East Front Map
Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky
RE: East Front Map
Seriously.. its very very delicious;)
We are working on a new map for Fite, and following your exampel seems to be the right way to go.. but its a demanding job.
I allmost wished it would fit Fite, but i can see that i wont ;/
Following your progress, let me know how it goes
We are working on a new map for Fite, and following your exampel seems to be the right way to go.. but its a demanding job.
I allmost wished it would fit Fite, but i can see that i wont ;/
Following your progress, let me know how it goes
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: East Front Map
I am glad about the coincidence...
You guys know that Goran once created a 6km/hex Barbarossa map and I have been trying to contact him, because the map can be used for my current project Kiev'43! Does anybody know where he is?
Here is a snap of his map in the Kiev area of the operations in November/December 1943.
Klink, Oberst
You guys know that Goran once created a 6km/hex Barbarossa map and I have been trying to contact him, because the map can be used for my current project Kiev'43! Does anybody know where he is?
Here is a snap of his map in the Kiev area of the operations in November/December 1943.
Klink, Oberst
- Attachments
-
- Kiev43.jpg (189.7 KiB) Viewed 210 times
RE: East Front Map
I dunno Klink dude. I'd be more likely to make my own. There seem to be a lot more topo maps available now with more detail. I'm really liking the topo maps at the U of T. How you translate all those lines from print to map will, of course, be different than how someone else might. That's why I'd make my own. For instance, I don't use crop hexes. They are too transitory and it's too hard to say if someplace really had a plowed field there or not 70 years ago. So I choose to leave them out.
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: docgaun
Seriously.. its very very delicious;)
We are working on a new map for Fite, and following your exampel seems to be the right way to go.. but its a demanding job.
I allmost wished it would fit Fite, but i can see that i wont ;/
Following your progress, let me know how it goes
Thanks. I'm kinda taking it slow because there's a patch coming 'soon' and I have absolutely no idea what all will be done with it. I would hate to have a nearly finished product only to find the new patch trashed most of the work. I wish there was more info available but for some reason it's all hush hush top secret I'll have to kill you if I tell you. [:D]
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Panama
ORIGINAL: docgaun
Seriously.. its very very delicious;)
We are working on a new map for Fite, and following your exampel seems to be the right way to go.. but its a demanding job.
I allmost wished it would fit Fite, but i can see that i wont ;/
Following your progress, let me know how it goes
Thanks. I'm kinda taking it slow because there's a patch coming 'soon' and I have absolutely no idea what all will be done with it. I would hate to have a nearly finished product only to find the new patch trashed most of the work. I wish there was more info available but for some reason it's all hush hush top secret I'll have to kill you if I tell you. [:D]
Belay that last comment. Thank you Mr. Cross. Now I can get back to work.
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: East Front Map
Kamerad,
I think it's quite OK'ish regarding the crop fields, most maps tend to be just 'open' and let's face it, how open can a countryside be, 'cept for the desert, uh? Besides, it is the Ukraine, the breadbasket of Uncle Joe. Not that I am too lazy to create maps, but what's there can be used. I got the OK of the Master himself now. Behold and get ready for an operational combat series of the STALAG 13 design team
Klink, Oberst
And JA, what's the grapevine 'bout 3.5, eh?
I think it's quite OK'ish regarding the crop fields, most maps tend to be just 'open' and let's face it, how open can a countryside be, 'cept for the desert, uh? Besides, it is the Ukraine, the breadbasket of Uncle Joe. Not that I am too lazy to create maps, but what's there can be used. I got the OK of the Master himself now. Behold and get ready for an operational combat series of the STALAG 13 design team
Klink, Oberst
And JA, what's the grapevine 'bout 3.5, eh?
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
And JA, what's the grapevine 'bout 3.5, eh?
[:D][:D][:D][:D]
Read between the lines. Or maybe just read the lines. Post #1748. tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=59#
[:D][:D][:D][:D]
12.1.1 More units per force (10,000).
12.1.2 More formations per force (1,000).
ROFLMAO
RE: East Front Map
Oh my goodness... heh... I think that would just about do it. Hopefully the world doesn't end for a few more years...
RE: East Front Map
Still chugging away. Not sure what I'll do if 3.5 falls through. Out of place names long ago.
- Attachments
-
- SEsmall.jpg (140.96 KiB) Viewed 207 times
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It really does look well made. The terrain, particularly in the North, looks much more appropriately severe than in earlier works I've seen.
I'm curious about the technique, though. This is the second half-finished map I've seen posted like this, where the map maker fully completes each hex before moving to the next. My practice has always been to do a specific tile over the entire map before moving on to the next tile. So, I do all the coastline first, then all the cities, then all the rivers, etc. I just find it easier - but it may be six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I wonder what the breakdown of the whole map-making community would be on that?
I usually locate the points I want to be sure are on the map, and if likely to be the center of battles, well within its boundaries. I then lay in coastlines, of course. Thereafter (using your lat-long thing, thank you) I usually move in 'blobs' of seven hexes, using Google Earth.* I decide on the terrain for a given hex and its neighbors, move two hexes down, and do that hex and the five of its neighbors that weren't included in the previous blob, and so on. Naturally, one winds up making adjustments so that things are consistent between rows. One doesn't want a hex that actually has fewer trees to be light forest while its more heavily timbered neighbor is 'clear.'
Generally, I do all the terrain at once -- although often I follow rivers and wadis out a few hexes, and something like the Nile gets traced in its entirety all at once. Then too, I try to skip around to some extent, so that my criteria will at least be vaguely uniform. Whatever a 'hill' is, what's a 'hill' in Libya shouldn't be flat ground in Anatolia. This is actually kind of tricky, as in flat areas, one will tend to make really rather minor irregularities significant terrain, while in more rugged stretches, one starts saying 'well, it can't all be mountains.'
Just how rocky is 'rocky'? An area may well be sandy, but if the sand's only a few inches deep, is it militarily significant? Militarily significant enough to justify doubling the movement cost?
These and other profound questions trouble the map maker. Like, if one applies the same standards that one would use for most 'wadis' in the Western Desert, then you might as well use the 'fill' function when it comes to 'wadis' in parts of eastern Anatolia and western Iran. All hexes would be 'wadi' (and other things). Sometimes I ask myself 'what's militarily most important here?' If it's the swamp, then I'll just have to skip the rocks. The program won't let you put both in the hex at once. If we've got scattered hills that wouldn't actually impede movement but would offer excellent defensive positions then the question becomes 'are people going to be more likely to be moving through here without opposition or are they actually going to be fighting?' What's the impact of most of the hex for most of the people most of the time? A small town in a perfectly traversable plain is of problematical military significance -- anyone who tries to defend just that would be cut off and forced to surrender anyway. If that same town is a port, and amphibious landings are likely, then I'm more likely to make the terrain urban. Folks are going to have to fight their way into it.
So I evolve standards. Like, if it's not a sharp and continuous rise of at least 15 meters, it's not an escarpment. Of course, these standards are fairly arbitrary, and I evolved them as I went along, so I wind up being suspicious of what I mapped back at the beginning.
But ce la vie. If anyone's unhappy with my work, they're entitled to a full refund. Besides, I have yet to actually release a scenario, so it's academic.
*as a footnote on Google Earth, while the pictures can be very helpful, you can't trust them to be properly located. Apparently people just upload the photos and put in whatever coordinates they please. So you're at the mercy of their precision. I've been somewhere in the depths of the Sahara and clicked on a picture to see somebody's villa with swimming pool or the pyramids of Giza. There was once even a picture of what looked to be a forest river in British Columbia. Caveat Emptor.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: East Front Map
Right on all points. It's a battle with yourself. Just because something wasn't defended historically doesn't mean it had no defensive signifigance. The poor sap might have been running for his life and didn't have time to do any defending.
I've done away entirely with wadis/dry rivers. When was the river dry? All the time? In the summer?. Was it bank full spring and fall? And what is the cut off for arid?
Then there's the, 'what constitutes a mountain'? A 100 square mile plateau can be at 10,000 feet with a 500 foot hill smack in the middle. Altitude 10,500 feet. But it's not a mountain is it? I tried to use the a military definition of anything over 2000 feet with a slope greater than 45 degrees is no longer a hill. But i only have a cheap map to go by so a lot of this thing was subjective at best. Otherwise it never gets done and your stalled at what is a forest and what is a woods.
I've done away entirely with wadis/dry rivers. When was the river dry? All the time? In the summer?. Was it bank full spring and fall? And what is the cut off for arid?
Then there's the, 'what constitutes a mountain'? A 100 square mile plateau can be at 10,000 feet with a 500 foot hill smack in the middle. Altitude 10,500 feet. But it's not a mountain is it? I tried to use the a military definition of anything over 2000 feet with a slope greater than 45 degrees is no longer a hill. But i only have a cheap map to go by so a lot of this thing was subjective at best. Otherwise it never gets done and your stalled at what is a forest and what is a woods.
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Panama
I've done away entirely with wadis/dry rivers. When was the river dry? All the time? In the summer?. Was it bank full spring and fall?
I tend to just the opposite view. The volume of water isn't necessarily the most important aspect of a river. Except in flat country, they usually cut or flow through a canyon, and it's that canyon, and the high ground it offers to the defender on the opposite bank that is their most important attribute (unless we're talking the Don or something). Even with something like the Meuse, the critical factor in the crossings was the high ground and who controlled it as much as the river itself.
So viewed in that way, a wadi is essentially a river where there's either no water or usually so little as to make no difference. Something like the Litani in Southern Lebanon, for example, while a militarily significant obstacle, isn't one on account of its usually quite modest flow. Nevertheless, it essentially poses problems similar to the Meuse at Sedan. The attacker has to be driven off the heights, and water-filled or not, the jumble of rocks at the bottom has to be bridged before vehicles can be brought over. Militarily, it poses the same difficulties.
So I've actually replaced the tile for 'canal' with the tile for 'wadi' and gone over to just using 'canals' for wadis significant enough to offer the same military problems that most rivers do.
Then there's the, 'what constitutes a mountain'? A 100 square mile plateau can be at 10,000 feet with a 500 foot hill smack in the middle. Altitude 10,500 feet. But it's not a mountain is it? I tried to use the a military definition of anything over 2000 feet with a slope greater than 45 degrees is no longer a hill. But i only have a cheap map to go by so a lot of this thing was subjective at best. Otherwise it never gets done and your stalled at what is a forest and what is a woods.
I ignore the objective altitude completely -- I'm solely interested in the change from the surrounding terrain. Things can vary, but generally I go with 'mountain' if it's fairly steeply pitched, higher than any adjacent terrain except perhaps for a knife-edge ridge line, and at least 600 meters higher than most of the surrounding country.
Subjectively, I see a 'hill' as something that is of significant value to the defender and/or hard to drive up. A 'mountain' is something where the prospective attacker goes 'oh God.'
It's all extremely relative. When I visited Gettysburg, I was astonished at Cemetery 'Ridge.' Around where I live, that would qualify as unusually flat. It's perceptibly sloped -- but that's about all you can say for it. Make that a hill or an escarpment and 80% of the land within thirty miles of here would qualify as worse. Then what do I do with the actual hills? Make them mountains? Mount Tamalpais, I suppose, becomes Alpine -- which is ridiculous.
Then too, a lot of terrain simply doesn't match the choices the TOAW tiles offer. If, for example, you ever drive across Northern Nevada, it consists of chains of high mountains interwoven with flat valleys that are perhaps a mile or two across.
Now, assuming one was going with the grain of the valley, one could drive cross country at a good clip in a military vehicle -- certainly higher than any movement rate OPART will yield.
At the same time, any defender would have his choice of formidable defensive positions. From that point of view, the terrain is not just hill, but mountain. A troop of Boy Scouts with a heavy mortar and enough shells could stand off a battalion trying to cross those valleys.
Now, at 2.5 km per hex, you could probably distinguish the flats from the mountains easily enough (although I'm trying to picture the setting for a scenario involving Northern Nevada and done at 2.5 km/hex). However, certainly at 10 km per hex and above, most hexes are going to merge both the 'flat' and the 'mountain.'
So whaddaya do? You should be able to move across most hexes as if they were plain terrain -- but you should be able to defend them like they're mountains. Put secondary 'roads' in every hex?
There isn't a completely satisfactory answer.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: East Front Map
Except for the southeast area by the Black Sea and a small spot around Leningrad the map is fairly done. Need more place names. Lots more.
Now the question is, how far north? With the current allowed map size I can get to about 66 degrees north. 13 hexes or so short of Kandalaksha. If 3.5 ever gets released before my death it won't matter but my confidence is not high in that respect given the lack of response to information requests by scenario designers.
Now the question is, how far north? With the current allowed map size I can get to about 66 degrees north. 13 hexes or so short of Kandalaksha. If 3.5 ever gets released before my death it won't matter but my confidence is not high in that respect given the lack of response to information requests by scenario designers.
- Attachments
-
- SE52812.jpg (132.98 KiB) Viewed 209 times
RE: East Front Map
The north is particularly difficult to map what with all of the lakes.
- Attachments
-
- SE6512s.jpg (111.75 KiB) Viewed 211 times
RE: East Front Map
I also have the complete suite of these maps (took a day to burn them to disk(s) - in order).
Ever since I played Piero's "Barbarossa - Tactical" for COW I have wanted to do my own map, largely for the reason stated above - because I wanted to.
The main difference (aside from my own interpretations of terrain) will be the scale. Piero did his map at - 8 km/hex - and used a 10 km scale ingame. He said in his briefing this was to simulate supply and transportation difficulties.
I really like this reasoning conceptually because of the chronic Soviet Mech/Motor maintenance issues early on and the Axis supply nightmare over largely country roads/trails/tracks. Also, while the game simulates tactical movement using hex conversion I feel this adds to that realism a tad.
I have resources and will research travel times/supply issues diligently. But your feedback on "the" appropriate scale would be cool too.
P.S. I cannot complete this scenario until the 2,000 unit cap is raised. Maybe RL will stop beating me to death in time for 3.5
Danke und Prosit
Ever since I played Piero's "Barbarossa - Tactical" for COW I have wanted to do my own map, largely for the reason stated above - because I wanted to.
The main difference (aside from my own interpretations of terrain) will be the scale. Piero did his map at - 8 km/hex - and used a 10 km scale ingame. He said in his briefing this was to simulate supply and transportation difficulties.
I really like this reasoning conceptually because of the chronic Soviet Mech/Motor maintenance issues early on and the Axis supply nightmare over largely country roads/trails/tracks. Also, while the game simulates tactical movement using hex conversion I feel this adds to that realism a tad.
I have resources and will research travel times/supply issues diligently. But your feedback on "the" appropriate scale would be cool too.
P.S. I cannot complete this scenario until the 2,000 unit cap is raised. Maybe RL will stop beating me to death in time for 3.5
Danke und Prosit
Find 'em, Fix 'em, & Kill 'em
- Robin le guetteur
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:48 pm
- Location: France
- Contact:
RE: East Front Map
You are doing a very impressive work, Panama.
May I ask you to try your map with my graphic mod and post the result here ? I am curious to see the result and check if I should manage some change on my mod for such a map.
Thanks by advance
May I ask you to try your map with my graphic mod and post the result here ? I am curious to see the result and check if I should manage some change on my mod for such a map.
Thanks by advance
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Robin le guetteur
You are doing a very impressive work, Panama.
May I ask you to try your map with my graphic mod and post the result here ? I am curious to see the result and check if I should manage some change on my mod for such a map.
Thanks by advance
Not possible. It would not look correct. The map is done with .png and some of the terrain is custom for this scenario only. I might use parts of others .png terrain mods when the map is complete but because of the custom terrain I would be unable to use all of any terrain mods.
RE: East Front Map
ORIGINAL: Grognard
I also have the complete suite of these maps (took a day to burn them to disk(s) - in order).
Ever since I played Piero's "Barbarossa - Tactical" for COW I have wanted to do my own map, largely for the reason stated above - because I wanted to.
The main difference (aside from my own interpretations of terrain) will be the scale. Piero did his map at - 8 km/hex - and used a 10 km scale ingame. He said in his briefing this was to simulate supply and transportation difficulties.
I really like this reasoning conceptually because of the chronic Soviet Mech/Motor maintenance issues early on and the Axis supply nightmare over largely country roads/trails/tracks. Also, while the game simulates tactical movement using hex conversion I feel this adds to that realism a tad.
I have resources and will research travel times/supply issues diligently. But your feedback on "the" appropriate scale would be cool too.
P.S. I cannot complete this scenario until the 2,000 unit cap is raised. Maybe RL will stop beating me to death in time for 3.5
Danke und Prosit
In an igougo environment 'the' appropriate scale would be tactical with one hour game turns. That way some of the strange things that happen would be minimized. However, the campaign would take longer to play than the time between the beginning of WWI and the end of WWII. [:D]
Because so many aspects of a scenario are subjective I don't know if there is any perfect scale. It would vary by individual.
The problem with igougo is one of time and space. How do you make one person moving while the other sits and does nothing make sense? You can't. Impossible. Not with igougo. So you accept this and make this system work it's best.
Norm did his best with TOAW. While some things do not remotely exibit logic most things do come close. Combat is separated from movement and all units of the moving side must adhere to the same time line so that all reason is not thrown out the window as in WiTE. However, even here that are problems with turn burn. How can a combat that takes an entire week to conclude also make a second combat 1000 kilometers away take the exact same amount of time to conclude regardless of any other conditions?
There is no perfect scale, neither time nor distance. It's what you want the scenario to accomplish that matters. Maybe that's why GG threw time and distance out with WiTE, so he could make it less of a thinking game and more of a doing game.
RE: East Front Map
etcIn an igougo environment 'the' appropriate scale would be tactical with one hour game turns.
Please forgive if my post was not clear. I meant what map scale less than 10 km/hex with a game scale of 10 km/hex.
My question assumes a game scale of 10 km/hex and asks what map scale < 10 might be appropriate to simulate travel/supply issues for this scenario only. (Barbarossa north to south - through the first winter counteroffensive)
Again -
I'm thinking of a range from 7.5 to 9.5 km/hex when I create the map and plug it into the scenario at 10 km/hex.Piero did his map at - 8 km/hex - and used a 10 km scale ingame.
This would attenuate travel and supply by the relative percentage between map scale and game scale and IMO add to realism a bit.
After diligent [;)] research I will arrive at a scale that suits me but I would welcome any forum feedback.
Thanks again
Find 'em, Fix 'em, & Kill 'em
RE: East Front Map
There are other tools to achieve the same effect(s) you are looking for and these will let you "keep" the original map scale:
- Movement Bias
- Supply Radius
- Enemy Hex Conversion Rate
- Supply Cost for Movement
- Radiness cost for Movement
See chapter XII of the 'What's new' doc for TOAW 3.4
At the time Piero did his Barbarossa these parameters didn't exist yet (except Movement Bias and Supply Radius).
- Movement Bias
- Supply Radius
- Enemy Hex Conversion Rate
- Supply Cost for Movement
- Radiness cost for Movement
See chapter XII of the 'What's new' doc for TOAW 3.4
At the time Piero did his Barbarossa these parameters didn't exist yet (except Movement Bias and Supply Radius).