chaos49 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Hi Before i buy i like to know how big maps are playing. i had try a master map in cmbn that was unplayable is better now ? Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Hi Before i buy i like to know how big maps are playing. i had try a master map in cmbn that was unplayable is better now ? Thanks Generally yes larger maps are working better, but a couple caveats CMBN will likely get the 3.0 upgrade sometime in the next few months. Until then no change for CMBN For CMRT, it is still heavily dependent on your machine. If your particular computer is not up to the resource level don't expect a sudden miracle. Performance will be better but you won't suddenly be able to go crazy on a 4x4 km heavily forested map with several battalions on each side. That is part of the issue with larger maps, it isn't just the map size that increases. It is also the unit density and that starts to drive up resource needs of the scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 With the fantastic improvements to the Editor, you'll be making your own beautiful maps! Nothing to think about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The largest master maps that I made for the area of the Soviet campaign in RT (5 of them) were around 6k long by 3 to 5k wide. These are pretty wooded, with two maps having a number of buildings (but certainly not "urban" like in CM:MG). The master maps are not scenarios. They are for scenario makers to chop up into smaller chunks to set battles on- there are no forces placed (you may know this already). The largest of the CM:MG master maps I made (Nijmegen being the densest) had many, many buildings on them. My 2013 Mac Pro with an ATI 7950 and 16gb RAM running Windows 7 64bit in Bootcamp was able to fly about the map with no issues. Load times were quite long back then however. This has been improved in RT. Some people may wish to make an entire battle with large forces on these maps, but they should have a speedy computer to attempt a full master map battle. The critical question with anything as large as these maps with lots of forces becomes- What are your computer specs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 BFC had originally hoped to be able to provide very much bigger maps for CMRT but though actual gameplay was adequate things like load times and save times increased exponentially. So plans were scaled back to reasonable expectations. Huge maps have some utility in making beautiful master maps for subdividing into discrete battles. But remember, if you've got foot infantry at the far end of a 5km map typical human walking speed is about 5km an hour. That's a lot of time spent watching pixeltruppen walk. And if he's carrying an MP40 he's going to have to walk up to 150m from the enemy before he has a hope of shooting him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 What nobody has made so far is a map that is 2km x 8km. For a really long, detailed in depth battle this could be really fun. An example would be a defender starting with the middle 3/4 of the map and the attacker starting with the map edges (on the 2km side). The objective for the attacker is to join up, the defender to keep a road corridor open through the middle. This could be made even more challenging by having the defender get periodic reinforcements of trucks which have to be exited from one side to the other. It would be a massive undertaking to make such a battle, and the battle itself would probably need the max time and regular reinforcements, but oh man... that could be one heck of an epic battle! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Maybe someone has started something akin to that... Whether they get to finish it is another issue! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I've got a 4 x 4 km map on the go which I hope to finish. A lot of trees on there mind and I plan to use a lot of forces. I've got some thoughts about making it processor friendly in terms of the both the terrain and force sequencing. Hopefully I'll be able to pull it off as I think the scenario will be a belting challenge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Maybe someone has started something akin to that... Great minds think alike, as do sick and twisted ones Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Steve emphasized deep maps over broad because in Bargation an 8km wide front would involve divisions or even corps, not just battalions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets_All_Fight Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 With the fantastic improvements to the Editor, you'll be making your own beautiful maps! Nothing to think about. What improvements are there in the editor, out of interest? I'm aware of the Ai triggers but what else is there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets_All_Fight Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Scrub my question. Like a massive div I've just found the 3.0 upgrade manual. I've been looking through the wrong manual for the last three days... I'll have a look there instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 What nobody has made so far is a map that is 2km x 8km. For a really long, detailed in depth battle this could be really fun. An example would be a defender starting with the middle 3/4 of the map and the attacker starting with the map edges (on the 2km side). The objective for the attacker is to join up, the defender to keep a road corridor open through the middle. This could be made even more challenging by having the defender get periodic reinforcements of trucks which have to be exited from one side to the other. It would be a massive undertaking to make such a battle, and the battle itself would probably need the max time and regular reinforcements, but oh man... that could be one heck of an epic battle! Steve <dribble> I'd play that ! Hell, I'd AAR it ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Even if you were attacking in one direction along the corridor it would be fun. I still (when I have time) really enjoy the ("dynamic"?) campaigns in CM1 where the playable area of the map moved depending on your progress, so you would start on the far edge of the map that you played the previous mission and would be seeing more of the map as you progressed. Of course if you were forced back you would find yourself fighting over areas of the map you'd already played. I can't recall if the terrain maintained any damage, craters etc from mission to mission, but it may have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-warfare Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I can't recall if the terrain maintained any damage, craters etc from mission to mission, but it may have. It did indeed, and was very fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yes CM1 Ops were indeedy fun (as I try to remind everyone whenever I get the chance). Be good if larger map sizes for CM2 can increased via a patch in a couple of years when PC hardware has more grunt. -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 What nobody has made so far is a map that is 2km x 8km. For a really long, detailed in depth battle this could be really fun. An example would be a defender starting with the middle 3/4 of the map and the attacker starting with the map edges (on the 2km side). The objective for the attacker is to join up, the defender to keep a road corridor open through the middle. This could be made even more challenging by having the defender get periodic reinforcements of trucks which have to be exited from one side to the other. It would be a massive undertaking to make such a battle, and the battle itself would probably need the max time and regular reinforcements, but oh man... that could be one heck of an epic battle! Steve To quote what Tim Allen used to say about walking thru the Craftsman tool section of Sears? "My nipples are getting hard thinking about it." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Even if you were attacking in one direction along the corridor it would be fun. I still (when I have time) really enjoy the ("dynamic"?) campaigns in CM1 where the playable area of the map moved depending on your progress, so you would start on the far edge of the map that you played the previous mission and would be seeing more of the map as you progressed. Of course if you were forced back you would find yourself fighting over areas of the map you'd already played. I can't recall if the terrain maintained any damage, craters etc from mission to mission, but it may have. I dont remember about terrain damage either but IIRC destroyed tanks would be there battle to battle. But tanks that could be recovered would be removed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yes CM1 Ops were indeedy fun (as I try to remind everyone whenever I get the chance). Be good if larger map sizes for CM2 can increased via a patch in a couple of years when PC hardware has more grunt. -F CM2 maps are already pretty big. I've been playing a "pretend Russian front" scenario made in CMBN ( Schmiedestal! by GeorgeMC ) for a while now (H2H) and after a game-hour have reached the first Touch objectives. The actual objectives are still faaaaaar away. Despite the large forces involved, they have been completely swallowed up by the landscape. That's without the map size increases that version 3.0 has brought. Contrary to what many initially thought of CM2 when it came out, it actually shines in large scenarios. Granted you may need a PC with plenty of grunt and you need a fair bit of time to do your orders (30-45 mins on avg for me ), but big engagements on big maps can be totally absorbing. My 2c 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 <dribble> I'd play that ! Hell, I'd AAR it ! I would like to indulge in such megalomania but I am very doubtful my current NVIDiA graphics card (GEforce 100) would support such a huge map plus all the units that might be involved. However, if someoe could suggest a better graphics card tt might allow my PC to run games that big I would be very interested in reccomendations! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teacher Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Sounds like a challenge worth my time. IT has begun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Despite the large forces involved, they have been completely swallowed up by the landscape. That's without the map size increases that version 3.0 has brought. When we had 5.6km x 5.6km maps, very briefly during development, I couldn't believe how HUGE they were in game terms. I could believe how horrible my performance was Huge maps are really only good for two things: 1. Battles where maneuver is the primary objective. And for that you need fairly modest sized forces. 2. Battles that you don't mind if they take you 2 months to finish in WeGo. Lots of units means lots of things to do and lots of things to do means lots of time spent doing it! When I was making some scenarios for Red Thunder I started from the huge, and freak'n awesome, master maps from Ben and Pete. I trimmed it down to what I thought I needed, put the units on the map, then figured out that I could trim more. After playing a while I realized that I could trim even further without affecting the battle's options. And that's important because there's no reason to have a bunch of map that you'll never need for a particular battle. All it does is stress framerates. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 2. Battles that you don't mind if they take you 2 months to finish in WeGo. Lots of units means lots of things to do and lots of things to do means lots of time spent doing it! .... Very true, we started this scenario with an "it takes as long as it takes" attitude. On the other hand, the map he created for this scenario is freakin' beautiful. There may be some bits at the back on the "Russian" side I'll never get to, but it makes a really well-rounded whole. If he doesn't recreate the map in CMRT, I'll have to hunt him down with my Bribing-Beer/Whisky - Scotland's only so big, he can't hide 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 When we had 5.6km x 5.6km maps, very briefly during development, I couldn't believe how HUGE they were in game terms. I could believe how horrible my performance was Huge maps are really only good for two things: 1. Battles where maneuver is the primary objective. And for that you need fairly modest sized forces. 2. Battles that you don't mind if they take you 2 months to finish in WeGo. Lots of units means lots of things to do and lots of things to do means lots of time spent doing it! When I was making some scenarios for Red Thunder I started from the huge, and freak'n awesome, master maps from Ben and Pete. I trimmed it down to what I thought I needed, put the units on the map, then figured out that I could trim more. After playing a while I realized that I could trim even further without affecting the battle's options. And that's important because there's no reason to have a bunch of map that you'll never need for a particular battle. All it does is stress framerates. Steve Also mini campaign type battles, agaiin with fairly modest forces lasting three or four hours allowing for plenty of manouvre and a couple of engagements. But of course your PC Specs have to be able to handle it so you probably need a machine tat can meet the hgh end specs,. Ofcourse I am sure you can still do linked battle campaigns or smaller versions on the 4 x 4kmmaps most people's PCs can probably handle. Maybe thaty is still the way to go for most of us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Guys - just to mention the 5.6k x 5.6k map still exists. It can be loaded into the editor but it cannot be opened in 3d view unless it is reduced in size to the appropriate maximum dimensions. Any body interested in it ? Just remember that 5.6k x 5.6k is the same area as 31 seperate 1k square QB maps. It is very big P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.