Issues with changes in map scale of the game?

[Xenomorph]

Hi all,

Let me start by saying, "uuugggghhh". I love this game but haven't had the chance to lay a finger on it for a while. "Life is what happens while your making other plans" right?

But I'm wanting to dig back into this game, especially on the modding side and plan to create a couple of new maps at least for starters. I've seen also where there's been interest in working on some major mods to this game that would change eras altogether; from WW2 all the way to Napoleanic or Civil War etc. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the changes required to the game would be fairly substantial due largely I'm guessing to weapon ranges and thus to map scale. I'm wondering if folks could elaborate on that if you have a chance. Please understand that my perspective is that of a complete newbie. Thank you and best to all for 2015!

[Tazak]

This has been discussed a few times in the past, from memory it is possible to mod different time era's but the scale is set at 500m hexes which tend not to work well with older era's where musket range was out to 100m or so, there was talk about reducing the size down to 250m which would work well with WW2 and Vietnam wars

[CapnDarwin]

Xenomorph, Glad to see you back. Right now the map scale is 500m. We are talking about adding an ability to change the map scale in 2.1x to allow for WW2 era fights or other times where infantry fights are more prevalent. In house we are debating 125m to 250m for that scale.

[harry_vdk]

Maybe a odd idea but what about adding a Isometric scale.

Its make the current maps backward compatible and can give the ability to place units halfway the 500m scale.

[CapnDarwin]

The problem is scaling the art. It will mean having core map art at 500m and whatever other scale we settle on. Plus the map sizes. So much of the core mechanics work on the hex system that trying to subdivide the current maps just won't work well. This is still in the early phases of discussion since we have Southern Storm and Northern Storm in the queue. As we slowly work this out we will drop bits of information about it. Right now we need to focus on closing up 2.09 and getting back to work on 2.1.[8D]

[Xenomorph]

Thank you, that's helpful. I'll work on a couple maps and hopefully be able to ask some intelligent questions regarding scale as I go. Apologies in advance bc I'm likely to be asking plenty of questions. Also, in creating the Southern and Northern add-ons, would you mind sharing any issues related to map making you've run into? I'm thinking to possibly create something not located in Germany (how about Missouri? [:D]) and that input would be helpful. Thanks!

[WildCatNL]

ORIGINAL: Xenomorph

Thank you, that's helpful. I'll work on a couple maps and hopefully be able to ask some intelligent questions regarding scale as I go. Apologies in advance bc I'm likely to be asking plenty of questions. Also, in creating the Southern and Northern add-ons, would you mind sharing any issues related to map making you've run into? I'm thinking to possibly create something not located in Germany (how about Missouri? [:D]) and that input would be helpful. Thanks!

Hi Xenomorph,
you should be fine creating 500m hex scale maps of even Missouri using the FCRS game (and HexDraw). The one area where you might have to create your own graphics and manually set high mobility hindrance values are marshes.

I've working on 2.1 Southern Storm maps for a while now, and except for higher elevation differences and vineyards, southern Germany isn't too different from northern Germany in terms of creating maps. That isn't too say the maps won't feel (and fight) differently than Red Storm's - they definitely will!

William
edited: swamp -> marsh

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just to add my now standard, but in the mind of some such as Capn Darwin no doubt eccentric view.. ... that WWII at the current scale of 500m hexes would be my number one dream for this engine.

FCRS is a tremendous game that came out of nowhere but it is its operational feel that I love most. The feeling of running in knee deep mud wanting things to happen “now..” but having wait for the results to come in.

The slower pace, less tactical pace of WWII at 500m would be perfect.

All the best,
Kip.

[wodin]

125 or 250m? Difficult choice. On the one hand I like the smaller scale games so 125m is tempting, however the issue there is sometimes hex size is to restrictive if your say dealing with a heavy HMG platoon and you really would have liked to have spread out the HMG's in the unit more than the 125m or with a tank platoon and again you wish you could have spread the tanks out abit more so then 250m sounds tempting. Maybe a compromise and go for 200m hex?

Just thinking about this and it's funny that no game yet on the PC has looked at a hex and thought hang on this hex is longer in the middle than at the ends and then I supose would have let unit straddle two hexes..but this is getting to complex. Maybe no hexes at all and just gone for pixel = distance, that way abstraction is lessened and maybe even actual Google maps could be used or more realistic looking maps would be created. Honestly I always feel the less abstraction the better when designing wargames at platoon scale and below and the art where things can clash is by using pixel perfect historical weapon performance on a map that is abstracted into hexes. Saying this there is a fine line that can be crossed when trying to be as realistic as possible where by the game becomes dull, slow and boring..maybe even unplayable. I imagine though that programming a wargame that doesn't use hexes would be far more complex.

[Mad Russian]

Wodin, normally a game designer has two choices where ranges and deployment in a hex area are concerned.

1) Center to center. The designer assumes all units to be in the center of the hex.
2) Edge to edge. The designer assumes all units to be at the closest hex edge to the closest enemy unit.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

We are looking smaller than 500m because of the foot print of platoon and company units of the time. With most tank fights at 500m or less and definitely infantry inside 500m you would end up with tall stacks of battles. Stepping down a notch or two you open up the ability to account for the location and range of forces better. Going smaller you do increase the importance of facing/frontage coverage tot he combat equation. So there is an abstraction balance in all of that. I also thing we want to stick with the regimental/brigade sized force mix. This would still allow for decent smaller battalion fights and the occasional larger fights too. Pretty much where we are now. We have time to discuss this before it becomes a "thing". [;)]

[wodin]

Cool. Again I do think getting rid of hexes all together is the way to go in the future as it's the last part of the inherited wargame design from boardgames still holding on now we have WEGO and the like.

However I know it's not going to happen here:)

Still I personally would go for somewhere between 150 and 200m.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Wodin, normally a game designer has two choices where ranges and deployment in a hex area are concerned.

1) Center to center. The designer assumes all units to be in the center of the hex.
2) Edge to edge. The designer assumes all units to be at the closest hex edge to the closest enemy unit.

Good Hunting.

MR