Brent Pollock Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 This post: Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Does anybody else besides me notice how much attention the Lee/Grant is receiving? (Actuall the Lee only at this point. Aside from the BFC staff and the beta testers, and possibly a handful of previewers, none of us have seen a Grant in action at this point.) Of course, part of this is due to the fact that they are in the only scenarios we have available at the present time. And no doubt much of it is due to their "curiosity" factor. They are odd. And they were only in the war for a short time, Burma excepted. I predict that once we have the full version of the game available, only a tiny fraction of scenarios built and posted by players will contain Lee/Grants. So, although it is indeed disappointing that the modeling of the Lee/Grant in its present iteration is flawed, I wonder if we are not obsessing about it a little more than it really merits. I think we should just press on with whatever does work properly and hope that in CMx2 multi-turreted tanks will perform more closely to the heart's desire. Michael from this thread: Grant animation bug? got me thinking the following: I know plenty of the ASL scenarios have been converted to CMBO/CMBB, but now I'm wondering if anyone is waiting for their CMAK CD to arrive so they can start converting all of the scenarios from TAHGC's TOBRUK to CMAK? Heck, even I could handle that conversion... especially the map [ November 26, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: Heck, even I could handle that conversion... especially the map I think the map was one thing that killed off a lot of sales for "Tobruk". The other was a lot of die rolling. The designer put some photos of the area of the battle into an issue of The General when he was called on that issue to prove that it was mostly featureless. But I say he cheated a bit. Much of the terrain around the Cauldron where some of the most critical fighting occurred was not flat. I think game designers are justly criticized for putting too much micro-terrain into their maps, "Squad Leader" was especially plagued with that, to the point where I once seriously considered designing my own. But I think "Tobruk" went a little too far in the other direction. The maps that have appeared for CM since it came out have been a notch or two above average and some are genuinely impressive, especially considering how difficult it is to get accurate and comprehensive cartographic information on this scale for most locations. Michael Delayed edit. Arrrrgggghhhhh. :mad: [ November 27, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: The maps that have appeared for CM since it came out have been a notch or two about average and some are genuinely impressive, especially considering how difficult it is to get accurate and comprehensive cartographic information on this scale for most locations. Michael Also, mapmaking for CM requires, not just knowledge of a battle's terrain or even decent-scaled maps, but an ability to "see" the landforms. Even given the current limitation of 20x20m squares, there is a fluidity that is possible with CM maps that most folks simply don't take advantage of. Because of this and other failures to take into account how the "real world" works, many of the CM maps leave me flat. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Basically two things clued me in to how artificial the SL maps are (in fact, they remind me of nothing so much as miniature golf courses). One was that during the late '60s and pretty much the next ten years I spent a lot of the time in the country studying terrain and how it was put together in the real world. The other was looking at a lot of aerial photos, especially of European terrain, and noticing how much larger terrain types are, i.e., they tend to cover much larger areas than was even hinted at on the SL maps. There was also much more distance between roads, although I suppose you could justify SL practice by saying those aren't really roads in the sense of graded and prepared surfaces, but just areas that are naturally more conducive to movement. But that rationalization doesn't quite work either as in that case there should in many instances be either more of them or they should be broader. In short, in many ways the SL model of the world just doesn't fit, and the same can be said to be more or less true of nearly all tactical wargames. The terrain has been designed to fit the game's mechanics rather than the other way around. I don't want to get into criticizing the work of CM scenario designers who have generously given of their time, labor, and knowledge and deserve a pat on the back for that. But just to speculate, I wonder if it is not the case that if their products represent something less than perfect fidelity, it is due in some cases less to the constraints that the CM system imposes on them than that having grown up with older wargames, it is what they came to expect, just as some people's mental image of WW II is greatly or entirely shaped by what they have seen in movies. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I don't want to get into criticizing the work of CM scenario designers who have generously given of their time, labor, and knowledge and deserve a pat on the back for that. But just to speculate, I wonder if it is not the case that if their products represent something less than perfect fidelity, it is due in some cases less to the constraints that the CM system imposes on them than that having grown up with older wargames, it is what they came to expect, just as some people's mental image of WW II is greatly or entirely shaped by what they have seen in movies. Michael You make a good point. Part of the problem, if it is indeed a problem, is that many battles took place on really ugly ground - too hilly, too muddy, too rocky, too open, too wooded, etc. Realistic, but not always fun to play on. My "wilderness" maps for BB were like that I think. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by dalem: Realistic, but not always fun to play on.Yes. I try to keep that in mind too. For the vast majority of us, wargaming is entertainment. Beyond a certain point, adding realism can turn fun into a chore. That's why I was never a big fan of "monster games"; the workload was just too high. But I think we can also find ways to be reasonably realistic without spoiling the fun, and I think CM has raised the bar on that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugilist Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 I'm a little younger than you guys and missed the boardgame revolution, so I bought Tobruk the board game and set out to play it with a friend. We also noticed the lack of elevation annoying, so we simply took an erasable marker and drew in some elevation numbers a la the CM scenario editor. With a bit of trial and error we found that the scenarios were much more playable, especially when you throw in a wadi or two. ...hey! I'm a real life modder! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted November 27, 2003 Author Share Posted November 27, 2003 Did you play the original from Avalon Hill or the recent rework from Critical Hit (IIRC)? I'm tempted to see if the CM map generator will put in hull down positions even if the map editor shows all elevations as equivalent. One way to do things, especially for the "Firefights", would be to state the OBs, map dimensions and parameters but let the QB generator make the map. Originally posted by Konstantine: I'm a little younger than you guys and missed the boardgame revolution, so I bought Tobruk the board game and set out to play it with a friend. We also noticed the lack of elevation annoying, so we simply took an erasable marker and drew in some elevation numbers a la the CM scenario editor. With a bit of trial and error we found that the scenarios were much more playable, especially when you throw in a wadi or two. ...hey! I'm a real life modder! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: I'm tempted to see if the CM map generator will put in hull down positions even if the map editor shows all elevations as equivalent. One way to do things, especially for the "Firefights", would be to state the OBs, map dimensions and parameters but let the QB generator make the map. The map generator is probably one of the best and most under-rated features of the editor; it's a very powerful tool and always produces pretty realistic maps (maybe this is one reason why ASL maps were so hinky - it relied on us poor humans to visualize the thihng first? I tried to do some ASL style maps for CMBB (ie level 7 for the majority, a hill here and there, tight road net and woods in just the right spots to suggest3 or 4 geomorphic boards butted together, etc.), just for fun - my imagination ran out after the first hill and I dropped the idea. Will be interesting to see how it handles desert terrain - I don't see it having a problem, frankly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 When I first looked at the CM version of the Red Barricades map I was astounded as to how big the factories were as compared to similar buildings on standard SL mapboards. It is almost comical to look at 'The Factory' on board 1 and compare it to 'The Factory' as it appears in Red Barricades. It is pretty obvious that the ASL / SL maps probably do 'downsample' (for lack of a better word) real world terrain quite a bit. I find the ASL maps fun to play on though so I don't have any issues with the downsampling. I think that this downsampling is reduced though in some of the later maps. There are quite a few later maps that are nothing other than large grain fields with a few buildings scattered around. The roads though are pretty much locked in since all the maps have to join together - an obvious limitation of the paper map boards of SL. Regarding the flatness ... if someone is attempting to be true to the ASL scenario that you are porting there are play balance issues that may crop up if you just start adding hills here and there. However, thankfully with the addition of the gentle slope feature you can add some elevation changes that are small enough to be rationalized as "too small to show up on the SL board as it was originally made, but perfectly acceptable to add to a CM scenario to add a little flavor". While it doesn't make a huge difference to play, it does make the map visually less flat - and a little less artificial looking. Having said that though ... I think that some designers take the hilly and foresty approach a little too far. Sometimes it seems like more than half of the scenarios at the depot take place in the Bavarian Alps or in the center of the Black Forest. Anyone who has driven down Interstate 5 through the Central Valley in California knows that the land for any specific 2000 square meter area can indeed be 'that flat'. If there are any CM players in Kansas or Nebraska ... I'm sure they've seen some flat ground too. I think there were a few battles that took place on some farmland too! As far as CM goes ... it has some limitations as well. It can be very difficult to add elevation changes when you are putting buildings around on a map. If your building is anywhere close to an elevation change it simply won't show up in the 3D view even though you can still see it sitting there in the map editor. Because of this, city maps are generally going to be flat as a pancake. If you don't make the city map flat, a lot of buildings that you think are going to be there simply won't be there. Now, putting elevations into a city map can be done, but the city can end up a little more spread out than might be desireable. Anyway, the bottom line for me is that I want to play the ASL scenario. If I'm playing a scenario as an ASL scenario, then how historically accurate the terrain is doesn't really matter that much too me. Naturally I would want to make the terrain as realistic 'looking' as possible, but I'm not going to destroy the scenario balance to do so. Regarding the original question - I too had thought about Tobruk scenarios, but alas I do not have the game anymore and neither do any of my friends. There were some pretty good tank battles in that game though - and I'm sure they would be fun to play in CMAK. :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKibler Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: When I first looked at the CM version of the Red Barricades map I was astounded as to how big the factories were as compared to similar buildings on standard SL mapboards. It is almost comical to look at 'The Factory' on board 1 and compare it to 'The Factory' as it appears in Red Barricades... I've vainly looked up in the Scenario Depot for the "Red Barricades" map referred to here. I'd be curious to see it. Could someone be so kind as to tell an ol' ASL'er just whar it could be found? Thanks! [ November 27, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: CKibler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by CKibler: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ASL Veteran: When I first looked at the CM version of the Red Barricades map I was astounded as to how big the factories were as compared to similar buildings on standard SL mapboards. It is almost comical to look at 'The Factory' on board 1 and compare it to 'The Factory' as it appears in Red Barricades... I've vainly looked up in the Scenario Depot for the "Red Barricades" map referred to here. I'd be curious to see it. Could someone be so kind as to tell an ol' ASL'er just whar it could be found? Thanks! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKibler Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Thanks very much for the quick reply! I'll go join up and D/L it. I'm curious to see how well this scenario adapted (too bad the sIG 33B's still don't look right!), but especially curious to see how the map looks. That's a map I remember quite well! BTW, did you know that MMP now has my "Red October" HASL module in testing? It's map will actually link to (i.e., slightly overlap) the southern edge of the RB map. Talk about a Big City Map... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Regarding the original question - I too had thought about Tobruk scenarios, but alas I do not have the game anymore and neither do any of my friends.http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3158322317&category=2537 Hey, jump on it already! $2.99! I still have mine... ianc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by CKibler: Thanks very much for the quick reply! I'll go join up and D/L it. I'm curious to see how well this scenario adapted (too bad the sIG 33B's still don't look right!), but especially curious to see how the map looks. That's a map I remember quite well! BTW, did you know that MMP now has my "Red October" HASL module in testing? It's map will actually link to (i.e., slightly overlap) the southern edge of the RB map. Talk about a Big City Map... [/QB]I had heard rumors that you were making an 'extension' map but I hadn't seen any news on it. The two maps together would be absolutely gigantic. As it is now my computer has a little trouble with the Red Barricades map alone ... when deploying the squads in the editor there was a several second delay before they would arrive where I wanted to place them. I think the factory buildings and the trenches consume a lot of memory. I had to make a compromise on the gulley though (I would have had to make it super deep to create the cliffs so it would have looked funny) and I had to substitute rocky for the debris so there were some limitations with what I could do. I hope I did your map some measure of justice though. Incidentally I have the Red Barricades version of "The Commissar's House" along with "One Down, Two to Go" and "Fire on the Volga" up at the Scenario Depot which use different pieces of the Red Barricades map and I have "Blood and Guts" up at The Proving Grounds for testing right now too. Ianc ... thanks for the link. I might just go for it - I mean for only 2.99 :eek: . Maybe when I'm done with all the desert ASL stuff I'll look at some Tobruk stuff. I'm sure someone will probably get to it before I do though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugilist Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: Did you play the original from Avalon Hill or the recent rework from Critical Hit (IIRC)? The original. I bought it used for $10. It's in storage right now though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 heh, I had done a version of the Red Barricades map for CM also, but when it came time to put the craters in, I lost interest...glad to see someone else took up the challenge...I was hoping to do the Historical CG in CM, as an Operation, but I've never really played one that satisfied me. Hmmm, Charlie, if I ever get my computer back up and running, and if ASL Vet gets a workable Operation out of the RB map....ya might wring one more Russian Front contest out of me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 Okay, just went to the Scenario Depot and found...almost nothing for CMAK. It's been a few days, gents...where're the Tobruk conversions...don't tell me I'll have to get off of...I mean ...stay seated on my lazy butt and do them myself over the X-mas holidays. Apparently Mr. Dorosh's copy has arrived already? I assume so because he's posted his CMAK version of the Ortona OP already at the Depot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted December 21, 2003 Author Share Posted December 21, 2003 Okay, I've generated my conversion of the first TOBRUK scenario 'THE CLASH OF ARMOR' but can't seem to get it to stick at the Scenario Depot: I get to the end of the form aokay, but when I click 'Submit', nothing happens I've sent a note to Keith about the problem I encountered. If anyone wants a copy of the scenario, let me know and I can mail it. Here are my general "TAHGC TOBRUK->CMAK" conversion notes: Notes for Brent Pollock's conversions of TAHGC's TOBRUK to CMAK. Rather than doing a straight up "vanilla" conversion, I decided to leap to a real CMAK-ification. Essentially, this meant opting for AFV platoons and variations in troop & HQ quality. The entire array of EXPERIMENTAL RULES and SCENARIO ADDENDA have been considered, as has the "Comments and Game Deficiencies" section, with regard to unrepresented weapons and vehicles, which I've thrown in where I thought they fit. The HQ structure is based on using "ASL Chapter H" as a converter. Map board (p.3 ): approximates the 3 x 12 hex by 2 x 20 hex set up of board sectors A/B/C/D/E/F. Contour has been set to Gentle (1.25 m) as per the TOBRUK design notes and I've opted for Arid Rock & Very Dry for the conditions, which is also what seems to have been chosen by the designers of the scenarios on the CD covering the same location and time period. Only scenarios THREE & EIGHT receive elevation changes to reflect their titular "POINT". Units are as direct a swap as I could manage. VL flags are only included where it seems warranted (fixed defenses). Turns (p.3): 2 TOBRUK = 1 CMAK Minefields (p.33): 1 TOBRUK = 3 X AP & 3 X AT Bunker (p. 16) 1 TOBRUK = 1 x Wooden Bunker MG Weapon Pit (p. 13) 1 TOBRUK = Parameter set to "Defender is: Dug In Including Vehicles" Hedgehog (p.7) 1 TOBRUK = Parameter set to "Defender is: Dug In With Fallbacks" Dummy Guns, Blockhouses & AT Trenches have not been modelled as I have ignored SCENARIO NINE. Off-board artillery (pp. 11 & 14): FOs get radios if in a mobile force and phones if they are on fixed defense. REGISTRATION = TRP and Normal Ammo CONCENTRATION = TRP and Double Ammo (or 2 x FOs) BARRAGE = TRP and Quadruple Ammo (or 4 x FOs) ----------- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Brent: If nothing happens when you hit Submit, there is too much text in the descriptions. Remove some text from the dialogue boxes, and try again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airborne Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: Okay, just went to the Scenario Depot and found...almost nothing for CMAK. It's been a few days, gents...where're the Tobruk conversions...don't tell me I'll have to get off of...I mean ...stay seated on my lazy butt and do them myself over the X-mas holidays. Just posted a new scenario at the Depot. It is loosely based on a Tobruk Firefight (small engagement) called "Battery Overrun". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 For Boots and Tracks I am currently finishing a battle somewhat based on the firefight "Convoy Raid". The map is not flat . It almost ready for testing. It will be available early January. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airborne Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 I like the Convoy Raid firefight. I made one, but never could get the AI to move the convoy on the road properly. I'll be interested in seeing yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted December 21, 2003 Author Share Posted December 21, 2003 Hey - that did it I had too much text in the Author Comments section. Originally posted by Runyan99: Brent: If nothing happens when you hit Submit, there is too much text in the descriptions. Remove some text from the dialogue boxes, and try again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Airborn - Getting convoys/trucks to move is impossible even with exit zones I think. This will be 2-player only. I will not recco AI convoy control. It's a 2-player TCP/IP taht canbe played in one evening. - Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.