A Couple of Mapmaking Questions

[Vanir Ausf B]

You are limited to 4 km in either direction. So you could have a 4 km x 4 km map, but not a 5 km x 500m map.

Unfortunate.

Setup zones (and exit zones for that matter) can put on the map anywhere you please and in whatever shape(s) you want.

That will help out a little. Perfectly square maps are less than optimal for QB MEs. Placing the VLs along a diagonal should somewhat increase the effective size of the contested area.

Thanks for the answer.

[George MC]

I've found a 4km x 4km in CMX2 is pretty huge! I've got one I did for CMSF and when you play on it it feels massive. Way larger than an equivalent map felt like in CMX1. Also I'm still working on it

[dieseltaylor]

But for the designer the map could presumably be 2km*4km as both are within the 4km limit and therefore not a square map. The 4*4 size is therefore slightly better than CMAK with additional depth to allow the shifting of troops around the backfield - currently a gripe about the shallower CMAK limitations is that often the terrain tactically screwed the position.

[DaveyJJ]

Jon... This is sweet! I hadn't looked around enough to find this. Many thanks!!! :cool:

Agreed, thanks so much for that link, Jon. I already had a good tactical unit map for the Canadian June7/8 battle around Putot-en-bessin, but the 47 image helps a lot too (for the Commomwealth module later). The link is great and thanks for the detailed instructions (my high school French was too long ago).

[Vanir Ausf B]

The 4*4 size is therefore slightly better than CMAK with additional depth to allow the shifting of troops around the backfield - currently a gripe about the shallower CMAK limitations is that often the terrain tactically screwed the position.

4x4 works well enough for attack/defend, but for MEs much of that depth is only used when moving from the setup zone towards contact. Once the forces are engaged much of that space becomes irrelevant for the rest of the game. I'd rather have more width than depth (insert joke here).

I really like the CMx1 QB maps. 2x6 was just about right for a ME. My only issue was that the random generator would often put all the VLs clumped together in the middle. We can fix the VLs spacing, but I wouldn't mind a little more to work with.

[MikeyD]

4x4 maps is like 4 hour scenario times. Everybody lobbied for it but few are crazy enough to actually push the envelope that far. 'Too much of a good thing' is rarely better than a 'good thing'. The game is like an automobile - if you're reckless you probably could drive it of a cliff - but is that really the automobile's fault?

Random VL locations? What's that? Is that some old CMBO thing that I've forgot all about?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The CMX1 games had a random map generator.

4 hours would be 240 turns, which if true would mean gameplay in CMx2 is much slower paced than CMx1. Even a massive 5000 pt QB rarely went longer than 60 turns.

[GhostRider3/3]

I think the max I did was a 90min game, one side was defensive with local reinforcements, and of course the attacker which was a Regimental size with almost an entire Tank Battalion, from 4 different areas, huge battle that encompased some street fighting and long distance tank shootouts. Plenty of Infantry combat with Artillery support that would have been again local divisional artillery that was assigned to the forces on board. Fun... long but fun.

[noob]

So far, I've found some good topo mapping for the American areas around Omaha and Utah beaches inland to St. Lo. I've also got the aerial photos of the British and Canadian areas from RCAHMS. I'm really surprised that there aren't more historic aerial photos of the Cotentin peninsula available on the web.

Anyhow, with the links I've found, and Google Earth of course, I can probably build some reasonably accurate maps... at least as accurate as possible without this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Waybackmachine3.png and a trip to France.

I still wish elevation changes could be set to half-meter. Wish in one hand.......

Thanks for the help everyone!

Hi Rake, i sent you a private message in relation to your comments about Omaha and St Lo mapping, did you get it ?

[dieseltaylor]

There was a call for longer games and people designed operations to simulate longer battles. But the operation side was a bit SNAFU'ed. I fought BotrytisII about 4 times and that was lengthy and serious points [designer WineCape]. Using PBEMhelper in Trusted mode that 60 turn game could be comfortably played in two weeks. That is a turn morning and night.

And in any event a 4km*4km does not require the action to start at baseline. And importantly it does mean you can start with reinforcements on-board and then drive where you will without the teleporting approach of CM*1

[Broadsword56]

I'm all for the 4 x 4 size -- more room = more possibilities for flanking and maneuver. Also means more ability to do scenarios where some units are already in contact and other are in the rear, moving up.

[Pete Wenman]

Guys just keep in mind the maths - 4k x4k = 250000 action spots.

The large CMSF maps were pretty empty when the expanses of desert etc are taken into account. Normandy is not like that. I've built a detailed 2k x 2k CMBN map (only 62500 action spots) and it's pretty massive and crossing it in a tactical manner is going to take time.

Plenty of fun mind you

[MikeyD]

I remember some old CMx1 scenarios. Large map, small force, bad weather. I'd spend the whole scenario just marching my men back and forth in a fruitless attempt to find the enemy. Your pixeltruppen will take at least as long to walk across 4km as it would take you to walk 4km. You might as well cut the map in half and say they had walked the first 2km before game start.

[Rake]

Guys just keep in mind the maths - 4k x4k = 250000 action spots.

The large CMSF maps were pretty empty when the expanses of desert etc are taken into account. Normandy is not like that. I've built a detailed 2k x 2k CMBN map (only 62500 action pots) and it's pretty massive and crossing it in a tactical manner is going to take time.

Not to mention the time involved just making the map. I spent the better part of the day messing with the editor in CMSF just building the base layout for a 1.25k x 1.6k map (only 31,200 action spots). All I got finished was the topography and the road system. If I were in CMBN, I'd still have the bocage, fences, buildings, driveways, farm lanes, trees, streams, etc. , plus "painting" the various fields and placing flavor objects.

I can see right now that a good CMBN map will take a some time. There's a huge difference between Normandy and the desert or the steppe. Personally, I don't see any need for much more than a square kilometer for much of the area encompassed by this game. Then again, I have no desire to game an entire regiment either.

[dieseltaylor]

The reason for larger maps/forces was to even out the Lady Luck factor. Particularly when bogging appeared in CMBB! Larger forces also meant you could have decent combined arms : )

Thanks for the warning on time required!!!! I will feel it a duty to do atleast one large map before I pop my clogs. Being familiar with France/ Normandy should help - those Allo Allo episodes will not be wasted : )

[Vanir Ausf B]

The reason for larger maps/forces was to even out the Lady Luck factor. Particularly when bogging appeared in CMBB! Larger forces also meant you could have decent combined arms : )

Just so. I never felt right without at least a reinforced battalion at my command. Even a moderate-sized 2000 pt QB in CMBB was on a 12 sq. km. map (2x6). I'd have to reinstall CMBB to see what the largest possible QB map was for a 5000 pt game, but I don't consider 4x4 km to be particularly massive.

As for how difficult it will be to make such a map, I have no idea. I've read that the game will ship with 250 QB maps. I sure hope they are not all 2x2 km knife fights.

[ChrisND]

As for how difficult it will be to make such a map, I have no idea. I've read that the game will ship with 250 QB maps. I sure hope they are not all 2x2 km knife fights.

Wait, this is an exaggeration, right? A 2km x 2km is a knife fight?

[Rake]

Thanks for the warning on time required!!!! I will feel it a duty to do atleast one large map before I pop my clogs. Being familiar with France/ Normandy should help - those Allo Allo episodes will not be wasted : )

I'm sure maps can be built much more quickly; drag a few contours and roads around the map, slap down a few buildings, plant some trees, paint some fields and grass and your done. But, for me, much of the immersion factor for this game comes from the map quality. I've opened many scenarios in CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and CMSF and exited without playing once I'd looked around the map. I also played very few QB's in Cmx1 primarily because of map quality... some were just terrible.

For the map I worked on yesterday, I was attempting to replicate the topography and roads from this map:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/mp16.jpg

It takes time jumping from the editor to desktop to scale contours. Moving from the editor into 3D mode to make sure the roads fit with the lay of the land and then back again to make adjustments... The rest of the landscape (houses, trees, etc.) will require similar time. I'm guessing that a quality map could take a month or more of part-time effort... and that's not counting the time that I'd actually be playing the game.

It sure would be nice to be able to import map (scenario) files from CMSF into CMBN. I'm assuming this won't be possible?

Larger forces also meant you could have decent combined arms : )

I suspect it will take decent combined arms at company level to cross a small bocage map.

[LongLeftFlank]

I'm sure maps can be built much more quickly; drag a few contours and roads around the map, slap down a few buildings, plant some trees, paint some fields and grass and your done. But, for me, much of the immersion factor for this game comes from the map quality. I've opened many scenarios in CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and CMSF and exited without playing once I'd looked around the map. I also played very few QB's in Cmx1 primarily because of map quality... some were just terrible.

Amen, brother!

One of the biggest problems with CMSF was that in the infantry game most maps only reinforced BLUE's existing weapons superiority by omitting key features like hidden entrenchments and compound walls around buildings. This allowed BLUE to dominate firefights at range without needing to take many risks.

The former has of course now been addressed, but buildings still need to be built with some thought. "Slapping down a few buildings" won't cut it except in a few cases where you might have a cluster of (flimsy) storage sheds sitting out there in the fields.

Norman farmsteads are like miniature fortresses, with their walls sturdily built over centuries out of field stone. The various outbuildings and barns may or may not be as sturdily constructed, but at minimum provide concealment and LOS, and the entire compound is generally walled off. Add vegetation -- shade trees and hedges and you have a complex that is by no means easy to reduce from a safe distance using MG fire or even tank rounds and artillery. Especially when the defenders have put in sandbags and dug foxholes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Wait, this is an exaggeration, right? A 2km x 2km is a knife fight?

A little hyperbole, perhaps, but if you're accustomed to playing on nothing smaller than 12 km² then I imagine 4 km² would feel a little restrictive.

[Gromit]

Not to mention the time involved just making the map. I spent the better part of the day messing with the editor in CMSF just building the base layout for a 1.25k x 1.6k map (only 31,200 action spots). All I got finished was the topography and the road system. If I were in CMBN, I'd still have the bocage, fences, buildings, driveways, farm lanes, trees, streams, etc. , plus "painting" the various fields and placing flavor objects.

I can see right now that a good CMBN map will take a some time. There's a huge difference between Normandy and the desert or the steppe. Personally, I don't see any need for much more than a square kilometer for much of the area encompassed by this game. Then again, I have no desire to game an entire regiment either.

I have been musing over the map scenario creation for a bit now and I am sure the Betas can chime in here, but- wouldn't it seem a better process if we used either maps or aerial photos to get an idea of the size and layout of a similar piece of topography and then go from there?

Having done some previous mapping, my biggest lesson I took away from it was a) Do your homework (i.e., research) first. Run that through multiple on-paper versions before committing to the in-game editor. c) Check scale and ingress/egress/chokepoints with objectives, etc., etc. d) Rinse and repeat until you're satisfied this is the map you really want to invest so much time in making.

...and we haven't even started testing the map yet. *whew*

[Rake]

I have been musing over the map scenario creation for a bit now and I am sure the Betas can chime in here, but- wouldn't it seem a better process if we used either maps or aerial photos to get an idea of the size and layout of a similar piece of topography and then go from there?

Having done some previous mapping, my biggest lesson I took away from it was a) Do your homework (i.e., research) first. Run that through multiple on-paper versions before committing to the in-game editor. c) Check scale and ingress/egress/chokepoints with objectives, etc., etc. d) Rinse and repeat until you're satisfied this is the map you really want to invest so much time in making.

...and we haven't even started testing the map yet. *whew*

I'm just playing around with the CMSF editor to prepare for the release. I've placed some topo over an aerial photo and came up with this:

http://photorake.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v5/p586178032-5.jpg

I fully agree on the research. I've got a small scale plot of this map... I would need something far larger to actually work from. I don't see any need to go farther with what I've done in CMSF, no sense putting down olive and palm trees in a Normandy map.

[LongLeftFlank]

One complicating factor is that -- assuming they haven't changed it -- is that the small road tiles run only at either right or 45deg angles (the big highways are more flexible but aren't going to be prominent in Normandy), so there's going to be a certain amount of "fudging" required to translate a physical map to CM no matter what you do.

In adapting the Google Earth imagery of Ramadi to CMSF, I found that once you established the distances between the key landmarks, that was sufficient to create a basic framework for the CMSF version and that I shouldn't get too hung up on whether these landmarks were in their exact relative horizontal and vertical positions. If you end up having to put a bunch of kinks in a road that should be straight for example just to make it fit, you're doing more violence than you need to to the tactical authenticity.

[Gromit]

I'm just playing around with the CMSF editor to prepare for the release. I've placed some topo over an aerial photo and came up with this:

http://photorake.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v5/p586178032-5.jpg

I fully agree on the research. I've got a small scale plot of this map... I would need something far larger to actually work from. I don't see any need to go farther with what I've done in CMSF, no sense putting down olive and palm trees in a Normandy map.

Yeah Rake, that seems to be a good way to combine the exactness of a photo with the topography to make it all come together. Nice.

LLF:

So... you mean if no changes you wouldn't be able to lay down those gentle curves in roads in Rake's picture? Uggh. I hope not.

[Rake]

LLF... absolutely, trying to exactly replicate any real-life map is impossible. Everything, elevation points, roads, buildings, fences... they all only fit along the cardinal/ordinal points. With any square (or hex) based system there will be limitations built in.

My thoughts on creating a map in the editor to simulate an existing parcel of land are to:

(a) build a contour map as accurately as possible.

( fit the road system as closely as possible to the original without "disrupting" LOS by placing multiple bends along the road. If the road runs, say North 12 degrees East, I'll run the road Due North. If the original road has a major curve, I'd locate any bends with an eye toward fitting "tangent" sections as they really exist. There will certainly be some "fudging" necessary.

© revisit the topography to make certain that the roads fit the land. Roads generally run along contour lines. Where roads cross a hilltop, they usually lie in a "cut" section created either by years of use or, in modern times, a bulldozer. Swale crossings require either a bridge or a built up "fill" section. In any event, this will require adjustment of elevation points so that the road lies naturally and not running straight up or down hill and always sitting "on top" of the terrain model.

(d) once I'm happy with the contouring and road system, then I'll lay out buildings. Once again, especially for large (multi-action point) buildings and on steeper terrain, this will likely mean further adjustment of elevation points... buildings usually sit plumb, not perpendicular to the land

(e) after the buildings are in place, it's time to place fences, hedgerows, treelines, etc. Again, the editor will only allow placement along the major compass points so more "fudging" is needed..

(f) fill the fields with appropriate grass, orchards, marsh, water features (ugh, as an engineer, I hate landscape architecture phrases)... Can't wait to see what's available in the editor. This is where I think the science becomes art.

(g) place and position flavor objects... I can see where this will take some time to get right, too.

(h) test drive, make adjustments and repeat.

As I get a map built, I'd be looking for those with more interest toward scenario design than I currently have. OOB research and TO&E are not in my main areas of interest.