Can CMRT maps be imported from CMBN etc?

[Zenomorph]

There are some great maps in the other CM games and I'm wondering if they can be imported between each other if you own both games.  Thx!

[sburke]

There is already a whole thread on the subject. Answer - there is no official path to do so

[76mm]

But there is an unofficial way to do it, although it is not foolproof.  Here is the thread sburke mentioned:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117959-cm-maps-universal-translator-tool/

[Zenomorph]

But there is an unofficial way to do it, although it is not foolproof.  Here is the thread sburke mentioned:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117959-cm-maps-universal-translator-tool/

So odd that they don't allow this if you own both games.  I'd buy Black Sea TODAY if I could import maps.  Would anyone want to post a step-by-step on how to use a hex editor for this?  I've no idea how to do so and would likely wind up burning my house down if I tried it.

[womble]

It's not "disallowed", is it? Is it contrary to the license we have to use the software? It's just "not supported" because, as that thread demonstrates, it's not just a matter of changing a flag somewhere. Every family has its own palette of map entities, and the mismatches have to be handled.

Sure, Charles or Phil could probably crank out such a thing pretty quick, and maybe they will now the laundry list of feature-wants has shortened some.

[Pelican Pal]

I would be very happy if the mismatches were just defaulted to a basic grass, basic tree, basic house depending on what the object is.

 

There are some really nice maps for CM:BN. CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:BS that would be nice to have in the other games. If the cost of doing so is spending sometime in the editor piecing together some parts of the map it would be totally worth it.

 

Most of the terrain seems shared anyway.

[ASL Veteran]

It's not "disallowed", is it? Is it contrary to the license we have to use the software? It's just "not supported" because, as that thread demonstrates, it's not just a matter of changing a flag somewhere. Every family has its own palette of map entities, and the mismatches have to be handled.

Sure, Charles or Phil could probably crank out such a thing pretty quick, and maybe they will now the laundry list of feature-wants has shortened some.

It really just depends on what one considers paid 'content' or not.  If everyone owned every game that BFC sold then obviously it wouldn't be an issue for everyone to share QB maps across different titles.  However, not everyone owns every game that BFC sells and once one person converts a map from one title to another then everyone, regardless as to whether they own both titles in question, has access to every map in every title.  So if one considers QB maps to be content that has been paid for with the purchase of a particular game, a map converter then makes that content available for free to all BFC customers regardless of which titles they own.  This then makes the case for questioning whether it would be worthwhile to actually create and sell new content.  Sure, in the short term some individuals may gain access to some interesting QB maps available in other titles, but at what long term cost for 'new' content.  After all, why include 300 + QB maps in a release when you can just include twenty new ones and tell everyone to keep on using all the old ones that they are swapping between different titles.  Sure cuts down on the work load doesn't it?

 

This is why selling 'content' packs will always fail unless BFC creates some very good ways to keep individuals out of the files so they can send the content to all their friends.  All those who dream of putting together some sort of independent 'scenario packs' will never be able to do it in a way that works.  Only BFC could create and sell 'content' packs and only if there were a fool proof way of keeping control of the content restricted to those who purchased it.  The way this horse is being beaten makes one wonder if BFC will ever consider it to be worthwhile to produce and sell 'content' packs. 

 

I think this is all I'm going to say on this subject so I'll now 'exit stage left'. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[kohlenklau]

Maybe this entire thing can be a marketing tool to help drive up sales and cross-pollinate interest in the fan base?

Brand new kid with his XBOX and PS3 background sees CMBS and buys it. Learns that BFC is modder friendly, has a big repository with stuff including other maps translated over to his game in a semi-ready state but not the other special items like windmills and the Arnhem Bridge. He learns about World War 2 and maybe buys a few of the other titles...

 

exit stage right!

Edited February 11, 2015 by kohlenklau

[76mm]

...once one person converts a map from one title to another then everyone, regardless as to whether they own both titles in question, has access to every map in every title.  So if one considers QB maps to be content that has been paid for with the purchase of a particular game, a map converter then makes that content available for free to all BFC customers regardless of which titles they own. 

 

This then makes the case for questioning whether it would be worthwhile to actually create and sell new content...After all, why include 300 + QB maps in a release when you can just include twenty new ones and tell everyone to keep on using all the old ones that they are swapping between different titles.  Sure cuts down on the work load doesn't it?

I don't understand what is wrong with people being granted access to more maps; they can already create maps in the scenario editor--if BFC wants to sell more maps, they should eliminate the editor as well. And I think it would be a good thing if BFC spent less time creating new maps for releases--because of the huge "map bank" built up for CMx2 games--and therefore could focus on releasing the most important content--more units, etc.--more quickly.

That's why BFC does not allow adding or modding the actual units--because THAT is what they're selling in the new modules.

 

This is why selling 'content' packs will always fail unless BFC creates some very good ways to keep individuals out of the files so they can send the content to all their friends.  All those who dream of putting together some sort of independent 'scenario packs' will never be able to do it in a way that works.  Only BFC could create and sell 'content' packs and only if there were a fool proof way of keeping control of the content restricted to those who purchased it.  The way this horse is being beaten makes one wonder if BFC will ever consider it to be worthwhile to produce and sell 'content' packs.

As far as I know BFC has never stated any intention to sell "map packs", or even scenario packs, and we certainly haven't seen any. BFC has only spoken about the "packs" with oddball troops, etc., like the only one we've seen so far, for CMBN.

I also don't agree that having more maps available will result in fewer scenarios--creating the map is only part of the scenario, and being able to start with a wider selection of maps means that scenario creators could spend more time on other parts of the scenarios. If someone wants to create "scenario" packs, people are buying scenarios, not maps, although surely it would be easier to sell such a pack if it included new maps as well. I also suspect, although am not sure, that people will be more motivated to create maps if they know that they can use them for more than one CMx2 game.

[sburke]

heh heh lots of suppositions there.  Can't say they are wrong though i disagree with quite a bit of it, it is just my opinion.

 

I like making maps, but what I like about it is the flavor and character of the map..  That cannot carry between games, flavor items aren't going to match up etc.  For example, my favorite CM game to make urban maps in is CMFI, the buildings in CMBN/CMRT just don't look as good to me so trying to migrate those maps is pointless.  That is assuming the buildings could even migrate.

 

As to content, units are not the only thing I look for.  I also look for new terrain and building types etc that frequently come with the modules and as to the maps, don't tell that to the scenario creators.  There isn't whole lot of map re use going on, in fact only one I know of.

 

I don't actually know how BF feels about this whole discussion, but for me personally it is not a big item.  Most of the work that goes into a map is still going to have to be done.  The scenario overlay tool was a far better use of their time. - THAT was a huge time saver.

[womble]

It really just depends on what one considers paid 'content' or not.  If everyone owned every game that BFC sold then obviously it wouldn't be an issue for everyone to share QB maps across different titles.  However, not everyone owns every game that BFC sells and once one person converts a map from one title to another then everyone, regardless as to whether they own both titles in question, has access to every map in every title.  So if one considers QB maps to be content that has been paid for with the purchase of a particular game, a map converter then makes that content available for free to all BFC customers regardless of which titles they own.  This then makes the case for questioning whether it would be worthwhile to actually create and sell new content.  Sure, in the short term some individuals may gain access to some interesting QB maps available in other titles, but at what long term cost for 'new' content.  After all, why include 300 + QB maps in a release when you can just include twenty new ones and tell everyone to keep on using all the old ones that they are swapping between different titles.  Sure cuts down on the work load doesn't it?

 

This is why selling 'content' packs will always fail unless BFC creates some very good ways to keep individuals out of the files so they can send the content to all their friends.  All those who dream of putting together some sort of independent 'scenario packs' will never be able to do it in a way that works.  Only BFC could create and sell 'content' packs and only if there were a fool proof way of keeping control of the content restricted to those who purchased it.  The way this horse is being beaten makes one wonder if BFC will ever consider it to be worthwhile to produce and sell 'content' packs. 

 

I think this is all I'm going to say on this subject so I'll now 'exit stage left'.

Interesting. I'm really not sure from that what your position on the matter is...

Personally, I think it's an argument for Charles and Phil making a map converter and putting it on the Repository. That way, the value of their new families to people who already own other families is increased: they don't have to wait for someone to make the map available on the Repository, if they fancy rolling their Abrams across their favourite bit of the Normandy countryside (with Ukrainian houses...), they can just roll the converter, plonk some buildings in to replace the mismatches and Robert's your auntie's live-in lover.

Maps, once the game is out, have always been in the public domain, and that's why scenario packs don't sound like they'd make BFC any money, as they lack any way of preventing freeloading. New maps are always very welcome, and would be as valuable a part of the product that BFC sells, to the person buying it, as they have ever been, even if all other Families' maps were potentially only half an hour away from being usable in the new Family. BFC could even batch-run the converter and include all the old maps in the product that introduces the map-converter, with that half-hour's work done on each. That might let them provide fewer new maps in that one product, and possibly future ones without too much aggro from the user base. But "300 new maps" is a bragging point that will sell games to the RT section of the community that's actually had time to play all the existing maps

[z1812]

It would be nice to use maps between modules and games.

[sburke]

There is already a whole thread on the subject. Answer - there is no official path to do so

Really skinfaxi, you gave me a negative point for simply stating the current reality, dang dude. Get a grip

[ASL Veteran]

Interesting. I'm really not sure from that what your position on the matter is...

Maps, once the game is out, have always been in the public domain, and that's why scenario packs don't sound like they'd make BFC any money, as they lack any way of preventing freeloading. New maps are always very welcome, and would be as valuable a part of the product that BFC sells, to the person buying it, as they have ever been, even if all other Families' maps were potentially only half an hour away from being usable in the new Family. BFC could even batch-run the converter and include all the old maps in the product that introduces the map-converter, with that half-hour's work done on each. That might let them provide fewer new maps in that one product, and possibly future ones without too much aggro from the user base. But "300 new maps" is a bragging point that will sell games to the RT section of the community that's actually had time to play all the existing maps

I only re enter here with extreme reluctance because I want to make my point as clear as possible.

 

Generally speaking I think that BFC want players to enjoy the game they purchased as much as possible.  I don't think they have too much of a problem with the map transfers for a couple of reasons, the first of which is that the content is produced by individuals who are not directly employed by BFC and because BFC doesn't have a direct role in the creation of content it would put them in an awkward position for them to vigorously defend such content.  We do get something from our labor though, but nobody is going to get rich making maps and scenarios for BFC.  Anyone who owns the game can create a scenario or a map and put it up on the repository for anyone to download.  There is also an expectation that individuals will alter and use content provided within the game for their enjoyment of that specific game.  We all know that.

 

However, here is the crux of the issue from my standpoint.

 

Ask yourself this question: If BFC released a base game or a module and no content of any kind was included, would you feel that was a valuable purchase?  In other words, a new Bulge title is released and there were no QB maps, no scenarios, and no campaigns included at all.  We already know what a release like that looks like to some extent - it is the equivalent of the vehicle pack that was released only it would be even worse because at least with the vehicle pack there already existed QB maps in the previous base game and modules.  If a new base game was released with no QB maps at all then there would be no maps created until someone in the community created them (and we all know how well that is going don't we?).  I think that BFC thinks of their games in that context to some extent because they obviously thought the vehicle pack was a good idea.  Only BFC knows what the sales numbers were for the vehicle pack and if they were strong then theoretically BFC could simply release a game engine with TO&Es and vehicle models and tell the community to just create their own content.  Does anyone here think that would be a good idea?  If your answer is yes then you won't understand my point.  If your answer is 'no' then there is hope because then the next obvious conclusion one can reach is that ... yes ... people purchase BFC games and modules at least partially because of the content that is provided with the game.  If that wasn't the case then BFC wouldn't feel the need to include content in their releases and they could just have the community create their own content.  To some extent I think BFC thinks in those terms, but I am of the opinion that content is actually the primary reason why people purchase the games because without content there isn't a game to play.  All you have is a 'war game construction set' with vehicle models and TO&Es and who wants one of those?  The sales of the vehicle pack should be proof of concept either way.

 

Therefore, if content that is contained in a game is part of the reason for purchasing that game, then transferring that content between games in a manner that isn't intended is potentially giving someone something for nothing.  The very fact that individuals feel that the transferring of these QB maps between titles is something that they gain value from is essentially proof of my point that the content has value (otherwise why transfer it), and if it is content that was provided by BFC when a player purchased the game then that content, by definition, can be assumed to have been given to someone for free that which should probably have been purchased.

 

I hope that clears things up from my end.

Edited February 13, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[76mm]

Actually, I'm still trying to understand your position:

...but I am of the opinion that content is actually the primary reason why people purchase the games because without content there isn't a game to play.  All you have is a 'war game construction set' with vehicle models and TO&Es and who wants one of those?  The sales of the vehicle pack should be proof of concept either way.

Of course, but you seem to be defining content solely as maps and scenarios. Personally I'd rather have a couple dozen maps and scenarios with each game and the ability to share maps between titles than 300 maps, like with BS--pretty soon the usable map bank for the CMx2 series would be large enough that people wouldn't have to worry much about a shortage of maps. If people want yet more maps and scenarios, and the community doesn't provide them, then Battlefront can sell map and/or scenario packs as well. To be sure, I'm sure there are people who want 500 maps and scenarios with each title, but I'm of a different opinion.

The very fact that individuals feel that the transferring of these QB maps between titles is something that they gain value from is essentially proof of my point that the content has value (otherwise why transfer it), and if it is content that was provided by BFC when a player purchased the game then that content, by definition, can be assumed to have been given to someone for free that which should probably have been purchased.

I don't follow here; two issues:

1) If I have both games, I've paid for the content, so I'm not getting something for free, I've already purchased the content. If you're concerned about people who have only bought one game being able to use maps from all the games whether they've bought them or not, I'd have no problem at all if they limited map sharing to maps for titles that you already own, but of course that would require a conscious policy decision and some programming from Battlefront, which at least so far they haven't shown much interest in.

2) If you're implying that people that have bought both games still shouldn't be able to shares maps without paying more to Battlefront, because that right of common use should not be free, I'm not sure that I agree. Moreover, even if I was willing to pay for common use, there is currently no way to do so.

[benpark]

There are a fair number of RT maps in the QB folder from the master maps that I made. Probably true for Pete's as well.

[kohlenklau]

Food fight!!!

 

I would buy Bulge right now without scenarios, campaigns, QB maps. We can make all that ourselves. And more so if you provide some type of translator tool.

It seems a few of the great guys that make stock QB/scenarios/campaigns also upload and probably will continue to upload stuff to the various sites as a labor of love to the hobby.

But only BFC can hire the wire frame 3D guys for models of new vehicles/uniforms and change the interface to show the date ranges. Please get me a schwimmwagen, bitter!

We'll see new roadsigns. We can make those also. We'll maybe see some new flavor objects? Maybe not. We can't really make new ones, but can mod the existing ones within limitations.

 

But for BFC to market Bulge to a new audience, then it probably needs to offer the full set of stuff (QB, scenarios and campaigns).

Edited February 13, 2015 by kohlenklau

[Pelican Pal]

There are a lot of words thrown around by how each family is unique and we need a new one for new terrain or territory. That really isn't true. It is mostly just basic theming that occurs between different families.

A family doesn't sell you unique terrain it sells you immersion. (it also sells you tanks and men but right now we're gonna ignore that)

 

What creates the maps isn't that the terrain options in CM:RT are specially made with Eastern Europe in mind (seriously tall grass is tall grass is tall grass) its that the units provided are Eastern Front 1944 German and Russian formations. So it gives a context for scenario creation. I've been doing some map making in CM:BS and right now with the terrain options available I could make terrain from the coast of France to Moscow. I could even do the MIddle-East, I could do the continental United States, I could do the jungles of South East Asia, I could do N. Africa, Italy, Greece, the low countries, Finland, China, mainland Japan, Australia.

 

The thing that would be missing is Immersion, and if I had a guy who could mod up the textures I would have that too.

 

Because at the end of the day what is the playable difference between jungle and heavy woods? There really isn't any. If I made a map that was absolutely covered in dense forest, with a heavy wood tile underlaying that, and then brushed it with foliage I could recreate a battle in Vietnam circa 1965. I could even change the temparature to hot and put some heavy rain on the map. Except that there would be no 1965 Americans, there would be no NVA, there would be no VC, there would be no ARVN. Which is stupid and not wanted by anyone.

 

So yes, while the maps are important they aren't anywhere close to the sellers for the game. Maps are solely interesting terrain to use our toys on and map making is time consuming and tedious work.

 

 

Edit; I will admit that the CM:BN brought us hedgerows, which I think is some of the only unique terrain we've gotten. We also don't have seasons. However, If say CM:Black Sea was extended throughout all 12 months you could then do all the places I mentioned throughout the seasons and you could even go farther to the North and South and do mountain peaks like the Himalayas.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[Combatintman]

What creates the maps isn't that the terrain options in CM:RT are specially made with Eastern Europe in mind (seriously tall grass is tall grass is tall grass) its that the units provided are Eastern Front 1944 German and Russian formations. So it gives a context for scenario creation. I've been doing some map making in CM:BS and right now with the terrain options available I could make terrain from the coast of France to Moscow. I could even do the MIddle-East, I could do the continental United States, I could do the jungles of South East Asia, I could do N. Africa, Italy, Greece, the low countries, Finland, China, mainland Japan, Australia.

 

I'd start small mate ....

[sburke]

There are a lot of words thrown around by how each family is unique and we need a new one for new terrain or territory. That really isn't true. It is mostly just basic theming that occurs between different families.

A family doesn't sell you unique terrain it sells you immersion. (it also sells you tanks and men but right now we're gonna ignore that)

 

What creates the maps isn't that the terrain options in CM:RT are specially made with Eastern Europe in mind (seriously tall grass is tall grass is tall grass) its that the units provided are Eastern Front 1944 German and Russian formations. So it gives a context for scenario creation. I've been doing some map making in CM:BS and right now with the terrain options available I could make terrain from the coast of France to Moscow. I could even do the MIddle-East, I could do the continental United States, I could do the jungles of South East Asia, I could do N. Africa, Italy, Greece, the low countries, Finland, China, mainland Japan, Australia.

 

The thing that would be missing is Immersion, and if I had a guy who could mod up the textures I would have that too.

 

Because at the end of the day what is the playable difference between jungle and heavy woods? There really isn't any. If I made a map that was absolutely covered in dense forest, with a heavy wood tile underlaying that, and then brushed it with foliage I could recreate a battle in Vietnam circa 1965. I could even change the temparature to hot and put some heavy rain on the map. Except that there would be no 1965 Americans, there would be no NVA, there would be no VC, there would be no ARVN. Which is stupid and not wanted by anyone.

 

So yes, while the maps are important they aren't anywhere close to the sellers for the game. Maps are solely interesting terrain to use our toys on and map making is time consuming and tedious work.

 

 

Edit; I will admit that the CM:BN brought us hedgerows, which I think is some of the only unique terrain we've gotten. We also don't have seasons. However, If say CM:Black Sea was extended throughout all 12 months you could then do all the places I mentioned throughout the seasons and you could even go farther to the North and South and do mountain peaks like the Himalayas.

Totally disagree, the closest we got to jungles was LLF's super duper mod.  CMFI is totally unique, probably the most unique of the current CMx2 games.  Urban landscaping in CMFI looks nothing like the other titles (and is why I spend so much time in this particular game.  If you aren't noticing the differences between families you need to spend more time down in the trenches with your pixeltruppen.

 

Yes map making is time consuming and tedious.  Good maps are anyway.  Maps that are translated from title to title will not look quite the same and will be missing a lot of what goes into creation of a truly good map.  You won't be able to mod huts in Vietnam and yes you can mod jungle foliage like LLF did, but even he wasn't truly satisfied with the map results for Makin despite how great it looked.

 

CMFI

 

CMRT

 

CMBN /MG

 

 

CMSF- Ramadi

Edited February 14, 2015 by sburke

[Pelican Pal]

Totally disagree, the closest we got to jungles was LLF's super duper mod.  CMFI is totally unique, probably the most unique of the current CMx2 games.  Urban landscaping in CMFI looks nothing like the other titles (and is why I spend so much time in this particular game.  If you aren't noticing the differences between families you need to spend more time down in the trenches with your pixeltruppen.

 

 

 

CM:FI is the one game in the series I don't own.

 

You are essentially agreeing with my point though. The terrain for each individual family sells looks. It sells immersion. That CM:FI street could be recreated in any one of the games, and it would play the same.  I'm not saying the games don't look different.

 

The limiting factor is almost always what seasons are included and what forces are included.

 

Ramadi, for another example, is totally doable in CM:BS. Looking at that image I can only spot two things that are not in CM:BS. Palm trees and the taxis. Technically 3 if you count the Americans that are in CM:SF. The rest of the stuff in that image is in CM:BS, it just looks different.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[sburke]

Then you aren't looking close enough.   If you are going by that view of the CMSF screenshot only then read my original point and get down to eyeball level with your pixeltruppen more.  Seriously, not kidding.  If you can't tell the difference in a CMBN/CMFI/CMSF/CMBS map, you don't appreciate enough what's in it. Can I make a map essentially the same in each, yes.  Can I create a map to each that is unique, yes.  Will it play fundamentally different no, but then you can almost say that to some degree about anything in the game including units (with the exception of CMBS, it really is totally unique).  That being said I really wish they were more unique.  I'd like more distinctive flavor items and more independent building options etc etc.  But to say they are all the same is just not true.  Example flat roofs. MG was the first module to feature them since CMSF.  CMFI still does not have them.

 

You may not rate it as important, but that is your opinion.  The immersion factor is a very very big part of what I am paying for.  I'd pay for a pack dedicated for just flavor items and buildings if BF would do it.

 

This is all not real relevant to the discussion though and I don't really have an opinion on map transfers.  I look at that as a business decision by BF.  So far they have been silent on it.  Either they don't care to discuss it or they feel that taking a position is either going to discourage people from going ahead and doing it without express permission or create a situation where they undermine their own legal protection afforded by the EULA.  Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Zenomorph]

I just wanted to throw in my operative phrase was "if you own both games".  I'd not be a fan of some user-created database where you could get pretty much any map from any game.  If you want the maps, pay for the game.  But I do believe you should be able to xfer maps betw games you own.  As I said, I'd buy more games if I knew I could xfer maps I like into them.  I'm guessing I'm not alone in that.  I'd also guess it'd spark greater interest in the mod community.  I've dabbled in map making.  It's time consuming and a frustration that you know that all your work can only be put to use in a single game.  The devs obviously have their reasons for not allowing this; likely financial ones.   But from some of the posts I've seen, the pros would seem to much outweigh the cons, including financially.  I'd think they could also sell them similarly to the Hobart's Funnies vehicle pack for CMBN.  My 2 cents.