Any plans to 'spice up' the mission editor features?

[radioman999]

While making some scenarios, I wished there were some more variations of buildings, walls, roofs, etc. Because the CMSF centers around an arid enviornment, I'm not asking for some great waterfalls or architectural splendor here. Still, I think some more additions to the map making features would help a lot. So, could we expect to see some additions in the next patch or so? Thanks

[MikeyD]

Practice does help in this regard. The building types I'm constructing now are much more real-world believable than when I first touched the game. Getting the hang of doors in butting interior walls is particularly tricky.

About variation. I just went in and counted 'em up. If you were to attempt every permution involving every building size, every floor count, every facade, every window arrangement, every window trim, every balcony type, every balcony window treatment, and every roof type you would easily pass sixty thousand building types! And that's not including butting multi-building complexes either.

[Paper Tiger]

Question : So, could we expect to see some additions in the next patch or so? Thanks

Answer :Practice does help in this regard. The building types I'm constructing now are much more real-world believable than when I first touched the game. Getting the hang of doors in butting interior walls is particularly tricky.

About variation. I just went in and counted 'em up. If you were to attempt every permution involving every building size, every floor count, every facade, every window arrangement, every window trim, every balcony type, every balcony window treatment, and every roof type you would easily pass sixty thousand building types! And that's not including butting multi-building complexes either

So in other words 'No'.

But nobody knows what the NATO module will have to offer.

[radioman999]

6000! wow, that's alot of combination. Map making is a real art in cmsf.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JonS]

Every series-style game that I know of keeps one core component locked down tight.

In HPS's Panzer Campaigns series, the OoB is wide open (then even include an editor), but the map is unedittable (practically ... you can make *some* changes given enough time, thought, and practice).

In Panther Games/Matrix's Airborne Assault I understand that the map is edittable (although quite tricky) but the OoB isn't.

BFC have always had fully edittable maps, but the low level unit orgs and C&C chains are always restricted.

The reason for this should be pretty obvious, given a little thought. I wouldn't expect it to change anytime soon.

[radioman999]

It would be nice for example, to try a squad that has body armor but uses AKM's. Or, a squad using all semi-auto rifles (SVD etc.).

I can see some really interesting possibilities with such ability, such as making a special ops team that more closely resembles real ones. But it could also change the original design of the game, conventional warfare.

[Battlefront.com]

For 11 years people have asked for the ability to edit their units in one way, shape or another. For 11 years I've given very detailed answers which, when boiled down, are always identical:

No.

Never in the CM series will we ever allow people to edit either the low level TO&E or vehicle data. I'm sure you all have seen at least one explanation as to why, so I'll not bore any of you with repeating myself. No is no and it will always remain no. So, er, no

As for Editor improvements... the problem with an Editor is that it is time intensive to work on and the feature requests are endless. Literally. And it makes perfect sense that they are because an Editor is like any other type of application... always room for improvement. I mean look at a simple text editor. Does anybody think that the current version of Word (or any other text editor one cares to name) is "perfect"? Nope. So if a program that simply captures what you type can be constantly improved over 30 years at the cost of billions of dollars in R&D, just think of how much time and money we could spend on CMx2's Editor! Frightening, I know!

We will make some improvements over time, but we will always put our priorities firmly towards the game itself. The Editor in CMx2 is far better than the Editor in CMx1 in terms of its functionality, but like CMx1's Editor it's still got room for improvement. Just like text editors

Building construction is, IMHO, the first place we should concentrate improvements in UI. We do have a modest list of improvements for CM: Normandy still under consideration.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and something I just thought of. Conceptually I don't have a problem with people swapping around low level stuff within a tactical unit. For example, having everybody armed with a particular weapon. It goes against the historical grain of what CM is, but with certain constraints I think it is fine. Very much like playing different forces against each other or, even more crazy, side by side and against each other in the same battle.

The problem is that such low level manipulation requires fairly extensive user interface for it to work. That in turn requires a decent chunk of development time. In terms of our priorities, this one isn't even on the radar screen. Therefore it won't likely ever happen.

Steve

[Redwolf]

While making some scenarios, I wished there were some more variations of buildings, walls, roofs, etc. Because the CMSF centers around an arid enviornment, I'm not asking for some great waterfalls or architectural splendor here. Still, I think some more additions to the map making features would help a lot. So, could we expect to see some additions in the next patch or so? Thanks

This doesn't really concern the editor. What you want is more different kinds of terrain tiles.

[Other Means]

I think investment in the editor would pay off. I'd be designing scenarios now if the editor was easier to use.

And if I'd do it, someone with talent might do it.

Just being able to paint on a road would be a HUGE difference. The current way is just so time consuming it stops you dead right there.

The game lives and dies by its scenarios. Making them easier to construct would pay back the time investment many fold, IMHO.

[George MC]

All things considered I think the CMSF editor is pretty easy to use. You can make it complex but the basic buidling blocks are no harder IMO than the editor in CMX1 - just you can make more complex landscapes with CMSF but that's not to say the editor is complex.

Maps in CMSF are time consuming but again no more time consuming than doing a good map in CMX1 (not a random generated horror).

Regardless of how easy or otherwise making maps is perceived to be the AI plans are I think the real toughie to crack. But again experience with doing a few makes that process easier.

Reckon it comes down to what you are used to. You should try it - simple 500m square map, add some stand alone buildings, run a road through it and I bet that process is both easier and faster than CMX1. In fact I'm so sure I'll bet ya

[flammenwerfer]

Just being able to paint on a road would be a HUGE difference. The current way is just so time consuming it stops you dead right there.

I agree ...The current system for roads is not intuitive at all, at times it feels like a jigsaw puzzle.

[Dakuman]

I agree the editor can be a bit intimidating at times for someone who is not familiar with making scenarios. I have started a few times myself only to get frustrated with my efforts.

Do any of the experienced scenario makers have any tips for getting started? Do you start with an idea for a scenario first, or do you first make the map and then devise a scenario around it?

[Redwolf]

Just being able to paint on a road would be a HUGE difference. The current way is just so time consuming it stops you dead right there.

This is problem this first thing to break up if the terrain engine is touched at all.

Roads should be overlays over other tiles (and then you wouldn't supply road tiles anymore although large pavement areas would still be tiles). There are many problems coming from them not being overlays, and scenario design is just a start.

This doesn't mean you can easily remove the restrictions that the road is always in the middle of the tile and only supports 45 and 90 degree angles without upgrading the engine in more dramatic ways, and they would probably cause performance work to be done, too. But just being able to "paint" along the mouse in the editor and the ability to just use an base tile would be a huge step.

[MarkEzra]

I have started a few times myself only to get frustrated with my efforts.

Do any of the experienced scenario makers have any tips for getting started? Do you start with an idea for a scenario first, or do you first make the map and then devise a scenario around it?

1st Don't get frustrated. Roads really aren't so challenging that you cannot learn to do them. Just apply a little patience to your trial and error. You'll soon have it down pat.

I start with a vague notion of the landscape and forces and then lay out the terrain width/depth and add the height elevations. There are a number of excellent post on the scen forum that can flesh this out in more detail. Just don't forget to save. But for sure remember this: As you move along with the map check it out in the 3D editor. Does it look like you want it? Should you add a dash of color? are setup zone large enough? Concealed from the enemy? Are your objectives and perimeters clear and reasonable?

For many of us a wargame's editor is where most of the fun is. I've used a number of them and can say that CM's (1 and 2) are straight forward, simple to use, and provide an excellent wargaming scen result. There may be a better editor out there but it's not attached to a better game.

[JonS]

I generally start with a scen idea, and go from there.

Basically; what is the tactical problem I want to model? Is it attack, defence, recce, hasty, planned, with firesupport, without firesupport, mech vs mech, mech vs leg, leg vs leg, day, night, good visibility, poor visibility, etc, etc. Those questions don't have to be answered in detail, but having at least a hazy notion of the overall tactical problem helps immensely.

Then I consider what the overall map 'should' look like: rural, mountain, forest, urban, city, village, etc. Sometimes I'll have a particular piece of terrain in mind, and use google maps (esp the "terrain" option), google earth, and any other mapping resources I can find to get an good idea of the landforms and layout. Then I set the map size, and put some reference marks on it - something like a 3x3 square of long green grass every 250 or 500m in breadth and depth.

Next I lay out reference terrain. What I use for this varies based on what I'm doing. It could be roads, rivers (mud and marsh), elevations, forests, or something else, but it should be key to the scenario, reasonably spread out, but not so dense that you spend ages doing it. The idea is to provide a framework over which other mapping details will be laid. Then, progressively add more and more detail, working on either a particular terrain type or particular section of the map in turn.

For a specific example, I'm currently working on an advance to contact scen. I had the forces in mind, and a couple of potential pieces of terrain I wanted to use. I managed to get a good 1:50thou map that covered both areas, and that became my prime reference, assisted by G-Maps. I spent a while deciding on the map size, since even shaving 100m off the sides can make a big difference in terms of time to build, load time, and playability. Then I put down reference marks at each northing and easting, then sub marks at each 500m interval. Next I laid out the road plan, then the 100m contours, then the rivers, then some bush and scrub, then 20m contours, then further detail. Bits of the roadnet and rivers changed quite substantially, either because my intial laydown was a bit off, or because I chose to change the world to suit the constraints of the editor. For example, the roadnet isn't a slavish copy of the real world because the real thing doesn't run at 45° or 90°. So I picked a start and end point, and filled in the middle based on what looked good and didn't have too many corners in it. Same with the rivers, contours, forest cover. The final result is recogniable as the actual location, but by no means a slavish copy.

I can't emphasise that enough, actually - don't feel constrained by the resources you have, and try to recreate a slavish copy of the real world. It takes *ages* and generally doesn't look very good. In the past I've twisted, stretched, shrunk, moved, or ignored terrain to try and get a map that's reminiscent of the real world, yet looks good, is playable, and suits the tactical problem being modelled.

The final map for the scen I'm currently working on is, IIRC, about 1.8km x 1.6km of mostly open rural, with no buildings. It took me about 3-4 nights to complete, working 2-3 hours per night.

The units were pretty easy since I had them in mind from the outset, and I also had the tactical problem in mind, which meant I could consider deployment zones while building the map. They're now on the map, and 'all' that's left is mucking about with setup zones and the AI, and sorting ot victory conditions. The images and briefings I've sort-of being working on throughout - those alone probably represent 2 nights worth of effort. It should be finished as a draft by the end of this week. All up, it's taken about 2 weeks of elapsed time, but that includes several nights in which I've done nothing on it.

Oh, as an aside, I often end up with a fairly sizeable stack of paper with various notes regarding the map, force composition, victory points allocations, and *lots* for AI planning. IMO you need to do a fair bit of planning and preparation *outside* the editor to create a "good" scenario.

That's my methodology, such as it is. YMMV.

HTH

Jon