Map size?

[rofl]

Will it be possible to make larger maps than ToW-1,

on the diary i can see only those 2x2 km again ?

[Gnasher]

Agree, its kinda limited when the map size is teh effective range of an 88mm gun, in theory & with LOS a 88 on one edge of the map can kill armour on the othe extreme edge of the map. Be nice to have some room for manouvre.

[Tartari]

maybe an answer here?

We consider using ToW resources in ToW2. Most likely, units will be in, while maps and missions are difficult to use in new engine, since map format changed significantly and some trigger commands work differently.

Would be awesome!

[Sneaksie]

Map format was changed, but map size is the same, 2x2km.

[Tartari]

ok, thanks!

It would be an important enhancement for ToW3, though, in my opinion.

[SG1]

Problem for larger maps may be PC resource : larger maps, with details and a lot of units would most certainly be too much for today's or even tomorrow's computers.

[rofl]

Problem for larger maps may be PC resource : larger maps, with details and a lot of units would most certainly be too much for today's or even tomorrow's computers.

Yes, but everyone should have the possibilty to make his own larger maps.

I think about large desertmaps without much hills and details, 2x2 is a bad joke IMO .

Reminds a lil bit to Il-2, we allways heard thats not possible to make larger maps than leningrad because the engine limits but now we have, thx to the moders, awesome large maps like the slot.

[Sneaksie]

Pathfinding system is one of the main CPU power hogs in the game, and with 4x4 maps it will need to calculate 4 times more cells. Currently its a no-go, but hopefully we'll find solution later.

[SG1]

I think we just need to be patient and sure enough a solution will be found later.

The thing with Il-2 really is what we are talking about : we now have new maps or new versions of the older ones thanks to the modders and all these maps are better looking than the original ones, with a lot of details. But they require strong computers, and even some tweaking sometimes. This is all for players with a passion. I appreciate the decision to restrain taken by developers / distributors who want some return on investment and cannot contemplate striking too limited a market right away.

[GlobalExplorer]

Sorry but I'm tired of hearing this. If you stick to your philosophy not to make a simulation then it's your decision, but don't try to feed me that it's impossible. Operation Flashpoint had maps up to 40km and that was in 2002. Or have a look at Take Command 2nd Manassas (coded by two guys in their spare time) to see what a tactical battle simulator should look like with todays technology, compared to this action game with sim flavor we know as TOW.

The hardware is mightily capable today, a lot of people run dual core CPU's with 2-GB RAM, and the major reason for TOW sluggishness was graphics, it did not even scratch the surface in regard to computing a virtual battlefield.

[Sneaksie]

Sorry but I'm tired of hearing this. If you stick to your philosophy not to make a simulation then it's your decision, but don't try to feed me that it's impossible. Operation Flashpoint had maps up to 40km and that was in 2002. Or have a look at Take Command 2nd Manassas (coded by two guys in their spare time) to see what a tactical battle simulator should look like with todays technology, compared to this action game with sim flavor we know as TOW.

The hardware is mightily capable today, a lot of people run dual core CPU's with 2-GB RAM, and the major reason for TOW sluggishness was graphics, it did not even scratch the surface in regard to computing a virtual battlefield.

In Operation Flashpoint, as well as its successor, action took place only in area around the player, while in ToW camera can move anywhere and thus everything must be constantly calculated. I really hope ToW will not look like 2nd Manassas since graphics are obviously not the one of the strong points of this game (which is good and without a rival being the only american civil war 3d wargame AFAIK). In addition, regiments of hundreds 2d soldiers in TC series have nothing to do with ToW system where each soldier can act and be commanded independently.

In ToW1 in most cases FPS are limited by CPU. Difference of performance between systems with middle-end and high-end graphics cards and same other components is neglible.

Sorry but you don't have an idea how i'm tired of another know-all with 7 total posts telling everybody how Simulations with capital 'S' should be made. If you stumble across the simulation of everything on a 40km2 virtual battlefield you're describing, please let us know. Of course it is possible to make the game containing all ToW features better and right; the only problem left now is that it needs to be done.

[GlobalExplorer]

Sorry but you don't have an idea how i'm tired of another know-all with 7 total posts telling everybody how Simulations with capital 'S' should be made.

Well at which post count would it be permissible to say 2kmx2km games are too small?

And by the way I know how pathfinding algorithms work and they are not restricted to tiny maps with 30-40 units.

[GlobalExplorer]

If you stumble across the simulation of everything on a 40km2 virtual battlefield you're describing, please let us know.

I already named 2, at least OFP has such large battlefields.

I really hope ToW will not look like 2nd Manassas since graphics are obviously not the one of the strong points of this game

You should play 2nd Manassas again, it could teach you a thing or two how battlefields can be simulated, and that graphics isn't everything.

[Sneaksie]

It is permissable to say whatever you want, as long as it's not only bashing.

2x2km maps are small for what? ToW is a reinforced platoon-level game, like CC. All CC series have 500m maps or even smaller, but they are being played today and there are hundreds of user-made maps. Heck, even divisions sometimes advanced on 2km wide front and this number of independently acting soldiers won't be possible to simulate anytime soon. Often large parts of map in ToW are not even used - you can go there, do what you like, but it's difficult to create a decent mission forcing you to go to every area of a square 2x2km map.

[RSColonel_131st]

Sorry to butt in here, as someone who didn't buy ToW because of small map size (and some other reasons:)

Armed Assault, Successor to Flashpoint, can have up to 30 squads on a map (in Warfare mode) which will move and fight all over the Islands pretty much on their own. That's at least 30x independent pathfinding, but you can also send each individual soldier of that squad (30x8 or so) to his own waypoint at the same time.

The islands are full of villages, trees, ravines, a road network and bridges, and still they all manage to find their way around. And even if the player is not present in one part of the world, the battle between AI units still takes place in full detail.

I too find it hard to understand why pathfinding on a 2x2km map without deformable terrain (could use pre-made waypoint nodes and stuff) us a problem.

[ShiftZ]

I think that for the era of the game a 2 kilometer square map is fine. I mean the best tank gun is the german 88 ffs. Compared to the L55 120 mm on the Leo2A6's the 88 is a pos. I find that firing direct to 4000 meters + with a sabot round on a 2k map a little tight but with 70 year old equipment it fits nice. It's all about scale. Platoon sized battles don't need anymore then 6k at the mordern level so for a ww2 game it sits well. Do people want to take three hours just to find the opfor?? 40k, man it would take days to mix it up in multiplayer. I'm used to playing SB Pro PE and big maps suck in multiplayer for that sim and I do believe that both TOW and TOW2 are at the same scale, no more then the company level.

[Arzok]

For me too, it is the perfect level.

Bigger maps mean more time to play a mission, and most of the map will not be used.

[GlobalExplorer]

Exactly my point, it's casual gamers that like the 2km x 2km, and pathfinding is just a minor issue.

[ShiftZ]

I understand what Sneaksie is saying about the TOW2 engine. Every single blade of grass is modeled and therefore has to be constantly updated during game play because the enviroment is fully interactive. However a slight ballooning of the map would be benificial to the game rather then determental. Perhaps a reduction in ground cover math might help.

In SteelBeasts Pro Personal Edition there are some massive maps but you can only select a specific size to a maximum but you are allowed to do this on any point on said map. Maybe that should be the approach 1C should take with thier maps.

Make let's say five to ten maps but make them big maps. Then allow the player to select to a given size limit from any point on the maps. A small reduction in enviromental interaction may make for a big gain in map size and FPS gains too.

I for one don't pay to much attention to trees, rocks or what have you when someone is trying to put thier steel on my target.

[Dietrich]

The current maximum map size is reasonable, considering the maximum number of troops allowable on a map at any one time -- a reinforced platoon per side.

However, since ToW is a platoon-level game, the amount of armor on each side in a typical scenario creates an inordinate armor-to-infantry ratio. With no more than a platoon of infantry and a platoon of tanks (four or five), it always feels to me like the infantry platoon is 'standing in' for a larger unit like a company. In the Second World War, the armor-infantry ratio was more like 1:3, with a platoon of tanks working with a company (i.e., three platoons) of infantry, or a company of tanks working with a battalion (i.e., three companies) of infantry.

[SlapHappy]

Dietrich

I agree. Which I believe the game feels more right with a very limited number of armored units per side. Unfortunately, for myself, the limitations on handling infantry in the game made it difficult for me to continue playing the game.

It will be interesting to see what changes TOW2 has in regards to infantry modeling.