Increase in map size?

[pkjsmith]

Hi I was wondering if there are any plans to increase the map size of battles? in CMSF or in CMSF 2. The present limit is 2160m by 2160m. In CMSF a lot of vehicles that would only come into there own on map sizes of 5000m by 5000m, such as recon vehicles and FISTs. I realise there are problems with large maps, such as save time, graphics problems and file size. Just am interested to know.

Thanks Paul

[hcrof]

Actually if you try to expand the map in the other direction as well you can push it to 4x4km which is a pretty respectable size. The only problem is that unless the map is a pool table you hit the very big map bug. Hopefully it will be fixed in the next patch because I do like making big maps! (No guesses why none of them have been published yet )

[MikeyD]

They stated up front that the game engine was designed to be in it for the long haul. Some features will only be fully accessable once the hardware's caught up. Perhaps fancy new chip "X" secretly in development (which seems to happen every three years or so) may allow the next generation of PCs handle cliuttered 4x4 maps.

[gibsonm]

The only problem is that unless the map is a pool table you hit the very big map bug.

I'm not sure it should be called a "bug".

Its a known, published limitation, not like saying its not meant to happen.

Calling is a "bug" is akin to saying a Boeing 747 has a speed "bug" because it can't achieve Mach 3.

[dan/california]

Well I am staring at websites that want to sell me a computer with 12 gigabytes of ram, and gig of memory on the video card. I am thinking that might cure this bug nicely.

[hcrof]

A published limitation? Well that changes things. I was under the impression that by giving us the ability to make 4x4km maps that they would work like you would expect it to. I thought the crash to desktop was a problem that could be fixed which is why I have made so much noise about it.

If there is no way to make the game work without extra RAM then I will have to just wait until I can get some! Ah well - I'll just have to go for the long haul

[gibsonm]

"that they would work like you would expect it to."

Well I guess that's the rub. How "you" expect it to is pretty subjective.

"You" might want 2 x 2 Km of the Himalayas covered with dense forest.

Another "You" might want 2 x 2 Km of barren desert.

A third "You" might want 2 x 2 Km of rolling vegetated countryside with some buildings.

I don't think that at any time did BTS / BFC indicate that you could make a 2 x 2 Km map with every square containing every possible elevation and vegetation and building mix.

Add to that the fact that the "you" who wants the Himalayas / jungle combination might also want to re enact Kursk with 2000 AFV's per side with them all moving (with multiple way points) and shooting, with multiple LOS / LOF checks (and of course air and artillery) and you start to see where the hardware might have a problem.

You can have big maps with "simple" terrain and low unit densities.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Well I am staring at websites that want to sell me a computer with 12 gigabytes of ram, and gig of memory on the video card. I am thinking that might cure this bug nicely.

Not as well as you'd think it would, sadly.

[MikeyD]

I doubt these "maximalists" would really much enjoy the game even if they got everything they wanted.

Currently the game can easily run decent size battles on 2.5 x 2.5km+ maps without a hiccup. But I want 5x5km maps! (we apply some fairy dust to the game) ...What, it can now magically run 5x5? But I want 20x20km maps!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

Like CMX1, by the time you get to the really big map sizes there is a lot of the simulation that starts to fall down. Things like readiness, preparation, fidgeting and relocation of support assets aren't really robust enough to work with a very large map.

There's no reason why larger maps shouldn't be possible. After all some scenarios do have you running about with recce assets or large armoured units. It's just that there are other considerations that impact on the simulation more than just being able to run the map size.

[gibsonm]

I doubt these "maximalists" would really much enjoy the game even if they got everything they wanted.

Currently the game can easily run decent size battles on 2.5 x 2.5km+ maps without a hiccup. But I want 5x5km maps! (we apply some fairy dust to the game) ...What, it can now magically run 5x5? But I want 20x20km maps!

Well I'd love it to do the 120 x 120 maps that I can access elsewhere.

But at that size a "cluttered" map (as per my earlier post) would be far more demanding than a "simple" map and of course some poor sod has to build it (unless we also go to having the ability to import geospatial data).

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Something we're working on for Normandy in conjunction with the new QB system. However, the practical issues of map size have to do with end user hardware capabilities more than anything. We could allow people 120km x 120 km maps... but there's no PC in the world that could run that, so there's no point Sure, I know other games have massive maps like that big but they are designed for a different type of sim. The terrain complexity/fidelity is necessarily decreased because a) it isn't necessary for a tank sim and it is necessary for the hardware.

As was said earlier, a 4km x 4km map is absolutely possible now if your hardware can handle it. We're going to try some things for CM: Normandy that might reduce the RAM/VRAM footprint, but we think all that will achieve is allowing the far more complex temperate environment to not kill your systems. Meaning, if we didn't do these things you might all be limited to 2km x 2km Truth is we don't know yet.

And Adam, we do know. Whatever we put in a game someone will want more. It's a rule that is as absolute as death and taxes. That doesn't mean we should put in more simply because we know someone is going to gripe it isn't enough. Rather it means we don't pay too much attention to griping because we know it is always there and will never go away. Any developer that can't handle this truth quickly goes out of business either trying to please a moving target or goes out of business in frustration due to always moving targets. Any customer that thinks this isn't true must be living in an alternate universe which is somehow connected to the Internet. I bet Stephen Hawkings could explain it

Steve

[Apocal]

Any customer that thinks this isn't true must be living in an alternate universe which is somehow connected to the Internet.

I shoulda taken the blue pill.

[Battlefront.com]

I want to add there is a clear difference between legitimate complaints and griping. Some people are ultra sensitive about this and tend to think that because we filter out comments that are unsatisfiable that we also filter out comments which we should in fact act on. The many hundred improvements we've made to CM:SF and CMx1 clearly show we listen to user feedback very carefully. But for the sake of the customer, and our own sanity, we focus on the things which should be fixed/improved instead of the billion other things.

We want to increase map size beyond what it is. We just have to be realistic about what the hardware can handle. If we can find ways to recode things to help make larger, yet still extremely rich, maps... we will. Remember that CMx2's terrain density is roughly 5 times greater than CMx1 per square meter. Then on top of that the variability is probably 10 times greater. And the PathfindingAI needs a massive chunk of RAM to understand all that stuff on top of pure data storage.

Steve

[dan/california]

Steve just out of curiosity can the game make use of more than four gigabytes of ram? My current computer is starting to act up and if I have to do it I am inclined to go big.

[akd]

Bigger maps ftw! I am also on the verge of a major upgrade.

[YankeeDog]

While more is always better, I actually think larger maps are less important for WWII. so for CM:WWII, I'd definitely prefer BFC focus on improving terrain fidelity and variety (water, foxholes, bridges, etc.), rather than map size.

On the modern battlefield, there are systems like ATGMs that have useful ranges out to 5km or more. Very few direct-fire weapons had that kind of useful range in WWII, and even the ones that did were rarely used at ranges that long. For one thing, slower, less reliable communications made coordinating fires with tactical movements over distances like that more difficult. And, on average, WWII tanks and other AFVs also move much slower than modern AFVs. So you're less likely to outrun the map.

But when CM returns to the modern battlefield, I'd love to see the option of maps of 6km or more, at least on one axis of the map. The current 4km limit is fine for most types of engagements, but it is a limitation for some types of engagements. For example, I'd be very interested to see what it's like to try an crack a well-hidden, dug-in ATGM line with a modern armored force, in very open terrain. You really need a good 6km of distance to properly represent an engagement like this, since the Armor should really to start outside the ATGM's range envelope.

[Battlefront.com]

As for CM's ability to use RAM, I think that's dependent on the OS. But I'll have to check with Charles.

Yup, I agree that the current map size excludes certain types of engagements, be they modern or WW2. That type is the wide ranging maneuver type battles where one player sits around doing very little (which is fine if that is an AI Player) while the other side moves all around the map trying to figure out where to "invest" his forces. It's possible to simulate such battles, of course, but only at the point where the the maneuvering force has been operationally committed and is now tactically maneuverable only. Since that is what CM has always been about, to us it isn't a big drawback. Still... bigger maps are better if they are also practical.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Oh, don't get me me wrong, I completely understand that any significant increase in map size is going to considerably increase the processor load. And if map sizes get substantially larger than 4km, other things really should be added to the model. For one thing, distance-to-horizon for standing human of average height is about 4.7km (assuming no elevation change). Already, on the current max. 4km x 4km maps, the corner-to-corner distance is ~5.7km. So, in the simplest case of perfectly flat terrain, an FO with the best optics equipment in the world standing in one corner of the map can't see the opposite corner of the map, due to curvature of the earth, even though his optical equipment probably allows him to see that distance just fine.

Of course, maps are never perfectly flat, but this just makes the issue more complex as you have to look at the combined effects of altitude, intervening terrain, and distance to determine the furthest possible LOS. Then you get into atmospheric effects, which can bend light waves and either increase or decrease true distance-to-horizon. AIUI, stuff like this was sometimes a major issue in the North Africa fighting in WWII.

[hcrof]

YankeeDog hit the nail on the head - I would love to simulate using ATGM's at anything other than minimum range. I can see them being increadibly frustrating for the attacking player though - sagger drill ftw!