Battle Maps?

[Capt Cliff]

I have noticed that for quick battles there is no random map generator like in CMx1. There are a few canned maps of different szes that one can chose from or have randomly selected for you. Is it possible to make more maps and add them to this canned listing? How detailed does the new battle map have to be? Do I need to add set-up areas and AI scripting?

[stikkypixie]

I have noticed that for quick battles there is no random map generator like in CMx1. There are a few canned maps of different szes that one can chose from or have randomly selected for you. Is it possible to make more maps and add them to this canned listing? How detailed does the new battle map have to be? Do I need to add set-up areas and AI scripting?

It is possible to make more maps. You just put the in the QB folder. The maps can be as simple or intricate as you like. I don't know about setup areas, but AI scripting is only required if you want to be able to use the maps for single player.

[Cymru]

Yeah, I miss them. The random generator sometime turned up some really surreal maps that were fun to play. I am not sure why this ability was left out of CMBN

[ChrisND]

Yeah, I miss them. The random generator sometime turned up some really surreal maps that were fun to play. I am not sure why this ability was left out of CMBN

It wasn't left out, because it was never included in the first place. CMx1 and CMx2 have nothing in common other than the name. They are two totally separate games under the hood.

And the reason there isn't one is because of the more detailed terrain. It would have been too much work to make a program to randomly generate usable terrain with that detail.

[Capt Cliff]

It wasn't left out, because it was never included in the first place. CMx1 and CMx2 have nothing in common other than the name. They are two totally separate games under the hood.

And the reason there isn't one is because of the more detailed terrain. It would have been too much work to make a program to randomly generate usable terrain with that detail.

I don't see the terrain being any more detailed than CMx1 except graphic depiction, how it looks. The requirements, i.e. square area elevation, etc., seems to be the same. So your rationale is incorrect.

As far as a diffrent program I don't see that either. I assume CMSF evolved from CMAK. All engineers are lazy and did not wander too far from the main program. They changed and enhanced the command structure, C2. But the map architecture is basically the same, a squre with elevation, a building or rocks or road or what ever to discribe the map square appearence. The map is what we are discussing. Because CMSF didn't have it doesn't make it the standard. Just makes CMSF less compared to CMAK.

[ChrisND]

I don't see the terrain being any more detailed than CMx1 except graphic depiction, how it looks. The requirements, i.e. square area elevation, etc., seems to be the same. So your rationale is incorrect.

That is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It isn't rationale, it is fact. First there's the fact that the terrain is now in a 8 meter action spot grid, instead of the 20m chunks from the previous game. Then there is the fact that within that 8 meters, terrain is modeled to the meter. In many ways, the terrain is now truly WYSIWYG. Now imagine that higher detail, that is not abstracted blobs of terrain values like CMx1 had, and imagine it interacting with ballistics, and spotting, and line of sight, and etc. I won't even go into the higher detail of buildings, roads, and elevation.

Take a forest in CMx1 and compare it to one in CMx2. In CMx1, it is an abstracted blob with uniform modifiers to combat, LOS, etc applied across it, across a 20 meter grid. In CMx2, every tree and bush is modelled and individually present as a 1:1 object within 8 and 1 meter grids, although there is still a bit of abstraction on LOS IIRC. Honestly, if you can't see the difference in detail here, then I think there won't be any further headway to make in this conversation.

What all this extra detail this means is that much more work has to be done to make an even semi-convincing random forest in Cmx2 than in CMx1. It COULD be done, but it would be a whole lot of work. Steve has specifically said months of it to produce something that wouldn't be convincing. So, what huge major feature would you have liked cut for this to make it in? Quick Battles, perhaps?

As far as a diffrent program I don't see that either. I assume CMSF evolved from CMAK.

Demonstrably wrong. Not a single line of CMx1 code was used to make Cmx2. It is as I said: a completely new engine, made with the mistakes of Cmx1's design (especially externally invisible ones) in mind. From what Steve has said, CMx1 was not made with expandability and modularity in mind, and consequently making additional content and changes for it was very difficult. Cmx2 was designed with these lessons in mind.

[BloodyBucket]

I have faith in the community. I'm sure that there will be plenty of great maps available, and even if they aren't forthcoming as Quick Battle maps, they'll be part of scenarios and campaigns, and if I want I can just import the map for use as a QB map, no?

While I'd love to see every feature from CMBO make the leap to the new game, it's a trade I'll gladly make for the fascinating gameplay that CMBN has to offer. Maybe one day there will be flamethrowers, CQB,, and random maps. In the meantime I'm happily occupied.

[WineCape]

BFC will not go down or up the road of the Quick Battlemap Generator. Ever. Resources to do so, as Normal Dude stated, can and will be used to better effect (and return) elsewhere.

[Capt Cliff]

That is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It isn't rationale, it is fact. First there's the fact that the terrain is now in a 8 meter action spot grid, instead of the 20m chunks from the previous game. Then there is the fact that within that 8 meters, terrain is modeled to the meter. In many ways, the terrain is now truly WYSIWYG. Now imagine that higher detail, that is not abstracted blobs of terrain values like CMx1 had, and imagine it interacting with ballistics, and spotting, and line of sight, and etc. I won't even go into the higher detail of buildings, roads, and elevation.

Take a forest in CMx1 and compare it to one in CMx2. In CMx1, it is an abstracted blob with uniform modifiers to combat, LOS, etc applied across it, across a 20 meter grid. In CMx2, every tree and bush is modelled and individually present as a 1:1 object within 8 and 1 meter grids, although there is still a bit of abstraction on LOS IIRC. Honestly, if you can't see the difference in detail here, then I think there won't be any further headway to make in this conversation.

What all this extra detail this means is that much more work has to be done to make an even semi-convincing random forest in Cmx2 than in CMx1. It COULD be done, but it would be a whole lot of work. Steve has specifically said months of it to produce something that wouldn't be convincing. So, what huge major feature would you have liked cut for this to make it in? Quick Battles, perhaps?

Demonstrably wrong. Not a single line of CMx1 code was used to make Cmx2. It is as I said: a completely new engine, made with the mistakes of Cmx1's design (especially externally invisible ones) in mind. From what Steve has said, CMx1 was not made with expandability and modularity in mind, and consequently making additional content and changes for it was very difficult. Cmx2 was designed with these lessons in mind.

Sophistry Dude. The map is still only a grid of squares with each square having a series of attributes for graphics and movement and what ever. BF is not stupid and they would keep it simple for simpler programing and program interface.

BTW CMx2 is not a new program ... they used CMSF coding, most likely why there is a problem with armor being too accurate in CMx2. But the basic's for CMSF came from CMAK, or at least a straw horse outline vastly improved (?) or changed..

[Blackcat]

Sophistry Dude. The map is still only a grid of squares with each square having a series of attributes for graphics and movement and what ever. BF is not stupid and they would keep it simple for simpler programing and program interface.

BTW CMx2 is not a new program ... they used CMSF coding, most likely why there is a problem with armor being too accurate in CMx2. But the basic's for CMSF came from CMAK, or at least a straw horse outline vastly improved (?) or changed..

Gosh, who to believe? Should I believe the people who designed and wrote the games when they tell me that not a line of code from CMx1 is in CMx2 or should I believe a player's opinion based on his own ideas of programmers and software engineers? Its a tricky one.

P.S. CMx2 is the game engine. CMSF was the first game based on this engine.

[akd]

Sophistry Dude. The map is still only a grid of squares with each square having a series of attributes for graphics and movement and what ever. BF is not stupid and they would keep it simple for simpler programing and program interface.

BTW CMx2 is not a new program ... they used CMSF coding, most likely why there is a problem with armor being too accurate in CMx2. But the basic's for CMSF came from CMAK, or at least a straw horse outline vastly improved (?) or changed..

Hey Capt Cliff, you have no idea what you are talking about. Normal Dude, on the other hand, intimately understands CMx2 scenario design. Maybe stop now.

[Thomm]

And the reason there isn't one is because of the more detailed terrain.

I think generating AI plans on the fly would be much, much more difficult than generating the terrain, and this is the real reason for not having a map generator.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Capt Cliff]

I think generating AI plans on the fly would be much, much more difficult than generating the terrain, and this is the real reason for not having a map generator.

Best regards,

Thomm

I agree 100%. A map generator would be useful for 2 player games and not for player vs AI where the AI opponent needs guidance. Something CMx1 didn't require and CMx1 did lack. I stopped playing vs the AI in CMAK long ago.

[Capt Cliff]

Hey Capt Cliff, you have no idea what you are talking about. Normal Dude, on the other hand, intimately understands CMx2 scenario design. Maybe stop now.

More sophistry!!

[YankeeDog]

More sophistry!!

You know, simply calling somebody else wrong without any supporting argument or evidence of your own doesn't really advance your argument at all, regardless of what fancy words you use.

[speaknspell]

I'd like to see a feature that allows importing of map data from a text file or simple binary file. Then we the users could attempt to write our own map generators, at least for Human vs Human games.

[slysniper]

Originally Posted by Capt Cliff

Sophistry Dude. The map is still only a grid of squares with each square having a series of attributes for graphics and movement and what ever. BF is not stupid and they would keep it simple for simpler programing and program interface.

BTW CMx2 is not a new program ... they used CMSF coding, most likely why there is a problem with armor being too accurate in CMx2. But the basic's for CMSF came from CMAK, or at least a straw horse outline vastly improved (?) or changed..

OH, here we go again, a user that seems to know all the answers about the game programming and complaining about why battlefront did not make the game to their own exact desire as to how it should be.

Lets get one thing straight, you are right in that coding from CMSF was used since it is the same game engine. But get off the fact that the tanks now hit targets more often, that is correct. its the old concept in CM1 and many war games that had the problem, this is much better, get real.

I hated CMX1 way of calculating hit and misses in armor battles. It was common to see a tank miss on the first and second shot firing on another tank from anywhere from 50 yards to 500. Any gunner with 1/2 a brain with a sight that functions at even the most basic concepts will normally hit that shot, even if they are scared and in the heat of battle for the first time. But the game would miss as much as it would hit. Go study and find out what the real thing was like and then tell me how you want that crap back.

then the system would also produce this, I hit a tank 2 shots in a row, then the next shot misses or maybe the next two. On a tank in the open which has not moved , same range location and clear line of site, again dont give me crap about CMX1 being better. The truth was it was far too inaccurate, the new system is much better.

[MarkEzra]

I agree 100%. A map generator would be useful for 2 player games and not for player vs AI where the AI opponent needs guidance. Something CMx1 didn't require and CMx1 did lack. I stopped playing vs the AI in CMAK long ago.

And that is the quandary. From a practical stand point BFC decided to not move forward on a map generator (a large number of BFC post discussed this) and devoted it resources to other aspects of QB design and adding new features elsewhere in the game.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would have been happier to see a Map Generator included in the game. I am solely responsible for making or converting all the QB Maps that shipped in the game. I continue to add to that number. Players are learning how to create QB Maps and are sharing their work the CMBN Community. (an aside: Study the games QB Maps AI pathing and you will create playable battles vs the AI).

[slysniper]

And that is the quandary. From a practical stand point BFC decided to not move forward on a map generator (a large number of BFC post discussed this) and devoted it resources to other aspects of QB design and adding new features elsewhere in the game.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would have been happier to see a Map Generator included in the game. I am solely responsible for making or converting all the QB Maps that shipped in the game. I continue to add to that number. Players are learning how to create QB Maps and are sharing their work the CMBN Community. (an aside: Study the games QB Maps AI pathing and you will create playable battles vs the AI).

And this is the point that should be focused on. There is no need for the map generator, many maps can and will be made and become available. they will be more realistic and will be more creative than any program could ever produce. CM 1 maps many times do not have a good feel to them and sometimes are not very playable either if the correct selections are not made,

[Scheer]

I dont see the need for a QB generator. There will be hundreds of user created maps in the near future. And those maps are far better, than anything the QB generator produces.

Yeah, it would be nice to have a QB generator. Or some other thing, like TCP/IP wego or your whole battle as one film , etc ...

However I can follow Battlefronts reasoning, how they put their ressources.