Map size

[olebouch]

Are there plans to increase map size beyond 2x2KM? The game is great, but 2x2km is a bit small for my tastes, and severely prohibits mounted maneuver. Are larger maps coming in future patches?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: olebouch

Are there plans to increase map size beyond 2x2KM? The game is great, but 2x2km is a bit small for my tastes, and severely prohibits mounted maneuver. Are larger maps coming in future patches?

You know most of the transport was not mechanized at this time. Try marching troops over a kilometer and it gets pretty boring. You spend 40 turns just finding the enemy location and the games don't get replayed.

As computers progress I guess going to 4x4km would someday be possible. But just doing a decent job on the map making it look good, adding details etc. would take a very long time.

[olebouch]

True, most units were on foot, with horse-drawn supply trains. But as this is a game, and I have a choice of what type of battle I will play, I, like many others, will more often than not play with armored, mechanized, and motorized troops. 2x2 is too small for them. A Tiger, or Panther, or T34/85 could nearly shoot across the entire map.

If it is difficult to make a large map, let those who will make large maps worry about it (like me, I have made plenty of CMBB maps that are 4x6km, they are tedious to make, but fun to play). If larger maps are too system intensive, then do not turn off the option for all, let those who have the patience for them play it out. Better yet, allow larger maps, and put a warning on them for those with slower, or dated systems. Those with slower systems would not get be disadvantaged because we know they can play the 2x2 maps effectively.

This game appeals to me greatly, I like playing it. But its competitors (CMBN, and the older CM series) all allow larger maps. This game, as it is newer, ought to improve upon what has been out on the market.

Lastly, I ask this question because I have heard others make the same complaint. It seems clear that the game was developed to have larger maps because the larger map sizes are grayed out in the map editor.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: olebouch

But its competitors (CMBN, and the older CM series) all allow larger maps. This game, as it is newer, ought to improve upon what has been out on the market.

IMO, 2k x 2k is about right. If you get much larger than that, the nature of the game will tend to move from tactical to operational. The clearest manifestation of that would be the tendency of units to run out of ammo before they can traverse said real-estate. That can occur on 1k x 1k maps, BTW. And I'd note that PC doesn't make allowance for in-scenario resupply.

[Mobius]

When people want bigger maps they are hoping that the same few units in a scenario are now spread out over a much larger area. The fact is that the density should not change.

Instead of being able to manuever around the units directly in front of your units your units would run into units supporting them to their flanks.

[olebouch]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

When people want bigger maps they are hoping that the same few units in a scenario are now spread out over a much larger area. The fact is that the density should not change.

Instead of being able to manuever around the units directly in front of your units your units would run into units supporting them to their flanks.

Possibly, it depends where the higher headquarters has drawn unit boundaries, and how much frontage they have been assigned. It was characteristic for even small units on the eastern front to have massive frontage to cover.

My thing is, if you love 2x2km, play it. Why not let those of us who like larger maps have the option? Why not 3x3km?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: olebouch

ORIGINAL: Mobius

When people want bigger maps they are hoping that the same few units in a scenario are now spread out over a much larger area. The fact is that the density should not change.

Instead of being able to manuever around the units directly in front of your units your units would run into units supporting them to their flanks.

Possibly, it depends where the higher headquarters has drawn unit boundaries, and how much frontage they have been assigned. It was characteristic for even small units on the eastern front to have massive frontage to cover.

My thing is, if you love 2x2km, play it. Why not let those of us who like larger maps have the option? Why not 3x3km?

We aren't opposed to larger maps but it's highly unlikely that this will be changed in a patch to PCO. Larger maps is something we can look at in future games in the series. The primary limitation is performance, even the 2km x 2km maps we currently allow can cause some performance degradation issues for lower end machines and while players can choose not to play them for set battles, when generating a Random Campaign, they can still end up with the 2km map for some of their random battles.

Any significant performance improvements are something that would likely need to be done in the next game rather than in a patch to this game.

Thanks
rick

[Erik Rutins]

We're not holding out on you due to any philosophical differences. There is still non-trivial work that would need to be done in the game to make larger maps work. We always saw 4km x 4km as the eventual largest map size, but we're not there yet. 2km x 2km does give you a large map for a tactical battle and allow for the vast majority of engagements at this scale, but we would like to go larger as soon as we can.

Regards,

- Erik

[spellir74]

ORIGINAL: Mobius


Instead of being able to manuever around the [enemy] units directly in front of your units your units would run into units supporting them to their flanks.

Correct.

{Corrections requested...}

Most combat occurs --especially advances-- on the Battle Group[Kampfgruppe] scale; then sometimes down to task force and task group. Generally two combat groups per division culled together from the division's assets per the needs of that actual combat mission/assignment. (Task forces and groups were ad hoc inside the battle groups for smaller close combat duties.)

A Division's area is usually 4sq Km (maybe larger). (Note that its combat assignment will be delegated out at the korp size force holding a larger area. And Armee one above that level is about 25-40+km.)

Two commands in a div: combat command and staff command. There is over lap. All the supply and refit rostering right behind the firing line; and in world war II, complicated devoted communications specialists.

A division will be ordered to say seize and hold high ground so that the the rest of the divs in its korp can progress through marsh hiways (building new ones as they go --big job) to the north.

The div's staff looks at local maps and says we need to hold that road junction 3km to the south of the hills along with the hills, so as to prevent the enemies easy counter attack.

One Battle group in the Div gets the road junction assignment and one gets the hills. The sizes of the two battle groups might be asymmetrical--ie mission dependent; the armour going to the road-junction force and the engineers and ATG going to the hill mission.

The two battle groups of a div will be out of rifle and small gun range(not arti range though). The units inside a battle group will often be in range of each other; they do cover each other when able to (good flank shots that way!) or specifically assigned to do so.

---
There are/were multiple types of divisions, basically coming down to two types: light and heavy or fast and slow.

And there are two types of forces: assault and defend. Infantry Div is defend; Armored Infantry Div (with armour) is assault. In large advances, infantry divs would defend flanks of armor divs; ie they would be advancing too --but slowly in less combat-dense areas.

Regiment size to btn size specialist forces /armor forces called brigades are kept in the korp's rear and delegated out by them for auger duties or damaged control duties: ie punch through or stop-gap. Also heavy engineers (harbor dredge etc) will be btn to regi size forces farmed out at korp and armee level. (There are brigades devoted to holding an area too--more policing specialties.)

Sometimes a force the size of a korp (2-4 divs) will be named after its leader: eg 'battle group joe blow'. But that force will be split into actual combat forces of btn-regiment size --battle groups--for combat missions. (Note toward WWII's end the German OoB(Order of battle) and ToE(Table of Equipment) were often all screwed up--"playing on tilt"; nothing but recon btn as "division" etc)

---
Movies have tricked everyone into thinking combat occurs on the scale of the lost platoon (or company, which for story reasons is the size of a large squad, reading its dear john letters and playing it harmonicas).

Smaller scale games like this can often trick everyone into thinking that every engagement is company vs company slugging it out face armor to face armor until one is bled out.

What would be happening in a frontal stalemate like that is the one company --with other attachments(a task group or force)-- would simply be holding the enemy's attention, per its orders --forcing the enemy to commit there--while other task forces of the KG (kampfgruppe) tried to get into the enemies rear (where the enemy will have ATG avail for just such contingencies.)


---
OoB (Order of battle) and TOE (Table of Equipment) look to be what I call "3+1". Eg (2 or) 3 of one type of unit connected with one type of another.

Eg...

3 squads + one command segment (with a special weapon--eg rifle grenade or ATR-- and maybe radio) = platoon.
3 platoons plus one heavy weapons and command = company
3 companies plus specialist weapons and support = btn

etc

(2 or) 3 old/small artillery gun batteries(ie arti companies) plus one new /heavy gun battery = arty btn (A 'battery' has four guns["tubes"] in it.)

2 or 3 mechanized Divs and 1 armour div= PzKorp.

A Div OoB:

2 inf reg
1 armour reg (in Inf div might be guns or none)
1 recon btn
1 arty reg (Some SP [self propelled], some machine towed; in Inf, all were horse towed)
1 ATG btn (Some SP [self propelled], some machine towed; in Inf, all were horse towed)
1 Combat Engi btn
Some command, supply and policing "companies"

AA attachments

---

================
Note the reason this game doesn't have bigger maps is technological. Ie too many 'polygons' on the map for this game 'engine' (3d world and mechanic[dice-roll rulez] processing).

[Mobius]

TOE=TO&E=table of organization and equipment. (US)
OoB=Order of Battle (UK)

[olebouch]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

We're not holding out on you due to any philosophical differences. There is still non-trivial work that would need to be done in the game to make larger maps work. We always saw 4km x 4km as the eventual largest map size, but we're not there yet. 2km x 2km does give you a large map for a tactical battle and allow for the vast majority of engagements at this scale, but we would like to go larger as soon as we can.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the your honest answer. By the way the game is great, and I truly enjoy it.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: olebouch

Are there plans to increase map size beyond 2x2KM? The game is great, but 2x2km is a bit small for my tastes, and severely prohibits mounted maneuver. Are larger maps coming in future patches?

Have you played on any of the 2x2 sized maps? Or are you just making a general observation?

Good Hunting.

MR