Panzer_Meyer Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 sorry to ask again, but somewhere I know someone asked about this a while back and I am not sure if it was answered or not. so my questions is, why cant the map be bigger, so as to allow more space to move about in North Africa, and to show more off the USA and Canada. What is the lmitation that is not allowing the map to be bigger and to include all of the USA and all of Canada and more of North Africa. thank you in advance and I apolagize if this has been asked before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I believe the answer was some kind of RAM limitation. He's got it maxed out as it is, which is why there isn't more room in the desert also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funker Vertinox Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Hrm... Well... I think the main issue missing out is the Norway port of Narwik... That was quite a see saw battle between the brits and the German troops. And northern Finland and Lapland parts of Russia... You know they had battles up by Murmansk... Not very big battles mind you but it was a Front... And Murmansk was a vital port to the Russians to recieve artic convoy supplies... And maybe a bit more of the Middle East, but other than that I looks ok... The best map I have ever seen is War In Europe Click here for a larger version: Made in 1997 and gone through a few patches... It's the best map I have ever seen. Going on a 22km version. I have a copy and I've played it a few times with a few people, but it's hard to keep up with PBEM sometimes (which reminds me if I should pester Trauth). It does allow for the Allies to be a bitch in Early war... Here is a linke to the review: http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/oct97/wie.html I don't know if Hubert has ever played it, but he should for future reference (that and WIR if you can spend the extra months figuring out the interface but no spend more time working on SC before you start on other things!) As far as memory limitations, I know WIE has outdated graphics, but although you can't see it you can get to Narwik on WIE map and all the way out to the Caspian see and bit past Grozny... Personally, I'd like to see WIE map and production combined with WIR battle system combined with the scale of WIF (World Wide) combined with a realtime non-hex system like Airborne Assault but with the turn based variation like Combat Mission... Anyone up for making that game? Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funker Vertinox Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 BTW... Those dots on the map are actually Division based units... And you can have a ton of them. Each turn usually takes an hour to complete and considering the scale of the game it's no beer and pretzels. You can download a free demo of decision games website (i listed it above), but there are still allot of things that I think are wrong with it. the battle powers are arbitrary like a board game. There is no attrition (which SC seems to be doing) Either you division is at full strenght or it's not. Panzer divisions are not based on strength to what tanks they have... So the 10-8 division in 1940 will still be a 10-8 in 1942 regardless of the fact that those division were historically upgunned and using newer tanks. And there is allot of gamey-ness to it with naval stuff and general political rules, but like I said before War In Russia's battle system is whole lot better (just too damn complicated and limited to scale in the whole battle-field). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I'm also a bit curious why the map can't be larger. Third Reich PC managed to get the whole map to work back in 1994 with the technology then, and had more terrain features and cities. There may be something with the SC code which integrates other game functions that takes up RAM, like the way it paints hex control and calculates MPPs each turn. Probably can't change anything now, but a slightly larger map in the future to include more of North Africa and Norway would be nice. The WIE map is nice, but the scale is too small for SC. The Advanced Third Reich mapboard (very nice!) could be a useful benchmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Yup. Northern Finland in the future is a must. Although historically Finns wouldnt try to capture Murmansk ( or cut the railway ) but it would create some interesting what-if's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Hubert said it has something to do with Windows. Having seen bigger maps in other hex/based games, though, I wonder if it is maybe more a limitation of ISE Eiffel? In this case, we would have to harrass the developers of this progamming language (a link is on the site somewhere) Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Originaly posted by Hubert: OK, so everyone understands why this is so, the actuall reason why there is only a limited amount of space in Northern Europe and in North Africa was due to limitations in Windows of how much information could be held in 'memory device context' at any one time. By me adding in the east coast of North America I reached that limitation and had to work the map out as best as I could to include all the items I wanted. Trust me I would have loved to have been able to allow players to recreate convoy PQ-17 or the encirclements in North Africa, but I just couldn't do it. Sorry about that guys. There are ways around this, but it would have meant either really slow scrolling, a much smaller viewable play area, or a messy manipulation of bitmapped memory that would have been a real headache. All in all I think that the benefits of the current map outweigh the few shortcomings. So, the answer seems to be that the map is the way it is so you can see it all without having to scroll around. I think that is a fair trade for a game that is trying to be a good, fun game, rather than being the last word in detailed WWII simulations. I would like to have it both ways, but I am with Hubert on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 I'd like to see more of Europe with an abstract US deployment box. When I read about SC having the US on the map and all the naval units, I had visions of the Battle of the Atlantic. But you can't really assign U-boats any patrol sectors and have convoy battles with ASW, so why not make the Atlantic and sub campaign abstract? Subs and ASW could either go into strategic warfare boxes like Third Reich or support naval operations on the map. I'd much prefer to have more maneuver in North Africa, and permit successful Axis campaigns to continue into Iraq and Persia. This won't change for SC, but maybe Hubert can work it out to have it all in SC2. If not, more Europe and less Atlantic would be better. Regardless of what the final map looks like, more off-map activities should to be included anyway - Murmansk convoys, lend-lease, redeployments between Norway/Finland and Britain/Egypt, etc. These need to be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 I think there is a more detailed battle of the Atlantic system in place now isn't there? With subs able to harrass routes? I also think Hubert had mentioned one or two off map actions he was considering, but I can't find that thread... maybe I was just dreaming... where am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 As originally posted by Mr Clark: I also think Hubert had mentioned one or two off map actions he was considering, but I can't find that thread... maybe I was just dreaming... where am I? Mr C, IIRC, Hubert is seriously considering allowing the transport of units around the Horn of Africa. I believe that is the only off-map activity? As for your dreams, consider this: The Cognitive Behavioral interpretation has it that you are trying to INTEGRATE visual hallucinations and emotional episodes so that you will have some MEANING to your dreams -- a kind of dream reorganization. Psycho-dynamic theories (Freud et al) suppose that dreams originate in a disturbing, unconscious wish (this is the hidden, or latent content) and the dream material is transformed by a censor into more acceptable images (manifest content). In either event you are probably normal, whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Originally posted by Immer Etwas: [QBIIRC, Hubert is seriously considering allowing the transport of units around the Horn of Africa. I believe that is the only off-map activity? Ah yes, that was it! Sorry! Now then, in this dream, I was smacking around a monkey, when suddenly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 As originally posted by Mr Clark: Now then, in this dream, I was smacking around a monkey, when suddenly... Ah, I see. :eek: Hmmmm, let me reconsider the -- perhaps premature conclusion as to normalcy, and I'll get back to you. (... was that monkey REALLY your boss at work, and so... hmmmmm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Originally posted by Immer Etwas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As originally posted by Mr Clark: Now then, in this dream, I was smacking around a monkey, when suddenly... Ah, I see. :eek: Hmmmm, let me reconsider the -- perhaps premature conclusion as to normalcy, and I'll get back to you. (... was that monkey REALLY your boss at work, and so... hmmmmm)</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts