Map Size

[Stephen Smith]

I know the maximum map size has already been discussed (although I admit it was either changed so many times, or there were so many different answers to the question, that I don't really know what it is). I have a different question: why is there a maximum map size (imposed by the game software) at all? I understand that the bigger the map, the slower, more choppy the game will play the longer the AI will think, etc etc. But why not let the users of the software determine how slow and choppy we want to play? What was the purpose of limiting the map size, when each of us will bump into a limit based on RAM and computer speed anyway? (as an example, with the East Front map editor, I once created a map of about 300 hexes square. I never played on it, and it may have been so slow as to be unplayable, but nonetheless I COULD construct it if I felt like it).

And since I brought it up, what is the maximum map size? And is it a maximum height and width, or a maximum area (with a maximum area, I could create a long narrow map if I wanted). I also get the impression from previous posts that the maximum size of a scenario map is actually smaller than the maximum size for an operational map. True?

Steve

[Guest Michael emrys]

One thing we need to keep in mind, Steve, is that in the real thing units have bounderies that they have to remain within lest they risk encountering friendly fire. This is probably the reason why scenario maps are smaller than operational maps. Operations, as I understand it in the game, represent the activities of several units that would be involved in scenarios: i.e., battalions vs. companies.

I hope I am making myself clear. If not, ask again.

Michael

[Moon]

Maximum size for scenarios is 8 square kilometers. However, no map side can be longer than 4000m.

Maximum size for operations is 15 square kilometers. However, no map side can be longer then 5000m. You will usually play only on a smaller portion of the operational map during a battle, and only that portion will be visible. (I say usually because there can be operations which use the whole map.)

The reason to limit the map sizes was, I believe, that beyond these maps no existing computer system would yield satisfying results. Don't forget that you will need a large amount of troops to "fill" these maps, as well as terrain (woods for example), all of which can slow down the action.

One of the beta operations made to be shipped with the game (not sure if it is included on the CD, though) went to the currently allowed maximum, and it took a few minutes to compute a turn on my PIII 550Mhz, GeForce 256 32 MB. Basically unplayable on lower end systems, and very slow on high end systems. Going beyond the current limits simply does not seem to make sense currently.

I am not a programmer, though, so Charles or Steve would have the final word on this.

[PanzerLeader]

I am with Steve S on this one.

The guys at BTS have to look into the future: in 5 years' time I suspect most of us will still be playing CM. Yet the computer technology will allow much bigger maps...And I'm probably not the only one here who enjoys monster scenarios, that take weeks to finish

But hey, maybe the reason behind this is that it is too dificult to program. I remember they had similar hopes for Call To Power, but it never materialised. Otherwise I can't really understand why BTS didn't include it

[DanE]

Let's look at this for a moment. If BTS doesn't limit the map size, some people will make HUGE battles that only the top, top of the line mega dollar cpu's will be able to handle.

Some people will complain that they can't run the battles while others will complain that the cpu is taking to long to compute these battles.

So, BTS has to either up the minimum cpu requirements or limit the map size. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Just my opinion.

Personally, I am not to worried about the map size. I have a feeling that a well designed, small size battle will be just as fun, if not better, than a huge conflict.

------------------

Dan

[Lobo]

And, when we all get those mega computers to handle huge maps, we will be into CM 2, 3 and 4 and they can and will change things : )

[PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, when we all get those mega computers to handle huge maps, we will be into CM 2, 3 and 4 and they can and will change things : )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we'll need to wait a while for the really big battles, but even today I'm sure a small portion of us have(or will, before CM2) a 500+mhz computer.

It is an injustice that these guys cannot fully benefit from their superior technology, because of a small bunch of grumbling wargamers that refuse to update their long-outdated computers...

And again, what is wrong with having an unlimited map size? It may not be indispensable, but what are the disadvantages? Dan, the people who would complain that they cannot run the big battles just have to buy a new computer or NOT play the huge battles(which is the case anyway now...)

BTS could attract the entire WF/EF2 community if they gave bigger maps. Some are more interested by grand tactics rather than small unit actions...It is something I(and I'm not alone!) would be looking forward to.

[Guest Madmatt]

One rather very obvious, to me, point is that in order to include this advanced capability, namely the ability to have super-sized maps and unit amount, one would think it would be prudent to TEST this functionality before including it. Since these system do not currently exist, or are prohibitively expensive there could be no guarantee that this added element to the game wouldn't crash like a crack whore on her last dollar on a Friday night!

Let me put it another way, its a common Axiom in the IT field that something that is SCALABLE won't.

All this cool gee whiz stuff is nice but there has to be accountablity and testing of it first, and at this point its not possible.

CM can already push the fastest CPU's to their limit if you so desire. If you really want to have 300 tanks on the screen at once then you can do it, but dont be surprised if it takes 10 minutes to resolve each turn...

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[Joe Shaw]

"...crash like a crack whore on her last dollar on a Friday night!"

Uhh, exactly, ... quite so ... couldn't have put it better myself.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you really want to have 300 tanks on the screen at once then you can do it, but dont be surprised if it takes 10 minutes to resolve each turn...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, we were talking about map size rather than number of units involved.

Secondly, who cares about waiting 10 minutes for each turn to load? You can go read a book or finish your homework in the meantime! Or have dinner, which is what I used to do with large TOAW scenarios...This ain't a first person shooter! This is a strategy game, and what more, a wargame, commonly played by mature, patient people who savour the game, instead of devouring it.

Oh well, if really it is not doable today, then I hope it is tomorrow. It would just have been nice to have the option to choose really large map sizes(10 kms or so?), so that those who cannot afford them don't play them, and the others, can(to their risks, and I for one am willing to take these risks, if it means I can at last enjoy a decent regimental size battle...)

[Guest Moiety]

I agree. The system requirement arguement just doesn't hold up. It says *Minimum* Requirments...

Further, BTS can simply not include any maps that are THAT big in the first place. But at least us folks that invested in a hunk of hardware can play some big maps with lot's of units and have some extra fun.

[Guest Madmatt]

Well its nice to see that most people are still completely able to miss the point.

In order to put the capability to have a 10km by 10km map we would need to have existing hardware that this would run on in order test.

We don't, so they didnt.

And yes, a map at the current maximum size WILL BE SLOW TO PLAY regardless of how many units will be on it. You also have to take into consideration the scale that CM is meant to simulate. This is not Division scale but a reinforced Battalion scale MAX. That the capabilty to build and play larger battles than that is already a bonus and to be honest I think that they have already planned for the future by making the maps and unit count as high as it is now.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 05-21-2000).]

[PanzerLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well its nice to see that most people are still completely able to miss the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Madmatt it's sad to see that you can become so easily irritated. I know you have a busy cyberlife.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't, so they didnt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse my poor grasp of the English language, but who is "they"? Should I understand that because the guys at BTS don't have the correct hardware, we, with better technology(and technology will get better before CM2) can't reap the full benefits from our machines?

All right, I have nothing against that. But I'm sure some here are mad enough to play huge scenarios at the risk of a crash and slow play. You should just include it as an option.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, a map at the current maximum size WILL BE SLOW TO PLAY regardless of how many units will be on it. You also have to take into consideration the scale that CM is meant to simulate. This is not Division scale but a reinforced Battalion scale MAX. That the capabilty to build and play larger battles than that is already a bonus and to be honest I think that they have already planned for the future by making the maps and unit count as high as it is now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the slowness thing: if it's an option, then those who are so impatient can skip it. The others can enjoy it

And if the CM engine is so realistic, then why can't it perform at any other reasonable scale?(before logistics and supply become factors) You would just need more interaction between higher HQs(Batt. HQs need to remain in contact with Reg.HQ, etc)

[stodge]

How much CPU time during the game is dedicated to the AI? I mean (and with no disrespect intended) the graphics are a long way behind what is possible today. So what in the game engine is the limiting factor for map size (and hence for the game); the AI or the graphics engine?

I would love to design a scenario with a huge map, even if it meant having 90-odd % of it empty. But that's just my thing!

And please understand I mean no disrespect.

P.S. I've pre-ordered the game as it blew me away.

[Aacooper]

I'm willing to guess the map and the average battle size will have to increase for Russian and desert battles. There's just so much more space.

When I go on business trips to the Mexican highlands, the LOS's are miles long. I imagine the North African desert and Russian steppes are similar, and it would be hard to do justice to Sidi Rezegh or Kursk with a small map. Since the space is larger, it's harder to assume the battle is limited to just two battalions when many more are interacting (especially with some of the Russian human wave attacks). So, there would need to be more units.

With the group move feature I'm finding it's not that hard wheel platoon-sized formations around the battlefield. Of course, once the s**t hits the fan it takes a little more micromanagement. Large armor battles would be easier, because you don't have to worry about whether a tank has 9 or 8 crewman still alive. It pretty much works or it doesn't.

[Guest Moiety]

Did a little reading, and here's something that may interest those who want the restriction lifted:

Steve of Battlefront has said that the maps can be actually quite huge, but when you play you only view sections of it at a time. So, basically, while the maps are huge the camera just follows the action and just doesn't bother displaying the area that isn't in use. There will be a way to look at the other area. This is essentially the root of the campaign engine, and as the game progresses your forces can "push forward" the visible battle on to other area's of the map. I found this information at www.wargamer.com in an interview conducted a while back.

Interesting 300 tank battle Matt...Sorry we didn't catch on to your point earlier. Find it in your heart to forgive us. Hehe

[Stephen Smith]

Hmmm-

While I am not a programmer, I am an engineer, so I will take a stab at a guess...

The game is probably limited in size by the amount of RAM one's computer has. A map of a given size will take up a certain amount of RAM, the units (the polygons, or drawings of the units) will take up another quantity of RAM, and the AI (influenced by the number of units) will take up a third quantity of RAM. Thus, though the largest map size possible is 8 square kilometers (and 4000 m on a side) it would still be possible to 'crash' one's computer with a map within those limits-to create so many units that the map + unit polygons + AI demands = more than my computer's RAM (so a battle with 300 tanks on a side might not work-depending on my own computer's RAM).

By the same token, it is probably possible to make a REALLY REALLY huge map given an average computer RAM, if you want to play one tank against one tank (i.e maximize map RAM, minimize polygon and AI RAM so that the total is still less than my computer's RAM).

I can further assume that the map editor probably has some kind of input for width and length. The map editor then creates a green rectangle of the input size (which you then edit with roads, houses, forests, hills, etc). Since these are justs numbers (i.e. input 1200 for width and 1400 for length, for example) used to create a green rectangle, I would think that the 'limits' (8k max, and 4000m max for a given side) are actually additions to the program-there is nothing to 'test' to input a 10,000 for length or width rather than a 1,000 for either. And I will again compare it to East Front-it asked for an input for the length and width in hexes-if you chose a length x width which were too large for your computer, the RAM was exceeded, and the map was never created. If it was not too large, the map was created.

So my question remains unanswered: why does Combat Mission have these artificial limits on the 'width' or 'length' inputs for map size? Why not let us create maps that might be too big for our computers? Or determine the largest map usable for our own computers? Or allow the people with more RAM the ability to create larger scenarios? My guess is: if people create maps too large for their computers, they will crash them, and then BTS will be getting complaints from people who don't understand that the problem is that their computer is just not big enough, and BTS doesn't want to deal with those complaints. But am I correct?

And my second question is: if I am correct, then it should be possible to 'crash' one's computer by having too many units on the board at one time-thus, is there a 'unit limit' just as there is a 'map size limit,' and if not, why not?

Steve