Matrix Games Forums

Hello all,

I am looking at creating my own scenario. I have started to sift through the map maker and scenario maker manual, while thinking about what kind of battle or operation I would like to scenarize. I have some preliminary questions:

1) Can I create new estabs files or copy & modify the existing MGEstab file? If yes, how do you do that?

2) Ideally, what are the ideal ranges (minimum - maximum) for these parameters when building a scenario:

-Map size in km
-Number of units involved
-Number of days

3) Any ideas about interesting battles or operations that could be scenarized?

4) Where can you get good historical maps as reference in creating scenario maps?

Sadly, before the forum crash I had reposted some tips on maps and scenarios from the old BTS RDOA forum. Well, if I get a chance, I'll look to see if I can dig them up again.

I don't believe you can edit or modify the Estabs.

ORIGINAL: Tzar007
1) Can I create new estabs files or copy & modify the existing MGEstab file? If yes, how do you do that?

No.

2) Ideally, what are the ideal ranges (minimum - maximum) for these parameters when building a scenario:

Map size in km

min - none that I am aware of, though even for a Bn of forces per side you are going to need around 4 x 4km
max - 40 x 30km or up to 12000 sq km

-Number of units involved

min - one per side ( although a little on the boring side I would think )
max - 600 all up for both sides. Try not to have more than three divs on any one side.

-Number of days

min - 1 minute ( again, not very exciting )
max - probably aim for the ten to fourteen day mark. The real determinant here is that we do not provide any replacements and so you will probably run out of reasonable strength units.

3) Any ideas about interesting battles or operations that could be scenarized?

Here are some of the historical ops conducted by the Brits in late 1944/early 45:

• Op Blackcock - see page 237 of Ellis' Victory in the West Vol 2
• The Venlo Pocket - p 160 ibid
• Geilenkirchen - p160 ibid
• Tilburg - p100 ibid
• Op Veritable and Grenade ( Rhineland ) - p253 ibid

But please don't feel constrained by what happened historically. One of the great possibilities with HTTR is that you can design a myriad of exciting "what if" scenarios. A good strategist aims to concentrate enough strength at a point where he can achieve overwhelming odds. Hence most operational battles historically end up a fairly one sided affair, which is not what you want in a good wargame. You want a more balanced scenario. It can start off with one side enjoying a favourable odds ratio but it should provide both sides with the option to attack. Ebb and flow encounters are great.

You can simply create a hypothesis like what if the Germans had not launched the Mortain counterattack in Normandy but instead held back their armour to repulse the allies once they crossed the Seine. <g> this premise alone could lead to a dozen very interesting battles pitting the likes of 1st SS Pz Korps against 30th Corps for instance.

4) Where can you get good historical maps as reference in creating scenario maps?

We use the Australian National Library's Map Library. It's located in Canberra where we are. It has a full range of the British GSGS 1:50,000 series of wartime maps. They digitially scan the maps for us ( at a cost [;)] ). I'm sure that these same maps would be avialable through the equivalent library services in the UK and USA. There are other map series, such as the German WW2 1:50,000 series which is also very good. This should be available form the Bundesarchive. I'm sure there would be similar services in other countries.

Thanks for you detailed reply Arjuna!

Too bad we can't modify the estabs. I was thinking about doing a scenario on the Eastern Front. Guess I'll have to wait until Panther Games visit this theater and create Soviet estabs [:)] In any case, the more I look at it, the more I realize that creating historically accurate and complete estabs is a demanding job. There's a incredible lot of details on units, guns and vehicles on the estab tab in the scenario maker...

I'll concentrate on finding a battle or operation involving the British in late 44 that could make good what-if possibilities, as you suggest.

P.S. Mark, if you ever find again this info on scenario making, this would be great.

From the former BTS RDOA forum:

Author Topic: Scenario Design Q & A
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 04:53 PM
Hi all,

Recently some users have taken up my offer to check out their scenarios prior to
release on the unsuspecting public. There are some common problem areas and
solutions that I thought would be good to address here so we all can benefit.

So this is the thread to ask any questions about scenario design or to post any
hints/suggestions that you have found helpful.

Dave

[ December 03, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Arjuna ]

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 05:08 PM
Re: Command Structure - Avoid the single subHQ

A common problem is the command structure of the forces. The AI's allocation
routines ( for allocating forces to plans ) are not that good at handling cases
where a force has only one subordinate HQ. Eg. 10SS Pz Div HQ has under command
three single arty units and the 21 PG Regt HQ.

To avoid this situation reorganise the force structure. Using the above example
this can be done either by:

1. adding one or more other subHQs ( eg. adding the 22 PG Regt HQ to the 10SS Pz
Div HQ )

2. Making the subHQ the boss and subordinating all other single unit to it - ie.
Remove or ignore the 10SS Pz Div HQ. Make 21 PG Regt HQ the boss and
subordinating the three arty units direct to it.

3. Get rid of the subHQ and subordinate its forces directly to the boss - ie.
get rid of 21 PG Regt HQ and subordinate the 1/21 PG Bn and 2/21 Bn directly to
the 10SS Pz Div HQ.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 05:31 PM
Re: Command Structure - Combined Arms

Many of the historical establishments you will find do not reflect how a force
was actually organised. In particular, as the war progressed, all sides realised
the importance of combined arms - ie having armour, infantry and arty combined
into one force at each level of command down to battalion.

For instance the German Pz Div estab will state that they had three regiments (
1 x Pz and 2 x PG ). In practice, however, they cross attached companies to form
mixed or combined arms battalion battle groups or KGs. The exact compositions
varied from mission to mission. Typically, you ended up with a mix of tank heavy
and inf heavy KGs. ( eg. the Pz Regt might end up with two tank heavy battalions
each comprising 2 x Pz Coys plus 1 x Mech PG Coy, while the 1st PG Regt might
end up with two inf heavy Bns comprising 1 x Pz Coy plus 2 x PG Coys. The second
PG Regt might end up remaining as a pure infantry force, although it would have
been very common to assign it a SP AT Coy of JgIVs.

The AI's force allocation routines do not cross attach to form combined arms
teams. You need to do this in the ScenMaker. Simply drag the required companies
around in the Force List. For game purposes, a unit's "organic" superForce is
deemed to be the superForce specified in the ScenMaker's Force list, regardless
of any differences in names. In other words you create your own "organic"
structures.

Of course you are free to create "pure" armour Bns, but be advised, they will
suffer when attacking by themselves into covered terrain. I recommend creating "mixed"
forces.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 05:44 PM
Re: Command Structure - Reinforcements - Bring on the superForce HQ at or before
the arrival of a second subForce HQ

As mentioned earlier, the AI does not handle well the allocation of forces where
there is only one subHQ. Further, avoid overloading a HQ by subordinating
another HQ at the same level. Eg. you have the 214 Inf Bde HQ on the map already
but not the 43 Inf Div HQ. If you bring on the 130th Bde HQ, then this will end
up being subordinated to the 214th Bde HQ ( assuming it has the senior commander
). This will then result in command overload for the 214th and it will end up
with just one subHQ - not good.

The solution is to ensure that at or before the arrival of the 130th Bde HQ, you
bring on the 43rd Div HQ. This way it will take charge of both brigades.

The same principle applies no matter what the level of command HQ. This does not
effect single units.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 06:07 PM
Re: Objectives - Ensure both sides have an objective at the same location if VPs
awarded

There is no formal requirement for each side to have the same objectives.
However, I recommend that you do so where VPs have been assigned.

Remember that your overall victory is relative to what the other side has
achieved. Hence it is important to prevent them from achieving VPs. We do not
allow you to see the other side's objective details in the game. The only clue
you get is the presence of your own objective.

The task type of the objective does not have to be the same for both sides, but
the location and radius should be. If necessary, you can vary the timings,
though better to have them correspond.

Use objectives with no assigned VPs to help the AI develop a sound strategy. Eg.
placing a secure objective at an obvious blocking position for the first period
of the scenario. For these you don't need to have a corresponding one for the
other side.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 06:25 PM
Citizen,

quote:

Does each side have to have the same Total Victory point level?

No they don't. The actual totals will be converted into VPs by dividing by 100.
Use whatever values work for you. It's OK for one side to have a total of 100,000
while another has 2,000.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted December 17, 2002 06:18 PM
Question:

In the scenario editor, I can alter the strength of a unit in a few different
ways: for example, I can change the "% of estab" field, which will perform a
percentage change across all classes of the unit strength and equipment; or I
can alter the "personnel" field, which will in turn alter the "% of estab" and
apply the percentage change across all classes of unit strength & equipment; or
I can alter the specific quantities of specific classes of equipment while
leaving others unchanged (for instance, to remove the 40mm Bofors guns from an
infantry coy while leaving the 6pdr guns in place).

The question is, is there any way to combine these edits? I am trying to create
a battalion structure containing a different ratio of equipment from the estab (basically
weaker rifle coys with a bigger support coy). I can edit the individual
equipment classes, but if I change the number of personnel it then applies the
percentage change to all equipment classes, overwriting my changes. If I change
the personnel numbers and then edit the individual equipment quantities, when I
close the unit information window it discards the individual equipment edits and
applies the percentage personnel change to the original estab equipment
quantities.

Either I end up with a bn that is the correct manpower strength but far too low
in firepower, or I end up with a bn that has the correct firepower but contains
several hundred unarmed men!

What I am after is some way to change the number of personnel, and then make my
changes to the individual equipment classes, and not lose them when I close the
unit information window. If this isn't possible, what game effect is a unit with
a large number of unarmed soldiers going to have on the game?

Cheers
33

[ December 17, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Golf33 ]

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

From the former BTS RDOA forum:


This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
Author Topic: MapMaker Q & A
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted September 27, 2002 06:57 PM
Hi,

This is the place to ask questions about our new MapMaker ( MM ) app. We will
endeavour to answer them and also provide useful tips.

First off though, please do read the MM Guide which explains how to get started
in making your maps.

Welcome to the AA world of map making.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted September 27, 2002 07:47 PM
Tip 1. Map Underlays

Start with a good map underlay. It is always easier to copy than to create from
scratch. The MM allows you to display a scanned image ( bmp file format ) as an
underlay. When this is turned on, you can very simply draw your map layers
directly over the underlay. It's a lot like tracing.

So where do you get these underlays? We sourced ours from the Australian
National Library ( ANL ) which has an extensive map section. Steve Barnes and I
spent some enjoyable time down there perusing the WW2 maps of Holland.

Most WW2 maps of Western Europe are now no longer covered by copyright. So you
can usually get permission to copy these. The copying facilities available will
obviously vary from place to place. For the Arnhem map we paid to have all the
maps photographed by the ANL. This was reasonable expensive ( around A$600 ),
but at the time ( 1996 ) the ANL had no other alternative. We then scanned the
photos, composed one giant map scan and then cropped it to the area desired.

For our upcoming Eindhoven and Nijmegen maps ( oops I'm not sure I was supposed
to say that ) the ANL was able to digitially scan the maps for us. This cost
only a small fraction of what we had paid before for photographing and given the
large map area was well worth it.

For another map we will be releasing soon we simply colour photocopied the
section desired and then scanned this using our trusty CanoScan N6700 ( a 600
dpi colour scanner - nothing too flash but more than adequate for the task ).
The result was fantastic. This is the way to go for smaller maps.

I use PaintShopPro 7 for manipulating the mapscan.

As to scale, I tended to scan at 300 dpi and then scale back such that each
kilometer grid measured either 250 x 250 pixels or if space was a problem 125 x
125 pixels ( and space can be a problem on the larger maps ).

The steps involved are:

1. crop off any white space around the map edge.

2. measure the map size in metres ( across and down ).

3. divide these by a 1000 and then multiply by either 250 or 125 ( depending on
which is being used ). These gives you the pixel dimensions for the map.

4. resize the map using these dimensions.

5. rotate the map as required

6. save the result. I recommend you create a separate directory for your map
scans. You can name the files whatever you like. However, later we will transfer
the finished mapscans into the AA MapScans directory and here they must be named
acording to the instructions in the MMGuide. Otherwise, they won't appear in the
MM.

7. if you have multiple sections to compose, repeat the above for each section

8. open the file containing the top left section

9. resize it to fit the entire map area plus some extra margin space ( Here is
where you find out just how much disk space and RAM you will need )

10. Save As "My Map Composite"

11. copy and paste each section ( one at a time ) into the composite, aligning
and abutting each to the others.

12. crop the composite to the desired are

13. Save As your final map in bmp format.

If your map is relatively small, you can get away with just one mapscan file.
However, larger mapscans tend to slow down the MapMaker drawing significantly.
So you will need to break your final scan up into separate sections, named as
per the MM Guide.

You then move these into the AA MapScans directory ( create one if not there
already ) and hey presto you're all set.

Stay tuned for more tips.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted September 28, 2002 12:54 AM
Tip 2. Map Sources

As I mentioned in Tip 1, it's best to draw over a map underlay or scan. So where
can you source good topographical maps? And what scale of maps are best?

There are some online sources of topographical maps. Doing an online search on "topographical
maps" or "military maps" will provide you with a list of these. Some that caught
our eye were the Battle Depot, TopoZone and NPS Map Collection.

Offline, I recommend your local reference libraries. Many historical books also
contain maps.

For WW2 maps of Western Europe, the best maps are those produced by the British
and American military mapping agencies. Most UK and US maps from 1944 onwards
were pretty accurate ( though that doesn't mean they are perfect ) based on
fairly current aerial photography. The West European maps produced prior to 1944
were less reliable.

For the level of detail required for AA, we recommend 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 scale
maps. If you use 1:50,000 maps, then I recommend you scan these at high detail (
ie 600 dpi ) to avoid pixelation breakdown when zoomed in.

Copyright.

You MUST ensure that you have the right to copy the map or section. Most WW2
military maps are now out of copyright and you should be able to copy these
without having to pay a fee.

For others you may have to pay for that permission. In such cases this will
usually mean you can copy the map for personal use but not for republication.
This will mean you cannot scan the map and then allow others to download your
scan without seeking the permission of the copyright holder. However, you
personally will be able to use the scan to draw your AA map.

If you know of any good sources of topographical maps, please share your
information here.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
jrcar
Member
Member # 6271

posted September 28, 2002 05:20 AM
G'Day Dave,

the Wehrmacht made excellent maps in europe, they had been doing so since the
1860's (in the 1870 Franco Prussian war the Prussians had better maps than the
French!). The earlier series was available in the Library of Victoria in the
1990's, but I don't know where to get them at the moment.

You can use a map source to make a new map without infringing copyright, ie if
you buy a copy of an map under copyright and then use it as a basis for a new
map this is not breaking copyright in Australia. You CANNOT distribute copies of
the origional map though (ie scanning the map then distributing).

Cheers

Rob

--------------------
My wife says I have the body of a God

Buddha!

IP: Logged
Hertston
Member
Member # 4832

posted September 28, 2002 10:40 AM
Wow.. that NPS site in particular is incredible, I had no idea so much of that
stuff was available online. Havn't even got around to potential AA scenario
material yet, been too busy browsing the "West Point Atlas of Military History"
Napoleonic maps.

[ September 28, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted September 28, 2002 08:54 PM
Aloha,

Nice toy you gave us!

I loaded up the Nijmegen map to edit it to correct the (spelling) errors on it.
Once ready I saved it under the same name.
However once starting the scenario that came with it it keeps using the original
map.

None of the data is retrieved from the "FlasPoint Map Document" File? and it is
the cache map that is used? No matter what you change?

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Rincewind
Member
Member # 7394

posted September 29, 2002 01:25 AM

quote:

Originally posted by Grouchy:
Aloha,

Nice toy you gave us!

Glad you like it

quote:

I loaded up the Nijmegen map to edit it to correct the (spelling) errors on it.

Could you point out the erros and we will fix it for the next patch, ta.

quote:

Once ready I saved it under the same name.
However once starting the scenario that came with it it keeps using the original
map.

None of the data is retrieved from the "FlasPoint Map Document" File? and it is
the cache map that is used? No matter what you change?

Delete your current cache file for this map from your Maps directory. Then in
the MapMaker choose "Generate Map Draw Cache" from the Map menu. You will now
have a new cache with your changes (note that if you change the actaul map data,
either the Visibility or Movement effects values or add/change terrain features,
then you won't be able to play multiplayer with some one using that map unless
you fist send then your changed map. I would suggest not changing any of the
standard ones, save to a new name and do the same with the scenario).

Enjoy yourself

--------------------
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd


IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted September 29, 2002 07:52 AM
Okiedokie, managed to create a new cachemap

quote:

Could you point out the erros and we will fix it for the next patch, ta.

Is it ok to send you the edited map (358kb)?

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Bil Hardenberger
Member
Member # 44

posted September 29, 2002 11:53 AM
Another excellent map resource

These maps cover Southern Russia and all of the Ukraine in 100,000 scale (plenty
of detail for AA IMO). Start accumulating those Russian maps just in case this
engine goes to the East Front after Africa

Bil

IP: Logged
Rincewind
Member
Member # 7394

posted September 29, 2002 07:03 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Grouchy:
Okiedokie, managed to create a new cachemap

quote:

Could you point out the erros and we will fix it for the next patch, ta.

Is it ok to send you the edited map (358kb)?

Yep thats fine, paul@panthergames.com

--------------------
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd


IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted September 30, 2002 02:52 AM
Having some troubles with the map underlay here.

Followed the instructions above and in the MMGuide, created the directory C:\Airborne
Assault\MapScans, and placed the "MapScan 0.bmp" file in it. It's a 24 bit
windows .bmp file.

Click "New" map in MM, then "Map" -> "Bitmap Underlay" but no underlay appears.

What am I getting wrong?

Cheers
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
KNac
Member
Member # 8030

posted September 30, 2002 06:36 AM
It works for me, but the map conversion is very ugly and not legible at all Will
continue trying.

(I'm making an Omaha beach map, for posterior full Normandy campaing )

IP: Logged
Bil Hardenberger
Member
Member # 44

posted September 30, 2002 09:13 AM

quote:

Having some troubles with the map underlay here.

Followed the instructions above and in the MMGuide, created the directory C:\Airborne
Assault\MapScans, and placed the "MapScan 0.bmp" file in it. It's a 24 bit
windows .bmp file.

Click "New" map in MM, then "Map" -> "Bitmap Underlay" but no underlay appears.

Golf33, if you are following the directions and have named the file MapScan 0.bmp
correctly then it should appear in the MapMaker. It might be a memory problem, I
had that issue with the BETA when I was trying to work on my B machine... it
would not load the file as an underlay... however my A machine could load it no
problem (it was a 6MB file). If I made the MapScan 0 file smaller it loaded fine.

Or, you might have to cut the map into 4 parts (outlined in the MM guide) to get
it to load with no problems.

Bil

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted September 30, 2002 10:02 AM
Gee, I think you've found the problem for me then Bil

The file I'm trying to load as an underlay is 36mB - do you reckon that's too
big

I'd have realised it myself but I figured the lack of any error message (like 'out
of memory') meant that there was some other problem. I've got 384mB of SDRAM.

I'll try reducing the colours or something, the map is only 180 sq km or so but
maybe 250 pixels per km is too much.

Cheers
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
KNac
Member
Member # 8030

posted September 30, 2002 12:57 PM
Just curious, 33, what's the map about? I mean which zone and which battle do u
try to recreate?

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted September 30, 2002 09:26 PM
Bil,

you were dead right - the size of the map was the issue, I cut it to 125 pixels/km
and it worked just fine (around 9mB file size).

The map editor is dead easy to use, although the underlay I've got isn't that
clear so some of the contours are a bit tricky.

KNac,

the map I'm drawing is a 14x13km section of the US landing beaches at Normandy -
it's taken straight off Battle Depot, and is really just a trial run for me to
figure out the MapMaker. I couldn't see any references to copyright or
distribution restrictions on the site but if I get to a point where I'd be happy
to release the map, I'll contact them for permission before doing so.

At this stage I haven't got any plans to do scenarios as this will require a
fair bit of estab editing and with a baby due in less than 2 weeks there's no
way I'm going to have time for that.

Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted October 02, 2002 09:05 PM
Tip 3: Roads and Rivers - a trap for the unwary

You must be careful about drawing roads near rivers, especially major rivers. If
a road runs alongside the river and is within 100m ( the movement grid size ) of
the river it will probably override the movement effect of the major river. The
end result being that a unit will be able to cross the major river, regardless
of the presence of a bridge.

So it is recommended that except where the road has to join a bridge, keep roads
100m from rivers. The following picture is taken from our Eindhoven map being
developed. It shows a section where two canals intersect. For the canal running
east-west we have postioned the roads away from the canal and this is correct.
The north-south canal still has a road running alongside it. This is wrong.


Click to see large image.

You can see the effect of each on the Movement Map which has been zoomed in. You
can see that the east-west canal is clearly marked as a white line, while the
north-south canal is not distinct, with dark roads crossing it at several places
where there are no bridges.

To zoom the Movement Map we use Microsoft's ZoomIn tool. There are other similar
tools you can use to do the job. One day we will get around to incorporating
this feature into the MapMaker.

Until the next tip, happy mapping!

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Rincewind
Member
Member # 7394

posted October 05, 2002 09:23 AM
There is a Bug in the drawing of the Start map that causes the ScenMaker to
error when you try to use a small map (with a Width or Height of less than 8km).
The fix will be in the next Patch as we have already corrected the problem.

--------------------
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted October 08, 2002 07:28 AM
Tip 4 - Road Spagetti

Another thing to avoid with roads is having so many of them that the road net
looks like a plate of spagetti. A balance needs to be struck between what is
actually there on the map, the way roads are simulated in the game and the
ascetics or how it looks.

Remember that the movement grid is 100m. So if you have two roads running
roughly side by side just 100m apart, you effectively have a "road" strip 200m
wide. In such cases, I recommend you draw only one of the roads.

Similarly, many maps of western europe will show wooded areas criss crossed with
tracks or fire trails. The area north of Arnhem is a classic example. We chose
not to draw all these, but instead modified the motorised movement rates for
woods. This had the same overall effect and removed a lot of the clutter.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted October 23, 2002 05:23 PM
bump

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted October 30, 2002 09:18 AM
Okiedokie, I think I found a nice detailed map. Small enough to be used for my
first try.

Some questions, not all really related to this particular map, but nevertheless...just
curious.

When using the mapmaker you have the ability of drawing and placing "Fortifications".
In annex A - terrain Effects Chart there is however no mention of this Terrain
type.
Is it possible to tell us the Movement/visibility/hits parameter for this
terrain type (or point me to the right page of the manual if I overlooked it)

Dug In/entrenched/fortified: is it possible to give us the advantages which a
dugged in/entrenched/fortified unit gets? -ie the hits direct/area stuff.

Height differences: On page 85 you mention the (dis)advantages of them.
Q: are unit movement rates also effected, -ie a unit moving up will move slower
then when it moves down. Or if the mapdesigner makes it steep enough it will be
unsuitable terrain for motorized units? (a mapdesigner uses a height 0 meters
and then steps to 40 meters (designed a cliff))

Groeten,

Mark

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted October 30, 2002 10:14 AM

quote:

Originally posted by Grouchy:
Okiedokie, I think I found a nice detailed map. Small enough to be used for my
first try.

Just a suggestion (unless you've already done it) - you might want to check out
some of the threads about map making to see what everyone else is doing, so you
don't waste effort producing something that's already been done

quote:

When using the mapmaker you have the ability of drawing and placing "Fortifications".
In annex A - terrain Effects Chart there is however no mention of this Terrain
type.
Is it possible to tell us the Movement/visibility/hits parameter for this
terrain type (or point me to the right page of the manual if I overlooked it)

Try double-clicking on the "Fort" layer title in the left-hand pane of the
MapMaker - you'll get a window that shows you all these properties (and you can
modify them all if you want, including the name, for all layers except text and
altitudes).

The altitudes question I don't know the answer to, nor to the 'deployed/dug in/entrenched/fortified'
question except inasmuch as they are progressively less vulnerable to both
direct and area fire.

Happy mapmaking!

Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
KNac
Member
Member # 8030

posted October 30, 2002 02:00 PM
Grouchy questions are very interesting for me, as I has been doing an Omaha
beach map. I'm specially interested in fortifications, and in cliffs.

Anyway I posted a thread about scenedit/mapeditor wishlist (will bump) and Dave
already anwered some questions (I think).

IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted October 30, 2002 03:51 PM

quote:

Try double-clicking on the "Fort" layer title in the left-hand pane of the
MapMaker - you'll get a window that shows you all these properties (and you can
modify them all if you want, including the name, for all layers except text and
altitudes).

Thanks for this one, never knew this! Very nifty feature.

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted October 30, 2002 04:39 PM
Mark,

quote:

Originally posted by Grouchy:
Dug In/entrenched/fortified: is it possible to give us the advantages which a
dugged in/entrenched/fortified unit gets? -ie the hits direct/area stuff.

First off a unit's deployment state affects a vast number of actions and
decisions in the game. The direct and area fire hit effects are only part of the
total effects. Moreover they are but one of many factors used to determine the
hit probability.

The Direct Fire Mods are Undeployed ( 1.0 ), Taking Cover ( 0.7 ), Deployed ( 0.5
), Dug In ( 0.4 ), Entrenched ( 0.3 ), Fortified ( 0.2 ).

The Area Fire Mods are Undeployed ( 1.0 ), Taking Cover ( 0.5 ), Deployed ( 0.4
), Dug In ( 0.3 ), Entrenched ( 0.2 ), Fortified ( 0.1 ).

quote:

Height differences: On page 85 you mention the (dis)advantages of them.
Q: are unit movement rates also effected, -ie a unit moving up will move slower
then when it moves down. Or if the mapdesigner makes it steep enough it will be
unsuitable terrain for motorized units? (a mapdesigner uses a height 0 meters
and then steps to 40 meters (designed a cliff))

No at this stage slope does not effect movement rates. It's been on the wish
list since before the game was released. Now that we have someone actually
asking after it, I'm sure it will get bumped up to the top levels.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor

From the former BTS RDOA forum:


This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
Author Topic: MapMaker Q & A
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted October 30, 2002 07:37 PM
Since the topic seems to have turned to MapMaker wishes, I have one:

please add a selection to the "resize map" dialog box to specify which area of
the resized map the current objects should be placed in. This could work exactly
like the "canvas size" command in Photoshop.

The reason for the request is that it'll be relatively easy to expand a current
map by increasing its size without rescaling the contents, specifying the corner/side/centre
location of the current features, and then proceeding to create the rest of the
map around the bits you already have. If I can find the rest of the Normandy
maps I'll be doing that with my Juno Beach map (over a couple of months probably)
but this feature would speed the process up enormously.

Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Rincewind
Member
Member # 7394

posted October 30, 2002 08:20 PM
You'll be glad to know that this feature has already been implemented, look for
it in the next patch

Edit: Forgot to say how it works, on the resize dialog you can enter an offset
amount in Meters, this is applied to all objects on the Map. You can in fact
just move things around and not actually resize the map. It is a bit dumb though,
move things off the map and they will be squished up against the map edge!

[ October 30, 2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Rincewind ]

--------------------
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd


IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted October 31, 2002 12:52 PM
That sounds excellent, thanks Paul! Any chance of getting an advance, 'beta'
copy of the updated MM - it'd help a lot in expanding my Juno Beach map to
include the surrounding countryside & Caen. The only other things I can think of
that would be really useful would be the ability to join areas together, to edit
text once placed, to specify a 'cutout' inside an area to make donut-shapes, to
enable copy & paste for map objects, and to enable marquee selection of multiple
objects. Without these things, the MM is still perfectly usable of course, and I
wouldn't think any of them worthy of much effort if it could be spent on the
game instead.

Back to the original purpose of the thread, Q & A, here's a Q:

Can I use the "Line Embankment" to create a cutting rather than an embankment,
by entering a negative value? I've checked and the value is accepted in the MM,
but I couldn't think of a way to test it since a sunken road by definition doesn't
affect LOS from either side... From a game mechanics point of view, is there
even any point in doing this or will it have no influence on the gameplay?

Cheers
33

[ October 31, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Golf33 ]

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted October 31, 2002 07:46 PM
Thanks for those numbers, Dave!

Was working on my map today, after finishing the heights, roads, rails and
rivers I am starting to placing (single) structures/houses on it.

Further up this thread it is mentioned that the game uses 100 meters grids for
movement purposes. Now, I'm wondering: is the game engine using the same 100
meter grids for the terrain.

For instance; if I place a 24x24 meter "Factory" tile on the map, will the
terrain parameters be effective for a 24x24 area or an 100x100 area?

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted October 31, 2002 08:27 PM
Grouchy,

No for terrain effects it will work out the pro-rata share that each terrain has
on the occuppied area of the unit. Eg lets say we are firing at en enemy company
that has an occuped area measuring 200 x 200m and it is in clear terrain save
for a factory measuring 50 x 200. Let us also assume that the factory would
provide a hit effects mod of 50%. Then the terrain effect applied will be 87.5%
( 1.0 - (.25 x .5) ).

If woods accounted for a further 50 x 200m portion of the occuppied area and it
had a 75% effect mod, then the overall terrain effect would be 68.75% ( 1.0 - ((.25
x .5)+(.25 x .75)) ).

But please remember that there are many factors taken into account other than
terrain for determining hit effects.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted November 02, 2002 02:17 PM
Thanks again for the info!

[edited]
Nevermind, enlarged my map and removed the rivers so I could open my small map.

[ November 02, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Grouchy ]

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 04, 2002 12:28 PM
Tip: Maps with more than 100m altitude difference

For maps with large altitude differences, the 10-layer limit in AA means you can't
simply trace all the map contours as you can for a map with 10m contours and
less than a 100m altitude change across the whole map. There are two solutions;
the easiest (but less elegant if the map is only just over the 100m altitude
change mark) is to set the altitude layer size to 20m and simply trace every
second contour. The harder but more elegant solution, for maps with an altitude
change of up to 150m, is to interpolate the contours as shown here:



Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
KNac
Member
Member # 8030

posted November 04, 2002 02:16 PM
The thirs solution, and the best IMO is that Panther Games team add more
altitude layers to the secenario make (add this to the wish list guys

We can life with it, but it will be a bit difficult when:
-We try to plug in diffrent maps with different altitude layers, because one map
having more than 100m and other no (unless previusly you have used same layers
for both maps).
This will be the case in the maps Steve and me are modelling (british AO in
Normandy), and I think we will have some problems with this is the future.
-You have large differences in altitudes, it is going to be fun trying to map
some map based on the Italy campaing, we will see how it runs.

I hope that the team decides to add at least to 200m (but 300m would rock).

IP: Logged
Agua
Member
Member # 4852

posted November 07, 2002 01:49 PM
Guys, I guess this is really more of a scenario question, but the map I'm
screwing around with represents locations where artillery batteries were
encountered around the Ste. Mere-Eglise area by elements of the US 101st. When (if)
I eventually create a scenario for the map, can I give a "defend" order that
would keep the battery in place and, is there anything in the map maker that I
should utilize that would help ensure the batteries don't begin executing orders
to haul ass all over the map?

Thanks in advance.

--------------------
Earn this... Earn it.

-Capt. John H. Miller
June 13, 1944

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted November 07, 2002 04:21 PM
Agua,

quote:

Originally posted by Agua:
Guys, I guess this is really more of a scenario question, but the map I'm
screwing around with represents locations where artillery batteries were
encountered around the Ste. Mere-Eglise area by elements of the US 101st. When (if)
I eventually create a scenario for the map, can I give a "defend" order that
would keep the battery in place and, is there anything in the map maker that I
should utilize that would help ensure the batteries don't begin executing orders
to haul ass all over the map?

Thanks in advance.

What is your intention here? Is it to have the German artillery stay in place no
matter what - ie. you want them to be "static" like the flak units guarding the
Arnhem road and rail bridges?

Currently there are only two types of static units in the estab file - light
flak and garrison infantry. I'm working on a revamped Market Garden Estabs file
at the moment. I can add a static arty unit if you like. What calibre? ( 105s ?
).

The other alternate is to use a standard Arty Bn and set its stubbornness to 100%,
give it a defend objective in its current location and set its deployment to
entrenched or fortified. This should have the desired effect of keeping it the
spot you desire. However, if seriously threatened and weakened by fire it may
still retreat off and, so long as the enemy occuppy it, an arty unit is unlikely
to go back there.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
KNac
Member
Member # 8030

posted November 10, 2002 06:16 PM
Some questions/demands:
-How can I simulate bocage country (suggerences please), I've been talking with
Steve and I got some ideas, but I want to contrasst it (and some input from the
develoeprs would help too). Take into account: visibility, cover, movement (the
vegetation layers are multiplier not replacer, think about that too). Which
vallues would you use, and which layer, if you go that way.

-Swamp, I've run out of layers and I need to create swamp (similar to marsh, but
vehicles cannot move at all).

-Make minor roads, roads, and tracks diffrent, so they can eb distinguised
easier... (specially minor roads and track, are the same!).

IP: Logged
Grouchy
Member
Member # 1904

posted November 11, 2002 10:05 AM
Maybe a hint for PG to add Bocage (& swamp country),
just replace the blue lines in the polder tiles to green ones

To simulate Bocagecountry:

Probally would take a reworked Heide or Orchard terrain tile.
Height around 3-4 meters enough to make sure it will mask the panzers/tanks.

Would use 10% for motorised movement and more or less the default movement rates
for non-motorised movement.

Visibility reductions:
70-80% for everything once deployed
Moving and firing around 40%

hit effects:
direct fire: around 50%
area fire: around 80%

--------------------
A cavalry general should be a master of practical science,
know the value of seconds, despise life, and not trust to
chance.

Napoleon

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 11, 2002 10:24 AM
Tip: Working Out Layer Visibility Data

When working out visibility effects for layers, it's helpful to think in terms
of "maximum distance visible". This is easy to visualise; for example, in the
bocage, if hedges were 200m apart then units further away than that shouldn't be
able to see each other.

If you look in the manual appendices, you'll see that the visibility for terrain
types is listed as a maximum distance units will be visible from. In the
MapMaker, you can't set this directly but you set the percentage visibility loss
per 100m. To get from one to the other, just apply this simple formula (Rpx is
the "Reduction per 100m", Dmax is the "Max distance visible" in metres):

10000/Rpx = Dmax

Rpx = 10000/Dmax (rounded off to nearest integer)

For example, in the default map, Village has an Rpx for Deployed Personnel of 25%;
this gives a Dmax of 400m. If instead you wanted it to be 600m, you would need
to set an Rpx of 17% (rounded off to nearest integer). So again, for our Bocage
example, if we wanted a Dmax of 200m, then we should set Rpx to 50%.

Hope this is useful,

Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted November 11, 2002 03:53 PM
KNac,

quote:

Originally posted by KNac:
-Swamp, I've run out of layers and I need to create swamp (similar to marsh, but
vehicles cannot move at all).

At present you cannot have terrain that allows movement for non-motorised but
not for motorised or vice versa. I would recommend you use marsh, but make the
movement for motorised very slow indeed. The movement routines will avoid it
like the plague if the force has motorised units. But if there is no other way
it will still move through it.

quote:

-Make minor roads, roads, and tracks diffrent, so they can eb distinguised
easier... (specially minor roads and track, are the same!).

Fair comment. We'll look into it.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Agua
Member
Member # 4852

posted November 12, 2002 05:41 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Arjuna:

What is your intention here? Is it to have the German artillery stay in place no
matter what - ie. you want them to be "static" like the flak units guarding the
Arnhem road and rail bridges? [/QUOTE]

Yup.

[/QUOTE]
Currently there are only two types of static units in the estab file - light
flak and garrison infantry. I'm working on a revamped Market Garden Estabs file
at the moment. I can add a static arty unit if you like. What calibre? ( 105s ?
).
[/QUOTE]

Thanks! The maps indicate these are four gun batteries of 155mm.

[/QUOTE]
The other alternate is to use a standard Arty Bn and set its stubbornness to 100%,
give it a defend objective in its current location and set its deployment to
entrenched or fortified. This should have the desired effect of keeping it the
spot you desire. However, if seriously threatened and weakened by fire it may
still retreat off and, so long as the enemy occuppy it, an arty unit is unlikely
to go back there.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the guns themselves would need to be rendered unusable after combat,
rather than to retreat and then be used again. That would be my goal here, so it
sounds like the static deployment would be the way to go.

--------------------
Earn this... Earn it.

-Capt. John H. Miller
June 13, 1944

IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 23, 2002 09:28 AM
More Tips:

Unreachable Locations: This often crops up when areas of impassable terrain are
close together (like two branches of a major river). The movement grids covered
by the impassable Major River terrain extend past the edges of the visible river
objects, shown by the blue dots in this picture:



The rest of the terrain is passable, as shown by the red dots. The problem
occurs when there is an area of passable terrain surrounded by impassable
terrain; this will prevent the map compiling correctly and will be highlighted
in red when "Show Movement Table" is selected in the map editor (making sure to
"Calculate Terrain Tables" first).

The fix is actually pretty simple - simply tighten the area in between the
branches of the river until the area of passable terrain disappears! It's a
process of trial and error - make a small change, recalculate the terrain tables,
then check by selecting "Show Movement Tables" to see if the problem has been
fixed.

Sneaky Impassable Terrain Fix: Where two branches of a major river meet the map
edge, the river creates a small triangular area bounded by impassable terrain on
two sides and by the edge of the map on the other. This will be unreachable
unless we either put a bridge across one arm of the river (which looks a little
odd, especially if there isn't really one there) OR we do something really
sneaky! The sneaky fix is to create a short segment of track, and make sure it's
end points are dragged right to the very edge of the map. This piece of track
has to start well inside the cut-off area, and end well away from the river on
the other side. It effectively joins the areas inside and outside the river, and
because it's right on the edge of the map, the player will not notice it. If you
look at the movement table for the attached map, you can see a short dark line
crossing the river on the extreme right-hand edge - this is the passable terrain
created by the track. This solution obviously only works on map edges and only
where the cut-off area will not be tactically significant!

Bridges: In order for a bridge to work, it has to connect two areas of passable
terrain, as shown in the image above. Essentially what we are trying to do is
use the bridge to join two red dots; generally this means it has to extend quite
a long distance over the river. The only way to test this is to use the "Best
Path" tool in the Scenario Editor - once again it's trial and error, make a
small change, save the map (remember to calculate the terrain tables first),
open it in the ScenEd and test to see if the Best Path tool will use the bridge.
The quickest way is to start with a big change - make the bridge obviously way
too long - and then progressively shorten it until it no longer works. At that
point, lengthen it again to the last working size and you're done!

Corner Points vs. Control Points: When drawing the points that define objects,
there are two types of points to use: Corner Points (the default) and Control
Points. To select which type you want to create when you use a drawing tool, go
to the Draw menu and select either option - you'll see a check mark beside the
currently-active type. Corner points are a sharp corner and the outline of the
object goes exactly through the point; Control Points are a smooth curve and the
outline of the object does not always pass right through the point. The huge
advantage of Control Points is that you can create smooth curves without using
hundreds of points - this makes it very easy to adjust your shapes later if you
need to! You can see the difference in the attached map by looking at the major
North-South river - it now has both types of points in it. The Corner Points are
displayed as a little square, and the Control Points are displayed as a little
circle. To switch a point from one to the other, you can select the point (so it's
highlighted white) and press Ctrl-t. You can also force the Map Maker to draw
the non-selected type of point by holding down Alt as you create the point.

Hope this is useful to somebody!

Cheers
33

(edit to fix silly mistake)

[ November 24, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Golf33 ]

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted November 24, 2002 02:57 PM
Steve,

Thanks for the tips. Just two comments.

Re: track down map edge to link otherwise impassable area. This should work fine
for human players but not for AI controlled forces as they may follow that track
in determining their routes. It's best to create a crossing.

Re: Corner and Control Points. You got these around the wrong way. Corner points
create sharp angled joins, while Control points create smooth curved joins (
like a bezier ). While Control points look nice, they are expensive. For each
Control Point there are actually eight hidden points, designed to provide that
smooth curved effect.

We have encountered a bug on Win95/98 systems which will not display a map with
too many Control points. By too many, this was a big map with every contour
point drawn as a Control point. This does not manifest itself on Win2000/XP
systems.

We're working on a fix to this, but in the meantime, use Control points
sparingly.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 24, 2002 06:05 PM
Oops

I've edited the post to fix the Control/Corner point mistake. I do know which is
which, I just typed that post upside down

Thanks for the info about the map edge & about the control point limit. Does the
bug also occur on WinMe systems? I'm running that and the current iteration of
the Caen map has a lot of control points in it (I find them easier to work with)
and is a 28x28km area. So far it's worked fine in MapMaker, ScenEd and game
however.

With respect to the map edge trick, I figured it wouldn't be a problem if the
area connected by the road was in a place not likely to be used in pathing, but
now I think about it again, retreating/routed units will use any path available
so will be likely to cross under some circumstances. I'll have to apologise for
KNac for some poor advice on that one!

Regards
33

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Rincewind
Member
Member # 7394

posted November 24, 2002 08:05 PM
What we really need is a better MapMaker.

If when you went to calculate the Terrain Data you had to click a spot on the
Map that all passable terrain had to be able to reach then we could use the
existing code that finds unreachable locations to set those unreachable areas to
imapssable.

This way the AI and the Player would both be stopped from trying to reach those
areas.

--------------------
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd


IP: Logged
Golf33
Member
Member # 9916

posted November 24, 2002 09:30 PM
Now that would be really shiny.

Regards
33

[ November 24, 2002, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Golf33 ]

--------------------
Fire support is an art form - the landscape is your canvas....And I'm not a fan
of Picasso.

The Drop Zone

IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 06:22 PM
Citizen,

quote:

I made a design decision to not run roads and streams through (stacked on)woods/city.
Instead I just cut gaps in the woods/city to run the roads through. Is that bad?
I just think it looks better...

It's fine to do that. However, visibility down the road will be unimpaired - ie
barring other obstructions, you will be able to see for kilometers. If you
overlay the road over the woods/city you can move through it at the road rate,
but visibility degrades pretty quickly.

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor


IP: Logged
Arjuna
Member
Member # 7393

posted December 03, 2002 06:31 PM
Citizen,

quote:

In the south, I can't get units to cross the middle bridge, no matter how short
the bridge span is. I even tried to fudge it by narrowing the width of the river
by enough so that the roads that lead up would extend their 100m zone across the
river

If a crossing does not work, it usually means that the algorythm we
automatically use to determine the movement grids along major rivers has
actually made one or both of the crossing points nodes impassable. The solution
is to either extend or lengthen the crossing point line or to reorient it
slightly ( eg if it was running north south, try running it NNW to SSE ).

Dave

--------------------
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor

Edited out email addresses.

ORIGINAL: Tzar007

2) Ideally, what are the ideal ranges (minimum - maximum) for these parameters when building a scenario:

-Map size in km
-Number of units involved
-Number of days

3) Any ideas about interesting battles or operations that could be scenarized?

When creating a scenario and a map, one thing to bear in mind is the density of units. For example, on a 14 x 14 km map, a battle using the max number of units, will run extremely slowly, especially on older machines. This is because many units are visible to each other at the same time, which slows down LOS checking - which happens every minute. If you keep to fairly historical densities you should be ok though.

Some more ideas for interesting battles - you could build a what-if series, using terrain north and east of Arnhem, to game what might have happened had Market-Garden succeeded. Use an attrited XXX Corps, supported by units of VIII and XII Corps, against the remnants of II SS Pz Korps, 15th Army, and anything else that might have been transferred to the front there had the Allies broken through at Arnhem.

Regards
33

Thanks Mark for re-posting all that info on map making.

I surfed the Web with some of the links mentioned in these posts but it does not appear that these WW2 topographical maps (from the British GSGS for example) have been digitalized and made accessible for download from somewhere. I've looked also if any local library in my area could have those but such collections does not seem that common so I guess I am out of luck on this.

If anybody knows of a site where you could order digitalized maps of WW2 era, please tell me.

I doubt if they will have the maps already digitised. They usually only provide them in printed form. We have to specifically order for the maps to be digitised and as I said we have to pay for this service.

Of course while you can't modify the estabs you can tweak things to get them just right. I've been able to do OOBs for diverse places like Serre 1916, Santiago 1898 and Gallipoli 1915 even one for Hong Kong 1941, though of course there are plenty of 'abstractions'. One way around getting anachronistic 'modern' weapons is to give everyone extra supplies at scenario start but setting supply for both sides to LESS SUPPLY w/c also helps simulate extended operations over a period of several days. It works very well with scenarios where supply was hard to get anyways such as Serre and Gallipoli.

Best regards,
Richmond