anyway, i feel it no quiet with those name map. it was so easy to get
the right name for all of them. I say, what a pitty
It may be a pity for you because you know them by other names today, but these names are what units that faught there new them by back then...like schreck said. Hell, the names were taken directly from a military map, so someone 60 years ago knew them by these names
I am actually trying to understand your list on the first page. Is this how you would have spelled them?
For example Trois virages ? and Battle of the bulge
If I type this in, explorer asks me if I mean Troisvierges Which was where the command post for CCR 9th Armored was located. Even spelled this way in their after action report.
The list show what name useless. I mean what means nothing.
As u said all those name used seen battle on it ... ok But all those battle area was done
close to a town, city, " Lieux dit ". I guess it would be better to use this real town name.
And dont feel that so many name of town as changed since WW2.
Tout est possible ... il faut juste connaitre quand.
I'm from Belgium myself; I don't live as near as you to the Ardennes, but it's close enough to have visited many of those places several times...
I respect your opinion, but quite frankly, I don't agree with your criticism on the map names.
Let's ignore umlauts, accent aigu/grave and all other special grammar symbols; they do tend to cause trouble for some PC configurations/settings.
The only error that I've been able to spot so far is that the Magaret map should be called 'Mageret'. I assume that you're not referring to the pdf-stratmap included in the game folder, because that one indeed still contains a lot of naming errors.
But for the map naming, I'd say: thumbs up!
I'm also of the opinion that the map names should be linked to historically significant locations, as this adds to the game's flavor. Just reading through Cole's official history (or other sources for that matter) already gives a good idea on where the major engagements where fought. I think the stratmap does a good job at that too. The only minor criticism I have is the direct link between Stoumont and Manhay, without including Werbomont.
Note that I still think it's a pity that the startmap remains very Bastogne-centered and, in terms of map locations, kinda downgrades the bitter fighting on the Tailles plateau (Hotton-Soy-Erezée-Briscol-Grandmenil-Manhay). More generally, I would have hoped that the overall scope of the stratmap would have been based more on the actual German objectives (incorporating at least the Meuse line and allowing for what-if scenarios), instead of replicating only the historical battlefield.
But, once we get that fantastic tool to swiftly develop new stratmaps, all that will be perfectly moddable, no?
I would have hoped that the overall scope of the stratmap would have been based more on the actual German objectives (incorporating at least the Meuse line and allowing for what-if scenarios), instead of replicating only the historical battlefield.
This was hotly debated within the team...and still is
The choice was between more closely representing the area fought over, which we attempted to do or represent a larger area but with, basically, more inaccuracies built in.
Some of the team even wanted to go all the way to Antwerp and bring the war to a swift end.
But, no matter the area depicted you will have 64 maps to battle on - call them what you like they are still 64 maps.
The Bastogne area is well represented, true, but there are alternative routes the German commander can take... Strike through Houffalize can be magical if you can move fast.
Also Patton is set to arrive from the South, he also has two (maybe 3) choices.
He can open the corridor to Bastogne as he did historically or he can head up the Liefrange - Wiltz - Weiler to attempt to cut the Germans off at the knees.
3rd choice would be to sweep West Chenogne - Champlon - LaRoche to strike to the centre of the map.
Strategically the WaR operational map probably opens up more possibilities than any previous version of CC.
The choice was between more closely representing the area fought over, which we attempted to do or represent a larger area but with, basically, more inaccuracies built in.
I suppose it will remain a matter of opinion... viva modding!
schrecken wrote:
Strategically the WaR operational map probably opens up more possibilities than any previous version of CC.
I'd say the possibilities are tactical in nature, not strategical.
Tejszd wrote:
If map names are one of the big problems being debated in the forum then overall the game must have been pretty well done.....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
