CMBN maps way too small!

[Vanir Ausf B]

A 4km x 4km would certainly allow for some serious defense-in-depth

I would be perfectly happy with 2km x 4km. I just checked and the largest CMBB randomly generated maps were 1.7km x 5.2km. Of course, the largest CMx1 QBs also allowed you to purchase an entire infantry regiment or more.

[GreenAsJade]

The large CMx1 maps were large in the dimension of _width_.

One good reason for this, as someone said, is that a wide map with the battle confined somewhat to the middle takes away (somewhat) the effects of the edges. Over time (in CMx1, espcially QBs) this has been found to be a Good Thing.

And, as somone else says, it add options that make the game play less "scripted". Sure this makes it harder to make a "predicably balanced" scenario: the scenario designer's dilemma in a nutshell.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, once we get past the thrill of highly realistic romps down a single road or over a hill into a single group of buildings...

GaJ

[Bimmer]

It seems to me that, for much of the ground covered by this particular game, large maps are not worth the effort (speaking as a scenario designer). The nature of the terrain makes close fighting the norm, and force densities are such that there would have been little opportunity to wander a klick down the road to look for a better way around without running into an adjoining friendly unit or more of the enemy. Wide-open maneuver is just not going to be very common in anything remotely historical, with the exception of perhaps D and D+1 (especially the airborne), or specific penetrations, which would likely fall mostly outside the scope of the game.

I'm not opposed the large maps and scenarios - I made a full-scale version of Meyer's attack on the Canadians in CMAK, with a map that extended from Les Buissons to Carpiquet inclusive - but I don't see much use for them in this particular corner of the war. Now, if you're going beyond in location or time frame, then all bets are off.

[Echo]

I need a big map. I'll probably build the battle of Arracourt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4bB5DTydb0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

The biggest U.S. tank on tank (and nothing else) battle of WW2.

[Sgt Joch]

As in CMSF, you can make 4x4km maps and play on huge maps...assuming you like slideshows.

However, playing in Bocage country, you don't need big maps. Most fields were less than 200x200 meters and visibility is limited.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the time frame for CMBN goes through the end of August. The Allies had liberated Paris by then, so I don't quite buy the argument that every battle must be in Bocage.

[Doug Williams]

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.

The editor allows you to create any map you'd like.

Keep in mind that I know absolutely nothing about any CMx2 game. The last game I purchased from Battlefront was CMAK.

One of my biggest enjoyments with CMBO/CMBB/CMAK was the quick battles and the fact that the AI generated a new, different map for each quick battle, based on certain user defined parameters (village, farmland, etc.). Does CM, Battle for Normandy not have this capability? Do we have to use pre-built maps (or build our own with the map editor) when we play quick battles? Educate me, please.

[YankeeDog]

I think the point was that one of the major tactical environments for CMBN scenarios (i.e., the bocage), does not necessarily require large maps to create realistic scenarios. You could probably create a bocage scenario on a 500 x 500m map without compromising realistic tactics, as long as the time frame wasn't too long.

Other terrains and situations would certainly require much larger maps. But the idea that small maps are necessarily unrealistic and limiting is false; there are plenty of situations you can depict in CM where the engagement distances are short, and the maneuver room limited.

As noted, CMx2 will allow you 4km x 4km so you can do large, open terrain armor engagements if you want to (assuming your rig has the horsepower to render these fights). Most DF weapons in WWII have a practical range of under 2km, so 4km x 4km gives you plenty of room for long range engagement, plus maneuver room to spare.

Cheers,

YD

[chaos49]

now i dont have the game yet but in CMSF u cant paly on big maps. there are a bug when the game try to save the game file in PBEM mode here we talk file size 40 mb+ the game file will when it hit the bug be around 800 KB in size

So i hope it has been fix

over and out

[Smeel]

Just to remind everyone how 4x4 km looks like:D

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, we established on the first page that the engine was capable of up to 4km x 4km. Nobody has said they actually wanted maps that big.

But maps half that size or even close to it would not be unreasonable. We still don't know how large the biggest QB maps that ship with the game are. As there are reportedly over 300 of them a few big ones would not be too much to ask, IMO.

[Polo]

Yeah, we established on the first page that the engine was capable of up to 4km x 4km. Nobody has said they actually wanted maps that big.

Actually I do. I never play QB, I find them boring (see above pic! Boring map), but I have played several km² or more sized scenario maps.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would like to play on maps 4km wide. 4km deep seems a little much, IMO, but to each their own.

But if someone makes one I'd be willing to try it in PBEM.

[DaveyJJ]

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.

This. Most company sized actions from my readings took place in a lot tighter space than the OP seems to think. 400m and under in many cases, so even a 400m-700m square map should present lots of tactical challenge for those us who will be creating smaller scale, historical actions. That's what I'll be attempting to bring my cartography skills to, anyway.

Just to remind everyone how 4x4 km looks like:D

Crickey. To even make a well designed map of that scale would take far too long for me to even think about.

[Jaws]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the time frame for CMBN goes through the end of August. The Allies had liberated Paris by then, so I don't quite buy the argument that every battle must be in Bocage.

Its called Battle for Normandy not Battle june -aug 44 or battle for Paris 4 by 4 km is pretty huge and I think most of the players will not have the CPU needed to play 4 by 4 with 1000+ units and the PBEM file could be not funny too.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Regardless of what the game is called it covers operations outside Normandy. The modules will reportedly extend it all the way through November.

4km x 4 km is huge, but 2km x 4km is quite reasonable.

And frankly I don't think you guys who like little maps suited to a single company have any reason to feel threatened. I suspect there will be more little maps in the game than you are likely to ever have time to play.

[Polo]

Actually, I am currently playing a Bn+ sized batle on a 4x4 km map, North of Rome, June 1944, in CMAK. 80+ turns. Pretty extreme, as the terrain is very rough too.

Quite very playable if you want to know, 22 turns done so far.

Sure CMx2 needs smaller maps, but 2x1.5 km seems good. "Armor attacks" is a great scenario (althought I haven't played it yet) playing on (somwhat baren) 2,5 x 2 km map.

[Wodin]

All I know is Paper Tiger and a couple of others who make scenarios\campaigns that are perfect for me will now be making them for CMBN...and they haven't dissapointed yet as far as CMSF goes...

[Jaws]

Regardless of what the game is called it covers operations outside Normandy. The modules will reportedly extend it all the way through November.

4km x 4 km is huge, but 2km x 4km is quite reasonable.

And frankly I don't think you guys who like little maps suited to a single company have any reason to feel threatened. I suspect there will be more little maps in the game than you are likely to ever have time to play.

I would rather see the old Operation option back where you could play several battles on one big map. In that case big maps would get my prio too. And I am not feeling threatened btw . I wish everyone what they want

[Broadsword56]

If you want to play CMBN for the era and location of the war it was designed to simulate, then map size is unlikely to be a limitation. This bocage fighting was nothing like the other parts of the war in France or elsewhere. It was common for an entire battalion or more to fight all day over a single apple orchard -- and to have frontages that were much more compressed than normal. So a central fighting area of, say, 300m within a larger map of 1km would not be at all unusual.

But for those who want to use CMBN as a freeform "sandbox" to play any sort of WWII action in any kind of location, I can see there might be some challenges. We'll just have to wait and see what the engine allows.

[MikeyD]

People are discussing map sizes without referencing the front that's being fought over. Let's say you've got the 4km wide Normandy map you want. Are you really going to fit two full Battalions on the map for each side to match the scale? Or fifty+ artillery tubes? Max game lengths out at 4 hours? Are you going to abandon "Meeting engagements" as unhistoric? Sure, all of central France is your plaything following the Cobra breakout. But before then its a lot a men facing eachother in a relatively confined area.

Besides, my experience with really big maps is there tends to be a LOT of walking followed by a pitch battle over the same 500x500m chunk of ground you would've fought over if the map had been half that size. I suggest Cutting 400m off your monster maps and instead saying in the orders "Your men have just walked a quarter a mile without incident."

[Broadsword56]

I suggest Cutting 400m off your monster maps and instead saying in the orders "Your men have just walked a quarter a mile without incident."

Or at least place the deployment areas closer toward the center and leave some of that extra real estate in the rear areas (so HQs and mortars can deploy properly back, and a reserve can hide somewhere safe, etc).

[Other Means]

Hopefully without breaking my NDA: I'm playing a huge QB right now. I've walked 15/20 turns to contact - that's probably enough for anyone. Given the amount of forces I had, I just hit "start" and sorted them out en-route.

[Dadekster88]

LOL

Now that sounds pretty realistic

[Polo]

MikeyD, I tend to agree that to play on a big map requires accepting a bit of plot work.

Myself I don't care if I need 1/2 an hour to plot, I do it listening to podcasts. :-)

I disagree about the "20 turns before action" or "500x500m" argument though. Some CMx1 battle are not like this. The 80 turn battle I am playing is full of action since turn 4, and the manoeuvering is all it is about (for now). You have to either delay your advance to destroy enemy surrounded pockets or progress and infiltrate quickly inside enemy lines.

I also advise two scenarios, both with CMAK: "Lehr Left Hook" (July 1944 I think) and "KM-South of Hafid Ridge" (1942). Both of them are action packed from begining to end.

Polo