Matrix Games Forums

I've noticed that the Map Maker tool will not accept any single dimension over 40km, and will not accept an area of more than about 900km.sq. Now, I *know* you don't think the game can handle much bigger maps anyway, but given there are ways to reduce the relative processor load (thinner unit density and higher processor speed being two options) and given that any user-built scenario is potentially buggy anyway and could overload the CPU (through having all of 2 (BR) XXXX on the map at once, say) I'm surprised you chose to place an actual limit on map sizes.

I could conceive of the hard coded map limits being an issue with an otherwise playable concept; is there any hope of removing those limits (or setting them higher, 99km*99km would be practical perhaps?)

Not sure if this is really 'support' or a 'wish list' item, to be honest.

(I knew I'd find something else to moan about!)

Having the possibility to make bigger mps would be cool, and always optional (the maker can always advice the game/computer could crash because of exceding recomended number of units/size).

I just wonder if there is unit limit too.

The trouble with larger maps is that they are quite expensive to hold in memory - it's not just an issue of unit densities etc., and also pathfinding on larger maps becomes exponentially more expensive. For this reason the release MapMaker is limited to maps around the size of the Arnhem map.

We can sometimes stretch the boundaries with maps, if you have a particular map you want to create the easiest thing will be to let me know the dimensions in metres and the contour interval and I can create a blank for you to use, which you will be able to open in your MapMaker. Or I will tell you if it's just too too big [:)]

Regards
33

ORIGINAL: KNac007

Having the possibility to make bigger mps would be cool, and always optional (the maker can always advice the game/computer could crash because of exceding recomended number of units/size).

I just wonder if there is unit limit too.

There is no hard-coded unit limit. One thing that influences game performance is unit density during a scenario. The more units can see each other and are reacting and so on, the more processing happens. If you put 400 units on a 1200 square kilometer map, it will probably be ok though you wouldn't want to go for many more units than that. If you put those 400 units on a 400 square kilometer map, the game will slow to a crawl.

Although there is always a strong temptation to make huge maps and scenarios involving a 'cast of thousands', remember that some of the most enjoyable scenarios are quite small. A small map also doesn't mean there is no room for manoeuvre; it just means you have to keep the forces small so they can move around without always bumping into each other. Some of the Crete battle areas are really quite tiny, but because the forces engaged are not large, there is still plenty of room to go for flanks and gaps and so on. Likewise, if memory serves me correctly the Canadian sector on D-Day was about 14 kilometers wide, but they only landed two brigades (with a third following on later) which gives you an idea of the force density.

I would recommend on full-size maps (900-1200 square kilometers) that you restrict yourself to 400 to 500 units. On smaller maps, decrease the number of units.

Bear in mind that all that matters is the number of units on the map. You can have as many as you like on the force list but it's only the ones you place on the map at start or bring on as reinforcements that will create a load on the processor.

Regards
33

Thanks for the info.

About the D-Day, yes, that's right. But after the invasion, the force density was huge on the allied side (in fact a lot of the failed british operations in Caen were IN PART due to that huge force density and discoordination, what makes me wonder about one thing, but I will do it in the main HTTR forum).