What makes a good CM QB Map?

[Benlore]

Ratzki,

How long does it take to make a small/medium/large map/scenario?

[Mad Baron]

One last thought on QBs for tonight (and still need to read all the previous posts).

Entering into a QB (and I like them myself, game-wise), you have to buy units with only a vague idea of the terrain ahead, and zero idea of what the objective(s) might be. Real field commanders usually have some sort of maps of what to expect and what to go for ahead of time. But, in a QB, you are hit by total surprise.

Perhaps fair (and fun) in a CM QB battle...but not altogether all that realistic....

[Copper]

When using a pre chosen map it is good conduct to have both players look at it and choose their forces.... of course sometimes it is fun to have a good map with random computer pick forces as well... LOL

[Copper]

Benlore... the map I made for Escape from Falaise took me about 4 hours to make and everyone seems to like it.

[Ratzki]

For just a generic map, it does not take much more then a couple hours to turn one out. The larger ones take longer, but they seem easier to make as I am not trying to cram a bunch of things in to the map to make it interesting. Flag placement takes a fair bit of time as well as the driving of the roads and fixing a few things that would make the map too advantageous to one side or the other, like elevation and LOS. A historical map, can take me several days to get it the way I like it. Senarios are another story all together, by the time that you design it, playtest it against yourself a hundred times or so, fix the broken parts, upload it for playtesting, fix and repair some more, get angry and not look at it for a couple months, then finally finish it off, it can take months.

[Kelen]

One last thought on QBs for tonight (and still need to read all the previous posts).

Entering into a QB (and I like them myself, game-wise), you have to buy units with only a vague idea of the terrain ahead, and zero idea of what the objective(s) might be. Real field commanders usually have some sort of maps of what to expect and what to go for ahead of time. But, in a QB, you are hit by total surprise.

Perhaps fair (and fun) in a CM QB battle...but not altogether all that realistic....

Whilst I would agree that commanders would normally have an idea as the the terrain ahead, any real intel as to the lie of thye land, objectives, etc, are only really relevant to to attack/defend type battles.

If you are playing a ME then although you may well have maps of the area you don't know where and when you are going to encounter the enemy, and as such all you are going to know is that it is rural, smallish hills, moderate woods, it's daytime and it has been raining.

Additionally, even if you are playing attack/defend type games, and you have good intel as tho terrain, and even an idea as to the enemies forces; in real life a commander is not always going to have the luxury of picking his forces and often has to make do with what he's got or what is forced upon him.

In my opinion not being able to see the map beforehand, and only having a rough idea as the the terrain gives for a far more realistic game.

I would agree though that AI produced maps do produce some oddities, but then I've seen enough player produced maps and scenarios which are equally unbalanced or bizarre.

To that extent, it would be nice to have a set of player produced maps that could be chosen at random with no preview by either player!

[Copper]

To that extent, it would be nice to have a set of player produced maps that could be chosen at random with no preview by either player!

Nice idea... perhaps if we are able to produce packs of maps.... for various types of games one can be chosen randomly.

[Extraordinarius]

But in the AI's defense, sometimes it gets the map right. I have just finished a game with Extraordinarius that I thought had an interesting map. Realistic roads, plenty of room, etc.

That was not my feeling about the map. The "realistic roads" were good for him, three from his side and one from mine:



From there the terrain situation rapidly deteriorated. It turned out that there was a ridge crest right across the map about 200m on the hostile side of my deployment line:



Over on the other side, his towed guns could cover my one road from their starting positions.



The rest of my side of the map was rough, rocky and woodsy:



The battle played out as a series of close range front-to-front encounters between his Panthers and my Shermans. Guess who won...

[Copper]

LMAO.... amazing how views can differ... I see where you are coming from though Extraordinarius.

[Ratzki]

I am in the same boat with a game that I am playing. The enemy is able to cover the whole flag zone( yes, all the flags are about 150m apart) with two guns at their start position. Then he is on the reverse slope of a ridge that just about splits the map into 2 chunks with the flags on his chunk. I have to get to the ridgeline then try to assult the flag positions while being fired at from great positions as I cross open ground. Would not be too bad except that it is an ME.
I think that even in an ME, a commander would have a good idea as to the terrain that he would be fighting on. Is that not one of the rules of combat, " choose the battlefield that is to your liking".