Runyan99 Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I was thinking today. It might not be so hard to create an op once we have a library of a couple hundred 2x2 maps. Need a small Russian village? Need a forested map? Need an open map? Find something that approximates the terrain you need in the 2x2 library, and then just plug it into your op. Easy. We might begin to think of these 2x2 maps as interchangable map boards similar to a paper wargame like ASL or Panzer Leader. Of course if your map board does not have an important feature, some editing would be needed. Maybe add a river or a road, or whatever. Still, editing an existing map would save a lot of time when putting together a CMC map set. I know I don't even want to attempt to sit down at the editor and design a Russian village house by house and street for street 8 times when creating a CMC map. Too much work. Some form of standardization would be very helpful in this regard. Of course as time goes on, hopefully we will have a larger and larger collection of maps to choose from. Over time, we might have a library of several hundred 2x2 maps to choose from. Need a village? Pick one of 34. Heck, I expect CMC itself to include more than a hundred 2x2 maps in itself. All that is needed is for someone to step forward and collate these maps in one place, such as the Scenario Depot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfwIII Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 The danger of this is that people get too familiar with the maps, which was what happened with Squad Leader, PanzerBlitz, PanzerLeader, et al. You also don't have the option of "rotating" the maps in CM as you did in those games so not only would the terrain get to be familiar, but the orientation of the map would not differ. There would also be the problem of operations "flowing" from one map to the next - from steppe to rolling terrain to mountains from one map to the next, unless there was some way of codifying by more than just the main terrain type. Lastly would be the problem of creating the operational map from the conglomeration of 2x2 maps one selects at random, which I think would be crucial to decision making. We have not yet heard word on whether the 2x2 maps would be visible to players during the operational phase yet; if not the fidelity of the minimap would be even more important. I think in the case of CM:C we may be counting on the skills of the campaign designers and less able to build "on the fly" campaigns. Even if all the above can be conquered, there would be the matter of building orders of battle that would be reasonably challenging (ie balanced) and suitable (not necessarily matched to) for the terrain - ie mountain troops instead of heavy tanks for mountainous terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 Originally posted by Russophile: Lastly would be the problem of creating the operational map from the conglomeration of 2x2 maps one selects at random, which I think would be crucial to decision making. You have it exactly backwards. The designer tries chooses 2x2 maps which fit the CMC map. You don't choose 2x2 maps and then try to put them together into some kind of campaign. Ideally the designer has a decent map of the real-life operational area (in the case of historical or semi-historical campaigns), then makes a CMC map which represents the real terrain as best as possible, and then chooses 2x2 maps which fit each individual CMC square. There would be no problem of ops 'flowing' from steppe to mountain, because presumably the designer is trying to approximate a real area of Russain terrain, and not throwing 2x2 maps together willi-nilly. The inability to rotate terrain features (even in mapping mission, as far as I know) is a bit of a limitation, as you say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPK Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I actually think this Map Library concept has some merit... I would think that a lot of the 2x2 maps needed will be fairly mundane... areas of steppe, forest or bog... it makes sense to start making and collecting these now, as we will have better things to do when CM:C is released.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I was thinking about using Mappping Mission to create a large (10k X 10k) campaign map. Then select 2sqkm sections to create the CMBB battle maps. The purely fictional map I started has a major N/S river with a large city on the river. I kinda looks like a small Stalingrd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfwIII Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Originally posted by Runyan99: You have it exactly backwards. The designer tries chooses 2x2 maps which fit the CMC map. You don't choose 2x2 maps and then try to put them together into some kind of campaign.HA! You know, I never even considered doing it the other way. You're right, of course. But in my defence, we're talking about doing up 2x2s now so it just seemed logical....however, see my next point... Ideally the designer has a decent map of the real-life operational area (in the case of historical or semi-historical campaigns), then makes a CMC map which represents the real terrain as best as possible, and then chooses 2x2 maps which fit each individual CMC square.Yes, this will be optimal. I'm looking forward to "historical" campaigns - I've gravitated to historical battles and operations in CMBB not out of snobbery but because the terrain and orders of battle tend to have a better "feel", as intangible as that may be, than some of the fictional creations. Bearing in mind of course the limitations of recreating history in CMBB and the whole historical/semi-historical debate. There would be no problem of ops 'flowing' from steppe to mountain, because presumably the designer is trying to approximate a real area of Russain terrain, and not throwing 2x2 maps together willi-nilly.Exactly. One trend that I am not a fan of that happened quite a bit in the heady days of the Scenario Rush were giant operational areas scaled down by a factor of ten to fit onto a CMBB map, with forces scaled down as well. Interesting concept, but I think the 1:1 modelling (to steal a phrase) has much more exciting possibilities. However, from some of the posts here, one can hear the 10th Power proponents (or was that exponents?) about to work their magic again, scaling down the entire 6th Army to work in CM:C. Or perhaps "Destruction of Army Group Centre". Time will tell how effective it may be. A final thought though....might be an interesting twist to see a set of 2x2 maps made up entirely of converted SL boards...no more hiding dad's pool table or cursing mom's cats. Just remember, Runyan99, it was your idea. 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.