Multiplayer Maps

[Ephrum]

Jim wrote:

As the October screenshot blizzard show, the historical battle maps are coming along very nicely.

One idea under consideration is to add some non-historical maps for open play and/or multiplayer. This of course opens up many options. My question for you is if we were to do just one non-historical map, what terrain type should it be? Flat, hilly, mountain pass, something else? :unsure:

So have you guys made any decisions in regards to non-historical maps?

After giving this some thought, a map that would allow for the possibility of a flanking manuver that could be hidden from enemy view. Kind of like some of the TC2M maps, where a combination of terrain and big patches of woods, could make that kind of manuver possible.
The reason I ask is, in the New Game screenshots there doesn't appear to be much to conceal a large movement. That is, I can see for long distances in the screenshots, and it seems that a large, manuvering force, could be spotted easily.

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

Ephrum wrote:

Jim wrote:

As the October screenshot blizzard show, the historical battle maps are coming along very nicely.

One idea under consideration is to add some non-historical maps for open play and/or multiplayer. This of course opens up many options. My question for you is if we were to do just one non-historical map, what terrain type should it be? Flat, hilly, mountain pass, something else? :unsure:

So have you guys made any decisions in regards to non-historical maps?

After giving this some thought, a map that would allow for the possibility of a flanking manuver that could be hidden from enemy view. Kind of like some of the TC2M maps, where a combination of terrain and big patches of woods, could make that kind of manuver possible.
The reason I ask is, in the New Game screenshots there doesn't appear to be much to conceal a large movement. That is, I can see for long distances in the screenshots, and it seems that a large, manuvering force, could be spotted easily.

That's because it is Gettysburg.

[Ephrum]

Yeah, I know it's Gettysburg. I was using it for a comparison, in regards to what I'd like to see in a Non-historical map, for MP/Sandbox play.

Unseen flanking marches......ambush.....unexpected supports/re-enforcements from an enemy your sure your about to break.....limited view from any given point of the field....

That would be fun! B)

[Jim]

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

[Amish John]

Jim wrote:

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

Will there be a key to turn the trees off and on like in TC2M?

[Little Powell]

Amish John wrote:

Jim wrote:

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

Will there be a key to turn the trees off and on like in TC2M?

Yes, the T key toggles the trees on/off, but it also has 3 more options.

First press - Turns half of trees/crops off

Second press - Turns all crops off, but leaves some trees on

Third press - Turns all crops and trees off.

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

Little Powell wrote:

Amish John wrote:

Jim wrote:

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

Will there be a key to turn the trees off and on like in TC2M?

Yes, the T key toggles the trees on/off, but it also has 3 more options.

First press - Turns half of trees/crops off

Second press - Turns all crops off, but leaves some trees on

Third press - Turns all crops and trees off.

That's cool.

[Kerflumoxed]

Little Powell wrote:

Amish John wrote:

Jim wrote:

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

Will there be a key to turn the trees off and on like in TC2M?

Yes, the T key toggles the trees on/off, but it also has 3 more options.

First press - Turns half of trees/crops off

Second press - Turns all crops off, but leaves some trees on

Third press - Turns all crops and trees off.

Will it be possible to turn the crops off and leave the trees on?

[Kerflumoxed]

Jim wrote:

At this point, we plan to have two non-historical maps. Both are very sparse with trees, buildings etc for performance reasons. One is fairly flat and the other one is not. The second offers more opportunities for unobserved movements but few trees as they take cpu time to draw. For the historical maps we put the trees where they were and take the hit. For the non-historical maps, we have few trees so even people with older systems will have two maps that the game will run on with acceptable performance.

-Jim

I can certainly understand the reasoning...makes a lot of sense.

Personally, of all the maps used, I find the Chickamauga maps the most entertaining. The cover REQUIRES the efective use of screening (read Skirmishers), just as it really was. BTW, who did these two maps in CPM3?

[Little Powell]

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Will it be possible to turn the crops off and leave the trees on?

Right now it's not possible, but the second press of the T key still leaves some trees while removing all crops. I'm not sure it that's being planned though, but Norb or Jim would be better to answer that.