Map Question

[Canuck21]

I've been studying a number of maps in the WWII games to help me do better with those and I'm humbled by what I'm seeing. This is something I need to improve in. My question is, do people ever build maps only and leave it open to scenario designers to use those maps to make scenarios from? Are there any hard guides on what constitutes tiny, small, medium, etc. sized maps (i.e. 800 x 800 is a medium map)? Are there any written guides as to what makes a map designated for an Assault vs a Meeting type of battle, and if not, how does the game choose a map for a QB given what the player has asked for as a battle type?

My other question is what is proper etiquette with respect to using maps that have already been made for a scenario of one's own? For example, I am in the process of making a CMBN scenario that is an ASL conversion called "Retaking Vierville". In my "travels", I see the prelude to this battle, "Vierville" has already been done for CMBN (it's one of the inherent scenarios). The map is not only outstanding, it would make sense to use it for the retaking of the village. However, I would never go "borrowing" someone else's work without their blessing first (and of course, I'd give credit in the Designer's Notes), but I don't want to ask if this is something that anyone would find offensive, especially the original mapmaker. I also wouldn't want people to feel like I did that because I was too lazy to make my own (which I'm not - mapmaking is actually something I really enjoy). So what is the etiquette here insofar as that goes?

Thanks as always, and again, sorry for the constant stream of questions .

[domfluff]

Honestly, I think CM needs scenarios to an extent that more maps is best, regardless of whether this is taking someone else's work. This, after all, is the whole point of the Master Map concept. It's obviously polite to credit the original designer.

There are maps that exist without scenarios - aside from the master maps, there are others people have uploaded for that purpose.

Map sizes are very variable. You can get a good idea with regards to unit frontages, but there really isn't a standard size, and frontages differ based on period and doctrine. A German infantry battalion in attack would have a 1km frontage (implying perhaps a 1.5 km wide map, but that does depend on terrain), whereas a Commonwealth attack of the same kind might be half that.

[Canuck21]

I tend to agree with you about needing more scenarios (thus my obsession with learning this stuff in as short a time as possible). 

Today has actually been a bit of a breakthrough day in some respects in being able to go forward with doing exactly that - making more scenarios. I'm learning that ASL conversions aren't necessarily that viable. It's not bad for ideas, less so for maps I find, but the books I have I think are better overall. I need to get back to reading those, which is where most of my scenarios have come from so far. 

I have to admit, I'm kind of "sensitive" to using other people's work without permission, even if it's "ok" to do so (I'm an artist who's had work stolen, and while that's a completely different thing, it's still something that I'm sensitive to). However, I won't hesitate to try and contact the original author and if I can't reach them, I will simply duplicate it as best I can on my own. Either way, it won't stop me making a scenario.

Thanks for this, you've really helped me on this (and several other issues). Much appreciated.

[domfluff]

Direct conversions from wargames (I've seen ASL done, I've tried a few Combat Commander ones before now) can be a little suspect - not least because they're not real terrain. Indirect conversions can work better - I've done some Force on Force scenarios before now, which are usually the wrong scale for CM, but the core concepts can be worth doing.

[Canuck21]

5 minutes ago, domfluff said:

not least because they're not real terrain.

Eggsactly what I'm finding. I did a map for Retaking Vierville based on the ASL maps and it's awful. When I looked at the map that was done for the inherent version, it blew me away. That was part of my "breakthrough". I agree, the core ideas can be useful, but I suspect my ideas will be more based on the books I have, and even then, they will be my own interpretation (based though, on hard facts as I can discern them). I'm finding as I get deeper into this, I tend to prefer that anyway. It leaves more room for imagination, which (IMO) as long as one doesn't stray from reality, can be more interesting and offer up more variety.

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, Canuck21 said:

 Are there any written guides as to what makes a map designated for an Assault vs a Meeting type of battle, and if not, how does the game choose a map for a QB given what the player has asked for as a battle type?

That is up to the designer...

When you first open up the editor you will be in the MISSION section of the dropdown menu (below the load /save options)

The first option in the list further below will be DESCRIPTION...here you as the designer decides the properties of the scenario/map...

- enviroment...open, rough, town ,village etc...

- time of day...dusk, dawn, night , day

- size...small, large, huge etc...

and wether the map/scenario is designed for a meeting engagment, blue attack, blue assult, probe etc...or red attack, assult or whatever you prefer.

 

 

 

[Combatintman]

@Canuck21 - you're overthinking a lot of this ... so don't 

Make what you want to make and don't be constrained by the labels ... what is a tiny battle?  Is it about the size of the map, the size of the forces or the length of the mission?  Is a three hour mission, set on a 4km x 4km map involving a platoon on each side tiny or huge; is a 30 minute mission set on a 1km x 1km map with a battalion on one side and a company on the other medium or large?  Here's what the manual says:

"The scenario’s approximate size, from Tiny to Huge, gives players an idea of the overall scope of the battle. Each scenario author probably has a different idea of what Tiny or Huge is, but usually the amount of units involved as well as map size and battle duration should be factored into the setting here. As a general guideline, a Tiny battle involves platoon sized forces, or smaller, for each side and a very small map. A Huge battle involves a force of several companies on each side and a very large map. The rest fall somewhere in between."

So as you can see, even Battlefront doesn't know.

Likewise for Battle type ...

"Specifies the general nature of the battle and who is the attacker. Depending on the nature of the scenario’s storyline you may wish to be “vague”, or even inaccurate, so you don’t give away surprises.  Assault, Attack, Probe, Meeting Engagement."

Again, Battlefront doesn't know and tells you it is ok to get it wrong if you really feel like it.

Next - park the QB thing until you've got out of the question asking phase of your scenario design journey and have released a dozen or so scenarios that you are totally happy with.  I've no idea how many scenarios I've made but probably in the region of 70+.  I have never ever made a QB because I still don't understand how to make good ones.  As I don't really play them either unless I just have one of those days where I need to fire up the game and kill something without thinking too hard about it, I'm also not overly interested in making them.  I also don't think that there are many people out there who have mastered QB scenarios, I am aware of three or four guys who have done so and one of those has disappeared off the edge of the planet. 

As I've said in other threads - make what you want to make.  I think you've got yourself into a mindset of 'ooh I just want to make lots of stuff' - no bad thing but if you make something for the sake of making something then it will probably be a bit sh1t.  Additionally you will burn yourself out.  I am working on a project at the moment - I have spent the last 6 weeks spending at least four hours a day making maps for it.  I am 75% into map four and to be honest I'm struggling to keep going with map making right now.  This is a project that I really, really want to see come to fruition so I am persevering with it but I know when I have to start map five that I'm going to have the same feeling - if your heart's not in it then you won't finish anything or you'll just get threaders with scenario making.  Find something that inspires you sufficiently to want to spend about a month making the map, picking the units, programming the AI, testing the AI and writing up the orders and graphics.  That can be a piece of ground that looks like an interesting tactical problem, a real action that you've found a map of or a written account or something different like making a map of your Mother-in-Law's house and then working out how to destroy it ... or whatever ...

Chill out mate ... seriously ...

[Canuck21]

What, ME? Overthink things ??? NEVER !! Ok, being serious for a moment (doesn't happen often, so... ), it was that part in the manual that prompted my question on all this to be honest. It seemed pretty vague and I figured I was missing something. Looks like I wasn't. Some of it was curiosity, particularly the part about QB's and maps, but figured it had some relevance to continuing with the scenario making part. However, as I get deeper into all this, I can see exactly what you're saying, and yeah, I'm starting to get to a point where I feel like I'm going in too many directions at once. Oh, and sorry to hear about the guy falling off the planet - that had to leave a mark  .

You're right about the mindset thing. I have all these ideas in mind, especially to do with terrain, and I don't have the most patience in the world. I like what you're saying about slowing down a bit and producing something worthwhile. That's actually kind of how I used to play ASL. I wasn't interested in finishing a battle fast, but more about thinking of all the moves I could make. I need to get back to that. So, with that in mind, I think yes, that will be the route I'll take now. I think too at some point, I guess one has to actually find out a bit on their own how things work. I have enough of the basics, as I've said, to start moving forward, but do it at a slower pace. Now, if I still had a MIL, then I'd be tempted to move a little faster (or just go get one of those 105's and have a bit of 'fun' with that ), but maybe I'll stick to this.

Thanks man  . Advice noted and will be heeded.

[chuckdyke]

 

First project is making a 'Test Map'. Using somebody else's map. First rename it so you don't lose the original. Try to contact the author with an expression of appreciation. I like to thank all the map makers who have giving me years of fun because of their talent. Going back to 'Quick Battles' just make a map for H&H only? 

[Canuck21]

Well, I've made a fair number of maps, so that part I'm ok with. It was more with respect to the type of battles a map is designed for that prompted my question. However, I think the message about working on scenarios and not worrying about QB's at this time makes a lot of sense to me, so that's the direction I'll go in. Maybe down the road a ways I'll do some QB maps, but for now, no  .

[BornGinger]

11 hours ago, Combatintman said:

I have spent the last 6 weeks spending at least four hours a day making maps for it.  I am 75% into map four and to be honest I'm struggling to keep going with map making right now.

The most tedious with map making is to place the trees in forests and woods. I wish there was the possibility to place a bunch of trees, mark them and copy to just paste them where you want more trees after which you could do a few necessary changes. Making forests and woods would go a lot quicker that way.

[Combatintman]

3 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

The most tedious with map making is to place the trees in forests and woods. I wish there was the possibility to place a bunch of trees, mark them and copy to just paste them where you want more trees after which you could do a few necessary changes. Making forests and woods would go a lot quicker that way.

I don't really bother that much with woods to be honest.  I use a 'paint by numbers' technique.  For deciduous woods, dark green tiles get the biggest trees, the yellow grass tiles get one type of tree (Tree C for example).  The remaining grass tiles get another type of tree (Tree D for example).  All grass tiles on the wood's perimeter get Tree G, because it is the smallest.  All clover tiles get Bush A, all weed tiles get Bush B and all flower tiles get Bush C.  I then generally swap all of the yellow grass tiles for light forest unless they are on the wood perimeter.  I then plot heavy forest tiles on the dark green tiles and any standard green tiles immediately north, east, south and west of those tiles.  I then test and adjust as necessary.  Why do I do it this way ... because I was bored of thinking up ways to randomise the distribution of tree and bush types and so it is quick and easy.  The reason I don't bother with woods is because I don't like setting scenarios in them and most people turn trees off anyway if they venture into them. 

Funnily enough, guess what I'm doing now ...

[BornGinger]

But if you use an overlay map which contain larger forests or smaller woods, you'll have to place trees if you want the scenario map to look similar to the overlay. Then you still have the tedious work of placing loads of trees.

[Combatintman]

1 minute ago, BornGinger said:

But if you use an overlay map which contain larger forests or smaller woods, you'll have to place trees if you want the scenario map to look similar to the overlay. Then you still have the tedious work of placing loads of trees.

Agreed and I use combinations of topographical and imagery overlays.  I use those to identify the boundaries of the wooded/forested areas and the tree type.  Once the boundary is sketched, it is paint by numbers.  In terms of tedium in the editor it is low drag.  The biggest ballache is doing shift click, alt click, ctrl click on buildings to get the roofs, facades, windows and doors right.  I have over 800 buildings on this map which is a 2km x 2km map showing the west end of one village and the whole of another village.