Long range gameplay

[junk2drive]

When CMAK (CM3) came out I tried a few battles in the desert on large maps.
Mostly an exercise in frustration as far away, hidden ATGs, plunked away at my armour assets.
Setting units at real size, going down to commander viewpoint, and following the incoming target line, I find a little dot on the other side of the map.
I see a lot of people posting here for map sizes larger than the current 1k x 1k. When the day comes that we have larger maps, do you also want visibility to extend to the maximum?
Or is it just for maneuver room and you want short LOS?
Or do I just not know how to play long range battles?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

When CMAK (CM3) came out I tried a few battles in the desert on large maps.
Mostly an exercise in frustration as far away, hidden ATGs, plunked away at my armour assets ...

In N Africa, Rommel was very successful at baiting Brit tanks into revealing themselves, and them taking them out w/88s; the gun's flat, highly accurate trajectory could hit anything it could see.

My vote re maps is that bigger is not better; in fact, I found that very large maps in CM were both time consuming and tedious.

[Mad Russian]

Everybody has their own likes and dislikes. I prefer smaller maps at times too. Depending on the combat situation in the scenario. But I've lately made some Meeting Engagements on larger maps and they are mostly maneuver maps.

I would like to see the larger map sizes to facilitate Meeting Engagements. There just isn't enough room at the current 1km x 1km size to do justice to forces bumping into each other  and then spreading out to fight. Too much like a heavywieght bout in a phone booth for me.

The criticism about the tediousness of larger scenarios is possibly unjustified. It may be that you simply don't like big scenarios. Or that you don't like the scenarios where they want you to maneuver for a good portion of the battle.

Me personally I came to fight. So most of my scenarios are quick to get the sides into combat. But that's just me and there are lots of gamers that want to do recon then form a plan and only then attack. Too much busy work for me.

I make my scenarios for me and what I like so that puts me in the business of making scenarios that start quick.

All that means I would like to see larger maps for all possible reasons. Bigger can very well be better.

Good Hunting.

MR

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

... The criticism about the tediousness of larger scenarios is possibly unjustified. It may be that you simply don't like big scenarios. Or that you don't like the scenarios where they want you to maneuver for a good portion of the battle.

Larger scenarios don't pose a problem for me w/Panther's AA engine as real time can move much faster than turn-based, even if it's WEGO.

Also, locating entire divisions at a glance is much easier than cycling thru individual units -- even w/"coins" -- on a very large map.

That doesn't mean large maps shouldn't be done, but if they are done, they need to be done well.

[Mad Russian]

Considering that map maker takes the terrain right from Google Earth/Maps it is hard to imagine how it could be done any better than that.

MR

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

When CMAK (CM3) came out I tried a few battles in the desert on large maps.
Mostly an exercise in frustration as far away, hidden ATGs, plunked away at my armour assets.
Setting units at real size, going down to commander viewpoint, and following the incoming target line, I find a little dot on the other side of the map.
I see a lot of people posting here for map sizes larger than the current 1k x 1k. When the day comes that we have larger maps, do you also want visibility to extend to the maximum?
Or is it just for maneuver room and you want short LOS?
Or do I just not know how to play long range battles?

I actually liked the Flakfront! scenario. I thought that it was one of the better ones included in CMAK, precisely because the fields of fire were so enormous. BTW, I reread "Brazen Chariots" recently and was taken, once more, by Crisp's account of firing on, and knocking out, some friendly Crusader tanks from another Bde. He was absolutely certain that they were Panzer, and they were a lot closer than the ranges that vehicles routinely engage each other at in CMAK.

Darn, if I'm not off-topic, though![:-]

As I have mentioned before on this forum, the problem with the 1k x 1k scheme currently in use for PzC is that there are weapons in the game that can kill any other weapon in LOS, regardless of its placement on the map, on turn 1. Basically, you just line up the units and let her rip.

I'm aware of the argument that scenario designers can ameliorate this by placing hills and obstacles on the map to interrupt LOS, but that short-circuits the effectiveness of big guns, now doesn't it?

And then there's the phenomena whereby a scenario designer tries to work around what I describe above by standing the map on one of its points, creating a diamond-shaped battlefield, to try and increase the starting distance between units. That's fine, but it creates a funnel effect that distorts gameplay, particularly at the beginning and the end the game.

Finally, bigger maps would make maneuver a more important part of the game. How much larger? IMHO, 2k x 2k would resolve about 90% of the issues that I describe above. Someone is always going to come around and want something on the order of 8k-square, but pushing the size up like that wouldn't have near the impact on gameplay that a more modest increase would, again, IMO.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[junk2drive]

Stay tuned...

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Finally, bigger maps would make maneuver a more important part of the game. How much larger? IMHO, 2k x 2k would resolve about 90% of the issues that I describe above. Someone is always going to come around and want something on the order of 8k-square, but pushing the size up like that wouldn't have near the impact on gameplay that a more modest increase would, again, IMO.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

2x2 would be cool, but do you think they can pull it off?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

As I have mentioned before on this forum, the problem with the 1k x 1k scheme currently in use for PzC is that there are weapons in the game that can kill any other weapon in LOS, regardless of its placement on the map, on turn 1. Basically, you just line up the units and let her rip.

We'll see what the future brings.

I'm aware of the argument that scenario designers can ameliorate this by placing hills and obstacles on the map to interrupt LOS, but that short-circuits the effectiveness of big guns, now doesn't it?

New maps have not had that problem that I can tell.

And then there's the phenomena whereby a scenario designer tries to work around what I describe above by standing the map on one of its points, creating a diamond-shaped battlefield, to try and increase the starting distance between units. That's fine, but it creates a funnel effect that distorts gameplay, particularly at the beginning and the end the game.

Since I'm one of those scenario designers, and I have a bit of experience at making wargame maps, I'll tell you, I have no issues with the maps we have been creating with the patch supported systems. I have yet to see any distortions or funnel effects. In fact I've not seen a single diamond yet, outside of the coding efforts, mods and scenarios being made.

We've got everything from opening day battles to Kursk slugfests, Panzer operations/campaigns to the final days of the 3rd Reich. You will see more scenarios included in the free patch than are in PC:OWS and PC:K combined. This is not a small effort.

Finally, bigger maps would make maneuver a more important part of the game. How much larger? IMHO, 2k x 2k would resolve about 90% of the issues that I describe above. Someone is always going to come around and want something on the order of 8k-square, but pushing the size up like that wouldn't have near the impact on gameplay that a more modest increase would, again, IMO.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Okay. I agree with all that. a 2k x 2k map is 4 times larger than a 1k x 1k map. We get that. Bigger and smaller maps are coming your way...patience grasshopper....all this takes time to playtest out. The last thing we want to deliver is a great product with lots of bugs inside. Too much of that going these days as it is.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Mad Russian, do you really live in Texas?

If not, it's not a problem.

I only ask because you just don't evidence the 'twang that us locals are known for.

Sorry, but I just gotta know.

If you're an Russian emigre, welcome![:)]

Oh, and I make maps too, the scale is just different:

[Mad Russian]

Yes, I live in Odessa, Texas.

I've only been here a short time though so that's probably why I don't have the twang yet.

I moved here in 1978 after living in Germany for three years. After three years in Europe even Texas looked good....[:D]

I'm originally from Wyoming not Russia. The Mad Russian nickname came from my despising the way wargames portrayed the Soviets. When played right they can be just as hard to deal with as the Germans found them. What they shouldn't be is the Western Allies in a T-34.

I've been making wargame maps since 1970 when I bought my first wargames.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Nice map. Here's one of mine. From about 3,000 feet and in technicolor no less....[X(]

This is not a 1k x 1k map.

White area is village.
Blue is main road.
Gray are secondary roads.
Bright Green is a rail line.
Medium and darker green are forest.
The other colors are various fields on the map.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Yes, I live in Odessa, Texas.

I've only been here a short time though so that's probably why I don't have the twang yet.

I moved here in 1978 after living in Germany for three years. After three years in Europe even Texas looked good....[:D]

Good deal, we need more smart people, lots and lots of them, so we don't end up like California.[;)]

I'm originally from Wyoming not Russia. The Mad Russian nickname came from my despising the way wargames portrayed the Soviets. When played right they can be just as hard to deal with as the Germans found them. What they shouldn't be is the Western Allies in a T-34.

I've been making wargame maps since 1970 when I bought my first wargames.

Good Hunting.

MR

I've always enjoyed map-making, also. I think that maps were part of what attracted me to wargaming, btw. Anyway, thanks for helping Erik and everyone else out with this project. I'm certain that your contribution(s) will add immensely to the final product. [:)]

[junk2drive]

I think you will like making maps for PC.

[Mad Russian]

I think I will too.......[:D]

Good Hunting.

MR