Matrix Games Forums

I said it before and I will say it again. I like this game. A lot. But we need bigger maps. As it is now only smaller battles are possible. When there are a lot of units the setup reminds me a bit of the Total War series sometimes. There is no room for depth or chosing the element of surprise by flanking the enemy. Most of the time a frontal attack is one of the few options. And most battles end up in a boring exchange of grenades and bullets after a while. No room to fall back and let the better guns, armor and optics decide the battle. No possibility for manoeuvring, flanking or ambushing.

It is not only PCO, I had exactly the same feeling with the CMBN demo (and other games). Bigger maps don't necessarily mean more units, but making better use of them.

I know this is only my opinion. What is yours? I just want to start a discussion, no need to get defensive or what. [:)]

I concur. I wanted to mention this in the wishes thread later, but I am very happy to duscuss it separately. Especially when it comes to the vast distances in Russia we need space especially for the maneuvering tank/mechanized battles. If there would be a quick way to get it (by editing xml or such.) i would do it immediately. Would it be such a big change in the code to allow 5kmX5km maps? A very little tiny patch would be more then excellent... 

Indeed Sztartur. Would be great if even that could be edited, but I doubt it is that simple or the people behind this game would have mentioned it. Could be wrong though. [:)]

And people with low end computers still can chose not to play the bigger maps or put the detail settings lower. 

Indeed, the option for larger maps would be nice. I wonder if it is easy as we hope? I am sure we will find out soon.

ORIGINAL: sztartur

I concur. I wanted to mention this in the wishes thread later, but I am very happy to duscuss it separately. Especially when it comes to the vast distances in Russia we need space especially for the maneuvering tank/mechanized battles. If there would be a quick way to get it (by editing xml or such.) i would do it immediately. Would it be such a big change in the code to allow 5kmX5km maps? A very little tiny patch would be more then excellent... 

I see someone has come out of wargame exile. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

ORIGINAL: sztartur

I concur. I wanted to mention this in the wishes thread later, but I am very happy to duscuss it separately. Especially when it comes to the vast distances in Russia we need space especially for the maneuvering tank/mechanized battles. If there would be a quick way to get it (by editing xml or such.) i would do it immediately. Would it be such a big change in the code to allow 5kmX5km maps? A very little tiny patch would be more then excellent... 

I see someone has come out of wargame exile. [:D]

Just lightly, playing a little against the AI my friend. But after I get familiar with the game we may PBEM if you like [:D].

Hi guys,

Have you tried a 2km x 2km map yet? There's quite a bit of maneuver room there for me, it's four times the size of the 1km x 1km maps that are in most of the scenarios. We do have plans to add larger maps in the future, but it is not a trivial task that could be done in an update. It would require some major performance optimizations to make it possible.

Regards,

- Erik

I see. However if it is "only" a performance optimization issu,e I would suggest to open the possibility. If my machine cannot handle big maps I dont use them or use them with low detail settings. If it can I would like to use them. Reasonable maps could be built with lesser forests if necessary. Any possibility for jut letting the bigger size without optimization?

I'll have to check with the developer. I believe the main limitation is a memory limitation rather than a FPS limitation (which we'd be fine with as long as it was understood).

Regards,

- Erik

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.

There is a structure limitation for maps that keeps a larger then 2km map from being much of an option. I've already had 2km maps refuse to play because of the amount of features I've put on them. It's one of the reasons I generally skip putting some things like telephone poles on my maps.

Basically, the bigger the map the more features are on it and I can max a 2km map out with features now.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I'll have to check with the developer. I believe the main limitation is a memory limitation rather than a FPS limitation (which we'd be fine with as long as it was understood).

Regards,

- Erik

That gives me hope.

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.

OK will do.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

There is a structure limitation for maps that keeps a larger then 2km map from being much of an option. I've already had 2km maps refuse to play because of the amount of features I've put on them. It's one of the reasons I generally skip putting some things like telephone poles on my maps.

Basically, the bigger the map the more features are on it and I can max a 2km map out with features now.

Good Hunting.

MR

I see. Is this limitation also due to memory usage?

The problem is not new. Years ago there were some very hot discussions on the Battlefront CM forums about maneuver warfare and on the inability of such games to model it well. Since the proponents of the Clausewitz school of "concentration of fire" dominated the forum (not to mention the CM fanboys), things got so hot that I eventually abandoned these forums for good.

As far as I know, there are still no tactical wargames that model well maneuver warfare as described in the USMC manuals (for example).

Henri

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 did try it. First of all I think 2000 points is the limit. It loads fine for me. Don't get me wrong, it isn't a bad size, but I still think it ain't big enough for the battles I would like to see and with the points of my initial post in mind.

Ok, well we would like to see larger maps too, but we have to overcome some technical obstacles first. Keep supporting us and that will happen. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, well we would like to see larger maps too, but we have to overcome some technical obstacles first. Keep supporting us and that will happen. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

You can rely on that, Erik.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ok, well we would like to see larger maps too, but we have to overcome some technical obstacles first. Keep supporting us and that will happen. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

OK understood. All I can say is please make it proirity #1 and give it as a patch and not after much time later...

Yes 2000 it is. I never play huge battles so didn't know there was an upper limit.

How did the map look?

Are you going to play it all the way through?

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. The technical issues with larger maps are major issues not little coding items that can be done in a day.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Yes 2000 it is. I never play huge battles so didn't know there was an upper limit.

How did the map look?

Are you going to play it all the way through?

I am, but not this weekend, since it is already gone. I will let you know how it goes. Besides, I've chosen 100% tanks, which isn't an awful lot. But perhaps I speak too soon. Will be continued.