Shortage of maps

[Aragorn2002]

First of all I would like to say that I'm grateful to each and everyone of you that made a contribution to this game, be it with mods, maps or scenarios. However I can't help feeling regret about the fact that some essential historical maps are missing, like Hill 112 for instance. For me maps of important battlefields are even more important than scenarios. Perhaps in future releases more priority can be given to maps, instead of scenarios and campaigns. I'm sure a certain amount of maps included in the release will result in more third-party made scenarios and campaigns.

I know it is a lot of work, but still.

[umlaut]

Well, I like to make maps - and in all modesty I think I´m relatively good at it.

But I don´t have the knowledge that many of the grogs around here posses about WWII - and so I really wouldn´t know which maps to make - or how to go about getting the data needed for making the maps.

But: If you or someone else were willing to provide me with the data, historical/google maps, etc that were needed to make such a map, I´d love to give it a try.

Mojn

[Ithikial_AU]

Then have a shot yourself, it is actually quite refreshing change of pace.

[agusto]

Actually making scenarios and maps can be quite fun once you get the hang of it, you should try it if you havent yet.

[Paper Tiger]

However I can't help feeling regret about the fact that some essential historical maps are missing, like Hill 112 for instance.

It would be a pretty daunting task to make accurate maps of all the important battlefields in Normandy and Holland. I'm not sure that it would be possible to so even if we were to take all the community map-makers into the project. And if you miss one, somebody will feel the lack of it

For me maps of important battlefields are even more important than scenarios. Perhaps in future releases more priority can be given to maps, instead of scenarios and campaigns.

Maps certainly are important and you may even get what you want but...

I'm sure a certain amount of maps included in the release will result in more third-party made scenarios and campaigns.

If I'm going to spend hundreds of hours of my own time crafting maps, I want to be the one developing the scenarios/campaigns on them. Selfish, I know, but that's why I do them in the first place and I'm sure a lot of the designers feel the same way. Plus, it might mean that titles/modules ship with less content and we would be relying on the community to make the content that we need. Besides, I don't think that it's a lack of maps that is holding back the community, (there are literally hundreds of QB maps from which to do this,) but scripting the AI that's necessary to make them playable is

[Vinnart]

I have only made one, and it was a creative buzz. I'm definitly into only doing double image maps for QB fun vs. historical. The post made me think that just changing an existing victory point location can change the way a map plays significintly. I'm going to make another version of my "Death's Head" map just taking the center objectives out. If you have never seen the map it should lend itself to having to do much probing with many different ways to approach it making it play differently to get more out of the map. One can do this with any map out there to get more out of them.

I did start on another double image map of a woman with huge tits laying on her back. The problem I am finding is in order to get the detail, and best relief sculpture I have to make the map huge which my older machine takes too long to load. Don't worry though I'll get those tits out there for everyone to play on eventualy:D even if I have to work smaller due to machine limits.

Another map I want to do is the face of Sgt. Rock. No other image inspired me as a boy to want to be an artist. I just love Joe Kurbert's work on this cover. Just look how bad ass this drawing is.

[Fenris]

Higher fidelity means more work at the creation stage, bit of a catch22.

I started to learn the editor recently. As a starting point and to take out all the leg work of the research so i can just learn the editor I've been copying CM1 battles into CM2 (CMAK modded to ETO has a ton of NW Europe stuff). A screenshot of the map in the editor from CM1 makes a perfect start and then you just replicate the forces. Only really new thing you have to do is the AI plan(s). Maybe use that as somewhere to start.

Whilst I have started on a few historical maps it very time consuming so copying an old scenario lets you jump straight in. The research though is also very interesting, you start learning lots of little details so it can be just as rewarding. Hopefully one day I'll actually release something.

[Paper Tiger]

And it's always worth reminding people that it's absolutely not necessary to create high-fidelity maps. They are a huge amount of work to do. Ball park is good enough in almost every case. Leave the absolute precision to the obsessive compulsive disorder types ;D and have some fun crafting your own maps. Besides, bottom line, it's the game play that makes it worth playing. Beautiful, accurate map + crap gameplay is a waste of everyone's time.

[Erwin]

+1 re gameplay being #1 priority... usually, beautiful well-researched historical maps end up providing the opposite. Abstraction and manipulation of reality is the key to good gameplay value.

[Aragorn2002]

+1 re gameplay being #1 priority... usually, beautiful well-researched historical maps end up providing the opposite. Abstraction and manipulation of reality is the key to good gameplay value.

Point taken. But I'm not talking about perfect maps, just a basic set of the main battlefields. Hill 112 for instance. What is a Normandy game without Hill 112? Look at the Close Combat series. Lots of gorgeous maps and great scenarios.

[Erwin]

Well, 2D maps are a bit different from 3D. It's when you get to ground level and spend most of your game time at level 1 or 2. (At least that's what I do.) The map making tech is not detailed enuff to make totally accurate replicas of RL, so am simply saying that putting effort into how the game maps "play" is more important than struggling to get a map to appear identical to a RL map.

[M1 Garand]

Have you Played both of my La Fiere Scenarios? or Amfreville? I have Battle of Son's map nearly halfway done, Would you like for me to hurry that up?

[Pete Wenman]

Just read this thread

some essential historical maps are missing, like Hill 112

I considered doing Hill 112 but when researching the battle it became obvious it would actually make a very poor scenario due to the nature of the fighting there.

That's why I moved half a mile or so to the East and went with the "Shadow of the Hill" missions. The actions here gave a much better basis for interesting CM scale actions.

It's worth considering that well known actions don't necessarily make good scenarios.

Wittman hitting 7th Armoured Div at Villers Bocage, is a good example of this.

As for making quick scenarios do consider using existing maps and setting up a simple tactical problem on part of a larger map.

A platoon patrol or a company attack on a large walled farm as examples can be great fun to play, and are a great way to learn the editor. Getting a half decent AI plan to attack a static defense is a good way to get a grip on AI plans which can then be carried across to larger maps.

If H2H is what you like then it's even easier.

P

[Redwolf]

What we need is import/export of map data, preferably via XML.

Otherwise we'll forever be stuck in a loop of needing or wanting more editor features for streamlined work.

Once you have import/export you can either roll your own conversion of existing free data or you can adapt the Panzer Command editor.

I just hope this doesn't end up like in CMx1 where somebody had to go through simulating mouseclicks and keystrokes to get anything important. What a waste of everybody's time.

[George MC]

What we need is import/export of map data, preferably via XML.

Otherwise we'll forever be stuck in a loop of needing or wanting more editor features for streamlined work.

Once you have import/export you can either roll your own conversion of existing free data or you can adapt the Panzer Command editor.

I just hope this doesn't end up like in CMx1 where somebody had to go through simulating mouseclicks and keystrokes to get anything important. What a waste of everybody's time.

Out of interest have you used the editor in CMX2?

[Aragorn2002]

Just read this thread

I considered doing Hill 112 but when researching the battle it became obvious it would actually make a very poor scenario due to the nature of the fighting there.

That's why I moved half a mile or so to the East and went with the "Shadow of the Hill" missions. The actions here gave a much better basis for interesting CM scale actions.

It's worth considering that well known actions don't necessarily make good scenarios.

Wittman hitting 7th Armoured Div at Villers Bocage, is a good example of this.

As for making quick scenarios do consider using existing maps and setting up a simple tactical problem on part of a larger map.

A platoon patrol or a company attack on a large walled farm as examples can be great fun to play, and are a great way to learn the editor. Getting a half decent AI plan to attack a static defense is a good way to get a grip on AI plans which can then be carried across to larger maps.

If H2H is what you like then it's even easier.

P

I like the Shadow of the hill-series, Pete, but I'm still not convinced it is not possible to make interesting scenarios of Hill 112 or Villers-Bocage. And even so, I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy them. I don't care much for balanced battles, I want historical correct ones. Perhaps I'm a minority, but I think it is reasonable to ask for historical maps of the main battlefields.

[Pete Wenman]

but I'm still not convinced it is not possible to make interesting scenarios of Hill 112 or Villers-Bocage

I remain to be convinced, but here's the deal, give it a go I'll provide editor support and encouragement, and we'll see what you end up with.

I don't care much for balanced battles, I want historical correct ones. Perhaps I'm a minority

I fully agree with you here, but I suspect we may be in a minority of 2 as most scenario complaints are all about balance.

reasonable to ask for historical maps of the main battlefields.

At 8m x 8m tiles that's a lot of editor clicking

I think you are perhaps under estimating the number of historical maps out there, but in the context of Normandy you are asking for a huge area to be mapped.

Other than Hill 112 what other maps do you think should be made, (genuine question as I'm interested)

P

[sburke]

part of the issue with historical battles is the fow aspect at the operational level is non existent. I personally do like seeing historical battles just because it helps to understand to some degree why the fight went the way it did. As to balance, make that a minority of 4. Broadsword and I don't fight "balanced" battles. We fight what we consider to be interesting. The balance is derived from the impact on our larger campaign i.e. can the defender hold out long enough or inflict enough casualties to alter events at the op layer.

and just because - We can never have too many good maps, they can always be adapted for other scenarios so making one is never a bad idea.

[Aragorn2002]

I think you are perhaps under estimating the number of historical maps out there, but in the context of Normandy you are asking for a huge area to be mapped.

Other than Hill 112 what other maps do you think should be made, (genuine question as I'm interested)P

I'm sure I'm underestimating the number of historical maps out there, Pete. Absolutely. But the fact that nobody dares to touch maps like Villers-Bocage or Hill 112 must say something about the complexity of the map editor too.

I would like to try it myself, but I'm just not patient nor talented enough and lack of time is giving me the rest of my lame excuse. ;-)

All I'm saying is that I would love to see maps like Villers-Bocage, Hill 112, Hill 113, Carpiquet airfield, Norrey-en-Bessin, (the fighting around) Bayeux, Perrier Ridge (counterattack of the 21st Panzer, I mean), Tilly-sur-Seulles and Tilly la Campagne. I'm not sure of the last two maps and perhaps wrong about others too.

This game includes more than I can explore in a lifetime, that is not my complaint, it is just that I miss a number of (for me) vital maps.

And Sburke, yes, my main interest is also understanding why a battle developed itself the way it did. Few battles were balanced and as great as a balanced game can be, nothing can beat coming close to the real events.

And in order to avoid all misunderstanding: I think these games and all that they include are all made in heaven and I salute each and everyone of you that are part of the team behind them.

[Pete Wenman]

I don't want to labour the point ..........but

But the fact that nobody dares to touch maps like Villers-Bocage or Hill 112 must say something about the complexity of the map editor too.

I've not really looked at VB although I'm sure I recall somebody is working on one.

With regard to Hill 112 it's not a complex map at all. If anything it's a very simple map, with lots of open fields, a small wood, a couple of orchards and a very low hill. Oh and it's big - say a map of at least 3k x 3k, a big plain, for the most part, featureless map !

and that's why it's not on my to do list, as there are far more interesting maps out there to do

P

[Aragorn2002]

I respect that, Pete, as I respect the splendid job you've done so far. I'm sure your choices are better thought through than my remarks are. I just hope one day the maps I've mentioned will turn up too.

[Pete Wenman]

I just hope one day the maps I've mentioned will turn up too

Well I won't argue with that

P

[Aragorn2002]

Well I won't argue with that

P

And since you said Hill 112 is a relatively simple map AND the fact that you are a good person... ;-D

[Col Deadmarsh]

Does anyone have any links to good sites to get maps for making your own scenarios?