Map Size

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Map Size

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Map Size

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Map Size - 12/7/2018 1:01:56 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

How does the map size compare to the Assault on Democracy game?

Post #: 1

RE: Map Size - 12/7/2018 2:33:02 PM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

I wondered this also. The map in the original global was small, AOD map was much more playable. I tried to compare the AOD squares with the hexes from the videos between Paris and Berlin and it doesn't look smaller than AOD, but confirmation would be nice.

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 2

RE: Map Size - 12/7/2018 8:19:30 PM

dwrobel

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2017
Status: offline

Its definately bigger than AOD - I can confirm that for you.

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 3

RE: Map Size - 12/7/2018 10:50:54 PM

Keenan

Posts: 26
Joined: 9/23/2007
Status: offline

Quick fact check: Editor says, map size is 292x138, which is considerably bigger than Global Gold (256x64), but smaller than AoD (484x200). But this is just the pure math, hex versus rectangles changes the perception as well. In some areas it feels quite similar as AoD, in some areas (China for example) it feels indeed a bit smaller.

Moscow-Leningrad is a gap of 12 steps for AoD and 11 for WaW (excluding the cities themselves), Paris-Berlin is the same (AoD 12, WaW 11). For Paris-London it is even the other way around (AoD 5, WaW 6). Max possible Map size stayed at 512x256 (like SC3 WiE).

(in reply to dwrobel)

Post #: 4

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 9:15:19 AM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

Just started playing my first game this morning and the scale is definitely smaller than AOD, certainly in the pacific theatre at least where it has the feel of being quite a bit smaller. I have to say that this is very disappointing, the first time I have ever thought this about a Strategic Command release which have all been excellent, I had expected that the scale would have been at least the same as AOD if not greater.

(in reply to Keenan)

Post #: 5

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 10:50:00 AM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

I'm also concerned about the scale. Looks like with bombers and paratroopers you can take Paris in 1-2 turns. I'm in some PBEM games so we'll have to see.

I've always trusted the SC series but I'm not sure about this map. Hopefully I'm just not used to it.

< Message edited by Dorky8 -- 12/8/2018 10:55:08 AM >

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 6

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 11:11:00 AM

seydlitz22513

Posts: 102
Joined: 4/26/2018
Status: offline

Due to the map scale, I think the game has too many unit types? Artillery,anti-air etc do not need to be in the game, they should be included in the Army units etc. The air and naval side of the game need to be reduced as well, having different unit types are great if you have a map size to handle their strategic role. But the map is too small for this its a miss mash!

Really all that needs to represent at this scale is.

Land units: Command, Garrison, Corps & Army.

Air: Air fleet

Naval: Fleets or Task Forces ( scale is useless for individual units, even if they represent 1 or more Capital units, having named historical units is great but it does not work at this map scale)

Note to Bill & Hubert and all involved with Strategic Command.

Due to map scale, Grand Campaign needs only a small number of units represented. Command, Garrison, Corps, Army, Air Fleets & Naval Fleets.

Other new scenarios can use full list of unit types if and only if the map is of a size to utilize their individual traits.

IE: Scenario maps representing larger scale individual Countries or Pacific Islands for example.

The game is trying to cram too much into too small a Map. ( It all comes down to scale )

< Message edited by seydlitz22513 -- 12/8/2018 11:31:47 AM >

(in reply to Dorky8)

Post #: 7

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 11:54:21 AM

Meteor2

Posts: 429
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

Does this feel right?

German armies and corps filling the map from Paris to the line Amsterdam-D�sseldorf-Frankfurt (June 1940).
I little bit to much, I think.

With the War-in-Europe scale, it would have been much better, I think.

(in reply to seydlitz22513)

Post #: 8

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 12:46:02 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

Hopefully some user scenarios will expand the size of the map (which is what has traditionally happened)...

(in reply to Meteor2)

Post #: 9

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 12:53:29 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

It just seems a strange decision to revert back to a smaller map. AOD was a great leap forward from the original Global game, and whilst I appreciate that WAW has all the improvements from WIE it just seems a backward step to go back to a smaller map. The game has much more of a feel of the original Global game rather than AOD

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 10

RE: Map Size - 12/8/2018 1:26:20 PM

Smirfy

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Just like to echo Seydlitz on this scale of the map it should just be Army and Corps and HQ's. The Corps being for Armour, Paras, marines etc. Artillery units just do not make sense this scale. Armies should have an artillery value which Corps don't get. For naval and air it should be Task forces and Airfleets. Unit scale is too small for the map.

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 11