Map Size Limit

[KiloAlpha4]

don't take this the wrong way I like this game but judging by the screen shots "the maps blowing my mind" is not going to happen for several reasons.

1: I have seen better building textures etc in bf2, coh etc etc so not to put the game down but there is no way this game can be more resource heavy to my system then say bf2 in a city on mp 64 player server with peeps etc firing all over the place.

2: map sizes of 16 km should not lag out our systems. I play pacific storm with 100 km x 100 km maps and over 320 units in a battle not to mention all that shading of the water and the huge islands and bases etc. Allies has 200 km x 200 km maps and still no lagging out

don't get me wrong the game looks good but with what I am reading which is essentially "expect lag with a 16 km map with a low unit cap" it is making me a bit weary as to purchasing it. I may have to wait and see what happens first.

[dan/california]

Filling out mortgage application as wife faints in background. :eek:

[Vergeltungswaffe]

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.

Blasphemy. Still incredibly fun vs human opponents.

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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.

Truer than you know.

Won't matter whether we use big maps frequently or not. We just need the capability to be able to when we want, so I, personally, am glad 4x4 is in.

[Sgt Joch]

I'm quite happy we at least have the capability to do 4x4 km maps even though we may not use it for a while.

In fact, it would be nice to eventually have the capability to do bigger maps. Some time back, I tried to design some western desert scenarios in 1941-42 using realistic topographical maps (or what I could find), however even 4x4 km maps only emcompassed small battlefields.

I had looked at designing a Alam Halfa Ridge operation for the aug.31 1942 battles, but even the biggest operation map would only cover a small part of the Alam Halfa ridge where the final assault took place, as you can see:

You would need 20x10 km maps to have some real elbow rooms, although even with CMx1 maps, no current computer could run it.

And if you take the time to analyse real maps, you will see that the real terrain over which the Afrika Korps and the 8th army fought in 1941-42 shows up as nearly flat terrain in CMx1.

[gibsonm]

Well before you make claims like "map sizes of 16 km should not lag out our systems" based on nothing more than your experience with another game (i.e. a spurious claim), I'd strongly suggest you:

1. Try the demo (which may or may not let you build huge maps).

2. Buy the product and start designing successively larger maps until you find the size that "maxes out" your machine.

I can tell you that we in the Beta test team did encounter limits but perhaps your computer budget is more generous than any of ours.

[Becket]

Kilo: go back to the 2002 CMBB archive and do a search for threads that discuss system performance and "To the Volga."

[panzermartin]

Does it help to play big maps in WEGO?

[rune]

Then by all means hold off on buying it. A First person shooter has nothing in common with this game. 64 people [units] is NOTHING. COH doesn't have the range or detail. Wait for the demo and decide for yourself.

Rune

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by KiloAlpha4:

don't take this the wrong way I like this game but judging by the screen shots "the maps blowing my mind" is not going to happen for several reasons.

1: I have seen better building textures etc in bf2, coh etc etc so not to put the game down but there is no way this game can be more resource heavy to my system then say bf2 in a city on mp 64 player server with peeps etc firing all over the place.

64 people is not a lot of people, and they can only fire so much at a time. There's only so much LOS/LOF tracking that has to go one. Maybe with a larger dev team, more could be squeezed out of the systems being used, but I can't come up with a situation in any current FPS that has the same amount of calculations going on behind the scene. As an example of "lots of processing, few units", the physics processing and graphics in Forza 2, a current Xbox 360 only title, mean that they can only put 8 cars on the track at a time. 8. They're processing so much raw physics data that both the gfx and number of cars on track had to be toned down. Combat Mission has always run into similar bottlenecks.

I'm not playing "fanboi" just saying that it's not even close to reasonable to compare a FPS to, well, just about any other game type. They just don't stress the CPU much compared to the GFX card.

[rune]

Just so everyone can understand. A single Stryker company WITHOUT support units other then the normal internal units, consists of approx 43 diffferent units. Some of these units are infantry squads, where every single soldier is shown. That is 3 squads per platoon, 3 platoons NOT counting snipers, hq and stuff, that is 81 individual people to track, with each shot being tracked. Add in their strykers, spotter, Headquarters, and you are talking about a ton of things on the screen at once. Oh yeah, that is JUST the american side. Armor locations hit are tracked, NOT health bars. Trying to compare this to anything else is apples and oranges.

Rune

[Cpl Steiner]

Whilst larger maps would be nice to have I don't see their absence as being a problem. Any sensible Syrian commander is going to deploy his forces using a "reverse slope" defense, just as the Iraqis used at Medina Ridge in Gulf War I. If the Syrians used such a defense, and assuming they could disguise their positions long enough to avoid being destroyed from the air, the advancing US forces would be forced to fight a short range battle as they crested the ridge sheltering the Syrian forces. Any open desert tank battles in CM:SF can be designed with this in mind to explain why US forces are engaged at such short range.

[dan/california]

Where the size limit will really become an issue is whichever module they add they add large scale co-play into, but Charles is more than smart enough to scale the map size to the available computing power at that time.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Are you trying to make a point via enigmatic silence, err what?

[ChrisND]

I was going to be an asshole, and then changed my mind.

[Speedy]

You can change your mind about that?

[Wisbech_lad]

On attack frontages - I think it is one of Keegan's books where he discusses the UK attack, during, ISTR, Epsom.

With "2 up, 2 down" and "left behind units" a multi-divisional attack, at the spearpoint, came down to a couple of sections walking gingerly through cornfields to contact. With huge numbers of gun tubes behind them...

[ChrisND]

Wisbech:

Thats sounds about right in many instances, a key to winning in maneuver warfare is making contact with the smallest element possible.

As for the rest of you... feck off... there now I can sleep in peace.

[SGT_56M]

Given the outcome over open terrain battles in Iraq, Syria would not be so foolish as to challenge US firepower and communication in the open. They would fall back to towns and other settlements, hide amongst the populous and in effect create an island hopping campaing through the desert sea.

Rune also hit it on the head with the structure of FPS vs a true wargame.

[MikeyD]

"So it's a new machine for me"

I did it, took me 6+ months to work up the nerve to buy the new rig (and to jump into Windows :eek: ), but the chance to get on the Beta team gave me the push. Nothing beats the 'new car smell' of a great new game freshly installled on a great new computer!

About map size again. Please don't imagine these 'non-giant' CMSF maps are therefore by definition 'small'. It will still take awhile for the sound of the explosion to get back to you after your Javelin finds its target (I looked it up, 344 m/s at sea level on a 70 degree day).

[ July 10, 2007, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[TheVulture]

I doubt the map size is going to be much of a problem. Sure you might have trouble representing the kinds of engagements where tanks are getting kills at 2-3km regularly, but then, they're very likely to be the exact kind of one-sided turkey shoot scenarios that everyone was dreading (Syrian player has to KO 1 M1 while keeping at least 10% of his forces alive to win).

ISTM that BF have said repeatedly that the point of the game is to simulate those engagements that are tactically 'interesting' - where conditions create approximate parity between the forces (although I dare say creative scenario designers will come up with all sorts of situations that are interesting and well balanced in their own sweet way). Armoured engagements in open terrain with 3 km lines of sight just don't fall into that category within the setting of the game: they are the portion of the engagements that are dull an predictable in their outcome.

Almost by definition, the tactically equal battles are going to take place on a smaller scale than that, since the US technology advantage will dominate on the larger, open scales.

I'd rather play e.g. a campaign where e.g. a town has been encircled as the US drive pushes past it, but a pocket of resistance remains in e.g. the souk (old market area packed with close together buildings and narrow alleys). Unfortunately the area is well supplied, still has an unknown number of civilians, and apparently is the source of SAMs or other AA capability. The US can cordon off the area with armour, but the vast majority of the streets are too narrow for an M1 or Stryker to get down. SO the infantry have to fight their way in and at least find and eliminate the AA capability (so the nearby airfield can be used, say). Artillery support is limited or non-existent due to the presence of civilians in the market area.

I'm not a grog, so I have no idea how plausible that is from a military standpoint, but in my naive way that's something off the top of my head that the Syrians might try to nullify the US advantages and force tactical parity (or in this case, clearing house to house in an absolute maze of alleys and buildings against a force that has had time to prepare its defences and lines of retreat through buildings where necessary, the US troops might even be at a serious disadvantage if the Syrian forces were of decent quality). It's the kind of battle the Syrians would want to fight, and the kind the US wants to avoid (give them the turkey shoot option any day).

Who knows, this precise idea might not work that well as a scenario for one reason or another, and there are plenty of other ways of creating interesting scenarios.

But the idea that the game might be limited because of 4klm x 4 km maps when an M1 can kill at 3km seems flawed to me precisely because it is only going to be a problem in unbalanced scenarios no sane person would play.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

...I can tell you that we in the Beta test team did encounter limits but perhaps your computer budget is more generous than any of ours.

Can you share with us at this time what you've learned?

I've read the system requirements / recommended / suggested systems and wonder how this translates into actual gameplay, frame rates and so on.

For instance say a 2x2km map and 64 units = FR rate of X, a 1x1km map and 32 units = FR of X, and so on. Anything like that?

[rune]

There is NOTHING that simple. Depends on type of terrain, amounts of buildings, settings on the system, video card drivers, and I think someone was spinning a dead cat above their head in a cemetary at midnight. So, no, there is nothing like that at all. It is why I said "if you make something, TEST it".

Rune

[SGT_56M]

What Rune is saying cannot be stressed enough. Case in point, my specs are listed below. I've created maps that were unplayable in RT. But then going back with the tips I've learned on how to streamline a map without loosing the "atmosphere" of the scenario the scenario was playable and included in the game. Conversely, there are larger maps than mine in the game that are perfectly playable and engrossing.

You must test your scenario on not only your own system, but find a friend with a different set of specs and have them try as well.

[YankeeDog]

I think it's pretty funny that we're having a long, drawn out discussion about map sizes, when all of us seem to pretty much agree that 4km x 4km maps are pretty darn good.

The one minor quibble I would make is about the "playability" of large maps from a gameplay, rather than a hardware perspective. I know CM:SF is a new engine, blah, blah, blah, so comparisons between it and the CMx1 games are not necessarily valid, but my experience with open steppe/desert scenarios in CM:BB and CM:AK has shown me that these can be some of the most enjoyable and fun games to play. To this day, the "Citadel" demo scenario from CM:BB is still on of my favorite CMx1 scenarios and maps - IIRC, it features a 4km long advance map, maybe 1km wide or so. After playing through it a couple of times, I also actually used that map for QB games human opponents.

And given the longer range and better spotting ability of modern weapons systems, I can see how a similar scenarios in CM:SF would require a larger, or at least longer, map to play out realistically.

Imagine, if you will, a rapid exploit/advance scenario across open desert terrain, with a US Cavalry troop tearing across the desert against a dispersed defense of Kornets, maybe a couple of well-concealed tanks, and the occasional hornet's nest of infantry with RPGs and small arms. Not a huge number of units on either side, and certainly an interesting challenge -- as the US player, how fast do you push the pace? Too fast, you might stumble into an ambush. Too slow, you might not make your objective within the alotted time.

With M1A1s moving at 40kph, and possible engagement ranges for the Kornets being in the 2km+ vicinity, you're going to need a pretty long map to realistically portray such a scenario; 4km might not be enough. Keep in mind that you usually need a bit of a "buffer zone" near map edges, for setup etc., so you don't usually get 4km of "fighting space" out of a 4km long map; you usually get more like 3-3.5 km or so.

So, yeah, in an *ideal* world, it would be cool if the game allowed the creation "long advance" map of, say, 2km x 6km or so. But it's really not a big deal to me that this one, very specific capability isn't in the game. In general, I think it's poor form to complain that you didn't get filet mignon, when you're served a well-cut, perfectly prepared piece of top sirloin.

As for the whole issue of whether large maps would a acutually going to be playable on affordable hardware, like I said, I'm not particularly worried about this. If my hardware can't take the big map/large # unit scenarios, I'm confident the smaller scenarios will keep me happy next year or two, and then I will get the treat of almost getting a new game for free, when I can finally try out the 4x4km armor battle royale on my next hardware upgrade. Today's super-premium vid card is tommorrow's bargain bin special.

Cheers,

YD

[Dirtweasle]

Ok, no problem, was just thinking that when I test things, especially complex systems I keep track of the results. I guess with games it's different.