CMBB - Huge maps???

[Richard Morgan]

Many CMBO scenarios are set in close terrain with the result that you are working almost within a single grid square's worth of area. This is fine, as it seems to suit the scale of the game very well. However, on the Eastern Front, a significant number of engagements were fought over much more open ground. Think back to games such as Talonsoft's East Front 2. An 88mm Gun has a range of 20 hexes which at 250m per hex equates to 5km. Panzer 4H's topped out at - what was it - 12 hexes or 14? and T3476's of various types a measly 6 or so hexes. This meant that The Russians were always having to close the gap against the Germans. It seems to me that this would require HUGE CMBB maps in at least some of the scenarios. This could present a problem to those of us with bronze age computers How are those wonderful CMBB/CMBO people planning to get around this and what are your thoughts on the subject?

Cheers,

Richard.

[Andreas]

While there are areas of the former Soviet Union where this long-range battling is possible, I think there maybe a misperception involved. Large parts of the front (e.g AG North, Finland, the wooded and swampy parts of AG Centre, parts of Crimea etc.) are really not long-range fighting territory, and you would get the same engagement ranges as in NWE. Citys, towns and villages are again the same. If you go to the Russian Battlefield site, you see a lot of interviews with vets and AARs that show that combat occured at lower ranges than many people seem to believe. The 3,500m duels between heavy tanks were probably the exception, and not the rule.

[Thomm]

The situation described above (Germans outgunning Russians) seems poorly suited for an interesting battle. I know that generations of wargamers are waiting to simulate such an encounter, just as many people were eagerly awaiting the 14 inch naval guns. But where is the point? Is it funny or challenging to shoot up tanks without them being able to shoot back? I do not think so ...

Furthermore, battles on (dry) open plains should include the effects of dust and smoke, which would greatly hinder visibility.

Regards,

Thomm

[Doug Beman]

Keep in mind that the ranges Richard described are MAXIMUM ranges. Against the T34, the 75mm L24 gun mounted on the early PzIV couldn't penetrate frontally. The PzIII's 50mm L60 gun could penetrate from under, IIRC, 200 meters. The 75mm L48 on the later PzIV could do the job at IIRC 500m (have no figures on hand, and I rely on having those around rather than relying on my poor memory)

The 88mm could kill T34s at like 1200m; however, the KV could shrug off frontal hits at 500m (at Kamenewo a KV1 sat on a road for almost 2 days, resisting all these guns I've just listed, until an 88 managed to hit the side of the turret while the turret was turned to engage some PzIIIs. This still didn't kill the KV, so some brave engineers had to drop explosives in the turret.)

Also, keep in mind that being able to shoot does not, esp in WW2, mean being able to hit.

DjB

[MikeyD]

Remember, CM currently is capable of doing pretty monsterous maps, out to 4k if memory serves. I've found a couple 3rd party scenarios that have tried to take advantage of this scale but not many. The AI never seems to generate a map even approaching max size, so it'd be nice if CMBB had an added "Steppe terrain - extra large map" option for quickbattles.

...but one problem with extra-large maps might be if you find yourself with dismounted infantry in snow with the enemy 3k away. The game may be over before you reach the front!

[Doug Beman]

I myself am not a fan of huge battles. If it's a huge battle with lots and lots of units, I dislike how much time it takes to give orders (that may sound silly but most nights I only have 3 hours between arriving home and crashing into bed, and into that I have to fit eating, chores, and other life tasks. My own fault for having things that take time away from CM!!)

If it's a huge map with only a few units, I get frustrated at spending a lot of turns hunting around for the enemy, even though it's also quite tense and exciting.

DjB

[Richard Morgan]

Thank you all for your comments. I fully accept what German Boy is saying, and by the way, I would be very grateful if you could give me the full email address of the Russian Battlefield site you mentioned With regard to Rollstoy, I have been in some very hairy East Front 2 scraps with the outnumbered Germans having the initial advantage at range, and then having to face a very dicey situation indeed when the Russians finally manage to close In my experience, not nearly as one sided as you seem to imply. I concur with you fully about the dust and smoke though - Let's hope BTS are reading this Doug, I have exactly the same limitations as you with regard to playing time, however I must state that large map does not necessarily mean large battle, it just gives you far more choice with regard to achieving the mission and to selecting the best route in/out. Finally, I do like Mikey D's suggestion for an extra large steppe map option: BTS, please take note again Some very interesting comments - so far: thank you one and all.

Richard.

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

Doug, I have exactly the same limitations as you with regard to playing time, however I must state that large map does not necessarily mean large battle, it just gives you far more choice with regard to achieving the mission and to selecting the best route in/out. Finally, I do like Mikey D's suggestion for an extra large steppe map option: BTS, please take note again Some very interesting comments - so far: thank you one and all.

Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you mean fully, Richard. With super large maps, it almost seems sometimes that CM moves from tactical to a strategic wargame! The sheer scale and ammount of troops involved initially gives people (speaking for myself and others) a rush.

However, if you've played a few super-large maps in CM, you'll know the reality of the situation, things you dont see in strategic wargames. When we think of a large offensive, we think masses of men and machines clashing in a hurricane of steel and action. However, what CM portrays very well, is that the majority of such offensives involve the troops and armor slowly moving into position, forming up, and slowly advancing. Slowly is the key word here, because during many of my battles, Ive had half the alloted time gone by the time I moved into position and a few skirmishes break out.

The only way to play super large battles is to increase the time limit. However, this results in extreme boredom for both players, especially in attack defense. Unless the attacker wants to get massively ambushed, he has to move slowly and scout over several kilometres of ground. The defender has to sit quietly. Very boring, let me tell you, since Ive played a few of these sort of battles.

So be forewarned, although at first bigger seems better, it can be nauseating. More then once, Ive lost interest in the battle by the time I made contact with the enemy, resulting in not-so-fun gameplay.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

I would be very grateful if you could give me the full email address of the Russian Battlefield site you mentioned

Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richard, the Russian Battlefield is: http://history.vif2.ru/

For what its worth, I love big maps, also. Even with small opposing forces. Some think it boring, but I love the tension of scouting around trying to find the enemy without being found.

[Schrullenhaft]

BTS has already incorporated four 'regions' into CMBB. These selections should affect the terrain generated for a QB map. So the entire Eastern Front won't be like the steppes of Ukraine.

From a Gamespot interview with Charles (you can find the link in the CM2 FAQ a few pages back):

You can count on seeing virtually all the terrain fought over on the eastern front made available in Combat Mission. We're adding new terrain types to the palette, including steppe, tundra, birch forests, soft boggy ground, corduroy roads, and more. Further, we'll have each battle be set in a "region" (southern, central, northern, and arctic), and this will determine or influence local terrain, weather, and balance and availability of various military forces and nations.

[MikeyD]

I've done a few close-combat scenarios on big maps, the trick is to set-up the combatants a reasonable distance from each other. A good thing about big maps is the feeling of emersion into the terrain. Map boundaries fall out of sight and you get the feeling of 'being there' instead of just playing on a board. And there's the mischevious fun of placing your surprise reinforements on the far end of a 2500m long wheat field.

[Richard Morgan]

I am actually commencing a large map game at present - Brian Topp's Heartbreak at Verrieres. The map size is roughly 2km by 2km square - more than enough room in which to "swing a cat" - probably not a bad metaphor, given the names of the nastier German tanks The size of my force (Canadian) is large, but not excessive: a reinforced infantry battalion, a dozen or so tanks plus arty. What intrigued me about the scenario were the number of choices open to me in comparison to the typical smaller map size game: I have the whole northern end of the board open to me as a deployment area, which means that I can concentrate my forces any way I damn well like I was so taken with this, that I did what I haven't done for years - set down a tactical appreciation and a set of orders in writing :eek: I chose my objectives myself; my attack will be focussed on a narrow front and you will be able to follow my (mis)fortunes on the Combat Mission Canadian HQ website. For any ex or serving soldiers reading this, I welcome constructive criticism, but you will have to make some allowance: I am rusty as hell at this sort of thing Large can be beautiful as well!!

[Cauldron]

WOW build a game to suit a computer..

I think that is reverse logic ise'nt it ??

ROFL

eric

[Wild Bill Wilder]

The map should be dependent on (1) the historicl event and (2) what the designer is trying to portray.

As to map sizes, they are also dependent on how much of the bigger picture is to be included.

So largely I think it is a choice of the designer.

There will be small "in close" quick play battles and the larger monster ones in CMBB. You can count on that.

Since your tastes differ, my gaming friends, we want to try to whet everyone's appetite.

Scenarios are just like the ladies. Different types appeal to different people. We hope to have scenarios in the bunch that will cover every aspect of taste and desire.

Little ones, big ones, complicated one, simple ones, hard ones, easy ones (doubtful, knowing Rune - ), a real smorgasbord of battles.

It should be most interesting.

Wild Bill

[benpark]

For a taste of things to come on the more immense side of things, I have been playing a set of scenarios based on Kursk "July 11th" and "July 12th" by Mr. Johnson. I highly recomend them both. I am usually not a fan of monster battles, but these are different, as management of different offensive (as German) moves play out. With such a big map, I become fascinated even more by the actions of each segment of the attack, and the personalities involved. It gets pretty hairy, with more lead flying than a room fulla kids taking an SAT. It also really eats up the memory. I tried a "Kustrin to Seelow" linked set of battles, that ran over a series of maps that were interconnected-for all intensive purposes, giving me a map larger than could be modeled by CM. The loss of troop continuity was a dissapointment, leaving much to conjecture. I think there is a lot that can be done with maps of immense scale-it will be great to see how it plays out in CMBB...