Maps Big and Small

[Mad Russian]

All I see are requests for larger maps. Which I too would like.

However, in CM, I had several maps that were much smaller than 1km x 1km.

Can a PCK map be made smaller than 1km x 1km? Or is that the only size they come in?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Stridor]

All the maps are 1km x 1km but

They can be smaller by specing an "out of bounds" area if that makes sense

[NefariousKoel]

I just wanted to jump in and say that I don't want larger maps.

People creating scenarios tend to jam-pack them full of units and I think it detracts from some of the gameplay in those huge scenarios where you're trying to run a whole Regiment. A lot of the user-created scenarios for CM were just too large for my tastes as it became more an ordeal of scrolling the map back & forth trying to keep track of everything instead of just playing.

More units to control doesn't mean more fun. [:-]

[thewood1]

All these tactical games end up going that way.  Take a look at some of the HASL scenarios for the stalingrad module.  There must have been a thousand counters in some battles.

[Grell]

I like big maps, it would be nice to see some in the future.

Regards,

Greg

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Stridor

All the maps are 1km x 1km but

They can be smaller by specing an "out of bounds" area if that makes sense

They can't be bigger ? Why that ? [&:]

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Stridor

All the maps are 1km x 1km but

They can be smaller by specing an "out of bounds" area if that makes sense

Are you saying that the existing maps can be made smaller via an OOB area? Or that no smaller map can work in the game, except a 1km x 1km w/ OOB area? Does that question make sense?

If the latter, then Mad Russian has raised a good issue for futher development. IOW, a wish list item.

[z1812]

Hi All,

I suppose like most, I do not mind the 1km x 1km maps for the moment. The game is new and I have not had time to try out all the scenarios so there is much left for me to enjoy.

I am not sure as to why maps cannot be smaller or larger but for the reasons above I don't mind for the moment. Hopefully this will change in the future. So long as the map editor is so difficult to use, then for me it is not an issue anyways.

I really like using a map editor and building scenarios. Nothing makes a game old like a lack of player made scenarios, maps and mods. So far, while I am enjoying the game, I can tell you that the map editor and scenario editors need to be much more accessible for the average user. If they are not as easy and intuitive to use as possible then most people will not use them. They just don't have the time.

Regards John

[thewood1]

I was just working with the scenario editor also.  While it is passable, it still seems like it isn't polished.  I also don't like not being able to see the 3D map for unit placement

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I was just working with the scenario editor also.  While it is passable, it still seems like it isn't polished.  I also don't like not being able to see the 3D map for unit placement

You can pull up a 3D view of the map in the editor, although it is a single view. If you want to place your forces on the map in the editor and then run the scenario, if you move the units during setup you can press F3. This saves their location in a placement.dat file. If you go back into the scenario editor it is possible to merge this file into the scenario file with the merge placements button. So it is possible to use the 3D in-game map to place your units.

[Erik Rutins]

Hm - the scenario editor seems really easy to use to me. What part is causing you problems?

Ah, forgot about F3 - yes, note what Stridor posted above. It's a more involved process but it does make extremely precise placements possible.

[thewood1]

Missed the F3.  Good to know.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I was just working with the scenario editor also.  While it is passable, it still seems like it isn't polished.  I also don't like not being able to see the 3D map for unit placement

It takes a little practice to get used to the editor,but I found it to be fairly straight forward. Couple of things I found that helped:

1. Initially I found I wasnt zooming the plan map enough when I was placing inits.

2. Couple of the buttons struck me as out of order (I'm a linear kind of thinker). For ex: Max: and Num: (33 and 34), I invariably found myself trying to set the max number to lower than the num, then I'd have to go back and set Max:.

3. One thing that should be looked at perhaps is the Name: field - I think it allows more characters than what gets displayed - which can lead to seeing what appear to be duplicate units on the map (This can be seen in the Balta scenario - I'll post separate thread with question).

4. The mods entries are a little confusing - initially I thought the "mods" had to match the map season, but found out this was not the case - not sure where I got that idea.

5. I found by printing the jpeg of the AI-Terrain Map (at something like a 6"x6" image I could rough in my company/platoon placement and made the placing of units go pretty fast.

6. The F3 thing was kind of my last step in the set-up. Kinda of extra fine tuning. I actually needed it because of some errors in Scene Edit I made that created placement problems.

7. The arrors to move Platoons up and down in OOB come in great when you have to add a platoon, and the color coding is good - the visual marker of when you exeed your pt. allowance is handy.

8. The distance tool came in handy as well.

9. In most games I almost always start out entering an OOB into excel or word, tuning it, then going to the game editor -- that didn't seem necessary with this editor -

10. The reports you get from the editor are great - give a good summary, as well as some good info for balancing.

11. I thought the manual was nicely detailed


One of features I didn't use, but probably will in future (and maybe will pretty soon) are the Difficulty toggles to see impacts of a player choosing different difficulty levels.

All in all I was pretty happy with it.

-- Just my 2 cents worth - well - maybe this is the 50cent version -

Thanks,
Rick

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
All I see are requests for larger maps. Which I too would like.
However, in CM, I had several maps that were much smaller than 1km x 1km.
Can a PCK map be made smaller than 1km x 1km? Or is that the only size they come in?

Currently it's 1km x 1km only, sorry.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Rick
It takes a little practice to get used to the editor,but I found it to be fairly straight forward. Couple of things I found that helped:

1. Initially I found I wasnt zooming the plan map enough when I was placing inits.

2. Couple of the buttons struck me as out of order (I'm a linear kind of thinker). For ex: Max: and Num: (33 and 34), I invariably found myself trying to set the max number to lower than the num, then I'd have to go back and set Max:.

3. One thing that should be looked at perhaps is the Name: field - I think it allows more characters than what gets displayed - which can lead to seeing what appear to be duplicate units on the map (This can be seen in the Balta scenario - I'll post separate thread with question).

4. The mods entries are a little confusing - initially I thought the "mods" had to match the map season, but found out this was not the case - not sure where I got that idea.

5. I found by printing the jpeg of the AI-Terrain Map (at something like a 6"x6" image I could rough in my company/platoon placement and made the placing of units go pretty fast.

6. The F3 thing was kind of my last step in the set-up. Kinda of extra fine tuning. I actually needed it because of some errors in Scene Edit I made that created placement problems.

7. The arrors to move Platoons up and down in OOB come in great when you have to add a platoon, and the color coding is good - the visual marker of when you exeed your pt. allowance is handy.

8. The distance tool came in handy as well.

9. In most games I almost always start out entering an OOB into excel or word, tuning it, then going to the game editor -- that didn't seem necessary with this editor -

10. The reports you get from the editor are great - give a good summary, as well as some good info for balancing.

11. I thought the manual was nicely detailed


One of features I didn't use, but probably will in future (and maybe will pretty soon) are the Difficulty toggles to see impacts of a player choosing different difficulty levels.

All in all I was pretty happy with it.

-- Just my 2 cents worth - well - maybe this is the 50cent version -

Thanks,
Rick

Nice suggestions, Rick! Could you also post these in the Mods forum perhaps?

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Stridor

All the maps are 1km x 1km but

They can be smaller by specing an "out of bounds" area if that makes sense

Are you saying that the existing maps can be made smaller via an OOB area? Or that no smaller map can work in the game, except a 1km x 1km w/ OOB area? Does that question make sense?

If the latter, then Mad Russian has raised a good issue for futher development. IOW, a wish list item.

Ok although I haven't tested it I can't see why it wouldn't work.

Here is the thing.

The PCK graphics engine can render larger maps and smaller maps that isn't the problem. The rules engine is hard-coded to deal with 1k x 1k. So theoretically you could make say a 500mx500m map (or whatever dimension < 1000m including even asymmetric maps - provided they would fit in a 1km x 1km area). Now you need to tell the engine that some parts of the map (the off play area) is marked as un-enterable on the map.bmp. If you had a template set for that map (which you would need anyway) then that map could be used in the RBG as well. Essentially the un-enterable bit prevents the rules engine from allowing units to move off your smaller map.

Does that make it any clearer?

Imagine the "X" are marked as un-enterable on the AI/LOS map.bmp. The "." are the map mesh then you could do this

Code: Select all

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 XXXXX....XXXXXXX
 XXX.....XXXXXXXX
 XXXX......XXXXXX
 XXXXXX......XXXX
 XXXXXXXX......XX
 XXXXXXX......XXX
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 

The total map dimension is still 1kmx1km but the play area has been restricted. From a players point of view they would be none the wiser.

[Mad Russian]

Thanks for the clarification Strider. For me personally that's a totally unacceptable situation. To have a map that has areas that you can't move into but the player doesn't know where they are....

I'll wait for the map editor.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Thanks for the clarification Strider. For me personally that's a totally unacceptable situation. To have a map that has areas that you can't move into but the player doesn't know where they are....

I'll wait for the map editor.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR.

Actually I think the borders could be demarcked. You dont have the game yet do you?

Would you have any interest in seeing one of your smaller maps from CMBB converted?

EDIT:

Ah - I see you do have the game.

Rick

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Thanks for the clarification Strider. For me personally that's a totally unacceptable situation. To have a map that has areas that you can't move into but the player doesn't know where they are....

I'll wait for the map editor.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR.

Actually I think the borders could be demarcked. You dont have the game yet do you?

Would you have any interest in seeing one of your smaller maps from CMBB converted?

EDIT:

Ah - I see you do have the game.

Rick

Yes, I have the game and am working with the editor this evening.

The maps that PC comes with are all very open. A feature of Russia to be sure. But not the only feature. There is alot of very close terrain as well. I'll be trying to use the map editor to make some maps as I go. First I'm trying the easy stuff like getting units in the scenario and on the map.

So far it's been an adventure.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Stridor]

Mad Russian,

I think perhaps you misunderstood my poor attempt at explanation. You can make smaller maps than 1kmx1km which have clearly defined geometry where the player can and can't go just like the maps now. Look at the maps now. Notice the wall effect at the edge of the map. The player has feedback on where the edge is. You could easily do this with a smaller map as well (have a defined edge or if you wanted a high mountain or water or whatever barrier you wanted to have). The player would see very clearly where he/she can and can't go. The problem is that the computer needs an AI/LOS map to do this same. This is a 1000x1000 bitmap called map.bmp. This is what I was talking about above.

Does this help. I think what you want to do can be done without too much problems. Going smaller is easy. Going Bigger is harder.

Edit: See my post above. The player would see the map "." as land which can be navigated. To him the "x" would not have any geometry and so not be rendered. So the player would be playing on the smaller map (and on a non symmetrical map to boot). The computer sees the world in a 1k x 1k block and needs that extra info to let it know that the player can't play there, that is all.