Map Size and Potential Battles

[colin.s.davis]

I'm following up on a conversation I had on X a while ago. I commented on the work 22SEC was doing on making bigger sized maps. I was asked why I wanted something bigger than the 20x15km. I tried to explain how this game has great potential to cover more than just a NATO's BDE close fight AO. However, I don't believe I explained it well (painted the picture). I hope this picture illustrates the point better (using a DIV defensive scenario). Given map sizes of 20x15km, the DIV fight has to be broken down into smaller engagements. 20x15km can only cover parts of a subordinate BDEs part of the fight and not multiple AOs. It could not cover the entire screen line (15x27km), the DIV deep (9x27km), or the DIV support AOs (7x27km). I've truly enjoyed the campaigns created so far. I have not completed all campaigns yet, so if I am covering something already in there my bad. I think it would be great to see varied battles covering the different units, threats and problems presented across the entire AO... and if that could one day be represented on a single big map (>=60x27km) it would be amazing. Note; I believe the doctrinal template for these distances are conservative and not indicative of what would actually have to be covered in a real fight (aka- even bigger).

I've begun playing around in the scenario editor to see how I can create the DIV deep fight.

What are you all's thoughts on this?

[CapnDarwin]

There are a few larger maps, 40-45km x 25-30km. We don't go larger for a few reasons. First, maps have a size limitation based on the way data is coded, so 30x50 or so is it now. Second, we are focusing on operations at the Battalion/Brigade level. Once you push larger, the game is going to slow way down, and the number of units to deal with would reach a level of unwieldy for most players. Maybe things change in the future, but for now, we are where we are.

[SgtZdog]

I'll add on that you can create your own maps to support creating your own scenarios that are close to that size (within the size limitations mentioned by CapnDarwin). Manuals on how best to do that are coming.

[WildCatNL]

Colin, makes total sense.
If you leave the support forces off-map, the remaining area is close what the game can handle (perhaps slowing down a bit). For professional users, we've mapped NTC Ft Irwin (broken down in 3 large, overlapping areas) and MCAGCC Twenty Nine Palms (again, multiple areas) to support these larger engagements.

[WildCatNL]

Until the manuals are released to create your own maps, try using the larger maps that came with the game:
- Erbendorf (near Grafenwoehr), 35x20km
- Schesslitz (near Bamberg), 35x20km
- Rottenburg, 35x20km
- Kirchheim u Teck (just south of Stuttgart), 30x20km
- Lechfeld, west of Munich, 35x20km
- Coburg (at the Inner German Border), 35x20km
- Lichtenfels (35x20km)

Enjoy!

[IronMikeGolf]

Fair warning: I have my Curmudgeon Hat on.

I honestly don't have much problem with map sizes nor numbers of units and the potential for bogging the game down. My entry assignment to our team was, using the antiquated Red Storm engine, to do a WW II prototype. The battle was the Leibstandarte at Prokhorovka and I did a full division defense vs a corps.

My main concern is the span and depth of control in a single player's brain housing group. Our game is really built around battalion command and we do at times take a bit of liberty by extending that to partial brigade scale on the NATO side. As I am sure you know, "standard" depth of control is two levels, so maneuvering platoons in a battalion is quite fair.

To do that, we define a lot of automated behaviors and these are at the unit/counter level. We do expose some knobs and levers via SOP settings, but I think it's fair to say these would be covered by either doctrine or instruction in the Execution paragraph of a Bn OPORD.

Now, keep in mind, we strive to model friction. Thus far, we don't model "friendly fog of war" and we are very reluctant to do so, as this may well make the game unplayable for the "pleasure" player. So, we also don't do much about potential fratricide and I think this is by and large not an issue within a battalion sector. Yes, there are notable historical counter-examples, but these are by and large outliers (not an expert in this field). So a crucial question to examine is differences in the very nature of friction experienced above and below the EAB (Echelons Above Brigade) boundary.

Going back a bit to depth of control (2 levels of command) and automated behaviors, I feel that drives us to develop battalion level behaviors and that is a tall order.

I do want to explore this and will contact you via some back channel for further discussion. Thanks for raising this.

[colin.s.davis]

Thank you all for the discussion! I'm learning.

Sure, I completely understand the technical limits for game engines. Maybe in the future it'd be more. Thank you for directing me to the bigger maps; I'll check them out.

What I am proposing is there are more variety types of engagements/scenarios/battles that can be designed and being able to maintain those echelons. It does not have to be focused solely within the maneuver line BDEs close/deep (I'm including the R&S screen lines). I believe other engagements like the DIV deep and DIV support/rear AOs would be very interesting and have significant effects within a campaign design. The unit amounts would be able to stay at the BN/BDE levels (in terms of numbers of units). As an example; being able to practice what the JAGIC (Joint Air Ground Integration Center) and COIC (Current Ops Integration Cell) do to set conditions for the Sub BDEs would be cool. Currently, with the engine limitations; Breaking up battles by the orange rectangles within my pic would probably be how to do it within a campaign, or separate scenarios.

Span of control and automation; I wonder if in the future, the engine would allow non-player controlled friendly units, and/or even neutral/civilian elements on the map. A scenario would have to give the player only the amount of units that make sense, and meet span of control for them. These non-controlled friendly units would need AI orders built into the scenario. In example; If the player is the DIV HQ (JAGIC/COIC), then the Sub BDEs/BNs are non-controlled entities. This would be really cool to work with, but most likely would run into the same engine limitations.

Note; I do not have the ability to respond in back channels at the moment.

[CapnDarwin]

Having AI-friendly units would be a cool feature, and it's definitely something we could consider doing in the future. I'll add that to our feature tracking list. Civilians are not something we will have in the commercial game for several reasons. If you are looking at using this in a more professional setting, you may wish to reach out to Matrix Pro Sims for more information.

[colin.s.davis]

Having AI-friendly units would be a cool feature, and it's definitely something we could consider doing in the future. I'll add that to our feature tracking list. Civilians are not something we will have in the commercial game for several reasons. If you are looking at using this in a more professional setting, you may wish to reach out to Matrix Pro Sims for more information.

Roger that, thank you.