"That's one vast valley!" - hard-edged, realistically scaled map

[RockinHarry]

On 5/29/2019 at 3:02 AM, General Liederkranz said:

I couldn't resist, so I added a battery each of 105mm and 203mm artillery to the US side on Kaunitz's map and let them fire away (Point/Heavy/Maximum) at the two concrete MG bunkers I added earlier. Each one had a 4- or 5-man team from a Heavy Sturm squad inside. The 105s had 105 rounds and the 203s had 60. The aimpoints were set right between the pillboxes.

First time through: one bunker took a direct hit from a 203mm shell and was knocked out with one casualty (the rest "escaped" into the withering hail of artillery outside); the other was fine.

Second time through (picture): This time I fired the 105s first, then the 203s. Both were undamaged after the 105s got done. From the 203s, one took one light wound; the other took two casualties and one light wound. But both pillboxes still ended up active at the end.

This seems ok to me . . . I wonder if the patch has actually improved this? 

Just to confirm, it ain´t the "normal" placement of pillboxes that make them "vulnerable, it´s the "sinking down" into the mesh in case of uneven terrain at games start. (unless BFC proofs and confirms something else)

[RockinHarry]

23 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Minor update, mainly some work on the agricultural area: I added a ditches and hedges/windbreakers between the fields (crossing points for tanks not implemented yet). The agricultural area looks much more natural and organic. Should also make spotting much more interesting than the "vast open space" suggests and provides some cover for infantry.

I still don't quite know what to do with the other side of the map. A village might be nice. And I will reconsider my approach to fleshing out woods (how many bumps in the ground? how many trees?) based on some gameplay tests.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ye66l5xgdb3z4x/Vast_Valley_WIP.btt?dl=0

loaded it up in editor and also (just) played 2-3 turns. Quite an interesting, many opportunities map for sure.  Some fleshing out and you can make different mission set ups on it. Do you use any terrain tile (or other) mods for your screenies @Kaunitz? There´s only few details that I´d change personally, like some roads following odd terrain contours or a bridge that doesn´t quite fit a particular place (where all that AT-obstacles are). The map looks even better with my movie shader tweak (that hasn´t anything to do with movie looks). RHZ Movie Shader Tweak

[Kaunitz]

On 6/19/2019 at 10:06 AM, RockinHarry said:

Do you use any terrain tile (or other) mods for your screenies  RHZ Movie Shader Tweak@Kaunitz? The map looks even better with my movie shader tweak (that hasn´t anything to do with movie looks).

I checked and found that I'm using Ari's CM:FB terrain mod. Comparing my landscape with pictures of actual southern Belgium in autumn/winter, I'm not so happy about the "bland" very brownish look. But a modification that slightly changes color of the ordinary ground grass texture will work wonders (I just haven't figured out how I can keep the transparency of the "doodads" grass).

What does the RHZ Movie Shader Tweak change? Does it apply only when I press Alt+M or does it alter the "normal mode" appearance? I've tried it but couldn't spot a huge difference. I'm a bit cautious with the movie mode tweaks as most of them just seem to increase the contrast between shadow and light areas, which is adequate for full summer sunshine heat conditions (--> Fortress Italy), but not for more diffused light conditions.  

Quote

There´s only few details that I´d change personally, like some roads following odd terrain contours or a bridge that doesn´t quite fit a particular place (where all that AT-obstacles are).

thanks for taking a look! Yes, I also think the bridge is a bit unfortunate. There needs to be a bit more space between the crossroad and the bridge. The "turn radius" is too small. Do you have a particular example of the odd roads? I'd like to fix it.

--------

I think I will stick to the idea of adding a village to the "axis" side of the map. There will be a wood springing forward from the hill in an L shape, which provides shelter for this village. In the latest version (not uploaded yet), I've paid even more attention to wind conditions and added more windbreaks. 

Here are some points I think I've learned so far concerning map-making. Maybe it will help other map-makers: 

• Get your scale right; Use google maps street view. Check out how far you can see using the "measure distance" tool; In this particular case, I've gone  to excess a little bit - the landscape in southern Belgium and Luxembourg is a bit more hilly/bumpy than my map suggests; but overall, it's still more realistic than most quick battle maps; Getting the overall distances right is important as spotting and weapon accuracy mechanics are based it. 
• In particular, be carefull not to accidentially create dead ground when creating your hills; If there are even slight irregularities in the gradients of a slope (e.g. if you reduce height every 3 squares, then suddenly change it every second square), dead ground is created; Creating gentle slopes is not as easy as you might think. It's not safe to rely entirely on the automatic algorithm of the scenario editor (which fills in the height info between two points you've set) - it will create dead ground. See my post from 3rd November in this topic: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133505-thats-one-vast-valley-hard-edged-realistically-scaled-map/?do=findComment&comment=1768726
• Pay attention to the „sharpness“ of your ridges. Sharp ridges create ambush situations (you can spot the opponent only when you're already very close to him). Again, it's a matter of how soft and gentle your slopes and hills are. Check out the real size of the footprint and the height of hills in the region you're trying to portray. It will tell you something about how soft or sharp your ridges should be. Most quickbattle maps feature hills that are too steep and small (--> hobbit shire landscape) which makes them perfect for ambushes at close range. 
• Only place fences and walls where they actually serve a purpose. E.g. keeping cattle on a pasture. Keeping wild animals out (e.g. graveyard). A fence around a field of grain is rarely usefull... 
• Pay attention to how large fields are in reality (again, google maps can help; you might consider how field sizes have changed historically, but this depends a lot on the region). E.g. fields in modern day south-eastern Ukraine (--> Black Sea) often have a length of 1-2km! That's basically a huge map that features nothing but one single field! Needless to say that these conditions give a different perspective on combat (even modern weapon systems will not create the total carnage you typically get on the tiny, dense maps). Fields on most quickbattle maps are by far too small.
• Fields follow slopes – when ploughing a field, you go paralell to the slope, not up and down. The same goes for the direction in which vines etc. are planted
• Wind is a factor: many landscapes are formed by considerations of wind/erosion. Hedges that you can see between fields serve as windbreakers. Houses and villages should also be placed somewhere where they're protected from wind (or have their own windbreakers - a treeline). On most hilltops, you will find woods, not fields. Wind might also have something to do with the famous bocage terrain in Normandy, or maybe even with high walls built around orchards (--> more sensitive fruit trees...?). So in general, I'd suggest you pick a wind direction and built the whole map around it. think how the features on your map would be protected from wind.
• Drainage. Especially if your map features hills, you should consider drainage. On a slope, water runs downhill and thus doesn‘t stay long enough to be soaked into the ground. So in most cases, hills will create little rivulets. 
• Woods come in all shapes and forms. How old is the wood? Is it well groomed and fostered and used economically (like virtually 100% of the woods in Europe at that time) or is it a primeval wood? Based on that, woods can come in many varieties, with varying degrees of undergrowth and tree height and tree density. Some woods feature a "rising canopy of leafes" at their border (mostly "shelter belts" between fields), which should block all LOS into and out of the wood, others are more open. As usual, do consider the overall realistic size of woods. The size of the footprint of a wood matters a lot (a small wood can be saturated by artillery easily, a small wood is a "suspicious" position and dangerous even to FO teams)? You may also consider to add (tactically quite important) firebreaks to your wood. You could even consider to consider whether a hillside is north or south - the flora will differ slightly. [Note that the game's shadows are cast quite realistically respective to the cardinal directions; the direction and the length of the shadows will changed based on the date and time of your scenario! Even the sun will be visible correctly on the skydome]
• If your map is very mountainous, the aspect plays a big role. In central Europe, settlements would be found on the southern slope, woods on the northern slope of a mountain. For gentler hills, it's not such a big isse. 
• Metalled roads, rails: are usually embanked/traced-out (especially on swampy terrain); this is an important feature as it provides infantry with some cover
• Keep the gradient of major roads and rails as low as possible. Roads follow the terrain. 
• Be aware that the selection of the area has implications for gameplay. E.g. don‘t cut away "support positions" (hills/elevations in the "rear" area) carelessly. Some weapon systems ought to be employed at greater distances (tanks, ATGs, HMGs, etc). By cutting them away, you force these assets into close combat, which is not totally unrealistic, but still less plausible. Of course it raises the question of whether you build a map around a particular force-size or around the plausible employment of weapon-systems. Even a small force needs a large map if it features tanks and HMGs that should be deployed at their optimal range ... On the other hand, a small troop density on a large maps also raises some issues...
• Consider "reverse slope fiddlyness". Unfortunately, in order to spot (for arty) and/or area target a square, units need to be able to see its ground. This can create a variety of gameplay problems. E.g. in tall grass, even when your unit cen see "above" it without problems, if it cannot see the ground, then it cannot area-target.  You can end up with very absurd situations in which a MG or even a large calibre gun cannot shoot over tall grass or through a lousy little wooden wicker fence (come on, you would be able to see the "splash" of a 75mm HE shell 1 meter above the ground!!).  It also creates problem for calling in artillery fire. So I'd propose to give the attacker a slight hill – if you make him just fight uphill over reverse slopes, then he won‘t be able to call in arty unless he has TRPs. It‘s rather bad map design imho, as you'd need to warn players beforehand (take TRPs, otherwise you will not be able to call in arty). And in general, reverse slope fiddlyness makes you fight the game rather than your opponent.

Some wiki-links to usefull map-creation topics: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_(geography) // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windbreak // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_strip // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_plowing // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kaunitz

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

I checked and found that I'm using Ari's CM:FB terrain mod. Comparing my landscape with pictures of actual southern Belgium in autumn/winter, I'm not so happy about the "bland" very brownish look. But a modification that slightly changes color of the ordinary ground grass texture will work wonders (I just haven't figured out how I can keep the transparency of the "doodads" grass).

What does the RHZ Movie Shader Tweak change? Does it apply only when I press Alt+M or does it alter the "normal mode" appearance? I've tried it but couldn't spot a huge difference. I'm a bit cautious with the movie mode tweaks as most of them just seem to increase the contrast between shadow and light areas, which is adequate for full summer sunshine heat conditions (--> Fortress Italy), but not for more diffused light conditions.  

Think it´s important to know if there´s mods in use. Otherwise folks downloading and trying might wonder on different outlooks as well.

IIRC grass transparency is set by grey shade alpha, while other textures demand just a plain black/white one in order to work properly.

Yep, my shader tweak (ALT-M) just does bits on contrasts and lightness, but there´s other kind of "presets" in there, just needed beeing "activated". No need to learn OGL shader language as parameters are more or less self explanatory IMO. Remove the starting \\\ on a sections lines and add them for other section to "deactivate". Really not a big thing.  Generally (as said) I find it easier to tweak these for an overall mission outlooks, as also you can add the shader files to individual missions by mod tagging.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

thanks for taking a look! Yes, I also think the bridge is a bit unfortunate. There needs to be a bit more space between the crossroad and the bridge. The "turn radius" is too small. Do you have a particular example of the odd roads? I'd like to fix it.

The Bridge: It´s too small for connecting two lane roads, but generally I figured to add this is rather redundant. It´s just crossing a tiny stream/creek and usually there´s a raised road in place with the stream running through sorts of a more or less small tube. Beside that, the AIP usually likes maps with not so many bridges on it.

Roads: Can´t quite remember ATM, but I´d just follow the roads in 3D map view and then think on probability of roads/paths following contours (and wet/swampy areas) in realistic ways. That´s the way I do usually, even on "historical" maps. So when there´s too steep slopes on an otherwise more or less straight road, then I´d add either raised roadbeds, or create a cutting in the slopes etc. to make it as easy going as possible. If it´s still unrealistic looking then better select and create a new path around or across any the given obstacles.

Edited June 20, 2019 by RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Only place fences and walls where they actually serve a purpose. E.g. keeping cattle on a pasture. Keeping wild animals out (e.g. graveyard). A fence around a field of grain is rarely usefull... 

yep, there´s quite a many maps & missions around which just have that BS fence placements. In fact a fence around a wheat or corn fields etc is never to be seen in europe. Fences or walls around gardens/backyards is another thing.

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Fields follow slopes – when ploughing a field, you go paralell to the slope, not up and down. The same goes for the direction in which vines etc. are planted

check your map for some fields reaching too close to creeks/creek beds and swampy areas. The peasant/farmer won´t and can´t go there with his machinery.

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Keep the gradient of major roads and rails as low as possible. Roads follow the terrain. 

check your map for this!

 

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Woods come in all shapes and forms. How old is the wood? Is it well groomed and fostered and used economically (like virtually 100% of the woods in Europe at that time) or is it a primeval wood? Based on that, woods can come in many varieties, with varying degrees of undergrowth and tree height and tree density. Some woods feature a "rising canopy of leafes" at their border (mostly "shelter belts" between fields), which should block all LOS into and out of the wood, others are more open. As usual, do consider the overall realistic size of woods. The size of the footprint of a wood matters a lot (a small wood can be saturated by artillery easily, a small wood is a "suspicious" position and dangerous even to FO teams)? You may also consider to add (tactically quite important) firebreaks to your wood. You could even consider to consider whether a hillside is north or south - the flora will differ slightly. [Note that the game's shadows are cast quite realistically respective to the cardinal directions; the direction and the length of the shadows will changed based on the date and time of your scenario! Even the sun will be visible correctly on the skydome]

Firebreaks are usually no wider than 1 lane. I´d use footpath for these and or just 1-2 trees in that particular AS´s.

Also worth to know ist that steeply sloped wooded hillsides is possible in CMX2! Normally the game creates "cliffs" ( no trees can be placed there) when two neighboring AS have a height difference of 5+ meters. One can "smooth" them by placing various shapes of "foot paths" perpendicular on the wooded slopes AS. This preserves terrain tiles and any placed trees, while the impassable cliff would be removed effectively.

 

Edit: Another note of mine. When using diagonal terrain features a lot then jagged edges (fields etc.) can be smoothed/disguised by placing diagonal segment "foot path" along the fields edges. Generally I found "foot path" to be a great little tool for micro sculpting the maps ground mesh or get rid of unwanted foliage/grass in certain areas. "Foot path" when combined with any sort of ditch locked AS, provide quite a many additional possibilities for terrain sculpting. Also nice for adding "dirt" and "wear" when placed on top of i.e city terrain types (cobblestone etc.).

Edited June 20, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Kaunitz]

Thanks for the feedback!  I've deleted the bridge and instead made the road go over it. Looks much better now! You're right that the small river doesn't warrant a proper stone bridge. 

I will be reworking both the supposedly swampy areas. I'm not happy with them at all. This will also solve the field too close to swamp problem you mention.

I can't see where my roads are overly steep though. Footpaths and minor dirt roads are okay if they're a bit steeper. My main roads are all adequatly "flat", I think?

I've laid out the base plan of the little village: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g607gwomwvr84go/Vast_Valley_WIP.btt?dl=0

I think it's nice and also quite realistic that one row of houses is built "into" the hill. Buildings are clumped together to form rows (but I have to admit I think it was not that common in the area portrayed by my map...). The houses stand directly at the street, which makes the street seem quite narrow. The "downhill" houses have some garden areas (not fleshed out yet). There is a chapel (not really a parish church?) at the crossroads. I'm not sure if the village is large enough to warrant its own graveyard. The pastures for the cattle are "downwind".

Please ignore the odd wall on the right. Also, the wood "behind" the village will be broken up a bit / less regularly shaped. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kaunitz

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Only place fences and walls where they actually serve a purpose. E.g. keeping cattle on a pasture. Keeping wild animals out (e.g. graveyard). A fence around a field of grain is rarely usefull... 

Fields follow slopes – when ploughing a field, you go paralell to the slope, not up and down. The same goes for the direction in which vines etc. are planted

Interesting stuff.  A crop field this year may be a field for livestock next year.  Just having a fence around it gives the ability to put livestock in the field to clean up after a harvest and fertilize the field.  Especially back in the WW2 time frame when there was less chemicals and more field rotation. 

In modern times with more mono agriculture and chemicals the fences are not as useful.  They cost time and money to maintain and get in the way when trying to turn big machinery (combines, tractors, etc.) around to go back the other direction in the field. 

You should plow parallel in most cases for erosion control and that is how it is generally done today.  However that may be a modern thing.  I'm not sure how widely known and practiced that was in the WW2 time frame.  I remember my Dad telling stories about plowing with horses going up and down all the d@#n hills .   

Interesting map stuff.  Thanks for taking the time to post.  

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Thanks for the feedback!  I've deleted the bridge and instead made the road go over it. Looks much better now! You're right that the small river doesn't warrant a proper stone bridge. 

I will be reworking both the supposedly swampy areas. I'm not happy with them at all. This will also solve the field too close to swamp problem you mention.

I can't see where my roads are overly steep though. Footpaths and minor dirt roads are okay if they're a bit steeper. My main roads are all adequatly "flat", I think?

My take on the bridge area yesterday. Also take note on the diagonal field edge bits taken aback (1 AS) and jaggieness removed by putting "foot path" on it. Also the difference between (your) modded and unmodded CMFB ground tiles.

One near the southern map edge. Bits of raising the road and cutting through that slope more should IMO make it look and useable in more realistic ways.

[RockinHarry]

5 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Interesting stuff.  A crop field this year may be a field for livestock next year.  Just having a fence around it gives the ability to put livestock in the field to clean up after a harvest and fertilize the field.  Especially back in the WW2 time frame when there was less chemicals and more field rotation. 

In modern times with more mono agriculture and chemicals the fences are not as useful.  They cost time and money to maintain and get in the way when trying to turn big machinery (combines, tractors, etc.) around to go back the other direction in the field. 

You should plow parallel in most cases for erosion control and that is how it is generally done today.  However that may be a modern thing.  I'm not sure how widely known and practiced that was in the WW2 time frame.  I remember my Dad telling stories about plowing with horses going up and down all the d@#n hills .   

Interesting map stuff.  Thanks for taking the time to post.  

can´t remember that I´d ever seen changing pastures to fields anywhere in germany or parts of europe I know personally. Particularly for a yearly change. Off course can´t tell for WW2 times, but I wouldn´t imagine really.

Plowing directions I agree. Most fields I´ve seen here are longish rectangular and very very rarely square. When in doubt about a particular areas fields and pastures layout I´d usually search for an aerial photo of the place and time frame, then compare with a topo map of the same time. (hard to find both, but doable for many parts of europe). Dark areas on aerial photos usually are pastures and vegetable field types, while the lighter colored ones usually are grain fields, and freshly ploughed areas (or sandy, heath). When in doubt about interpretations I compare an area I know with recently made google satelite pics or other recently made aerial photos from the net. This also allows for bits of evaluation of WW2 time aerial photos, particularly when those areas are built up, or changed in other ways today.  

[Erwin]

Thank you Kaunitz for the very informative (June 5 post) video re platoon formations and scouts!

The video answered many questions I have had for years of playing WW2 CM games:

1)  A platoon would be spread out covering about 150 yards when moving (either column or in various combat formations).  

2)  A typical 13 man squad would consist of two 2-man scout teams, a 2-man BAR team and a 5-man fire team and leader plus radioman/messenger.  

3)  Scouts would be dozens of yards and even a few hundred yards in advance (or on the flanks) so long as visual contact was maintained with the platoon (or squad) leader.

This raises issues in the WW2 CM games.  1)  We cannot split our 13 man squads in this way.  2)  It's rare that the CM2 maps allow sufficient long distances for proper scouting tactics or platoon dispersion.

Also around 1800 there is a pic of a tank called "Fury" - just like the movie.

The other videos in the series are probably worth studying as well.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Erwin

[Bulletpoint]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:53 AM, Kaunitz said:

What really helped me in my "bumpy ground" endeavour was my discovery that the "adjust" elevation tool can be used with delta set to "0", in which case it just turns the elevation at the action spot from an "automatically calucalted" one (no background) into a deliberately set on (black/blue background). So you can just paint over an area with delta set to 0, which doesn't change any elevations. Once this is done, you can add the bumps (delta = 1). Why is this important? If you'd just add the bumps into "automatically calculated" terrain, the whole area would start to recaltulate/change.  

Wow, I never knew that. If this works as I think it does, that's a huge thing. So basically you mean you can have road going over a gently sloped hill, and then add individual bumps along the road without screwing up the general gentle sloping? Or you can have a sunken road going smoothly over a hill?

[RockinHarry]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Wow, I never knew that. If this works as I think it does, that's a huge thing. So basically you mean you can have road going over a gently sloped hill, and then add individual bumps along the road without screwing up the general gentle sloping? Or you can have a sunken road going smoothly over a hill?

if I got that right, I didn´t know that either. Got to test when I´ve time for this game again.

[Kaunitz]

Short note on the adjust tool: I had to discover that it unfortunately does affect the overall slope as the editor recalculates all heights after every "height input".

So the way to do it is still very tedious: I first "lock in" the initial (calculated by the editor) transitions (all points where one height is adjacent to a different height). And then I fill in the rest in between them.  

I'm a bit busy right now, I will come back to this project as soon as possible.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

On 7/8/2019 at 10:12 AM, Kaunitz said:

Short note on the adjust tool: I had to discover that it unfortunately does affect the overall slope as the editor recalculates all heights after every "height input".

Yeah I thought it was too good to be true 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:12 AM, Kaunitz said:

So the way to do it is still very tedious: I first "lock in" the initial (calculated by the editor) transitions (all points where one height is adjacent to a different height). And then I fill in the rest in between them.  

You can't lock in gradual transitions, if that's what you mean.

Maybe you already know the following, but just for those keeping score at home:

If you input height 10 in one square and then height 20 in a square some distance away, you'll see the editor fill out the squares in between with what looks like whole numbers, but actually the height values of those squares are in decimals. So it says 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12... but the height will be 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5 ...

If you try to "lock in" that slope, you'll set all squares to increments of 1 metre, and lose the decimal values. So you end up with a stair-step-effect instead of a smooth gradient.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Contours & elevation are an art-form IMHO. getting them looking and playing just right takes experimentation & practice and it doesn't follow any hard & fast rules, what works in one area may not in another.  

Usually I'll set the broad elevation by drawing contours, the local elevations will then be tweaked and building clusters locked to a suitable elevation.  I may determine certain slopes by ditchlocking the elevation of a road or stream, or other feature that traverses it, removing the nearby locked 'contour elevations' if necessary to get the look I'm after.

[Glubokii Boy]

16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Contours & elevation are an art-form IMHO. getting them looking and playing just right takes experimentation & practice and it doesn't follow any hard & fast rules, what works in one area may not in another.  

Completally agree with this...

'Painting' the map (placing terrain) is not very difficult...Adding flavoured objects is not very difficult...I can make a really good -  looking - map whitout to much trouble...

The difficulty is....The elevation !

Getting this to look good and provide nice oppertunities and challanges are more tricky imo. Therefore I get very much impressed when looking at 'the pros' maps...people like SeinfeldRules and GerogeMC manages to get this down very well. George MC with his large/huge maps and SeinfeldRules even gets the elevations to provide those challanges/oppertunities on his faily small maps...perhaps an even greater feat. 

This thread has some really nice tips and suggestions in it to considder when designing maps...I hope the thread will continue for quite some time yet...A good read indeed...

Many thanks to those who contribute with good ideas/suggestions !

 

 

 

[DougPhresh]

I just wanted to say that this thread is the gold standard of what I am looking for in future scenario and QB maps. The latest batch of large maps for RTV were good, and I think a step in the right direction. I want "huge" maps, sure, but I want them to have what you would reasonably expect to find in an area of 4000m x 4000m.

Black Sea really suffers for this where on one map of a few thousand square meters there is a dam, several large bridges, a prison, an airport, and a "town".

Realistic terrain plays so much better than the Disneyland Main Street USA. I think someone here made the comparison to mini putt courses and they are exactly right.

[Bulletpoint]

12 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I just wanted to say that this thread is the gold standard of what I am looking for in future scenario and QB maps. The latest batch of large maps for RTV were good, and I think a step in the right direction. I want "huge" maps, sure, but I want them to have what you would reasonably expect to find in an area of 4000m x 4000m.

Black Sea really suffers for this where on one map of a few thousand square meters there is a dam, several large bridges, a prison, an airport, and a "town".

Realistic terrain plays so much better than the Disneyland Main Street USA. I think someone here made the comparison to mini putt courses and they are exactly right.

I fully agree, and I have been experimenting with making a very large map with very few terrain features. The difficulty is to make it interesting both visually and tactically.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

On 5/29/2019 at 8:57 PM, RockinHarry said:

The placement of craters in map editor appears to produce a random result with regard to individual craters placement in/beyond an AS. IMHO it is not so! Each time you map click (2D map editor) onto an indiviual action spot, the follow up crater (pattern) is rotated 15° clockwise. So one crater in one AS and another crater (or pattern) put into another AS then is rotated 15° clockwise. This goes on until you reach the full 360° circle and then beeing reapeated like that again. I´d just meant to tell that crater placement, even if they spill over into adjacent AS, is predictable to some degree. Just in case you really want an individual crater (or pattern) beeing placed with micro precision. I´ve not used that myself in a mission, as I didn´t have a need for it yet.

If we ever receive a cryptic signal from an alien civilization, I'll call you to work on it.

[MOS:96B2P]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If we ever receive a cryptic signal from an alien civilization, I'll call you to work on it.

  Yes, @RockinHarry is very good at figuring things out about the game engine / mechanics / editor etc.      

[RockinHarry]

On 1/27/2020 at 10:18 AM, Bulletpoint said:

If we ever receive a cryptic signal from an alien civilization, I'll call you to work on it.

lol  Just observing and watching for logical patterns. So don´t count on anything going beyond that.

[DougPhresh]

Whatever gets us better maps (across titles, please!) is okay with me.

Something that @Battlefront.com might consider is a map showing where scenarios and QB are. http://www.combatmission.fr/fortress-italy/scenaroutai-fortress-italy/

My thinking is that not everyone knows the typical terrain of Sicily, Central Italy, the Po Valley and so on. Having a map might also help players when they are brainstorming "what forces and missions might exist at this point in the war?". A map to connect all the dots may help explain where an American mech battalion would be fighting in August of '43 for instance.

[RobZ]

I'm in the progress of making a Bastogne map and I have been reading some here and find some usefull tips. This is my first real map ever in CM and I'm also making it completely without overlays cus I didn't know that existed untill a few days ago. Im making it from a mix of ww2 photos, google earth and some height map with contour lines.

https://imgur.com/a/aWwoGid

The map is 2.5x2.6 km in size, and some places have extremely long sight lines, like from one side to the other, one pic shows such a sight line. What do u guys think of that for gameplay?

Making this map threw out everything I thought i knew about field designs. The fields around bastogne is the most oddly shaped and placed fields I have seen. The most odd looking fields you can see here is designed from what I see in real life photos and I'm not sure how good it looks for the map. Some fields even go straight across water streams... 

Another thing is that ww2 photos are black and white so I can't see the color of fields back in the day, but atleast on Google Earth there is a mix of green grassy fields, and proper fields like wheat and other stuff. Should I be having this kind of mixed fields like I do now or should I make everything grass or plown? 

Third, Bastogne fields have wire fences all over the place and even around wheat fields, so most of my fields have wire fencing. Do you guys find this realistic? I don't really see individual wire fences from ww2 photos, but i can sort of make out where the field seperation is and thus a wire fence.

Any tips or feedback would be appreciated 

[Erwin]

22 minutes ago, RobZ said:

The map is 2.5x2.6 km in size, and some places have extremely long sight lines, like from one side to the other, one pic shows such a sight line. What do u guys think of that for gameplay?

Many of us complain about the very limited LOS that nearly all CM maps "feature".  So, it is very refreshing and welcome to play on one of those rare maps which offer the chance for longer range duels - eg using the German 88mm (also AFV's) the way they were was intended rather than the point blank "close combat" that we get nearly all the time in CM scenarios.

Whether "Bastogne" itself featured such long LOS and is "realistic" for that campaign is something others can comment on.  

[Freyberg]

4 hours ago, RobZ said:

The map is 2.5x2.6 km in size, and some places have extremely long sight lines, like from one side to the other, one pic shows such a sight line. What do u guys think of that for gameplay?

I think long sight lines are realistic and interesting, although they make for some tricky gameplay sometimes, especially for the Allies.