A Couple of Mapmaking Questions

[Rake]

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.

I seriously doubt it. If you think about it; in a "square-based" system, like the action points in CMSF/CMBN, everything pretty much has to fit long the cardinal/ordinal points of the compass. It would be one heck of an editor that would allow us to freehand the placement of terrain features... not to mention the programming needed.

Check out this overhead pic from the Bois de Baugin AAR. Everything runs N-S, E-W, NE-SW, NW-SE:

[MikeyD]

Often in orders map graphics I've depicted roads & walls as not quite being square with eachother. Yes, they are square in the game but when the player's immersed in battle that line of hedges opposite him could just as easily be running at 80 degrees as 90. The 'geometric' form is forgotten.

The difference between 'reality-centric' scenario maps and 'gameplay-centric' maps can be a bit of a shock to a player.

Maps built to fit a particular battle (most of them) often find the designer, quite unconsiously, placing that convenient clump of trees over there or that handy ditch out of LOF over here. After getting accustomed to those scenarios a 'reality-based map' can leave a player at a loss. "100m of open field to cross against MG fire? what in hell am I supposed to do with that?" The answer should be "I've given you all the tools that they had at their disposal. So go to it!" How a tactical problem gets solved is hardly the scenario designer's concern. His job is just to present the problem. Some people really really dislike those sorts of scenarios.

[dieseltaylor]

All very encouraging .

I have an interest in physical geography and maps and I do think good maps make a hell of a difference to atmosphere for a game. It is easier to appreciate good maps when they are big so you can see how it hangs together, And of course there are those nightmare maps where bridges occur every 100 or 200 yards along a stream ..as if ..!

I do have a copy of M Lays book "Ways of the World: A History of the World's Roads and the Vehicles that Used Them" which I recommend highly to anyone with an interest in maps/geography/travel.

I look forward to seeing some quality maps - which to my mind can be genuine works of art. Tiger Valley is a masterpiece, Theike springs to mind for some cracking maps, but generally speaking all the attention goes to the scenario designer. Unfortunately not every map designer is a good scenario designer : ( - and vice versa.

Perhaps we should look forward to partnerships like Rodgers/Hart etc. ... though I am not to sure that I would be keen on a Laural and Hardy product!

All very encouraging .

Edit. - I agree with Mikey D whole-heartedly. The most hateful thing to my mind is the symetrical map -"because it make the game equal" GRR! grumble.

[LongLeftFlank]

I wouldn't worry too much about it -- I found you could capture the "being there-ness" of a well-documented historical location quite nicely using the existing toolset. Having been one of several scenario designers who have tried to push the CMx2 engine editor to its limits (and then some), I must say I am favourably impressed.

My only "ask", as always, would be some form of cut and paste so that we could manufacture libraries of Norman farmsteads, villages, etc. Steve's mentioned it's on BFC's "want to do someday, just don't know when" list.

[Rake]

Maps built to fit a particular battle (most of them) often find the designer, quite unconsiously, placing that convenient clump of trees over there or that handy ditch out of LOF over here. After getting accustomed to those scenarios a 'reality-based map' can leave a player at a loss. "100m of open field to cross against MG fire? what in hell am I supposed to do with that?" The answer should be "I've given you all the tools that they had at their disposal. So go to it!" How a tactical problem gets solved is hardly the scenario designer's concern. His job is just to present the problem. Some people really really dislike those sorts of scenarios.

This was my purpose when I started this thread.

I'm interested in portraying, as nearly as possible, what the terrain might have actually looked like. As you say, how the problems presented are solved are none of my business. Make the ground first, then leave it alone once the forces are added.

I've played several scenarios in CMBO/BB/AK that seemed like I was connecting the dots... Squad A overwatches while Squad B dashes to this cover, Tank C supresses while Squad D moves to the next piece of cover. It was like a path to the VL's was laid out purposely. I tinkered a bit with scenario design in CMBB (nothing published) and found myself doing the same thing with my maps.

[Cull]

**edit: Warning: included video slightly seizure-inducing

I'm going to repeat myself on this subject yet again and post my "dream" for a CM editor, which is an editor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRHnClr4dIQ. It's fairly SimCity as well, IIRC.

The main challenge that I see with something like this would be the game engine being able to identify the type of terrain and how it affects various units, which isn't really a concern for something like "Trainz". I do understand that it would be exponentially larger, code-wise, than what CM uses now, and I understand why it's not really practical in CM's case.

Still, dreaming is ok, right? Imagine being able to "paint" any terrain that you can umm...imagine....for your digital battling pleasure.

[DaveyJJ]

I'm with MikeyD ... As a geography major, I'm going to be designing all of my quasi-historic scenarios using accurate maps of the terrain and geography as it existed. If your forces have to cover open ground to an objective, you'll just have to find a way to get the job done. Use tactics and solve the problem according to the terrain and good luck men.

Often in orders map graphics I've depicted roads & walls as not quite being square with eachother. Yes, they are square in the game but when the player's immersed in battle that line of hedges opposite him could just as easily be running at 80 degrees as 90. The 'geometric' form is forgotten.

The difference between 'reality-centric' scenario maps and 'gameplay-centric' maps can be a bit of a shock to a player.

Maps built to fit a particular battle (most of them) often find the designer, quite unconsiously, placing that convenient clump of trees over there or that handy ditch out of LOF over here. After getting accustomed to those scenarios a 'reality-based map' can leave a player at a loss. "100m of open field to cross against MG fire? what in hell am I supposed to do with that?" The answer should be "I've given you all the tools that they had at their disposal. So go to it!" How a tactical problem gets solved is hardly the scenario designer's concern. His job is just to present the problem. Some people really really dislike those sorts of scenarios.

[Broadsword56]

Great to read all the support here for historically accurate realism-based maps! The discussion made me flash back to the Ubisoft "Brothers in Arms" series (an old favorite of mine) -- where, in spite of the stunningly re-created appearance of Normandy and actual places, it always seemed there was always a handy crate of Panzerfausts just there...a stack of crates or an oil drum placed just there...etc. It made the gameplay feel awfully canned and scripted.

I think team efforts are a splendid way to go with mapping. Some of us are really skilled at setting up the basic contour map over a section of satellite terrain, while others (like me) love the artistic part of placing objects and making textures, etc.

[JonS]

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.

As it should.

The entire 'head' of Op EPSOM was only 4km x 4km. There were three British divisions in there (and an indep armd bde, I think), surrounded by five German divisions. The COBRA 'box' was about the same overall size, and contained the equivalent of about two German divisions and was trundled over by six US divisions.

Maneauvre space might be nice, but in Normandy it wasn't - for the most part - available.

[Gromit]

I seriously doubt it. If you think about it; in a "square-based" system, like the action points in CMSF/CMBN, everything pretty much has to fit long the cardinal/ordinal points of the compass. It would be one heck of an editor that would allow us to freehand the placement of terrain features... not to mention the programming needed.

Check out this overhead pic from the Bois de Baugin AAR. Everything runs N-S, E-W, NE-SW, NW-SE:

Yep- I had forgotten about that, as you guys say once into the game it sort of stops being much of an issue. I guess I had it in my head that the 8m action spot concept wouldn't have a whole lot to do with how roads and paths need to be oriented. Oh well- far from a show-stopper. Might change in the future anyway.

I just remembered the excellent Rock, Paper, Scissors article that Moon stickied about the AAR has a very revealing high-res shot just below the top of the article. It really shows the angles well. I did notice that there are some curvy roads here and there.

[MikeyD]

About realism-based maps. We've had some experience with that in CMSF, especially with the modules. Several British module scenarios actually provide the latitude and longitude for you to check out the real location on Google Earth. Everything from a large dry lakebed near the Iraq/Syria border (Brit module) to a small military runway just south of the Turkish border (NATO module).

[silverstars]

About realism-based maps. We've had some experience with that in CMSF, especially with the modules. Several British module scenarios actually provide the latitude and longitude for you to check out the real location on Google Earth. Everything from a large dry lakebed near the Iraq/Syria border (Brit module) to a small military runway just south of the Turkish border (NATO module).

Don' forget that wonderful Marines campaign mission that centered around Khan Al Arous, a swervy s-bend on a main road heading SW to Damascus. They even modeled to castle and everything. I thought it was a beautiful map, and wondered if it had a real-life counterpart. Really beautiful work.

[JonS]

Why, thank you sir. The scen is entitled SNAFU*, and is available as a standalone from the Repository, which means you can extract the map for whatever other purpose you like

Actual location.

* At one stage it was going to be called Clusterfvck at the Canyon, but that got over-ridden for some reason.

[silverstars]

Why, thank you sir. The scen is entitled SNAFU*, and is available as a standalone from the Repository, which means you can extract the map for whatever other purpose you like

Actual location.

* At one stage it was going to be called Clusterfvck at the Canyon, but that got over-ridden for some reason.

Yeah, both titles are quite appropriate. All I will say about the scenario itself was that I was very glad for M1A1s in overwatch. That is all.

[Broadsword56]

There is also an online copy of the 1947 Air Survey done in France. It is quite detailed and a great improvement on any map you will find in books. Scale is roughly 1:25000.

http://loisirs.ign.fr/accueilPVA.do

These 1947 photos really are a revelation once you overlay them on the present-day Google Earth imagery. What strikes me about the Bocage (at least in the Manche department arount St. Lo) is that since WWII, field sizes have been consolidated (many are 3 or 4 times their wartime size), and also many orchards have been cleared away. orchards than in the 1940s.

[Michael Emrys]

Maps built to fit a particular battle (most of them) often find the designer, quite unconsiously, placing that convenient clump of trees over there or that handy ditch out of LOF over here.

That was one of my big gripes with the mapboards accompanying Squad Leader. They were obviously laid out to encourage certain tactics within the game system (and to a lesser extent certain weapons' characteristics were too), rather than any terrain that was likely to be encountered in the real world. Used to bug the hell out of me. Despite all its pretensions, SL did not represent an accurate model of WW II. Which is not to say that it couldn't be fun to play anyway. You just had to keep in mind that this was a fantasy would that you had entered into.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

Some questions about the CMBN map editor:

*Will it be possible to import grayscale heightmaps into the editor (saves enormous amount of time compared to shaping all elevations manually with tools)?

*How does are texture files set up? For example, in TOW2 there's a 1024 px x 1024 px playable area, and its appearance is controlled by a JPEG file. You can make a really artistic texture map in Gimp or Photoshop, and then import it into the map editor.

*When you place a linear object (say, a hedgerow or a long stone wall) do you have to place and position lots of little pieces and fiddle with aligning them, or can you place them as one long piece?

[LongLeftFlank]

Like roads, wall segments enter and leave the map grid square only at 45 or 90 deg angles. So you need to do some matching, but it isn't really that hard once you get the hang of it. I am still over the moon about the addition of "T-junction" walls to the engine, but hey, I'm a total loon.

Slightly OT, but is there a tall (say waist high) "rampart of sandbags" flavour object that we could use to create our own building strongpoints? In other words, something that will soak up bullets and shell fragments. The CMSF workarounds are low wall segments, but I wanted something a bit more versatile and sturdy than a stack of crates and higher than the existing "sacks" objects.

More broadly, I'm worried that Norman farms and other buildings might be a little too easy to clear using firepower alone, just as CMSF buildings are now (either mud brick or poured cement for the most part). Whereas, between their sturdy field stone walls, timbered ceilings and root cellars, even if you blast the things into rubble you could well still be facing infantry who can only be winkled out by other infantry. Bottom line: it should be virtually impossible for an armoured force stripped of its infantry to secure a building complex. In CMSF it is currently very much possible to do so.

[Broadsword56]

I must say, after reading the manual now, I'm completely blown away by the thoroughness and thoughtful design of the map editor!

The contour drawing feature for elevations is a fantastic addition and a huge timesaver.

The only thing I could have wanted that I don't see (or might have missed in the manual) is any way to import an image to use as a tracing layer reference -- hugely important if one is trying to reproduce an actual place and get the elevation contours/terrain types/objects placed where they need to go. Too bad...

[Sergei]

Map editor overlays is certainly something that I (and everybody else) is eager to see, but it will have to wait for later. Having said that, I find the map coordinates a great help. I normally print a map from Google Earth, measure the sides and add a grid overlay to the map, then print it. This way I can accurately copy the main features from the satellite map to the editor, and after enough of it is done I can already see where things go without having to check the coordinates.

[Broadsword56]

Map editor overlays is certainly something that I (and everybody else) is eager to see, but it will have to wait for later. Having said that, I find the map coordinates a great help. I normally print a map from Google Earth, measure the sides and add a grid overlay to the map, then print it. This way I can accurately copy the main features from the satellite map to the editor, and after enough of it is done I can already see where things go without having to check the coordinates.

Thanks Sergei. Do you make your grid 8m x 8m so it corresponds to the tiles in CMBN?

Just wondering...

[Sgt Schultz]

Question that may already be answered, but the search function or my meagear skills at operating it are failing me.

I want to make larger maps that others can then section for their smaller needs. If my map has a village and a wooded hill area, and someone just wants the village for a few platoons' worth of fight, will he be able to cut out that part?

---

[purpheart23]

Question that may already be answered, but the search function or my meagear skills at operating it are failing me.

I want to make larger maps that others can then section for their smaller needs. If my map has a village and a wooded hill area, and someone just wants the village for a few platoons' worth of fight, will he be able to cut out that part?

-

The answer is yes.

[Chops]

Yes. Just send the *.btt file to the person. They can open up the file in the CM:BN Editor, open your file, and then delete the portions of the map that they don't want to use followed by a save with a new name.

[Sgt Schultz]

Thank you.

I was "almost" sure that was the case, but assumptions would be bad.