CMBN maps way too small!

[Polo]

I already discussed the point in another thread, but it was among other stuff, so I prefer to create a new one to make my point and have opinions about it.

I hope I still am wrong about it, but I have the bad feeling the maps we are shown in the different AAR are much too small for a good fight. It was even worse in CMSF with all the automatic rifles and guns, and dead-precise gunnery, but it will probably be the same with CMBN.

On my point of view we can only reach a "realistic" combat feeling if the maps are at least 1 or 2 km across. I think the best CMAK scenarios were reached with maps several km across, which is the only way to either leave some room to manoeuver, be able to obtain realistic tank vs tank combat, hide lines of defense, promote the use of AC for recon, allow reasonable possibilities for the infantry to withdraw/counter-attack, increase tactical value of long range MG fire for interdiction etc.

I know I criticize before I see the game, so people who know I hope will prove me wrong.

What do YOU think about it?

[ChrisND]

Some maps are smaller. Some maps are bigger. Not all of them are going to be made to your specific tastes.

And the "realistic" factor is going to vary wildly with the type of terrain. In dense bocage, 1-2 km may be unnecessary for a "realistic" battle. Open grassland would be a different story.

[Dragotin]

They are definitely way too small. 15" LCD is not enough. I hope my new flat screen arrives before the game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm curious to know how big of a map you get when you select "Huge" size in the QB setup, and how large of a force you can purchase.

[phil stanbridge]

They are definitely way too small. 15" LCD is not enough. I hope my new flat screen arrives before the game.

ha! I wish there was a 'like' button!

I wont comment until I see for myself, but I'd tend to agree that the maps that we have seen so far seem a touch on the small side, bocage covered or not. I remember a couple of campaign battles I had in CMBO and the maps were sprawling and it opened up a vast diversity in game play styles. It also allowed for great flanking ambushes which were pretty much unseen until it was too late. Of course, there were the small village skirmishes too. In the much smaller maps it's pretty much down to a head-on engagement. But I hope that there will be some massive maps in CMBN - isn't that what the new SF engine allows for anyway?

[GreenAsJade]

Some maps are smaller. Some maps are bigger. Not all of them are going to be made to your specific tastes.

Clearly this question is not directed at the judgment of scenario designers, but at the capability of the game itself.

The fear is that CMBN itself will not be able to support maps of large enough dimensions to enjoy the "sweet spot" of WWII tactical play.

I think this is quite a fair concern ... if beta testers or BTS have any insights to offer, it would be interesting. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding...

GaJ

[Pete Wenman]

the "sweet spot" of WWII tactical play.

I guess you need to define this a little more, as the game hits my sweet spot without problem

[Vanir Ausf B]

The game engine allows up to 4km x 4km. That has been confirmed. What hasn't been mentioned is what size the maps that come with the game actually are, and what size force you can put on them (I'm thinking QB, obviously).

[phil stanbridge]

I suppose what we really need to think about is how the engine will handle such maps - the engagements on a 4x4 would be huge. Reinforced battalions et al all in 1:1. Imagine it. Amazing stuff. But imagine the computer you'd need to play it?

[Smeel]

4x4 seems alright. And about the battle sizes of the previews and aars, I'm sure that is more an issue of what is manageable to write about. Imagine the work needed to describe every turn from a batallion vs batallion battle? Madness!

[Vanir Ausf B]

I suppose what we really need to think about is how the engine will handle such maps - the engagements on a 4x4 would be huge. Reinforced battalions et al all in 1:1. Imagine it. Amazing stuff. But imagine the computer you'd need to play it?

I'm not worried about it. CMSF was released 4 years ago. Moore's Law says the fastest computers are about 4x faster now than they were then.

I don't know if the new laptop I'm going to buy will handle a 4km x 4km map with a regiment of troops on it with all graphical details cranked to max, but it will handle a lot more than the 1km x 1km company-sized games I've seen in the previews.

[kulik]

4x4 seems alright. And about the battle sizes of the previews and aars, I'm sure that is more an issue of what is manageable to write about. Imagine the work needed to describe every turn from a batallion vs batallion battle? Madness!

Sparta!!!!

[phil stanbridge]

I'm not worried about it. CMSF was released 4 years ago. Moore's Law says the fastest computers are about 4x faster now than they were then.

I don't know if the new laptop I'm going to buy will handle a 4km x 4km map with a regiment of troops on it with all graphical details cranked to max, but it will handle a lot more than the 1km x 1km company-sized games I've seen in the previews.

That is correct of course, but the problem may be, has the SF engine progressed as much too? I doubt it very much. Judging by what we've seen, the inherent problems within SF will be still there for Normandy. So having a faster machine won't make any difference. Except, the battles should now be much larger!

[Polo]

What "inherent problem" are you talking about, please?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I've read that SF actually does run better now than it did on release, performance-wise.

[Vanir Ausf B]

CMBN Suggested system requirements:

# Processor: Pentium IV 2.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor or better

# Video Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeon x850 (256 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL

This is 6-year old hardware. IMO the reason for the downsizing of CMx2 has nothing to do with performance concerns and everything to do with keeping it manageable for Real Time players. Which is fine... if you play RT.

[Wodin]

I don't want massive battles anyway.....prefer smaller scanearios with few tanks...want a big tank game...buy Steel Fury or play Arma 2 CO with the IE44 mod or Red orchestra 2 (when it comes out) or even PCOstfront (though I have no idea whats ize their maps area I do know it's mre tank based).

[Paper Tiger]

I hope I still am wrong about it, but I have the bad feeling the maps we are shown in the different AAR are much too small for a good fight. It was even worse in CMSF with all the automatic rifles and guns, and dead-precise gunnery, but it will probably be the same with CMBN.

On my point of view we can only reach a "realistic" combat feeling if the maps are at least 1 or 2 km across. I think the best CMAK scenarios were reached with maps several km across, which is the only way to either leave some room to manoeuver, be able to obtain realistic tank vs tank combat, hide lines of defense, promote the use of AC for recon, allow reasonable possibilities for the infantry to withdraw/counter-attack, increase tactical value of long range MG fire for interdiction etc.

I know I criticize before I see the game, so people who know I hope will prove me wrong.

If you were going to create a promo video of a game, would you go for an enormous map with Battalions slugging it out or something smaller and a bit more detailed? Perhaps you'd go for the enormous map but I know I wouldn't. There are plenty of large maps shipping with the game if 1km+/2km+ is fine for your needs. And a 4x4 map is not that hard to create in the editor if you don't want detail (i.e. lots of flavour objects) or huge numbers of trees (1000+). I expect some guys will create some HUGE maps for the community quite soon after the release as well.

BTW, the maps that shipped for the NATO module were quite big in comparison with the maps that shipped with the tille. I remember some folks complaining before it was released that they might be too big.

FWIW, I prefer small, highly detailed and ultra-realistic maps (600m-1km) with a company or less and a mission length of 30 minutes to an hour. If you want to play on 4x4 maps with an entire Infantry Regiment (doable) for 4 hours in WEGo, off you go mi'laddio.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't want massive battles anyway.....prefer smaller scanearios with few tanks...want a big tank game...buy Steel Fury or play Arma 2 CO with the IE44 mod or Red orchestra 2 (when it comes out) or even PCOstfront (though I have no idea whats ize their maps area I do know it's mre tank based).

There's no rule that I'm aware of saying that large maps must be filled with tanks.

[panzermartin]

I prefer big maps with relatively small forces. That way you have room for maneuver, recon, long range tank battles etc without getting lost in a sea of troops.

Small maps tend to play pretty much only as the designer intended to and they feel like a kind of "Map author Dictatorship"

[Wodin]

No rule no...but why would you want to slog infantry over 4km? Far to much time moving to contact for myself...as said above if you want to play for 4 hours in WEGO (or more) on a 4x4 with infantry be my guest...just not for me.

I with Paper Tiger on this...and if you try his scenarios\campaigns you will realise he is a superb scenario maker...

Ali I have a feeling that smaller maps help the scenario designer make a scenario that plays well...otherwise wit a big map there is more of an opportunity for the scenario to be unplayable as someone found a way of doing it in so and so amount of time as the enemy was so few and the map so large there is bound to be massive holes in the defence or a lucky hit could ruin the scenario playability....and big maps with small amount of troops is again sound for Tanks...but infantry...I'd get bored quick...again I like 30 mins to max 1 1/2 hours.

This is what i love about CMSF..street fighting...and it works and works well...thats why I believe it's the perfect game yet made to do parts of Stalingrad...when the EF games come out.

[LJFHutch]

I prefer big maps with relatively small forces. That way you have room for maneuver, recon, long range tank battles etc without getting lost in a sea of troops.

Small maps tend to play pretty much only as the designer intended to and they feel like a kind of "Map author Dictatorship"

Very true. I like being able to scout out sections of the map and flank or tie down enemy movements with small forces, all of which are impossible with small maps, or even large maps with large numbers of troops. I think 100 troops vs 100 troops on a 2x2 map would be about right, so long as that involved vehicles, otherwise it'd be a bit tedious

[Vanir Ausf B]

The further away the map edges are the less of a factor they become.

Also, even in WW2 there is some stuff that just works better at range. I seem to recall one of the beta testers (Bil) did a test that showed the Sherman has the edge on the Pz IV up to about 900m. Past that the Pz IV has the advantage.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No rule no...but why would you want to slog infantry over 4km? Far to much time moving to contact for myself...as said above if you want to play for 4 hours in WEGO (or more) on a 4x4 with infantry be my guest...just not for me.

On a theoretical 4km x 4km map the forces would presumably have setup zones closer together than the map edges. The point isn't to use every square inch of the map, its to give the players options.

and big maps with small amount of troops is again sound for Tanks...but infantry...I'd get bored quick...again I like 30 mins to max 1 1/2 hours.

When I was playing 3000 pt QBs in CMx1 I would average around 1 hour per turn. And I loved it

[c3k]

4km x 4km are possible. Making one of that size which includes all tactical possibilities AND looks good, would be a lot of work. For comparison, look at some of the maps released by BF.C with CMSF. Then look at LongLeftFlank's map, here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92372

His map is 1.5km by .5km, and it's a work of art. Similarly, any size map can be made and put into the QB folder, but the details are what bring it to life. Those details are what take so much effort.

As well, in WWII, what were the normal battalion frontages in the bocage? If you want a hypothetical romp through Normandy (which is plenty cool), the game can support that.

The editor allows you to create any map you'd like. Other games have only a few maps available and every player learns the chokepoints and sniper perches in just a few iterations of play. BF.C ships the games with a good assortment of maps, but does not limit you.

4km x 4km of heavily overgrown terrain (bocage, fields, villages, gullies, etc.) would look beautiful. Moving a scout platoon across that map would take hours. That's not too much fun, to me. However, the game lets you do that if you'd like.

I wouldn't read too much into the size of the maps seen thus far.

Ken