will the over all scale of CM:BN be more like CMBB the CMx1 series

[Major SNAFU]

That's it really, just want to know if the size of battles and maps in CM:BN will return to teh size and scope of CMx1.

[Sergei]

Do you mean like in 'To the Volga'?

[YankeeDog]

Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you're talking about map size, max. map size in CMBB was 9 sq. km. I don't think this has been officially announced for CMBN yet, but it's reasonable to assume that max. map size will be at least as large as for CMSF, which allows 16 sq. km.

In terms of units, I don't know if CMSF has a max # allowed units, but if it does, it's very large. I've never run up against it and I've sure played some scenarios with a lot of stuff running around (battalion or greater). After a certain point, obviously, computing resources puts a limit on unit count whether the game has a hard limit or not.

Also worth noting that CMx2 allows much longer battles. You need the extra time, too, as overall the game plays (realistically) slower than CMx1.

Anyway, long and short of it is that if you want to create a CMx2 version of "To the Volga," you should be able to.

One thing you will not see in CMBN is the sheer number of types of units (rare AFVs, etc.) that you did in CMBB. CMBB included an absolutely huge number of infantry unit types and vehicles, and I don't think we'll ever see a laundry list like this again. As the new 3D models and physics are much more detailed, the amount of time it would take to do this many units just becomes prohibitive.

Though, once you add up the sum total of what we will be getting in the CMBN base game, plus three modules, we'll definitely be getting a good 'toy chest' to play with, so I'm not particularly worried.

[Major SNAFU]

Hi.

I guess so. I mean in terms of the size of maps, the number of units, etc. For instance from CMAK:

Steel Inferno v2

Bastognette Day 1

NP 3. Monty's Gambit 2 Player Only

HSG B Twin Villages

HSG 3AD Mud_Blood and Mines

HSG-N-Villers Bocage

NP 1. D-Day, The Race For Caen

or even:

Save Bastogne brech the german lines

HSG Carentan AI play

SO Saar Bridgehead 1944

The Devil's Bridge... Arnhem

just to list a few examples that I grabbed from my Large and Huge folders for CMAK.

My questions stems from my recent purchase of CMSF and how often I find myself on a map already in LOS of ATGMs which cause one to react in hasty and unwise rushing about of AFVs just to keep them alive for a few minutes. They I read that CMSF was, in general, on smaller maps and less units so that got me to wondering what the limits would be in CMBN.

Thanks,

[Battlefront.com]

CM:SF had two significant issues that aren't as often seen in a Normandy setting:

1. Weapons that have very long and very accurate ranges. Combat ranges in Normandy were generally measured in tens or hundreds of meters, while in CM:SF's arid environment it could be measured in hundreds or even thousands of meters.

2. Even the very common, lower quality Syrian equipment was capable of effectively engaging targets at 2000m+, while in Normandy few weapon systems could do this on a regular basis under combat conditions. In fact, some of the weapon systems in CM:SF have dead zones of several hundred meters from the firing position. In Normandy this sort of dead zone would be the normal combat range!

Therefore, a combination of the CM:SF setting and modern weapons characteristics give battles an entirely different feel. Those of you who have played a lot of CMBO and CMAK will be familiar with some of the same differences in "feel".

Steve

[Erik Springelkamp]

2. Even the very common, lower quality Syrian equipment was capable of effectively engaging targets at 2000m+, while in Normandy few weapon systems could do this on a regular basis under combat conditions. In fact, some of the weapon systems in CM:SF have dead zones of several hundred meters from the firing position. In Normandy this sort of dead zone would be the normal combat range!

Yes, I have been frustrated in scenarios where the maps were far too small for the efficient employment of Saggers. When there are only two corners where you can use them, it gets easy for the enemy to apply artillery, while when you would have a ridge of a few km length with a view on the target, the situation would be entirely different.

[MikeyD]

People often mention "To the Volga" when talking about CMBB's scale. It should be mentioned, though, that "To the Volga" was utterly unplayable on a lot of machines when released so the comparison is a bit unfair.

There's no 'official rule' governing acceptible scenario force size in CM:BN (that I'm aware of) so I suppose a scenario designer could go crazy on scenario scale if he wanted. But there's no great upside to building a monster scenario that only 15% of players would be willing or able to attempt. I read somewhere that the opening of operation Cobra saw 4000 U.S. vehicles parked nose-to-tail behind the front in an area of just a couple sq. km. That would make for a very unpleasant game scenario.

[Battlefront.com]

Good point MikeyD. It's like Rune's monster Battle of the Bulge scenario for CMBO. At the time each turn took something like 15 minutes to compute on my rig. Did the game handle it? Yup, but was it worth waiting 15 minutes to watch 60 seconds of gameplay at about 2 fps? Nope The game was never designed for that sort of scale, or Volga's, so I don't think it's a good measure of anything other than one extreme. Neither is the other extreme, such as asking if CM:BN is still good or having a single sniper go up against an enemy platoon.

Steve

[Barkhorn1x]

Good point MikeyD. It's like Rune's monster Battle of the Bulge scenario for CMBO. Steve

Oh C'MON!!! You mean when module 3 (or 4) rolls around I won't be able to model the whole Ambleve valley and Kampfgruppe Peiper in it's entirety??

How realistic is that?

[Gromit]

Oh C'MON!!! You mean when module 3 (or 4) rolls around I won't be able to model the whole Ambleve valley and Kampfgruppe Peiper in it's entirety??

How realistic is that?

Foamer! Wipe that froth off your mouth soldier!

[Fenris]

Nice to hear that the games can scale without crashing though. Has the Bulge scenario mentioned above been tried on a modern "powerful" system? What's not strictly playable now may well be in the future, just in time for when we're retired and have nothing better to do

[Battlefront.com]

I remember someone running Rune's Bulge scenario a few years after release on a current system and it wasn't all that bad. Still a pig compared to the normal sized scenarios, but not unplayable IIRC.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

I read somewhere that the opening of operation Cobra saw 4000 U.S. vehicles parked nose-to-tail behind the front in an area of just a couple sq. km.

And I've heard tell that before the opening of Fall Gelb the traffic was backed up sixty miles into Germany.

:eek:

Michael

[Major SNAFU]

Hi all,

Interesting responses and they have caused me to re-think my question.

I was less interested in the sheer number of units and I was more interested in larger maps for more maneuver room.

As a concrete example, the battle that took place b/w GTL Langlade and Panzer Brigade 112 at Dompaire on Sept 19, 1944.

I took a stab at making the map in CMAK once and had to abandon it for a number of reasons.

To encompass the maneuvers for the entire battle, you would need to map out about 6x9 km. and all or part of 5 villages/towns:

Damas, Lamerey, Compaire, Lavieville and Ville-Sur-Illon

But there wouldn't be huge number of troops (and in this case you would have to substitute US forces for French forces). The OOB was:

German:

1/Pz. Rgt. 29

Pz. Rgt. 2112

French:

GTL Langlade

1 Group Massu

2 Group Minjonnet

3 Group Putz

others might include:

tank battle at Arracourt

6x12 mile map

or

the battle around Mont Bonvilliers ib 8 Sept, 1944

(but this would be a big map 7x8 miles and a lot of units. US 5 infantry battalion, a tank destroyer battalion and a tank battalion.

My question was would the increased rendering detail of the map itself prove too much for these before you even put the units on the map?

[scottie]

Well sir if you do get around to creating the battle at Dompaire on Sept 19, 1944 for CMBN i for one would be very interested in playing it. Sounds marvellous

[Wodin]

Knowing how hungry CMSF was I would be surprised with all the added detail to the graphics in CMBN that we could have huge maps and get away with it.

[YankeeDog]

If you want my SWAG, I doubt we will see an increase to map size in CMBN (over CMSF) -- I suspect the limit will stay at 16km^2, 4km on a side.

When CMSF first came out, it did require a faster machine to run a scenario on a 4kmx4km at a good level of detail, but today's better computers probably handle large, relatively open CMSF maps more easily.

But generally speaking Normandy terrain is a lot more dense than what you see in CMSF, so I'm sure you'll be able to make a 4km x 4km Normandy map with lots of trees, bocage, and some buildings that will put a strain on even today's better computing systems.

As far as the battles you mention, I think it's going to be quite awhile before we map sizes like 6kmx9km. Frankly, regardless of whether my computer could render it, I don't think I personally would find such a huge scenario particularly playable. For me personally, a game representing battles taking place over maps that large would be more appropriate at a higher level of command than CM -- I don't want to be worrying about individual vehicle and fire team placement on a map that large; I'd rather be pushing platoon and larger-sized units around, and have the game abstract the rest.

As previously mentioned, effective weapon ranges were considerably shorter in 1944 than they are now, so 4km x 4km is fine for me for Normandy. When CMx2 returns to the modern setting, I would like to see at least some increase to map size along one axis -- As previously mentioned, right now many ATGM systems kind of get short shrift in CMSF because you can't fully represent their maximum range on-map. I can also see a 6km x 4km map being a handy thing to have for CMx2:East Front, where open steppes tank battles are a possibility -- direct fire ranges in WWII were rarely over 2km, but a larger map like this would open up more opportunity for move-to-contact and maneuver battles.

[scottie]

... move-to-contact and maneuver battles.

Thats the reason i like large maps , not to have lots of units but to allow formations to manoeuvre with much more freedom so you dont get stuck with the "gamey" end of the map problem.

[Pete Wenman]

Have you done the maths for a 4k x 4k map - 250000 map tiles !

That's a lot of clicking in the editor. I'm working on a 2k by 2k rural map and that's only 62500 tiles but it is wearing a bit thin.

P

[M1A1TC]

People often mention "To the Volga" when talking about CMBB's scale. It should be mentioned, though, that "To the Volga" was utterly unplayable on a lot of machines when released so the comparison is a bit unfair.

There's no 'official rule' governing acceptible scenario force size in CM:BN (that I'm aware of) so I suppose a scenario designer could go crazy on scenario scale if he wanted. But there's no great upside to building a monster scenario that only 15% of players would be willing or able to attempt. I read somewhere that the opening of operation Cobra saw 4000 U.S. vehicles parked nose-to-tail behind the front in an area of just a couple sq. km. That would make for a very unpleasant game scenario.

From the book "DEATH TRAPS: THE SURVIVAL OF AN AMERICAN ARMORED DIVISION IN WORLD WAR 2" by Belton Y. Cooper - excellent book, reading it now

[DaveyJJ]

Have you done the maths for a 4k x 4k map - 250000 map tiles !

That's a lot of clicking in the editor. I'm working on a 2k by 2k rural map and that's only 62500 tiles but it is wearing a bit thin.

P

Whew. That's why I plan on doing really small scale infantry-only engagement scenarios for the community. 500mx500m on average to a max of 1km square.