La belle Croix, Pont St. Clovis and Toquemont updates

[usgubgub]

I have updated my 4 maps, La Belle Croix, Pont St. Clovis, Toquemont and Vauvrecy. I have also added one new map, 560x512, Station de Toquemont.

The updates were submitted as a single download to the repository today.

I noticed how some map designers mix the two sizes of bocage to obtain more natural looking hedgerows and more interesting fields of fire, so I went through all 4 maps to use this feature. I am pleased with the result, but for those who don't like it I am leaving the old downloads up. I did make a few odd changes here and there, mostly to correct things that did not look right on closer inspection.

I would like to start developing scenarios using these maps, but I don't have enough playing experience to do a good enough job. I would be grateful if an experienced scenario designer would consider working with me on this project.

I was thinking of starting with the new map, Station de Toquemont, to create a small battle between 15th Scottish Div. troops and German Infantry.

Not having enough "battle experience" I find it hard to frame what could be an interesting but also realistic concept for the scenario. It would help me to discuss the map and how it relates to the other, larger maps so that the German defences are set up in a way that makes some sense.

[Pete Wenman]

Happy to help, either here or offline.

I've you've not already done so check out JonS's Sheriff of Oosterbeek scenario design thread

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110294

and George Mc's scenario design handbook

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1194

Lets talk

P

[usgubgub]

Thank you very much for your interest, Pete.

I have been following JonS' thread which is rich with ideas and concepts, though he is setting up a meeting engagement, and I guess it will be a while before he gets to talk about defensive layouts. The design handbook has been one of my resources since CMSF, I have learnt a lot from it. What I lack is sufficient playing experience, particularly from the defensive perspective.

I also tend to fall victim of size of battle creep, where you start with something small and end up with an unmanageable monster.

Mapmaking is easier because, even if you end up with a monster map, as some of mine could be considered, they can always be chopped up into smaller bits, and the bigger map can be used in a campaign setting or to create a series of related scenarios.

The five maps I have posted took 5 months to produce. Believe it or not, three of them originated from the same map, a first attempt where I got the orientation completely wrong (I thought South was North). There were bits of that map that I really liked, so I cut them out and built different maps around them with the right orientation.

I always wanted to reproduce the fighting of Bluecoat. I read war comics when I was a kid, and they were mostly about the British (the comics were imported from the UK to nearby Italy, translated into Italian and were also sold in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland where I grew up). That was what got my interest in military things started, which eventually matured into an interest in military history and wargaming.

Bluecoat was more of a small unit kind of battle than Epsom, Martlet, Charnwood, Goodwood, Totalize and Tractable. The terrain looked more interesting. As I did not know how to reproduce original terrain, I decided to produce a fictional landscape and eventually design something involving the units that fought in Bluecoat on either side.

Have you had a chance to look at the maps? Do you think they are useable? Would you improve them in any way?

My ambition was to eventually build a campaign around them, but I realize that I should really start with somenthing smaller and far less ambitious to learn the ropes. One thing that I have found is that setting up a human player attacker is not so difficult, you choose a force and objectives, assign setup zones and reinforcements and you are off. What is really challenging is setting up a computer player defender, in a way that would make sense and be sufficiently challenging for the human attacker, as well as reasonably unpredictable.

I always tended to build impregnable defense systems. That is not much fun to attack. For realism and fun, a defense has to have weaknesses that the attacker can exploit, but they cannot be too obvious and it should cost the attacker something to discover them. Playing "Kiwi Soldiers", the smallest scenario in GL, was a revelation for me: just the right effect, and achieved with a very small defending force.

Anyway, I am happy to dialogue here if that suits you. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

[Pete Wenman]

OK, some initial thoughts. All the maps are excellent, with a style of their own. I would suggest however that it is noticeable that they are fictional. I think it is due to the high object density and small fields. I've fallen into the same trap in the past and you can end up with an overcrowded map sometimes.

A couple of points,

On the Station de Toquemont I would avoid the kinks in the railway line where it passes through the cutting.

Rivers and bridges can cause the AI a lot of problems.

Too much bocage upsets some players

Your field layout across all the maps is very square and looks a little un-natural as a consequence.

George Mc's Wittmans Demise is a great example of a natural map. There are areas with a lot of map objects, but there are also a lot of open areas. Field edges are irregular etc

The mapoverlay option has made it so much easier to create actual landscapes and I find it easier to do so than create fictional ones now ! If you want to go the historical or real route this is a good place to start for France

http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/donnee/51/cartes-ign

I use screencaptures to build a map image at the required resolution which is then cut to size to be used as an editor overlay image. Jon covered this in his SOO thread.

But overall cracking maps and a good reward for the time you have spent on them.

Good idea to start with something small as you are far more likely to finish it, and be satisfied with it.

If we work with the Station de Toquemont map:

The first thing that jumps out of me that this a good map, but I can tell it was made as a map, rather than for a game scenario.

Jon covered the concept here in his thread, but it really helps if at the outset, there is some design concept regarding the battle.

What are the objectives for the scenario

What direction will the opposing forces be moving (what map edges can be considered friendly to either side)

Can both forces set up out of sight of the other at game start.

These points are all important to the player(s) and so must be important to the designer.

So tonight's task is to give consideration to the following.

1a. What are to be the objectives for our scenario in terms of both the defender and the attacker.

1b. Give consideration to both terrain and unit objectives in this regard (touch, occupy, spot, destroy etc)

2. What is your suggested force size and composition for the attacker and defender . (A 3:1 ratio is not a bad place to start, so if the defenders are at platoon size the attackers will be at company strength - a gross over simplification I know but it's not a bad place to start)

P

[usgubgub]

I had thought about two of the points you made 3/4 of the way through the work, so I tried to create some open areas and used more diagonal hedges. I could alter the maps to eliminate some hedges altogether to reduce density, while some of the squarer parts could be tweaked by putting in some kinks in the parallel hedges. The trouble is that one can only work with 90 degrees to the base or 45 degrees to the base. This is also the reason for the kinks in the railway.

Probably the best way to do this is to use them as they are and make alterations once an idea for a scenario develops.

I would love to reproduce a real terrain map, but I would need to learn the whole technique from scratch, so I will treat that as a project for the future, to avoid being forever stuck in making maps :-)

To answer your questions I try to imagine the broader situation within which the scenario will be set. Let's say that we are on the second day of the offensive. The German front is held by wehrmacht infantry, their first belt of defences has been penetrated and there has been some falling back to a second line. The British are advancing North to South.

Our scenario could represent the British feeling their way forward towards that second line. This could be about their forward elements running into improvised resistance nests ahead of the strongpoints of this line. The British task could be to advance to the railway line and take it as the start line for continuing the attack towards Vauvrecy and Toquemont.

German forces could be tasked with delaying the British advance and denying them the railway line. They could be deployed to control key terrain for which the attacker must fight in order to reach the objective.

The map has a 560m of frontage. Ahead of the railway line are Le Breuil village on the western flank, Hamel Vincent junction in the centre and woodland down the eastern flank. What size German force could be deployed to put up the required level of resistance? A weakened company with mortar support, some HMGs and one or two ATGs?

As the task is delaying and interdiction, I would not anticipate having to provide reinforcements to the Germans for a counterattack. This is also so that we can keep the scenario design relatively simple. Another question is whether this context should allow the Germans to deploy some mines and/or barbed wire and have a few TRPs.

Depending on the resolution of the above we can then calibrate what force to give the attacker. Objectives should work with easier ones being closer to the attacker's start position and probably touch, with key postions occupy, and the final objectives being spread alonf the railway line and occupy, with higher value. Defender objectives could be linked to inflicting casualties/disruption and denying the final objective.

This is as far as I can go with my limited experience. Please tell me if the approach is flawed, or if there is a better way to get to where I am trying to go. If the logic works, then someone with the right experience is better placed to suggest various ideas for the defence according to what size scenario we want to end up designing.

[Pete Wenman]

I do wonder if you are overthinking things a little here.

We have a saying in the UK - KISS - Keep it simple stupid, and it works well for CM - sorry about the stupid bit

I like the idea of working the map on the north - south axis, but my inclination would be to have the British advancing from the south - just because the map works better that way.

Maybe a couple of touch objectives at the railway station and along the railway line, with two occupy objectives for the two farms.

It might be the southern edge of the map needs to be increased a little with some low ground added to allow a set up zone along the south edge, but that is not visible from the rest of the map.

As for force size I'd suggest the British attack at company strength, and so the Germans defend with a platoon, plus some attachments - scouts lmg teams etc

Nice and small, nice and simple.

So tonight's task is to:

Select a British company size force

Select a German platoon size force and 6 or so attached teams.

Don't worry about vehicles at this stage other than any that come with the selected force.

No right or wrong here, but we have to start somewhere.

P

[usgubgub]

Ok, I see the point you are making. I like the suggestion about the force composition.

The only problem is the direction of the British attack. American forces attacked from South to North in the Cotentin peninsula to take Cherbourg and later after Mortain with 3rd Army to try to close the Falaise pocket.

British formations in Normandy up to the German break-out from the Falaise pocket attacked from North to South mostly, with some instances of Northwest to Southeast and even West to East towards the end of Bluecoat, but I can't find any instances where they would have attacked from South to North. Their fronts never faced North.

If the map is just wrong as it stands, it's no great problem, we can choose a portion of another map ( maybe the Vauvrecy map) and start there. Or we can look at the northern end of the map and alter it to make it more playable. As the map is fictional we can change anything we want on it (elevation, obstacle and cover density etc.).

The only thing that we can't do is add depth to the North: for some reason that I can't fathom the editor simply won't allow that for this particular map. I tried many times, saving then re-opening etc. it just won't work. It works for all the others.

Let me know if you think altering this map or choosing a different one will work best.

[Pete Wenman]

Again - I think you are over thinking this and seeking perfection.

You agree this is a fictional map, with a fictional force composition, and yet you worry about which way is north. If the game play is good, no one will care. (Or if they do we can just ignore them)

As for not being able to add to the map on the north side I suspect that it is because you have moved 2k north from the default at start map position when building the larger map from which I assume this is cut. But no worries we don't need to expand to the north.

My vote is to do as I suggested yesterday. Live with this map as it is, extend it to the south so the off map force has a set up zone out of sight of the rest of the map and chose the opposing forces.

If it makes you feel better have the Germans attacking from the South and the Brits on defence, but I would stick with your original intent.

Remember this is about scenario design so lets keep going with what we have as there is a danger otherwise that you'll never finish anything

So tonight's task is to:

Extend the map a little to the south to create an out of sight SUZ

Select a British company size force

Select a German platoon size force and 6 or so attached teams.

P

[usgubgub]

After dinner I played around with the map. You are trying to help me and I do not want to seem obdurate, but before we go further, would you like to take a look at the changes to see if the new map works well? I have opened it up quite a bit in the centre, there is a viable SUZ along the North edge in the centre and the flanks have been opened up.

What is the best way to let you have the new map?

[Pete Wenman]

Hey don't worry about being obdurate - this is your map and you can do what you like with it. However as it stands it has the necessary space and obvious objectives for an attack from the south edge.

Let me have the revised map, but before you do so select the two forces and deploy the defender in the editor as if you were setting up to play as the defender.

Either via dropbox or send it to me at

petewenman at navairat.com - change at to @ obviously

P

[usgubgub]

Whichever map we use, the selection as you suggest is fairly simple: a Wehrmacht Infantry platoon with HQ, 3 squads and two PzSchreck teams with attached specialist teams as follows: 1x MG42 HMG, 2 Scout teams, 1 MG42 LMG team and 1 on board 81mm tube team defending; 1 British Infantry Company as modelled in the selection screen attacking with 1 element of 3' mortar support off board.

[usgubgub]

Thanks for the prompt reply, I'll get on with it as you suggest.