What makes a good CM QB Map?

[kineas]

The problem with the random maps is that they are unrealistic. The game generates a 'terrain soup' (quoting JasonC). IRL woods don't grow in 20x20m patches. You either have woods, or vast spaces of open terrain, you can't find a wood patch every 100m or so.

Other luck factor is the flag placement. Sometimes one side has LOS to the flags from the setup area, so he can put his ATGs or FOs to a very good use, while the other side has to rush all across the map.

Personally I prefer human made maps for QBs.

[Mr Yormsha]

Personally I quite like the idea of thinking up some sort of idea behind the game you're going to play before designing the map.

maybe the game is a partisan sweep, so you could draw up lots of different set up areas in a big 'wooded' map and then let the germans hunt down partisans. maybe the germans are trying to escape a late war russian encirclement, so the russians could set up on either flank. (Then forces and purchase restrictions may be discussed beforehand too.)

When it comes to building a map i generate the map first in the random map generator. then wait till i get the map contours I'm happy with. (the computer gives a much more natural random feel to hills and contours IMHO.) then i wipe the map clean. then add terrain and then the rest of the stuff.

My two penneth...

[Ratzki]

When it comes to building a map i generate the map first in the random map generator. then wait till i get the map contours I'm happy with. (the computer gives a much more natural random feel to hills and contours IMHO.) then i wipe the map clean. then add terrain and then the rest of the stuff.

My two penneth...

That is basically what I have been doing with my maps in the Maps Section. Other then I feel that the AI uses too much in the way of elevation change, so I shrink down the size and height of both the hills and lowlands as well. Woods should be found in either larger patches then the AI makes and/or above a certain elevation where the land is poor and unused for farms and fields.

Personally I quite like the idea of thinking up some sort of idea behind the game you're going to play before designing the map. ...
(Then forces and purchase restrictions may be discussed beforehand too.)

Another good point Mr Yormsha, I agree, why not put some time into the setup of the game, this way you get a much more balanced game(potentially) and probably a more enjoyable game as you are playing exactly what you want.

[Zemke]

The random computer generated maps are usually not very realistic, but do save a lot of time. I prefer a ready made map, and have made many and downloaded several. Most tend to be "similar" to medium hills and woods maps because 90% of players set the computer generated maps settings that way for the sake of fairness. The problem with realistic maps is they don't make for very good meeting engagements, (the most popular CM battles) or very fair attack/defend battles, and I would argue no one wants to play realistic CM battles anyway. Realistic battles do not make for very good ladder matches.

ME/QB battles are the most popular type of battle played and certainly the most unrealistic. Popular because they are perceived to be the most "fair" battle type for ladder purposes. The most unrealistic because meeting engagements DO NOT turn into the blood fest CM ME QBs do. Regardless of the map type, as soon you make "contact" with the enemy, you are not going to charge or attack. You are going to stop all movement, deploy forces, and try and determine the extent of the enemy you face, and even if equal, set up a hasty defense, only a fool would attack with equal combat power. But that is what happens in CM battles no matter what the map is.

Attack defend battles are also not very realistic, but more so than the usual QB meeting engagement and maps for them are also the middle of the road, medium everything type. (Makes you wonder how either side ever fought over the plains and steppes' of Europe.) Maps are only part of the issue in attack / defend battles. The other is force ratios, time to recon the enemy and time to conduct the attack. Force ratios for any kind of attack, hasty or deliberate, are usually no less than three to one in combat power, (and frankly much more if you can get it), some idea of enemy positions from a previous recon and a detailed study of the map. If time allows the commander will recon the avenues of approach himself, in CM this would the equal to putting the view at gound level and following the proposes axis of advance to see the details of the terrain, (which most PBEM games turn into, who has done the best "detailed" micro management of every single unit). Try telling an opponent you want to attack him with four or five to one odds, 40% of his positions known and oh by the way, I will be dropping more artillery rounds on you by a factor of five than the game supports. That is a real world attack which is frankly only fun for the attacking player.

An additional problem of Combat Mission battles is they are all executed in isolation, and will never accurately reflect real world or historical fights because of that. Only the largest battles and longest CM battles come close, (and IMO, not very) to a realistic battle. Why? In a large, long CM battle you have time to conduct some kind of recon of the routes into the Objectives and (if you read it the terrain and your opponent correctly) you can mass just enough combat power long enough to have the effects you want, before the enemy can move forces to react, but just. Most of the time you will run out of indirect fire rounds long before you should, leaving your attack terribly exposed to the direct fire effects of the dug in enemy.

Perhaps if you imagine that for some reason, time is very short, all your artillery batteries and mortar supply trucks broke down or got stuck, you decided a detailed study of the map was not important, your higher commander was an idiot, and the lives of your men mean nothing, then doing the ME QBs or A/D QB could be realistic.

It is my hope than CM Campaigns will create more realistic battles, where the effects of that battle are felt far beyond the current isolated "battle in a vacuum" CM battles tend to be.

[Copper]

Hey Patrick great to see you round here again. Why not sign up for one of the campaigns.... IMO they make more realistic battles as you can recon... retreat of the map etc and not everyone is a fight to the death!!

[Zemke]

I just surrendered two games because my turn rate sucked so badly. I am playing a lot of Panzer Campaigns of late, which is taking all my gaming time. I am sure I will get back into CM again one day, just need to get my operational fix in for now. I will take a look at these campaign battles you taked about, that does interest me.

[Mad Baron]

Perhaps the RANDOM game called a QB, is best played also with computer chosen units, as someone mentioned before. I'm playing one now, and you just have to do the best with what you are assigned as the field commander.

(Otherwise, select specific scenarios to your liking.)

Of course, I'm just referring to random-generated QB maps.

[Kelen]

Is that not one of the rules of combat, " choose the battlefield that is to your liking".

But isn't that the whole point of a ME, that you're not necessarily expecting to encounter the enemy 'there', and therefore it's not a battleground of eithers choosing.

[Ratzki]

I don't think that commanders were walking around with their eyes closed and then, BUMP, there's the enemy. I'm sure it happened every now and then, but you would have a general knowledge of the terrain over the next couple of km's or so, and would be avoiding undesirable terrain wherever possible. I think that the ME's that would work out with little knowledge of the battlefield would be with very small scouting formations, infantry and light vehicles only.

[Copper]

Yeah I agree with you there Ratzki. Personally I prefer att v def battles but dont seem particularly adept at attacking.