Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Here is something for you consider with bigger maps and the load to PC for those maps.

The textures are a result of how the scenario designer chose to display the terrain. There are two settings with a range from 1 to 999 and two other settings that have a range of 20 more. That's a texture display range of 399,200,400. Then there is a directional display for the terrain texture that covers the 360 degrees of the compass. If you consider that to be 360 more options for display you come up with a total of 12,201,553,224,000 different display options for a single texture in PCO.

I'm pretty sure that's not a poly issue. I can display the terrain textures showing from completely smooth to completely rough and everything in between. No other games terrain display features come anywhere near PCO's ability for the designer to show a texture as they wish. Ours are not a single tile that displays only one way in the game but it's a single pixel shown any way the designer wants to show it.

What that does do is make PCO work for every different texture you put on the map. The bigger the map the more textures and structure. I understand the "Bigger is Better" concept. After all I do live in Texas. I just don't happen to agree with it in all cases. I'm not one of those guys that wants to recreate the entire battle of Kursk at platoon level. For those of you that do I wish you all the best. [;)]

You just need to know that there are other things factors at work rather than a simple poly count.

Good Hunting.

MR

I agree bigger is not necessarily better. But like I said before, it is not just about more units. I know from experience how tiresome and exhausting it is to manage an entire infantry battalion and dozens and dozens of tanks, guns and vehicles. But imagine a couple of infantry companies and a tank company on a huge map, with lots of room to manoeuvre. I still think that would be VERY interesing. Or perhaps even some recon platoons, trying to find out where the enemy is. Not for everyone, I realize, but I would be in heaven. Textures are interesting and nice, but I accept a very plane, rather empty HUGE map, if it gives me space. But I'm already very satisfied you guys at least want to look into it and discuss it with the rest of your organisation. I know you are overwhelmed at the moment by enthusiastic wargamers who think they can get, or should get, everything they ever wanted. But let's be fair, it is a long time ago people like you guys listened so carefully to the gamers. We are just asking, please give us the possibility for bigger maps, if you can.

Apart from that, I really appreciate the way you are prepared to listen and keep an open mind. I mean that. Very impressive.

I really liked MR's Dangerous Information. 1500 map with a few recon AFVs per side. I like using that map in random battles too.

I think you'll find that I know the concept.

Try playing Dangerous Information, then we can discuss more. A battalion sized force on a 2km PCO map plays different than you're used to. There's plenty of maneuver room. Check out Ring of Fire or Their Toughest Battle. Those are on 2k maps.

At some point there is going to be a limit reached. For the PC series with the graphics and display modes available now that may well be 2k maps. Stridor and I went down this road and PUSHED. PC pushes back at the 2k line. Maps bigger than 2k in this system would bring most machines to a stop. I can already make maps that PCO can't play.

Consider that this is a Platoon sized unit game. Put a platoon out there in the middle of a 2k map and see how it looks. Just because you can put  a division on these maps is not the best answer for doing it. I'll be as bad as the rest of you when it comes to maneuver room. In fact you'll find most of the 2k maps that come with the game in my scenarios. But I don't want and don't see a need for Army Group South on a map for Operation Rumyantsev. Keep that operations name in the back of your mind for upcoming expansions....or somefink.

Good Hunting.

MR

My favorite battle of all time is MR's KC Lt. Neumeyer for CMBB. The ideal medium sized battle. But I also liked George MC's work a lot. And some of them were huge. In size that is, less so in the number of units. I will try the scenario you guys mention there. Thanks.

Ah...the KC battles.....I think that I heard a rumor about some of those battles being worked on for a future release.....you just never know. Actually the good Lieutenant's name was brought up for that project as well.

Favorite battle of all time is a big act to follow though....[X(]

And George Mc...[&o] I playtested some of his monsters! I REMEMBER!

We'll see about expanding the sizes for the maps but that may not be possible and even if it is it sure won't be a quick and easy fix.

Good Hunting.

MR

I think it is possible, but the amount of work remains to be determined. After a development discussion, I'll have a more intelligent answer. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

Glad somebody mentioned KC Neumeyer to you, MR. [:D]

Yes, George MC, now if only we could get his attention for PCO...

We're not going anywhere and we have all the time in the world. Your promise to look into it is more than enough for the moment, guys.

Jacko did you ever play your 2000 point 2k battle?

An issue a bit neglegted when speaking of map sizes, is armor engagement ranges IMO. While a 2x2km map might work well for a 1941/42 battle, things look a bit different for 1943-45 battles, with long gun PZ-4, Tigers, Panthers, T34/85 and late war SU´s involved. Effective engagement ranges rose in those years to about 1500-2000m and I think that should be reflected in any serious wargame dealing with that time period, by allowing map sizes with a minimum of 3km depth and 1-2km width, yet leaving some little space for any moneuvres. Just my 2 cents...

We are trying to have fun as well as have a serious wargame. It's not fun watching the screen for minutes while the computer does it's thing. That's why I keep asking if anyone is playing large maps in CMBN and what kind of setup do they have.

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Romania1 is a nice 2k map with few trees and a rise or two. Try a random battle with 3000 points per side and see how that loads and plays for you and let us know. Use a corner setup to increase the distance between setups.

I've played on this map, with the suggested number of points. It is a good size, but I still think we need them somewhat bigger. And I agree about the eye candy. I would rather play on emptier, but bigger maps, than smaller and fuller maps.

Double post.

Off course when speaking of large maps with 1500-2000m engagement range possibilities, these are required to be rather open terrain, with scattered woods, small villages ect. At least such large maps should be offered IMO. That´s my own preferences, as I like to make my own reccon, routes of advance and use guns at their historical "effective" range, if possible.

The "historical" engagement ranges are far less than you would imagine.

There is a perception that fairly open areas automatically result in long engagement ranges. That's not historically true.

If you take the US Army, in NWE, as an example of what is normal for that theater you may be surprised to find the average engagement was at 400 meters.

German tank gunners were trained to hit targets at 800 meters.

Once the Tigers guns were found to be able to kill a T-34 at 2,000 meters the Soviets did everything they could to keep that from happening. Rarely are there situations where they would attack in the open for 2000 meters. If they did it was turned into a shooting gallery.

At Prohorovka the Soviets were told to close the range to point blank. To move as close as possible. The Soviets understood the effectiveness of the German guns and optics.

To think that a normal tank battle on the Eastern Front includes 2000 meter shots is pure fantasy. Did the Germans at time start firing at 2000 meters? Yes, they did. Did they hit and kill tanks at that range? Yes, they did. Was that a normal engagement? No, it wasn't. The average gunner trying to hit a moving vehicle at more than double the ranges he'd been trained to hit a target at will take several shells to hit. In most battles you don't have the luxury to have a lot of misses. You don't in most PCO battles. I've run lots of tanks out of ammo and that's not a good thing. After you do that a couple of times you start to question about taking all those long shots.

What you do get with larger maps IMO is more maneuver room. Not longer engagement ranges. I've taken shots on PCO maps longer than 2000 meters now. The issue is not killing a tank at those ranges but actually hitting something. What starts to be an issue is ammunition. Even when I have a 2000 meter shot now in the game I'll rarely take it. I don't need my tanks taking 4 or 5 shots to kill a tank when I can do it in 1 or 2 when they get closer. You'll watch a lot of rounds hit and not penetrate at those ranges as well. The entire German tank forces aren't made of Tigers and Panthers whose guns can kill at those ranges and even then they will sometimes not penetrate.

What larger maps give you is the ability to do more maneuvering not more 2km shooting galleries.

So, historically speaking, larger maps will be more fun. But not like the perception seems to be. Historically engagement ranges were much shorter.

It's not just the guns that are required to hit a target at a further distance but the optics as well.


They will be more fun because they are more fluid not because you are going to get unlimited shooting galleries. Some will make those. I've made them. To me they're only fun for a couple of times. Then I get tired of setting my units on a hill and hitting go turn after turn and doing nothing else.

But to each his own. We'll try to keep pushing the map size windows because there is a desire for them. Whatever the reasons are larger maps can be tremendously fun to play on.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

...

What larger maps give you is the ability to do more maneuvering not more 2km shooting galleries.

So, historically speaking, larger maps will be more fun. But not like the perception seems to be. Historically engagement ranges were much shorter.


They will be more fun because they are more fluid not because you are going to get unlimited shooting galleries. Some will make those. I've made them. To me they're only fun for a couple of times. Then I get tired of setting my units on a hill and hitting go turn after turn and doing nothing else.

And here you said it all. I could not have explained my preferences better. [:D] I believe most of us here are veteran wargamers and nobody is looking for a shooting gallery.[:-]

A 50km^2 map ought to be the best map of all.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What larger maps give you is the ability to do more maneuvering not more 2km shooting galleries.

So, historically speaking, larger maps will be more fun. But not like the perception seems to be. Historically engagement ranges were much shorter.

Precisely. The room to manoeuvre is what larger maps will bring. I'm not interested in shooting galleries either, it is boring. What I enjoy most is manoeuvring one's units in favorable positions, the approach, the planning and then ,usually much shorter, the surprise of battle, the exhange of fire and if necessary, the withdraw, after which the whole procedure starts again.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The "historical" engagement ranges are far less than you would imagine.

"Historical" is anything applied at the right circumstances. Generally, when the opposition is known and tank crews know the "capabilities" of their own armor and guns, they´ll try to use it at best advantage. Russians learned to engage german 1941/42 armor with their T-34 at ranges starting at 1000m and knew, there´s little coming in return. Same goes for long gun Pz4, when they found they can hit an kill T-34 at ranges of between 1200-1500m. Panther and Tiger crews found they can hit and kill russian medium/heavy armor up to ranges of 2000m. All with fairly little ammo expenditure (from german reports). So if circumstances (terrain, LOS, crew experience, weather) were right, "effective" longest range shots were used as often as possible.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

There is a perception that fairly open areas automatically result in long engagement ranges. That's not historically true.

Off course not. A great number of other factors play a role.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

If you take the US Army, in NWE, as an example of what is normal for that theater you may be surprised to find the average engagement was at 400 meters.

Lets stick to the eastern front theater and PCO for now.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
German tank gunners were trained to hit targets at 800 meters.

Where did you quote that from?

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Once the Tigers guns were found to be able to kill a T-34 at 2,000 meters the Soviets did everything they could to keep that from happening. Rarely are there situations where they would attack in the open for 2000 meters. If they did it was turned into a shooting gallery.

Unquestionable. Somewhat mistaken here. I mentioned relatively "open" terrain on >2km maps with regard to PCO graphics engine and good frame rates, if this is the main issue, that maps are kept at 2km max for now.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
At Prohorovka the Soviets were told to close the range to point blank. To move as close as possible. The Soviets understood the effectiveness of the German guns and optics.

One particular example for sure, but no generalization on russian tank tactics. AFAIK this battle started at range and closed with both forces in a knife fight. So what slice of the whole battle to start with in a scenario?

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
To think that a normal tank battle on the Eastern Front includes 2000 meter shots is pure fantasy. Did the Germans at time start firing at 2000 meters? Yes, they did. Did they hit and kill tanks at that range? Yes, they did. Was that a normal engagement? No, it wasn't. The average gunner trying to hit a moving vehicle at more than double the ranges he'd been trained to hit a target at will take several shells to hit. In most battles you don't have the luxury to have a lot of misses. You don't in most PCO battles. I've run lots of tanks out of ammo and that's not a good thing. After you do that a couple of times you start to question about taking all those long shots.

Didn´t say that 1500 to 2000m engagement ranges were "normal". Depends on what I said further above and "standard" gunner training depends on the gun/tank model used, not regarding extra experiences made at the frontlines sooner or later. Certain guns had a high first shot hit/kill capability at "long" ranges and that was the purpose that these guns were developed. All this with regard to reasonable ammo expenditure. If this also works in a game (not a true simulation of all factors involved), is quite another question.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
What you do get with larger maps IMO is more maneuver room. Not longer engagement ranges. I've taken shots on PCO maps longer than 2000 meters now. The issue is not killing a tank at those ranges but actually hitting something. What starts to be an issue is ammunition. Even when I have a 2000 meter shot now in the game I'll rarely take it. I don't need my tanks taking 4 or 5 shots to kill a tank when I can do it in 1 or 2 when they get closer. You'll watch a lot of rounds hit and not penetrate at those ranges as well. The entire German tank forces aren't made of Tigers and Panthers whose guns can kill at those ranges and even then they will sometimes not penetrate.

If this is how PCO approximates long range tank combat, then you surely have to "adapt" your tactics. "Maximum effective range" applies to any tank (gun), not just Panthers and Tigers. If leaving the german cats aside and take 1944, Pz4H vs. T34/85, then still "maximum effective range" is somewhere between 1200 to 1500m. So even in this configuration, a 2x2km map "enforces" players to move rather quickly to what many people believe is a "standard" engagement range of 800-1000m. So what I want to say is that I like to have "offered" situations, where a map is large enough to maneuvre (for what particular aim?) and to possibly make use of any long range tank gunnery capabilities.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
What larger maps give you is the ability to do more maneuvering not more 2km shooting galleries.

So what exactly is "maneuvering" aiming for? I do not want preset "Shooting galleries" either and a "large" map should offer both, to seek and avoid such situations. Lets get away from the 2km example, as I just refered it to the Panthers and Tigers tank gun historical capabilities. Finally, selected map sizes depend on desired "starting situations" of a particular battle. Personally, as said, I prefer oftenly to have (tank) battles evolve from range and not from "knife fight" initially. Ranges of 1000m and below in 1943 to 45 can be already considered "knife fight" in this regard.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
So, historically speaking, larger maps will be more fun. But not like the perception seems to be. Historically engagement ranges were much shorter.

Probably yes for mobile warfare and tank battles. "Historically" means the full range from knife fight to applied maximum effective range. It rose from mostly under 1000m in 1941 gradually to 2000m and even above in 1943 to 45, for the more potent tank guns, may they be russian or german made.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
It's not just the guns that are required to hit a target at a further distance but the optics as well.

Sure. The germans had some advantages in this regard and they used them whenever possible.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
They will be more fun because they are more fluid not because you are going to get unlimited shooting galleries. Some will make those. I've made them. To me they're only fun for a couple of times. Then I get tired of setting my units on a hill and hitting go turn after turn and doing nothing else.

Shooting galleries can happen from any situation, on small maps, large maps. Personally I´ve mostly seen them happen from bad player tactics. Mine included.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
But to each his own. We'll try to keep pushing the map size windows because there is a desire for them. Whatever the reasons are larger maps can be tremendously fun to play on.

3km maps in 1943 to 45 should give the possible historical range for tank gunnery + maneuvering space, whether someone wants to use it or not.

Strong lobby for the big maps here [:)]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

3km maps in 1943 to 45 should give the possible historical range for tank gunnery + maneuvering space, whether someone wants to use it or not.

We'll see. So far they're not available. Hopefully they can be soon.

Good Hunting.

MR