Close Combat Series :: View topic - Players Debate

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#16: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:48 pm
—
Sorry for the repeat but I gomered a few things in the post above, and couldn't edit the message for some reason.

Players expectations regarding playability, realism, and mission scope, will vary enormously, therefore discussion regarding map size can never be concluded to any one players satisfication.

These are the factors that guided us, when selecting map sizes.

The resolution of the overview and mini map degrades on map sizes larger that 25 deployment tiles square and becomes unacceptable at 40 tiles. Exclamation

In a CC5 campaign, the attacker or the defender is expected to occupy the whole of a map in depth. The depth is maintained by the forcepools and battlegroups that reinforce the unit. You can only have 15 teams, therefore on a map 20 tiles square, each team must defend or control a space of 16667 square meters. Each side of this area being roughly 129 meters in length and width.

Based on the above, and depending upon you force mix and mission, it could be concluded by some that a 20 tile square map is too large.

#17: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:01 pm
—
You don't need to have a team occupy every part of a map to control it, both in real life and in the CC games.

#18: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:51 am
—
But that would depend upon the map, the teams present, and local circumstances. Exclamation

Didn't you really mean to say, "You don't need to have a team occupy every part of a map to CONTEST it, both in real life and in the CC games."

After all, control of a map, is eventually decided by battlegroups during strategic movement. Idea

Simple force to space ratios, like the one provided above, have been used by militaries since the beginning of time.

Modern day equivalents, are supplied in field manuals for small unit commanders (i.e. companies, platoons, squads), so they may determine the proper frontage and depth required to defend themselves from attack.

These recommendations vary based on terrain, weather, and other factors, already enumerated by several posters of this thread.

P.S. At this point, are you stalking me Question

You keep showing up after every post.

#19: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Profetkaninen,

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:53 am
—
I think the biggest problem with the current small and medium sized maps is they don't give much room to manoeuvre. This gives both the defender and attacker very few options. The attacker can't encircle or flank very well and the defender cant use hit and ambush tactics in any real sense. The fight use to be concentrated on a few key locations on each map and tends to get fairly static.

Though a large or huge map with more units 30 or more would hardly be enjoyable because of the extensive micro management that would require. Introducing a boosted AI that could control your forces on the map while you focus on the most important area could help. But that will in a sense change the scope of the game to a level equal to what you see when hitting the zoom out (minus) button.

A reasonable fix in my opinion is to greatly enhance the macro level of the game that you control in the "Strategic" view. This part of the game is the weakest link giving very few options. I've only played CC2 and CC5, but between them CC2 at least gives you some connection between the battles and the strategic map. In CC5 it's fight till the end, in CC2 you could as germans ambush the allies blow the bridge and leave the map. Or as allies if all your AT teams are gone and the germans come after you with tanks you withdraw from the map and reinforce.

If the strategic level of the game would give more of the options that you would have with huge battlemaps and those options would affect the battles then fighting small maps to get a strategic advantage would be more enjoyable.

#20: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:16 pm
—

Profetkaninen wrote (View Post):

I think the biggest problem with the current small and medium sized maps is they don't give much room to manoeuvre. This gives both the defender and attacker very few options. The attacker can't encircle or flank very well and the defender cant use hit and ambush tactics in any real sense. The fight use to be concentrated on a few key locations on each map and tends to get fairly static.

Though a large or huge map with more units 30 or more would hardly be enjoyable because of the extensive micro management that would require. Introducing a boosted AI that could control your forces on the map while you focus on the most important area could help. But that will in a sense change the scope of the game to a level equal to what you see when hitting the zoom out (minus) button.

A reasonable fix in my opinion is to greatly enhance the macro level of the game that you control in the "Strategic" view. This part of the game is the weakest link giving very few options. I've only played CC2 and CC5, but between them CC2 at least gives you some connection between the battles and the strategic map. In CC5 it's fight till the end, in CC2 you could as germans ambush the allies blow the bridge and leave the map. Or as allies if all your AT teams are gone and the germans come after you with tanks you withdraw from the map and reinforce.

If the strategic level of the game would give more of the options that you would have with huge battlemaps and those options would affect the battles then fighting small maps to get a strategic advantage would be more enjoyable.

Excellent ideas. Something like player definable strategic triggers? Say when the American's reach Obj #1 the bridge at Map #5 gets blown, something along those lines. It would be cool to see. I do believe though that the work on enhacing the strategic layer should be policed and a better look at how to enhance the Close Combat of Close Combat should be taken into account.

#21: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:48 pm
—
It also depends on whether you're playing a single battle or a campaign.

In a single battle you dont worry about capturing land as much as VL's and killing so a small map is best. If it's a campaign you can plan on having 2 or 3 battles on the same map, so you can go slower and take the map in stages, VL's are less important because victory points dont matter. Attrition is more important in a campaign so you can capture the map on the strategic level.

Personally I dont like the huge maps, a godd 3000 by 3000 pixels map with lots of cover like hills forest or cities is big enough.

Favorite map - Carentan or Bastogne

#22: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Profetkaninen,

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:14 pm
—
As an example have a look at some maps for the 501st US airborne regiments landings on D-day.

First an idea of what 501st looks like. As far as I can figure 501st this day consisted of: 3 battalions, each having 4 companies. I think a company is a good size of a unit to take a map in CC.

An infantry (or airbourne?) company would in CC consist of something like:

3 - bazooka teams
2 - 30cal machinegun teams
9 - rifle squads
4 - platoon HQ
1 - Company HQ

First we have corps beachhead at the end of DD:

The green box marks a pretty standard CC map with size of 500x500 meters. The red box is 501st 1st and 2nd (3rd battalion was reserves to the north, se map above) companies operation area shown in next map

The green box are notably larger but still just a tiny fraction of the area where 501st conducts it's operations this first day. In CC5 the red box consists of only one map and 501st is a unit on the map and moves as a whole. I'm arguing that changing the scope of the game to perhaps battalion level would render more strategic options. This means splitting each CC5 "strategic" unit into 4 and effectivly reducing the area of a grand campaign to 1/4?

Consider this last image where a suggestion of standard battle maps at important locations is placed on the last map:

The blue boxes shows the placing of standard size (500x500m) battlemaps with more network like connections in red. The green lines could be direction of artillery support (from high ground) provided the brigade has placed a company with artillery there. Many interesting strategic possibilities could be introduced at the strategic level such as artillery companies, anti air companies, encircling etc.. But the point is that the battlemaps size stay roughly the same.

#23: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: CSO_Talorgan,

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:58 pm
—

Profetkaninen wrote (View Post):

I'm arguing that changing the scope of the game to perhaps battalion level would render more strategic options.

What about taking it even further, to company level?

#24: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:49 am
—
Why not an 8 x 8 map grid with maps accurate to scale

What's that approx range 16 - 64 square Km (depending on map sized used)

Maybe then bring in BG's and Fpool to accurately depict that strategic (operational) map size.

It's something I've discussed with a couple of ppl previously but never gained traction.

#25: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: pagskier,

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:52 pm
—
Nice post the one with maps
I've played only CC2 and since 2 days CC5 and The longuest day( I broke my CC2 CD)
But that's what CC2 was about why it felt to have a good following between the map

As for map size, I think it depends of the situation, like afrika long range desert map where battle were fought long distance
I don't mind seeing huge maps, since like htat you can use the 88mm use and use terrain wisely to subsract from AT gun fire and attack ennemy forces at right place
while normandy/eastern europ/urban maps need to be smaller because of the number of unit they use.

That is what matter the best, like the causeway map in the longuest day, the nature of map needed a quite big long map,
while playing an african map I would mind to see a 2km/3km map where I could set 88m that could shot a tank in 1/2 of the map
since it's wide open terrain, a bigger map is needed, while in close quarter smaller is good because you need a good concentration of troop to fight.

#26: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: southern_land,

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:36 am
—
One concept i played with a few years ago was a cc5 strat map of the Great war where each map was connected to the next ie there was no dead space... effectively the whole strat map would have covered maybe a couple square kilometres while the forces would have been strictly division vs division

the main problem as far as i could see was i wanted more than one entry/exit map between maps

example: on map A you could go to map B via VL Nth middle or south... which of course is impossible with CC.

the other option was to have the maps offset like a brick wall

A similar idea would be viable in a seige or urban situation... Berlin, Stalingrad and the like... maybe even the pacific?

#27: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: emifisa, Location: Italy

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:28 pm
—
For me the Small map is for Infantry battle, and Large for Tank battle

#28: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: CSO_Talorgan,

Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:45 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

the other option was to have the maps offset like a brick wall

Anyone for hexagons?!

#29: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: jockthesock,

Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:29 pm
—
Even in real life Armies never have enough forces.

Large maps:
Continues line of defence not possible.
Able to disperse forces so reduce casualties from bombardment.
Scope for attacker to infiltrate, or defender to carry out fighting withdrawal.

Small maps:
Opposite of above.

The map size comes second to the terrain on the map. Most maps have key positions that must be taken/held at all costs. Strong points, high ground, and VLs that cover supply or escape.

Balanced maps work best. An example of bad maps can be found in CCIV where many of the maps have the Germans attacking into a new map, start off in the houses, and defending Americans are out in the open. Not even the Americans defended towns by digging in, in the open to the rear of defensive positions.

Many maps in the CCV mods have elements like bunkers, wire, trenches, and mines so badly placed that they are useless. Pretty, but useless. The small bunkers in the Merville battery, can fire 360 degrees and have a clear line of sight over the the similar bunker next to them. Pretty, but unrealistic.

Just for interest, next time your are out walking in a flat bare arsed field, lie down. That's the view from a trench. Now you know why a little bit of high ground is important.

So size doesn't matter, just keep it real.

#30: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: diggin.robat, Location: Land of the krauts

Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:12 pm
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

One concept i played with a few years ago was a cc5 strat map of the Great war where each map was connected to the next ie there was no dead space... effectively the whole strat map would have covered maybe a couple square kilometres while the forces would have been strictly division vs division
[...]

Hi southern land! Did you had plans to make a CC5 Great War Mod?

Some years ago our old GW-Team had a CC5 Cambrai 1917 Mod in mind, for which I designed the strat map. As an allied offensive the starting map were retangular with a approx. width of a WWI battalion frontage. The BGs were thought to follow their historical routes. After breaking the trench lines the maps were growing bigger as was the operational space a battalion had to cover. Sadly, this project was shelved.
Basic idea was indeed to connect the maps directly, which in the end had meant less operitional freedom for the player.

cheers

diggin

#31: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: ssa2204,

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:38 pm
—
One problem I have with small maps is that when you are move onto a new map and the enemy is defending, often your space allowed to deploy is simply too small and confined. What ends up happening is your armor/guns/vehicles are way too easily destroyed by enemy guns or hidden tanks. Larger maps tend to insure much more movement.

Disadvantage to a really large map is if you have no armor, the game can move very slowly. I have had maps where my forces were weakened to the point I could not really move much. As the enemy just sat there as well the game was never ending.

However on a smaller map this is less often the case as you have a more defined area where the enemy may be located.

Personally I can tolerate a small map so long as I do not deploy in a space that easily allows the enemy to pick off half my team within 30 seconds. On a certain CC5 mod I am currently playing, this happens to be the case and it is very frustrating to say the least.

I think it comes down to small maps = good for infantry, large maps = good for armor. Armor on a small map is just pointless some as there is no place to move.

#32: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:17 pm
—
I liked battles on big maps in CCMT (in multiplayer, of course). They allow much more tactics.

#33: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: vonB,

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:29 pm
—
Large Maps:

Pro's: More room for manouvre, so less wham bam thank you ma'am...
Con's: Less challanging AI performance, particularly the tendency to camp on VL's. Can get tedious on a longer timer.

Small Maps:

Pro's: Better AI performance, and more 'close' combat. That's what this game is about?
Con's: Can't think of much. Maybe less room to manouvre.

One qualification:

Big or small, the AI performs better on the whole with fewer VL/s...

p.s. Mooxe, if you haven't already, how about a Plyers debate on the Timer? Short/Long and relative merits...? What's the 'best' (AI/H2H).

#34: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: pagskier,

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:29 am
—
I really enjoy the causeway maps

They don't have a lot of witdh but have a loth of depth
for long battle where you can fall back but don't keep walking around looking for ennemies

Similar maps with a bit more width would be even nice for other kind of battle Bretteville would be a good example

#35: Re: Players Debate - Map Sizes Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:29 pm
—
I like some maps of every size, but I think the medium ones are the best, example, CC3 maps and some CC4 maps. The perfect map size for me, and one of my favorites was the Kursk one in the Demo of CC3, other I like a lot is Foy in CC4 but my all time favorite is Schijndel Road from CC2.

Huge CCM and CCMT maps are not good for AI but they are impressive nevertheless. They must be great to play in multiplayer 3v3.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2