Bastogne 1944 -- v4

[Minister X]

Map Name: Bastogne 1944
Mapmaker(s): Minister X and HitRed
Number of Territories: 293
Special Features: Two types of ranged attacks, decay hexes
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: This would be the third largest map in tert count at CC. Quite different rules than the other super-large maps. Site of one of the most famous battles of the last 100 years. Players will be challenged to devise successful strategies and tactics.

Original Map Image:

Click image to enlarge.

While struggling with the sizing of my proposed Ireland 1475 map I noted that other super-large maps made good use of hex grids and that got me thinking. What sorts of maps use hex grids? I grew up playing Avalon Hill and SPI wargames on hexgrid maps. The solution was obvious and I quickly settled on perhaps the most famous battle of World War Two.

This map is 1075 by 838. One army number is shown in the southeast forest. Because I used the letter/number references outside the playing area, this map could actually be shrunk considerably. Some hexes will already be a bit crowded, however. My next step (perhaps) would be to place 292 more army numbers and adjust the location of map features to make sure each army number has enough room. I'll also want to find better art for depicting forest. I'd love to mimic those old SPI maps. Can anyone help with this? My treatment of the tan open hexes is tentative. I'm not sure if it looks good or just dirty.

THE RULES: There aren't many places protected against ranged attack from a road or railroad, and almost all are in forest. That seems okay to me. WWII weapons had range, especially artillery and tanks and they mostly traveled by road. If you can hide deep in the woods, fine, but otherwise you're subject to attack from afar. In those old wargames I played roads aided fast travel and woods slowed movement. That can't be duplicated in XML but I think I found the best substitutes. Decay of one in the woods is a penalty, but lots of WWII fighting took place in forests. A decay of two would, I think, be too much. Towns autodeploy two. These towns were generally strongpoints in battles like this. Stone walls; church towers... they had value. And if they are worth two Bastogne must be worth more. I've specified three each - a nice grab of six if you can hold just two terts. "Regular" bonuses are earned for every four terts, appropriate for such a large map. There are no "continents". That's unusual at CC but not inappropriate for a simulation of a WWII battle where holding non-special terrain wasn't important - the goal was to advance along a broad front and destroy the enemy. The rivers and forests provide a degree of channeling - breaking the map up into sections - but not much. I followed the two largest watercourses on my reference map. If deemed essential, some small streams could be promoted to rivers. And if deemed important, I could add more (real) towns. I chose these based on their positions. At least a half dozen more would be possible.

There are two other possible additions you and I might want to consider: 1) ranged attacks can't pass through forest, just one hex in but no more; this wouldn't have a huge effect and might be a useless complication, but it would be somewhat realistic. 2) I have to admit that for a WWII battle I've included absolutely no reference to the actual forces involved. Other maps that depict famous battles usually depict the forces on the ground. I could position three Nazi flags, three French ones, and three USA ones in a rough circle around Bastogne and offer a bonus for control of each set of three, for two sets, and for all. I'd need to use a touch more space for the explanation, but not much. The numbers and letters and text in the top can all be reduced in size. (Until you post a first draft it's hard to visualize how a map will look in a browser.)

Another nice addition, if space could be found, would be to include a certain quote from a certain General McAufille.

I gave some consideration to using military symbols like those used on the WWII Ardennes map but I find them somewhat artificial since they can't maneuver.



I realize that this map includes the area I'm using and it's the same battle, but my area would easily fit into just that one central black circle of the Ardennes map and the look and play will be quite different, so I hope this overlap and be overlooked.

What makes this map worthy of being made? Up top I listed several things but for me it's really just these two: 1) nostalgia for those old cardboard-chit wargames, and 2) this map will be unlike, and play unlike, any other at CC, yet the rules are fairly simple and straightforward; players can concentrate on the main map and won't have to frequently study rules printed in the margins. It's more like USA 2.1 than King's Court II in this respect and the former is played three times more frequently than the latter.

v4 Map:

Click image to enlarge.

[HitRed]

Decay is never to zero.

Bridges were critical in the real battle. Some would claim more so than towns. Likely +2. There are only three so that's cool.

I highly support no continents!!!

Is ranged attacks true ranged attacks or bombard? I support ranged attacks to get more 4:1 terr bonus.

Most players will not understand road range 2 and rail 3 logically. Why would a tank on a road fire shorter than a tank on a railroad? Might need to convey rail artillery or show an image. Rail guns were much more powerful than towed or mobile artillery.

German Railroad Gun at Elsenborn

ELSENBORN BELGIUM
We dug in, on the fields in front of the town, with “F” & “G” companies in front of us. My company was in reserve as we only had 18 men left. There was lots of our artillery setting up around Elsenborn and behind it. Came a time when the Germans down in the heavy woods began to fire a large railroad gun at prime targets and our artillery. Word was put out for everyone to search for the railroad gun. Artillery planes were out looking, and we infantry were sent out on special patrols, looking for railroad tracks, but still the railroad gun would set up and fire one or two shells, then disappear again

I like the idea of fighting for roads and railroads as it would soon look like armoured columns advancing. It would also cause a player to keep a more balanced line so the enemy doesn't get into the backfield.

The hard part is not having the first player in a 2 player game start with 25 troops. 300/3 = 100/4 = 25 ruff math.

HitRed

[Minister X]

Bridges were indeed critical over rivers that couldn't be easily crossed otherwise. I took a good look just now on Google Maps. These are small streams; it looks like one could jump across them. I've "promoted" them into rivers simply because I felt the map needed some rivers. Now we could further pretend that these bridges are important but it would be stretching an already-thin point.

Ranged attacks, like the Waterloo cavalry.

Funny, it was exactly railway artillery that in part made me say railway troops could range attack three. But also just so they'd be different than roads and because there are fewer railway terts than road terts. If we didn't make them different then there'd be little point showing the railroad at all. But here's an idea: road range attack two, railways BOMBARD three. It's a bit complicated but should become second nature quickly enough. What do you think?

Oh! I forgot to mention: all forest terts should start neutral. One or two. All towns should start neutral three. Bastogne should start neutral five or more each hex. That's 89 neutrals out of 293 total. How would this effect the start of a 1v1 game?

And what do you think of the nine flags idea?

[HitRed]

In a 2 player game

293-89= 204 /3=68/4= 17 troops for first player. Even if the first player took 8 player 2 terr, player 2 would still get 15 troops. Seems very nice for a huge map.

Bombarding from railroads will be a dramatic start. The Bastogne area won't have a sigle blade of grass standing.

Agreed, Bastogne must start 6 each. Trading troop for troop the first player could take both Bastogne and just a few more 2nd player terr. The second player would start at 17 or 16 troops. Slug fest.

Ranged attacks from roads.

River crossings are rare and rare equals valuable. Standard +1. They will be taken.

Towns start neutral 3 and +2 Auto deploys

Forests start neutral 1 and -1 decay.

I didn't comment on the flags as I thought nothing of it.

To keep Bastogne Towns "in play" don't use Autodeploys 3. I know it's tempting! They will be stacked on anyway rest assured. After a few turns of +3 Autodeploys player 2 won't be able to take it. A standard +3 each would allow the owner to drop troops up north, east or west and keep all the board in play.

I see this as a very playable large map. User friendly and fun with range attacks and bombardments. Easy to understand bonuses.

HitRed

[Minister X]

Bombarding from railroads will be a dramatic start. The Bastogne area won't have a sigle blade of grass standing.

Wait. I think we overlooked something. If railroads are bombard like Waterloo, you'd never be able to cross them. They have to be bombard like Feudal, where you can also attack normally into adjacent terts. On the Feudal Epic map this is explained as follows: "Castles can conquer adjacent kingdom regions and bombard non-adjacent kingdom regions." We'll have to say something like "Troops on railroad hexes can conquer adjacent hexes or bombard two or three hexes distant." I think that's clear enough.

You're extremely correct about the Bastogne area. It's going to be wild fighting around there what with all the ranged attacks and bombardments. I see both positive and negative aspects to this. Negative: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. Positive: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. In other words: these rules will make play on this map, especially around Bastogne, unlike play on any other map. Players will have a tough time adapting. But that unique quality is what will set this map apart and hopefully make it popular as a diversion from the routine. I can foresee some CCers getting very good at this type of play and offering game after game to the unwary in an effort to up their ranking. I'm okay with that. Winning games and advancing through the ranks is sorta the whole point of CC for most.

Fog games are going to be interesting on this map. With ranged attacks, if you're hit from a tert you can't see, the system simply reports the hit without telling you from whence it originated, right? That's cool and certainly not unrealistic. Doubly so for bombardments... get too near a railroad you can't see and suddenly, out of the blue... Pow!

Hey! Maybe we should make towns like railroads - able to support bombardment. Not unrealistic - artillery sometimes hid in towns. And most towns would be within range of another town or two. There could be an artillery duel between Monds-St-Etienne and Chanogue. Why not? More danger and chaos and it makes towns have even more strategic value. Perhaps we ought, if we adopt this rule, increase their starting neutrals from three to four (and Bastogne to seven?) and make towns worth a three bonus instead of just two.

[HitRed]

Bombarding from railroads will be a dramatic start. The Bastogne area won't have a sigle blade of grass standing.

Wait. I think we overlooked something. If railroads are bombard like Waterloo, you'd never be able to cross them. They have to be bombard like Feudal, where you can also attack normally into adjacent terts. On the Feudal Epic map this is explained as follows: "Castles can conquer adjacent kingdom regions and bombard non-adjacent kingdom regions." We'll have to say something like "Troops on railroad hexes can conquer adjacent hexes or bombard two or three hexes distant." I think that's clear enough. Understood

You're extremely correct about the Bastogne area. It's going to be wild fighting around there what with all the ranged attacks and bombardments. I see both positive and negative aspects to this. Negative: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. Positive: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. In other words: these rules will make play on this map, especially around Bastogne, unlike play on any other map. Players will have a tough time adapting. But that unique quality is what will set this map apart and hopefully make it popular as a diversion from the routine. I can foresee some CCers getting very good at this type of play and offering game after game to the unwary in an effort to up their ranking. I'm okay with that. Winning games and advancing through the ranks is sorta the whole point of CC for most. In a 2 player game only is there a viable option from the outside if player 2 gets kicked out of the Bastogne area?

Fog games are going to be interesting on this map. With ranged attacks, if you're hit from a tert you can't see, the system simply reports the hit without telling you from whence it originated, right? That's cool and certainly not unrealistic. Doubly so for bombardments... get too near a railroad you can't see and suddenly, out of the blue... Pow!

Hey! Maybe we should make towns like railroads - able to support bombardment. Not unrealistic - artillery sometimes hid in towns. And most towns would be within range of another town or two. There could be an artillery duel between Monds-St-Etienne and Chanogue. Why not? More danger and chaos and it makes towns have even more strategic value. Perhaps we ought, if we adopt this rule, increase their starting neutrals from three to four (and Bastogne to seven?) and make towns worth a three bonus instead of just two.
Towns are towns. The +2 autodeploy for attacking only 3 is already gold.

[Minister X]

In a 2 player game only is there a viable option from the outside if player 2 gets kicked out of the Bastogne area?

I think so. For player #1 to take Bastogne with its large neutrals and presumably having to take other neutrals and/or some of player 2's terts he will have to devote considerable effort and troops. Meanwhile, Player #2 can be cleaning up towns and terts elsewhere. With forest terts starting just neutral 1 or 2, he can grab a bunch easily if player #1 is busy banging his head against Bastogne. (Though they decay, if you leave just one there and can protect that with a non-decaying perimeter you're golden.) Look at tert 7E. If you pick up everything west of 8 and north of F that would be worth 13 troops bonus (29 terts plus two towns). Or capture Noville and everything within three terts: 33 terts plus three towns = a bonus of 17. Deciding if and when to go for Bastogne will be a critical strategic decision. It may make sense, even in a 1v1 game (and maybe especially so), to first grab easier pickings. Each of the four corners of the map will be rather important regions because you can defend them with half the troops needed for an equally-sized central region. And consider the southwest corner! Own everything west of the river and you get a bonus of 12 while having to defend just two bridges! Of course a lucky drop of lots of terts right around Bastogne could be decisive, but very few maps are immune to that sort of thing. And on such a large map getting a concentrated drop is pretty unlikely.

[Minister X]

Numerous improvements for v2. Better forests and roads and rivers. Texture of clear hexes changed. Flags added. Text altered. Numbers and letters reduced in size. Arrows added to the bottom row of numbers. Most importantly, additional army numbers were placed in all hexes where they might be a problem. I determined that in forest hexes the "v" green colored numbers would be too tough to read, so all forest hexes got just enough of a light background blob to solve that issue. Railroads are the other problem and you can see what I've done. On the next version I'll probably re-do the railroads so that fewer hexes have this problem, but some still will. I believe that in all hexes where I've not placed army numbers there will be no problem.

Added a river up north where I felt it might be useful.

I don't think the flags will have a huge impact on gameplay but adding at least a little bit of national symbolism helps the overall historical context and feel of the map.

Click image to enlarge.

I respectfully request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum. Thanks.

[iancanton]

I respectfully request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum. Thanks.

request denied for the time being.

Further to the swastika debate, I have had confirmation that the symbol should not be used on any CC maps. This represents official CC policy, and is not open to negotiation. Please use the German cross instead.

as a previous foundry foreman established, u must remove all swastikas.

ian.

[Minister X]

You know... I sort of half wondered about that as I was making the flags. I intentionally chose the Wehrmacht banner rather than the party flag, though the difference is minor. I will be OVERJOYED to remove the swastika and I think CC's policy is 100% correct. But I'm no expert on Nazi symbols so I googled "german cross flag wwii" and came up with what you see below. It is a cross, not a swastika, but the difference is hard to discern when it's reduced so much. If there's a more appropriate image anyone can suggest I'd be pleased to replace this one, which still looks a bit like it could be a swastika if you don't look closely.

That's the only change from v2 to v3.

Click image to enlarge.

[Minister X]

More flags added; they now represent something akin to the actual battle, with the Americans around Bastogne, the Germans encircling them, and the British arriving from the north. There's no room to show Patton's Third US Army arriving from the south. Bonuses have been adjusted to new tentative values.

I offer this v4 as an alternative to v3 and to a version with no flags at all.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

i'm somewhat surprised that this is regarded as one of the most famous battles of the last hundred years, as i've never heard of it! a tagline saying battle of the bulge below the main title might help players to place the battle.

u'll notice that virtually all of our really big maps have been by established mapmakers who've already proved that they have the staying power to see their projects to completion. however, i like the concept, while the gameplay has clearly been given some thought.

consider whether u need so many regions for the concept to work. i also suggest something for which u'll probably hate me: try turning the hexagons 90 degrees, so that the troop counts are more spaced out when they reach 3 digits on the small map.

if u wish to make a supersize application for this map, then EBConquer, the cartography assistant for graphics, will be able to look at it after his return.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=182136

ian.

[ljex]

Really cool concept, hopefully you keep working at this because i think it would be a lot of fun to play.

From a potential changes perspective, think the legend is a bit unclear in its current form. I personally like when the legend is more split out into a section on what is a river / railroad and a section on what is bonuses etc. May also be helpful to have a visible cue like a bridge to show that rivers are passable on roads as well because that is more common in existing maps.

Last thought would be that the columns / rows dont line up unless i am missing something. 1-20 on the top and 8 - 27 on the bottom.

Keep up the great work

[Minister X]

i'm somewhat surprised that this is regarded as one of the most famous battles of the last hundred years, as i've never heard of it! a tagline saying battle of the bulge below the main title might help players to place the battle.

I'm sure you realize that the town of Bastogne was at the heart of the Battle of the Bulge, but your point is well-taken. Others may not. I'll adopt the subtitle.

i also suggest something for which u'll probably hate me: try turning the hexagons 90 degrees, so that the troop counts are more spaced out when they reach 3 digits on the small map.

LOL. No, I don't hate you. I hate myself for not thinking of that when I started!

u'll notice that virtually all of our really big maps have been by established mapmakers who've already proved that they have the staying power to see their projects to completion. however, i like the concept, while the gameplay has clearly been given some thought. ... if u wish to make a supersize application for this map, then EBConquer, the cartography assistant for graphics, will be able to look at it after his return.

See next.

consider whether u need so many regions for the concept to work.

I just took a good look at my file with a pixel scale along the side. I think I can reduce the map to regulation size without having to reduce the total number of terts too much if I rotate the grid as you suggested and if I reduce hex size. Yes. The additional advantage of your suggestion is that when the grid is rotated the army numbers become staggered and can bleed into the neighboring hex without overlapping other numbers. This allows for the use of smaller hexes. Here's what I mean...



So now let me please ask you two questions.
1) Any problem with the above sample of hexes and army numbers?
2) The mapmaker handbook says: "Each map must eventually be submitted in two sizes. The 'large' map may be up to 840px wide and 800px high... The 'small' map may be up to 630px wide and 600px high.... The 'large' map must be noticeably larger than the 'small' map; 9% larger is required but 33.3% (1/3) is recommended." I've added underlining under the two "musts". I think I understand the reasons behind both. It can be convenient for players to switch between large and small maps as they are taking their turn. I do so with some frequency. And if you're going to have two sizes, it makes little sense for the difference to be too slight to matter. I get it. My question: any room for any exception to either of these "musts"? Any chance you can let me make just one size? If not, any chance I can make the small one just 5% smaller instead of 9%?

If not, I'll either wait for EBConquer or (if I get bored waiting) make a map with significantly fewer terts. But my intent when I started this map was to make one of reasonable size with maximal terts and if your responses are positive maybe I can even do that at 840x800 (and whatever).

Ijex: glad you like the concept. The legend must be as concise as possible to save space. I'd love to spread it out and show examples of everything but that would mean reducing the number of terts on the map. As for your problem with the columns and rows, yes, you are missing something. Take another look and don't miss those arrows - they will help you.

[ljex]

Ijex: glad you like the concept. The legend must be as concise as possible to save space. I'd love to spread it out and show examples of everything but that would mean reducing the number of terts on the map. As for your problem with the columns and rows, yes, you are missing something. Take another look and don't miss those arrows - they will help you.

Totally understand that it should be concise. I actually think you can keep it concise and improve clarity without taking up more space.

Something like hive for example doesn't have a bigger portion of the map taken up by non territories but still has an easier to understand legend. I would focus on 3 distinct elements of the legend

1. this is what certain stuff means (i.e., blue line = river, black line = road, black dot = city, black cross line = rail road)
2. these are the bonuses citys auto deploy 2, bastogne auto deploy 3, 1 troop for 4 regions, forest decay 1 per turn
3. attack considerations (i.e., roads can attack x distance and railroads can attack y distance)

Differentiation is going to be super important to people playing the map for the first time in terms of ease of understanding how everything works (this is part of why i would suggest adding bridges to all the river crossings as that is common design across maps so people will understand the concept easier because they are already trained on it).

For the second suggestion, I get it now but would recommend making the columns vertical instead of angled. The main reason for this is i can imagine now playing a team game and someone telling me they plan to attack from H13 and M13. My first assumption will be that they have the same vertical alignment and the angle will be hard for people to get used to as a normal grid is vertical / horizontal instead of horizontal / angled.

Also i actually think this map is likely relatively easy to balance from a game play perspective because it is so big / standardized but I do think the cities / bastogne likely need to start as neutral. You could argue that the cities are plentiful enough that they dont need to start as neutral but then in a 1:1 game it is going to be a huge advantage for whoever starts first as they can focus on reducing the opponents auto deploy which will have a very tilting affect on the game.

[Minister X]

I'll seriously consider your suggestion regarding the legend. You may have a good idea there. And you're right that bridge graphics should be added. Ian already mentioned the hex grid and up above I wrote: "all forest terts should start neutral. One or two. All towns should start neutral three. Bastogne should start neutral five or more each hex."

[iancanton]

The additional advantage of your suggestion is that when the grid is rotated the army numbers become staggered and can bleed into the neighboring hex without overlapping other numbers. This allows for the use of smaller hexes.

not merely smaller hexes, but specifically narrower hexes. u still need a certain amount of height for extra information such as flag and village indicators, whereas ur sample of rotated hexes with red troop counts, which looks good, shows that we can potentially withstand a certain reduction in width. this becomes important if it turns out that the existence of ranged bombardments necessitates a greater number of equilateral hexes than the space available can support. although it's nice to have, it is not a formal requirement that 5-digit troop counts don't run into each other. however, there ought to be enough room for 5-digit troop counts not to stray off the right-hand edge.

Any chance you can let me make just one size? If not, any chance I can make the small one just 5% smaller instead of 9%?

the maximum standard size for the small map is 600 x 600, with 30 extra horizontal pixels available if needed. why would u want to make the large map just 5% bigger than this?

But my intent when I started this map was to make one of reasonable size with maximal terts and if your responses are positive maybe I can even do that at 840x800 (and whatever).

the limiting factor for any map is the small image. if there's little prospect of the gameplay working at 630 x 600 for the small map, then a supersize application is ur best option, after u establish the size that u need.

the columns / rows dont line up unless i am missing something. 1-20 on the top and 8 - 27 on the bottom.

I get it now but would recommend making the columns vertical instead of angled.

if the hexes are rotated 90 degrees, then ljex's recommendation is that the columns are horizontal instead of angled. additionally, rather than 1, 2 and 3, use 01, 02 and 03, so that the hex names show up in a logical order in the drop-down boxes when playing a turn.

to save space, i suggest using round or square sections of flags, like those on the elements map. the balkenkreuz flag might work reasonably well to represent the german forces.

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/de!balke.html

i believe that bastogne is the only town in the area shown, with the other places being villages or hamlets, in which case it's best to replace the word towns.

by longville, do u mean longvilly (h23 on v4)?

ian.

[Minister X]

if there's little prospect of the gameplay working at 630 x 600 for the small map, then a supersize application is ur best option, after u establish the size that u need.

Okay. I just did a little experimentation with the grid and army numbers and I think it may be possible to make a readable map with this many terts (or close) that will fit 630 x 600. Your suggestion about reducing the horizontal dimension of the terts is a great one. I'll see if I can make a test map (no fancy graphics) that works at that size.

Longvilly and villages - good corrections. Thanks.

[Minister X]

Here's my VERY ROUGH draft of what a 630 x 600 map would look like. This has 253 hexes instead of 293 (as the large map would also of course). I've shown army numbers atop some typical part of the map. Village names must be angled to avoid them. I threw in some railroad there. Roads and rivers were just pasted in and don't follow exact paths.

The good news is that this COULD work. The loss of 14% of hexes is a shame but won't alter gameplay enough to be considered ruinous. Once I make this for real it would look similar in nature to what I've posted above in terms of graphic quality (except as explained below).

The bad news is, for me, twofold: 1) the army numbers occupy such a large portion of the map they will overwhelm the graphics, and 2) I had wanted to emulate the look of those old Avalon Hill and SPI maps but the distorted hexes detract from that greatly, and frankly just look a bit weird to me.

On my larger maps the army numbers could be placed in different spots within a hex so as to avoid railroads, place names, or whatever else it made sense to avoid. On this map, and even the 840 x 800 version, army numbers will always have to be dead center, which leaves me no flexibility to improve graphic appearance.

Take a look at some active games on the Hive map. Look at the small version. That map is essentially an abstract with blocks of shaded hexes with no real geographic content. The army numbers are overwhelming but at least they're not competing with roads, rivers, railroads, woods and placenames. The maps that have such geographic content typically have irregularly-shaped terts (i.e. counties) with lots of room to place army numbers in whatever manner works best (plus a few small terts where they have to be jammed in). For instance, look at Indian Empire here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ccmaps/Indian_Empire.L.jpg See how Oaktown was able to manipulate all map elements to make army placement seem almost an afterthought (which I know it cannot have been)? The result: a really beautiful map. With hexes I have no opportunity to do that. Army numbers, placed uniformly in the middle of hexes, will create an unavoidably mesmerizing effect. That pattern of numbers will dominate visually. With larger hexes I'd at least have the ability to break the pattern up a little bit.



Now... in actual use not all army numbers will be a letter plus two digits. That will help a bit. And it is expected that the small map version will sacrifice some esthetics. But I'm not sure how much of a sacrifice is considered acceptable to the CC community and I'm not sure how much is acceptable to me.

So the question is whether to wait for possible approval of an oversized map or go ahead and make both large and small maps regulation size so a finished product can be looked at and evaluated. My inclination is to wait. First, there's no need to rush. Second, that loss of 14% of terts may not be fatal but I'd much prefer to have the full 293. Third, while some may not be too put off by the loss of prettiness (for lack of a better word) the scaling-down entails, I want to make maps that are as pretty as I can make them. It may not count for much to CC -- some very popular maps here aren't what I'd call pretty -- but it matters to me.

I realize that an extra 40 terts and my other reasons for wanting larger maps may not justify super-size approval given that I've said the smaller version COULD work. So be it. To me it's worth the wait to find out.

[Minister X]

I've been using a free image hosting service called techpowerup.org. Their website is not responding and all maps here have gone blank. I'll wait a day or so to see if this is just temporary or if they've shuffled off this mortal coil. If they're dead I'll repost everything via a more reliable service.

[Dukasaur]

While it is a good-looking map, I'm somewhat reluctant to encourage it.

We already have a perfectly adequate map to represent the Second Ardennes Offensive. Of course it might be possible to improve on it, but why waste the energy when there are so many great WWII battles that are still completely unrepresented?

Here are some of the battles of WWII that stand out in my mind as desperately crying out for some love: Guadalcanal, Surigao Strait, Leyte Gulf, the Malaysia Offensive and Singapore, the siege of Leningrad, Operation Husky, Anzio, Operation Grenade and the seizure of the Remagen Bridge, Sevastopol, the fall of Tobruk, Crete, the sinking of the Scharnhorst, the destruction of Army Group Centre. That's a baker's dozen, plenty to keep you busy!

When you get those done, talk to me about WWI! Quite honestly, the battles of WWI are tactically more interesting than the battles of WWII, even if they are now less popular.

But yeah, even a very rough attempt to properly simulate WWII on CC runs up against the fact that so few of the battles are represented. It just seems to me a waste of effort to redo a battle that's already covered when so many are not.

[Minister X]

I appreciate the criticism. My map depicts only a fairly small part of the Ardennes Offensive but it is the same battle. I'd be quite open to adapting the "system" used here to a different battle but certain criteria would have to be met:
• Because my intent is to maximize the number of terts, the shape of the battlefield must be roughly rectangular, wider than it is high, because that's the shape of CC maps. And most of the area must be tert-able (to coin an adjective).
• There should be a variety of terrain, such as forest, swamp, river, mountain or rough/broken, city/town. Most, but not necessarily all.
• Ideally there should be tactically significant roads and railways.

Based on your post I just spent a good two hours looking at WWI and WWII battle maps, seeking one that's not already a CC map and that could work with my system. None would work nearly as well as what you see above centered on Bastogne. I'm not kidding. I can't say my search was exhaustive but I must have studied at least 25 maps of battles with names that are famous enough to attract the attention of potential CC players. It was frustrating. But eventually I arrived at a possible solution. Consider a CC game named "Patton Advances". With that title I can choose any area of any size/scale along his lines of advance in North Africa, Sicily, France or Germany. It doesn't have to be the site of any famous battle. Simply by using the name Patton in the title I create an anticipation of an exciting, fast-moving armored battle. I can find some rectangular area with famous cities/towns, a nice river or two to break up the map, some forest and/or swamp, roads and railways. It would be easy to adapt the ranged attacks from roads/rails that we've employed above.

Is this a good idea? Vote yes or no - should I create "Patton Advances"?

[HitRed]

First I like the current map.

Second, if you are open to Duka’s idea a WW1 navel battle called Jutland might be similar enough. Having Battleships with the range of railroads and Battlecruisers with the range of roads. Each ship might be x territories long. Since Duka is an expert on WW1 ask him to be an advisor. Taking a full ship would likely be the bonus. Likely most troops would start off ship in the water with a few holding turrets.

HitRed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Heavy on bombardment.

[Dukasaur]

I appreciate the criticism. My map depicts only a fairly small part of the Ardennes Offensive but it is the same battle. I'd be quite open to adapting the "system" used here to a different battle but certain criteria would have to be met:
• Because my intent is to maximize the number of terts, the shape of the battlefield must be roughly rectangular, wider than it is high, because that's the shape of CC maps. And most of the area must be tert-able (to coin an adjective).
• There should be a variety of terrain, such as forest, swamp, river, mountain or rough/broken, city/town. Most, but not necessarily all.
• Ideally there should be tactically significant roads and railways.

Based on your post I just spent a good two hours looking at WWI and WWII battle maps, seeking one that's not already a CC map and that could work with my system. None would work nearly as well as what you see above centered on Bastogne. I'm not kidding. I can't say my search was exhaustive but I must have studied at least 25 maps of battles with names that are famous enough to attract the attention of potential CC players. It was frustrating. But eventually I arrived at a possible solution. Consider a CC game named "Patton Advances". With that title I can choose any area of any size/scale along his lines of advance in North Africa, Sicily, France or Germany. It doesn't have to be the site of any famous battle. Simply by using the name Patton in the title I create an anticipation of an exciting, fast-moving armored battle. I can find some rectangular area with famous cities/towns, a nice river or two to break up the map, some forest and/or swamp, roads and railways. It would be easy to adapt the ranged attacks from roads/rails that we've employed above.

Is this a good idea? Vote yes or no - should I create "Patton Advances"?

Just giving this a few minutes. I do love Patton, but I would like to see something historically significant.

How about Operation Husky? Yes, I know Sicily is a triangle not a rectangle, but it satisfies all of your other criteria: varied terrain with significant chokepoints, and enough roads for a fast-moving battle?



You could even cut off everything below Augusta and make it closer to a rectangle!

Another possibility is Kasserine pass. Slightly less variety in the terrain, but nonetheless what terrain there is has tactical significance. Patton wasn't there, but the American failure resulted in the dismissal of Anderson and the arrival of Patton in Africa, so it is a significant part of Patton lore even if it wasn't his battle. And here is a map which is rectangular and uses almost all of the map.


Having troops decay in the desert actually makes more sense than having them decay in the forest. You can live off the land in the forest...