Map Size Limit

[MikeyD]

BFC did to an excellent job with reduced-resolution distance LODS. Instead of CMx1 1000m horizon cutoff option to boost framerate CMX2 uses lower res/polygon images at distance to help keep your framerate up while still viewing the whole map.

An added (BIG) benefit to these distance terrain LODS is while bunkers and trenches are map-placed items the player has to do some real work to hunt them down on the map. From a distance they're nicely disguised. So unless you've got down to ground level and thoroughly searched you might stumble upon an unseen enemy trench complex. I figure any trenches you do manage to spot can be chalked up to advance air recon.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Sergei:

No, the limit is 4km x 4km. The limit is not about area.

OK. . . so if I understand everything correctly, the best way of describing the map size limit in CM:SF is that maximum length of either axis is 4km, yes?

So you can have a 16 sq. km. map, but only as a 4x4 km square. Rectangular maps are possible, but, but you can't do 4.1 x 3.9 km maps, 8km x 2km maps, 16km x 1km maps, or other such insanity.

Are my inferences correct?

Cheers,

YD

[rune]

Correct... the max size is 4km in any direction. So east-west max is 4 km. Ditto with north-South.

Rune

[mav1]

Phew! Iam glad its 4x4km, I was getting worried.

Any chance of stretching the size of the maps in future modules, since computers will get more powerful as the months go by. I don't know how long shock force will be supported for with the extra modules. But say a module is made in a years time, can the size of the map be increased.

I JUST LOVE THE BIG MAPS!

The same goes for rivers. Can the rivers from the future ww2 game be added in a module for the shock force game?

[YankeeDog]

Cool. Thanks for the quick response, Rune.

With the potential long engagement ranges of modern combat, I do think that having the capability for good-sized maps is an important game feature. I'm sure within a few weeks of release, there will be open desert armor vs. armor scenarios out there that make even 4x4km maps seem a bit claustrophobic (for the players with machines fast enough to run these scenarios, anyway!). But no matter how big maps get, there will always be an argument for making them just a bit bigger. . . overall, I think 4km x 4km is pretty darn good. Same limits that were introduced with CM:BB, IIRC.

Cheers,

YD

[Moon]

Please keep in mind that while 16 sqkm are possible, it is by no means a standard play size. You will need a VERY fast computer to play on such a huge map, and will have to design the map smartly in order to avoid bringing even the best PC out there to its knees. Most maps are going to be much smaller than 16 sqkm on average.

Martin

[rune]

Guys,

Don't go overboard. Remember, the maps are more detailed then CMX1. You may want a big map, but add a 4km by 4km forest and the map alone will require a crey computer to process. Remember, this game is also setup to play real time. Add a division of troops to a map, and I can already hear players requesting the head of the designer. A company is the perfect size to play without being over-whelmed.

So, yes, you can make a 4km by 4km map, but you better test the heck out of it to see what fps you get. Not everyone has a 4 core processor with 8 video cards in sli mode. Remember, you ARE chatting with the big scenario master here...and if I am warning you...test it completely first.

Rune

[SGT_56M]

I didn't listen to Rune at first and made myself sad.

[Sergei]

In other words, it's better to invest in volume of troops, not size of the map. Have five battalions of troops on that 200m x 200m map and the party can begin!

(Okay, maybe I'll just shut up before Moon gets an arrhythmia...)

[mav1]

Originally posted by Moon:

Please keep in mind that while 16 sqkm are possible, it is by no means a standard play size. You will need a VERY fast computer to play on such a huge map, and will have to design the map smartly in order to avoid bringing even the best PC out there to its knees. Most maps are going to be much smaller than 16 sqkm on average.

Martin

Is it the number of units that take up most of the calculations? So if you have very few units, can you get away with a large map, without straining the pc to breaking point?

[rune]

Nope, it is both, terrain and amount of units. As I said, make sure you test anything you create...I cannot say that enough.

Rune

[MikeyD]

"...even 4x4km maps seem a bit claustrophobic"

Remember in CMx1 a 1500m clear LOS was the rare exception rather than the rule even on relatively flat steppe or desert terrain. Warplay might be a bit frustrating if you're 4km from your objective and have to drive (or worse walk) 3km just to get within sight of it! I still recall those giant CMBB maps with blizzard conditions. Most of the vehicle would bog. I'd be lucky if i spotted the enemy's forward scounts before time ran out! :mad:

Oh, for you guys who can't live without max size maps. CMSF does come with a rather nice 'wide angle' camera view option to make it appear like you've got endless vistas .

[YankeeDog]

Well, to play devil's advocate, remember that there were a number of kills by M1A1s in GWs I & II at ranges well over 2km, and that furthermore modern guided ATGMs also have ranges well over 2km; indeed, the range for some systems exceeds 3km.

So for scenarios depicting, say, an armored drive into Syria from Iraq through the more open desert terrain, engagement ranges of 2-3km are completely believable and realistic. Yoou probably want the map to be a bit bigger than this, to allow for maneuver, and also to avoid the game killer of opposing units being able to sight and kill each other, right from the setup zones.

Also, keep in mind that modern MBTs move much faster than WWII-era tanks. So they'll cover a click or so of move-to-contact distance much faster than we're used to in CM:AK desert scenarios.

Cheers,

YD

[mav1]

YankeeDog is totaly right, with the map size area needed.

Its the game mechanics that is stopping the map area being the reasonable size needed.

Shock force is more suited to urban combat than to open desert tank combat.

[MikeyD]

I agree a monster map might have some occassional gameplay value. I just don't want pleople to get the false impression that anything under 12km is unrealistic & unplayable. Rifle range is still rifle range (actually, shorter range than WWII rifles), Hvy mg range is still hvy mg range. I read somewhere that in Iraq TOW Strykers providing infantry support (while waiting for MGS to arrive) were typically firing its missiles at pretty close to minimum arming distance! Yikes! If your job is doing close infantry support you don't often have the luxury of standing 3km back on a hillside.

[Sgt Joch]

I remember when CMAK came out, everyone was excited to play Afrika Korps scenarios. However, it turned that armored units slugging it out from 2 km out on flat desert maps makes for a boring scenario. I presume it will be the same in CMSF, maybe more so given the greater lethality of modern weapons.

After all the years of playing CMBB and CMAK, I dont think I ever played on a max size map and I find smaller scenarios on small/medium size maps, the most enjoyable.

I think most players will find even 4 x 4 km maps are an overkill, you can create one in CMAK to get an idea of the size.

[mav1]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I agree a monster map might have some occassional gameplay value. I just don't want pleople to get the false impression that anything under 12km is unrealistic & unplayable. Rifle range is still rifle range (actually, shorter range than WWII rifles), Hvy mg range is still hvy mg range. I read somewhere that in Iraq TOW Strykers providing infantry support (while waiting for MGS to arrive) were typically firing its missiles at pretty close to minimum arming distance! Yikes! If your job is doing close infantry support you don't often have the luxury of standing 3km back on a hillside.

Its nothing to do with small maps being unrealistic or unplayable.

Its to do with big maps not being realistic or unplayable.

[YankeeDog]

Oh, I absolutely agree.

And with a 4km x 4km map size limit, I don't think CM:SF will do too badly with the open desert armored combat, either. While there were a few exceptional examples of kills by M1A1s at ranges of 4km+ in Iraqi, these were, as I mentioned, exceptional. Most kills were sub-3km. As we've all learned from CM:AK, even open desert has some terrain relief. And any Syrian player with half a brain is not going to camp his T-72s out on the top of a crest, where they will get dinged by APFSDS from long distance. He's going to set up in dead ground, and try to engage at a range where he has at least some chance of fighting back.

So a 4km square desert map should be able to portray modern open terrain armor combat pretty well. It also opens up other possibilities.

For example, imagine a small Syrian town straddling a road that is the only good route across a wadi, infested with Commandos, including a number Kornet teams. Time is of the essence. The Strykers and M1A1s can't approach too close without becoming Kornet food, but they can offer some degree of support from long range, where they have time to back down into defilade if targeted (one of the big disavantages of ATGMs; flight time). So you as player have to find a way of getting your infantry on foot across the open ground, to spot and neutralize the long range ATGMs, so your armor can move up and help you clear the rest of the town.

Your're going to need a pretty long map to represent a scenario like that, and it seems a pretty plausible one to me.

But it all looks good to me. . . I look forward to trying it out! Though I am going to need a new computer first.

Cheers,

YD

[Becket]

Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:

I remember when CMAK came out, everyone was excited to play Afrika Korps scenarios. However, it turned that armored units slugging it out from 2 km out on flat desert maps makes for a boring scenario. I presume it will be the same in CMSF, maybe more so given the greater lethality of modern weapons.

Ding!

While it might be "realistic" to have a huge map where tanks slug it out and the game then ends, how often would you really play it? The CMAK armor scenarios that I most enjoyed (big or small maps) were the ones where there was enough terrain (hills, wadi, trees, etc.) to prevent direct fire from long range.

[MikeyD]

Could be a good scenario idea. it still sounds like it would be a better idea at 3km- range than at 4km+. Under hazy conditions or even a moderately high clutter environment conceaeld ATGM teams would be nearly impossible to spot (tanks would be infinitely easier to locate).

If you've got your tanks hanging back and your infantry approaching in the middle distance I suspect its off-board artillery/CAS that would rule the battlefield. A FO up front with the troops could clear most resistance as it was encountered. Alternately a competent Syrian FO would make your troops life an absolute hell. Either way, those Abrams standing 4km off would be pretty much superfluous except for the occassinal lucky shot.

I've got to say something. We can have fun debating tactical theory all day long. But just think, in a couple weeks the game will finally fall into your hands and EVERYTHING will be testable in realtime! Abrams used as fire support from 4km? Fire up the game and test it out! Woo Hoo!

[Becket]

Stop that. I can't wait as it is.

I have to remind myself that this is 2007, not 2002, so there's no reason to expect a demo 3 weeks before shipping like we got with CMBB.

[gibsonm]

Just keep reading Rune's post!

For MOST people, big maps (4km x 4km) wont work! Unless you like very slow refresh rates.

4km x 4km of flat sand with a small number of troops (platoon per side) might work but start adding terrain and units and things start to slow exponentially.

To play the sort of "stand off" scenario people are discussing you'd need to think of a much narrower frontage (say 4km x 2km or 4km x 1km) to support the depth being asked for.

Of course if you want to mortgage your house to buy a PC capable of bigger mapps, feel free.

[ July 10, 2007, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[YankeeDog]

Meh. To paraphrase an old New Englad adage, "If you can't afford a computer that's fast enough, just wait a minute."

If CM:SF has anything approaching the legs of the CMx1 games, we'll be playing it for years to come, and newer computers will eat up those 4x4km, fully forested maps, with a an armored divison on each side!

Which is what I'm glad the 4x4 km capability is in the game, even if I'm unlikely to use it for a while -- I look forward to playing such scenarios on my 10.6 Ghz, Octa-core, 2gb VRAM, and 8gb system memory super machine that I'm getting for XMas 2009.

[gibsonm]

Sure but don't come back here on the 1st of August and bleat that it sucks on your current '286 with its CGA card, which is what some people will do.

[YankeeDog]

Man, you must be psychic er sumfink. . . how'd you guess my master plan?!

Actually, my current rig isn't quite as pants as a 286, but with a 1.6 Ghz p4 and a 64 meg vid card, it's certainly too long in the tooth to play CM:SF. And unfortunately, since it's a laptop, my upgrade options are basically nil.

So it's a new machine for me! I actually have the money set aside, but due to a variety of life factors, I probably won't get around to purchasing/building the new rig until the fall.

So I'll have to suffer and live vicariously through the rest of you here on the forum for a couple of months.

As a silver lining, I will get to read through all the performance reports posted here, and select my new hardware based on what seems to be the best for playing CM:SF -- nothing else I do with my computer is anywhere near as taxing as this game, so anything I buy that can run CM:SF well, will do everything else I ask of it. :cool: