated examples, etc. The tool itself is extremely simple and easy to use once you try it a time or two.

Back to my point about meta-campaigns and the challenge of using authentic maps for them:

Before the HTML tool, you could make a rudimentary 4km x 4km "master map" (the way I did last summer) and then, depending on where the op layer gave you a battle, you'd cut off that part of the master map (say, 1000 x 1000m) to play on and detail it with all the trees and bocage and doodads. Very time-consuming, because even just placing all the roads and rivers and field patterns accurately on a 4km x 4km area is a ton of work.

That's not necessary anymore! Now what I'd do is:

1. Use Google Earth to select the full operational area. Draw a grid of 4km x 4km grid boxes on it (there's a tool for this that will draw precise grids on GE for you automatically from only two specific lat-long coordinates.)

2. Make a corresponding set of blank 4km x 4km maps in CMBN -- They're all just default grass tiles, takes no time at all. Then I might apply the basic elevation contours to them, which doesn't really take that long at 5m elevation difference per contour (especially in a flat place like Holland!) if you just lock the highest and lowest points, and then use the locked elevation tiles as dotted lines, setting a point only where the contour changes direction. Give each of these giant maps a name, like "Veghel West."

3. Go back to Google Earth and use that automatic tool again to draw another, finer grid of 400m x 400m sections. At this stage I'd also place my operational game map into GE a jpeg overlay and position it over the terrain, so I'll be able to see where in real life my campaign battles will be taking place. I'd also do the same thing for any aerial photos, WWII maps, or other reference images I plan to use.

4. Now I'd just forget about mapping and go play my operational game. Wait until it's battle time. Hey-- there's a great battle shaping up around Veghel-West, in the SE corner, about a 1200m x 1200m area. Let's play it out in CMBN...

5. Go back to GE and locate the area (3 x 3 of your 400m grid squares) where your battle is. Use the HTML Mapping tool (I won't explain all the details here) to make those 9 map sections.

6. Open the CMBN editor and the appropriate 4x4 km blank master map (e.g, your "Veghel-West" map). Now I just tell the HTML tool where on that 4 x 4km area to place those 9 fully mapped sections, and there it is. I can either cut the playing area off and save it separately, or leave the whole 4 x 4km map as-is and use it.

7. As a campaign goes on, I'd only map the fighting areas as I need them, in 400m x 400m sections. As long as I label them properly and know where they fit into the GE grid system, I have a growing database that can be used and re-used.

It can even be treated like a database -- Other mappers can even contribute sections to it if they follow the same common labeling/location system. Better yet, we can take that 1200m x 1200m area from Battle #1 later on and tell the HTML tool to re-draw it in a different spot in the Veghel-West sector's 4km x 4km area. That means we can effectively copy and re-use existing work in a campaign that moves over a large area -- something we couldn't do within the CMBN editor itself.

In short, meta-gaming with authentic maps and terrain is entirely feasible now -- as long as we don't map every part of the area and don't try to play every battle in CMBN.

The only major drawback/PITA to this method is that within the HTML tool as it is now, there's no getting around having to click your mouse on every tile cell in each of the 400m x 400m map sections. There's no way to "enlarge the paintbrush" as you can in the CMBN editor and paint an entire wheatfield with one click. So you end up having to make 2,500 clicks for every section (carpal tunnel syndrome, here we come!).

Oddly enough, the benefits of the tool still outweigh this IMHO, because once you have a section mapped, it's mapped for good and it can be used and re-used and moved anywhere. (If you map it within CMBN, all you can do is expand or contract the map boundaries -- and when you do, you get blank new terrain. The existing mapped area can never be copied and moved somewhere else within the 4 x 4km area you already have).

(@PaperTiger -- I know you already know all this stuff -- I just spelled it out for the benefit of everyone here to encourage more people to entertain the idea of meta-gaming and authentic maps, and to understand what's involved.)

[Broadsword56]

In an ideal world (at least to me), here's how BFC could use the grid-database concept for authentic maps to make its own maps more useful, add value to them, and even better support the user community, mappers, and meta-gaming:

To take Bulge as the example...

What if BFC set up the master areas (4km x 4km) and section grids (400m x 400m) for the Ardennes area, and then shared them as a Google Earth placemarks (.kmz file)?

Now, let's say that when the game ships, BFC includes an appendix to the rules that index all the maps provided in the game. For example:

Map: "Last Stand at Noville"

Master Area: Bastogne-North

Sections covered: (NW corner) 101-1 (SE corner 201-101)

(This assumes it's a reasonably authentic and properly scaled battle map of the place, with a true N orientation, without designer abstractions or rotations to make roads run straight - otherwise the grid system doesn't work)

Now it would be possible for a player who wants to make a custom map for a new area just south of Noville to load the shipped map into the editor, and add new 400m x 400m sections to it to extend it to the south.

The player/mapmaker could even post the grid ID info with the map so that others would see its location, and be able to incorporate it into their own maps. Everyone would know, over time, which areas of the Ardnennes have been mapped. And the maps that came with the game could be used and re-used all over the place, making them far more versatile than in the canned campaigns or standalone battles that BFC created (as wonderful as those would certainly be).

I'm just sayin...

[permanent666]

i just learned about google custom maps where you can paint locations on google maps and put links in the description.

so if someone sets up a public custom map where anyone can collaborate we could improve map sharing

[George MC]

In an ideal world (at least to me), here's how BFC could use the grid-database concept for authentic maps to make its own maps more useful, add value to them, and even better support the user community, mappers, and meta-gaming:

To take Bulge as the example...

What if BFC set up the master areas (4km x 4km) and section grids (400m x 400m) for the Ardennes area, and then shared them as a Google Earth placemarks (.kmz file)?

Now, let's say that when the game ships, BFC includes an appendix to the rules that index all the maps provided in the game. For example:

Map: "Last Stand at Noville"

Master Area: Bastogne-North

Sections covered: (NW corner) 101-1 (SE corner 201-101)

(This assumes it's a reasonably authentic and properly scaled battle map of the place, with a true N orientation, without designer abstractions or rotations to make roads run straight - otherwise the grid system doesn't work)

Now it would be possible for a player who wants to make a custom map for a new area just south of Noville to load the shipped map into the editor, and add new 400m x 400m sections to it to extend it to the south.

The player/mapmaker could even post the grid ID info with the map so that others would see its location, and be able to incorporate it into their own maps. Everyone would know, over time, which areas of the Ardnennes have been mapped. And the maps that came with the game could be used and re-used all over the place, making them far more versatile than in the canned campaigns or standalone battles that BFC created (as wonderful as those would certainly be).

I'm just sayin...

Been done for CMBNCW - Sergei plotted these points. It's on Google Earth.

[Broadsword56]

@George MC -- Yes, I have that GE file and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the points in it are just single pushpins showing where the maps are. But they don't help mappers except in a general way, because the pins could be anywhere within the mapped areas. What would be helpful instead are sets of 4 pins per map (NW,NE,SE,SW), or better yet an unfilled, outlined polygon, labeled with the map name, that covers each mapped area, so we could see where the boundaries actually fall.

[JonS]

Is there a reason you couldn't do this?

[Agua]

I am not so sure of that fidelity is so much the issue as getting the terrain to feel natural. It's the odd little things that can make a map more than just a 3d replication of a boardgame map.

So right. I tried my hand at remaking a map from a CMBO scenario. It just looked sterile until I started adding elements such as fences, power lines, random placement of bushes, intermittent hedgerows, etc. By the time I "finished", or rather "quit screwing around with it", it shared little with the map upon which it was based aside from elevation, a stream, and a bridge.

*aside* - finally got around to comparing the original CMBO scenario map with arerial photos of the terrain and discovered the CMBO map was pure fantasy. There weren't 20 acres in the actual terrain area that wasn't bisected with bocage while the original CMBO map included none. At that point, sort of lost motivation to do anything further.

[Broadsword56]

Well, you have a point, Blackhorse -- if we had a system for seeing exactly where all the historical CMBN maps are supposed to be located, we might be disappointed to discover some of the liberties that were taken and how little they resemble the actual places. But I'm sure many other CMBN maps would astound us with how accurate they are, and we would marvel even more at the artistry, research, and effort that went into them.

Either way -- my point is, once you can pinpoint the geo location of a BFC or a user-made map (if it has a true N orientation) you can use it with a grid system as a starting point for expanding the mapped area in a given direction, or re-editing the map in the editor however you like.

[Paper Tiger]

The maps for the 'Scottish Corridor' campaign were all derived from the aerial shots in Daglish's Epsom book so they will look very different from their modern day location in Google Earth. I did use Google Earth to locate the buildings that were in the photos so that I could place them as precisely as possible. As for the Montebourg maps, they are almost exact replications of their present day Google Earth locations although some small changes had to be made to keep the roads all straight to preserve the LoS along them. I'd rather preserve the roads at the expense of narrowing a field here and there.

I don't keep the 'squares' in Google Earth because I constantly expand/shorten the original map's dimensions as I work and especially after playtesting commences and I need to add an extra 400m to one side's set up area, or the entire southern sector is redundant. While it's not a ball-breaking amount of work to change the polygon each time I make such a change, it's not really at the top of my list of priorites especially seeing as how the Beta team are working under the clock to get their work finished so that BFC can ship the game.

[permanent666]

ok made a custom map in google. please feel free ta amend to the description. everyone with a google account should be able to collaborate and add maps and scenarios.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213046468374458899658.0004c2f2cbb3b4c5d62f4&msa=0