Matrix Games Forums

Just a quick FYI that 1.05f is now an official patch and the manual is up to 17 detailed sections and growing almost daily.

Manual now up to 20 sections and 109 pages.

I stopped following this one a while ago. When will the map with North pointing up be ready? Thanks.

I stopped following this one a while ago. When will the map with North pointing up be ready? Thanks.

Just after Hell freezes over, I'll wager.

Rotate the monitor 90 degrees.

They aren't rotating the map. That's the last I heard. Afaik it's never been on the tables to rotate it.

Can you, any of you, imagine the amount of work required to do that? If the movement options are done on vertices, then I'd say more than it's worth. The map is fine...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
They aren't rotating the map. That's the last I heard. Afaik it's never been on the tables to rotate it.

Can you, any of you, imagine the amount of work required to do that?

Yes - but I always had a good imagination [;)]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
If the movement options are done on vertices, then I'd say more than it's worth. The map is fine...[:'(]

... still shaking my head here at that original decision. Re-orienting a map so that Up does not equal North makes sense when you've got a cardboard map to print, not for a computer wargame. Even if you want it to mimick the boardgame as much as possible, this was one area in which they should have gone with a more conventional approach.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
... still shaking my head here at that original decision. Re-orienting a map so that Up does not equal North makes sense when you've got a cardboard map to print, not for a computer wargame. Even if you want it to mimick the boardgame as much as possible, this was one area in which they should have gone with a more conventional approach.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Totally agree. A bizarre decision.

However I'd guess we are looking at it from a computer wargamers perspective. There is the argument, and I have to be honest it seems valid to me, that if the board game was like this, then in order to move people who played the boardgame onto the computer version, the transition may be easier if the map was of the same rotation...and it keeps the feel of the boardgame.

However, that isn't really maximising your market potential, I would've thought.

Also, if they did rotate the map to a more "normal" view, it could be that you would have hundreds (thousands) of boardgamers bitching that they rotated the map! Rotating it to a more "normal" view would be as alien to them as the current one is to those of us who have not played the board game and got used to it's quirky map layout.

However, it is playable and it hasn't hindered me as much as I thought it would. It irked me at first, but then it was fine...end of. All I'm waiting on is the completed manual and I'm good for a printout, read and a great game [:D]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
All I'm waiting on is the completed manual

The complete manual, apart from some appendices, is now online - 162
pages at :

http://www.ageod.com/forums/attachment. ... 1232297631

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

WoooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooooo
 
Cheers Eddy  [&o]

My sister can't read maps.  She would like the game.  She has no idea which way is north.  [:D]

What amazes me in the "Great North Debate" is how I almost didn't noticed the orientation of the map. I mean: sure, North is on your left. So what? By reading some threads, one would imagine that people had never be able to play games ranging from AH's "Stalingrad" and GDW's "Fire in the East/Scorched Earth", to the paper & counters version of "World in Flames" (and I would even add "Risk") were they sitting near the lateral or upper edges of the maps.

Maybe I'm European so I know my way around the continent better, dunno (truth is: I usually get lost in my block while looking for my parked car). But, once I have established where North is, the rest comes naturally. And having the two major fronts set up as "left to right" lines across whom enemy armies face actually makes more sense to me than going for a traditional "North up" map (which was the reason, I guess, why people usually play "Stalingrad" by facing from the Eastern and Western edge of the map). Even the small Italian front, BTW, runs roughly parallel to the other two main ones.

Makes ya wonder how people who played the Germans in SPI's War in Europe managed. Saw it being played at a convention back in 1982 or so. Poor guy had to walk around the table...[:D]
 
Seriously though. The orientation is a little disconcerting at first. But it's easy to adapt.

The analogies of boardgaming to PC gaming crack me up...
 
In a board game, if you are lucky enough to have people to play or play it at a gaming convention, it lays out FLAT on a table.  It doesn't hang from a wall.  You get to see THE ENTIRE MAP not just a small area, and so you get a better sense and perspective of overall strategy and immersion into the gaming experience.  You can, and will, walk around the table, and view the map from several angles.  
 
In a PC game you don't see the entire map layed out in front of you... even if you zoom all the way out or have a jump map area, the "map" is limited by the size of your monitor.  BIG DIFFERENCE than having several square feet of map area layed out on a table. 
 
IN a PC map there is no GOOD reason to lay the map out in any other way other than North being at the top.  Name one GOOD reason?  Right.  There isn't one.  If there were you may as well place North at the bottom.  Ridiculous?  You betcha. 
 
Now, if you go on about that the game is based on a board game... there are plenty of PC games that were designed based on existing board games... Axis and Allies, Third Reich, WiF, etc.   
 
I'd like to hear the Dev's response as to why North is not up...
 
and yeah, if you continue with that analogy of board games then you may as well do what was suggested above (albeit tongue in cheek) to rotate your monitor.  You wouldn't really do that would you?  I didn't think so. [:D]

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx? ... 00&mpage=2

The reason for the Dev team choice is the following one:

1: Look at the map and try to mentaly flip it it: "Hey! it does not fit in the squared frame anymore!" (the European battlefield is longer than large)
2: This means you'll need a bigger frame to display your new "horizontal" map.
3: Hey, this bigger map needs much more graphic ressources!!!

Have to agree. Not one good reason, but two.[:)]

Flipping monitors......
http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread. ... rientation[:)]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/331547/rotating_monitor/

Me thinks it's a bad design decision.  I'm not alone in this.  None of the excuses above are even relevant. [:D]

ORIGINAL: geozero

The analogies of boardgaming to PC gaming crack me up...

...Which is a deep pity, since the scraps of wisdom that one could keep from board wargaming are, thus, being lost [:)]

In a board game, if you are lucky enough to have people to play or play it at a gaming convention, it lays out FLAT on a table.  It doesn't hang from a wall.
  You get to see THE ENTIRE MAP not just a small area, and so you get a better sense and perspective of overall strategy and immersion into the gaming experience.  You can, and will, walk around the table, and view the map from several angles.  

True (but not always), and see also my perplexity at WitP: AE still being limited at 1024x768 rez. However, the point is not this one.

In a PC game you don't see the entire map layed out in front of you... even if you zoom all the way out or have a jump map area, the "map" is limited by the size of your monitor.  BIG DIFFERENCE than having several square feet of map area layed out on a table. 

I agree how this is, traditionally, an added problem in grasping the overall strategic situation. However, this is true even with maps where North is upwards.

IN a PC map there is no GOOD reason to lay the map out in any other way other than North being at the top.  Name one GOOD reason?  Right.  There isn't one.

Stop right there.

Yes, there is one good reason: the layout of the frontline.

Have you ever wondered why, in military speak, you have a "right flank, a cernter, a left flank, a rear area" etc.?

People, when facing an adversary, do look towards him (or they). This is not only true in battle, but in activities ranging to many sposrts (Football, Soccer, Rugby, Tennis...) to Chess and other games. In such a situation, no one is bothered to know where "north" is: only were a certain enemy is in relation to his spatial perception: on the left, in the centre, on the right, in rearguard/reserve, or wreaking havoc to your own rearguard.

And, in a field of battle, if you are not in a melee or in an ambush-type situation, the two groups start facing each other. This is true across human military history, from the ancient battles to the modern frontlines.

So, it actually makes a lot of sense to orient a map so that all the main frontlines run from left to right. I played AH: Stalingrad to death always sitting in front of my adversary, with the map turned 90°, because it was this way that the Germans and the Russians faced each other on the Eastern Front.

I can accept if someone says "I'm unable to play with a rotated map because I'm unable to orient myself if North is not up". As I wrote, I do not find this a problem, as I can orient myself perfectly even with an upside-down map (like, for example, in an hypotetical invasion of South America by North America with me playing N. America). I can accept that people may see the thing differently. However, that "there is no reason to rotate a map" is, simply, not true.

I'd like to hear the Dev's response as to why North is not up...

It is explicitly stated on page 9 of the just published revised manual:

"2.2 The Map

The game map is a 2D representation of Europe. (NB: the map was
rotated in order to show both the Western and Eastern fronts on a
horizontal plane, and areas outside the main combat zones have been
excluded)."

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta
(NB: the map was rotated in order to show both the Western and Eastern fronts on a
horizontal plane, and areas outside the main combat zones have been
excluded)."

It's probably just me, but this would have made equal sense if it had said "the map was *not* rotated in order to show both the Western and Eastern fronts on a vertical plane, and areas outside the main combat zones have been excluded)."

In other words : it's what the developer liked, no other rationalization needed.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

I genuinely do not think the developer gave it a second thought. I really do think it was a case of "I'm recreating a boardgame on WWI" and aligned the map as it was in the boardgame without even thinking about it.
 
There is no real need to delve into it any further than that. Seems obvious to me that's what happened. That's how the map in the boardgame was, he was making a computerised version of it, he recreated it faithfully...clearly to the detriment of some people.

It's probably just me, but this would have made equal sense if it had said "the map was *not* rotated in order to show both the Western and Eastern fronts on a vertical plane, and areas outside the main combat zones have been excluded)."

In other words : it's what the developer liked, no other rationalization needed.

Er...

Cue from 1:00 to 1:21 from "Men in Black 2" teaser trailer [;)]
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=o75Yyoonl ... re=related