Map sizes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

Crimguy -> Map sizes (2/4/2005 4:17:00 PM)

I take it that, because of the 12 zones that are required for each map, that any future maps that are released (if ever) would be subject to the same size limitations?



IronManBeta -> RE: Map sizes (2/4/2005 8:57:23 PM)

We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit.

If you could change the map size, which way would you go?

Call me curious, Rob.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I take it that, because of the 12 zones that are required for each map, that any future maps that are released (if ever) would be subject to the same size limitations?



John21b -> RE: Map sizes (2/4/2005 10:01:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit.

If you could change the map size, which way would you go?

Call me curious, Rob.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I take it that, because of the 12 zones that are required for each map, that any future maps that are released (if ever) would be subject to the same size limitations?



I would go bigger of course!

John



Crimguy -> RE: Map sizes (2/5/2005 9:31:14 AM)

Curious:

I'd like both larger and smaller. Smaller maps can be good for certain tactical exercises, while larger would allow for more interesting meeting engagements, and create more desperate defensive situations where NATO simply cannot defend all approaches at once.

Perhaps keep each sector the same size that are in the maps now, but some maps could have 6 sectors, some 12 (like they do now), and some could have 18.

I had the same feeling in TacOps' original (version 1.0 - yes I was an earlier adopter on my mac) maps that I do here. Specifically, the feeling I get is that the designers of the scenarios made the maps just big enough to give the player possibilities to contend with, without allowing the attacker to go off on an expedition to find the undefended route.

I find it kinda fun to explore those backwoods approaches. If they're a bad decision, let the game clock run out as a means of punishment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit.

If you could change the map size, which way would you go?

Call me curious, Rob.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I take it that, because of the 12 zones that are required for each map, that any future maps that are released (if ever) would be subject to the same size limitations?




hank -> RE: Map sizes (2/5/2005 2:47:56 PM)

I could see the map being larger but keep the 12 zone concept. Just make the size of each zones larger. I suppose you would have to shrink it to make if fit in the Staff Window. I think???

hank



stephen newberg -> RE: Map sizes (2/5/2005 6:18:22 PM)

Originally, the sizing of the maps was done to be in sync with the FM requirements for the coverage zones of the sizes of the forces involved. Keep in mind that this game is a long term outgrowth of military work. Though one could certainly make for a bigger area, if you were to keep to FM considerations, you would also have to increase the size and number of involved forces for both sides, assuming you wish to continue to correspond to the reality of the time frame.

pax, smn



22sec -> RE: Map sizes (2/5/2005 6:42:38 PM)

I would like to see bigger maps. I would love to be able to have an entire NATO brigade to command, or better yet a WP division ordered into an assault. Just my $.02.

But more important is creating our own maps!![:D]



Sarge -> RE: Map sizes (2/10/2005 10:26:30 PM)

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit.

If you could change the map size, which way would you go?

Call me curious, Rob.


I dont see why you would make the map size any larger at the curent game state. With the time limits set in the game now a map any large would only have a adverse affect on the game play IMHO.

just my two cents Sarge [;)]



hank -> RE: Map sizes (2/11/2005 4:26:51 AM)

What file types can be used for maps? JPG? BMP? (... heaven forbid)

It would be nice to be able to take aerial photographs and create the background map directly from it.

Or another twist would be to simply us topo (contour) maps. Or going on a real tangent: be able to hit a button and toggle back and forth between a topo and a photo map. .... OK ... I'm back from my flight.

Of course the file types are the big question.[>:]

thanks
hank



Crimguy -> RE: Map sizes (2/11/2005 7:56:06 AM)

I really don't see the harm in larger maps. More units = more fun for all! Time limits might have to be adjusted. As it stands right now, time is not a factor in the included scenarios. THe enemy is dead well before the game clock hits.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

We did not want to lock in any particular map size but I managed to anyway. I think they will stay 40 wide by 30 high for a little while at least while I work on other areas. I expect in time though to revisit it and loosen it up a bit.

If you could change the map size, which way would you go?

Call me curious, Rob.


I dont see why you would make the map size any larger at the curent game state. With the time limits set in the game now a map any large would only have a adverse affect on the game play IMHO.

just my two cents Sarge [;)]



hank -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 1:32:39 AM)

I thought this was a good question but I didn't get a response. Is it in the manual? I couldn't find it.



What file types can be used for maps? JPG? BMP? (... heaven forbid)

It would be nice to be able to take aerial photographs and create the background map directly from it.



Catgh_MatrixForum -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 3:55:32 AM)

The maps that were created are a group of bmps that are complied into a bml file. Don't ask me what a bml file is, I don't know. Robert is working on documenting and cleaning up how to make maps for FPG. It will probably be a bit before he gets it out though.



IronManBeta -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 4:31:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

What file types can be used for maps? JPG? BMP? (... heaven forbid)

It would be nice to be able to take aerial photographs and create the background map directly from it.

Or another twist would be to simply us topo (contour) maps. Or going on a real tangent: be able to hit a button and toggle back and forth between a topo and a photo map. .... OK ... I'm back from my flight.

Of course the file types are the big question.[>:]

thanks
hank


The playtesters and I dreamed of separating the terrain from the topographical maps and making them separate images. I am not enough of a graphics wiz to pull it off - at least not yet. The original SimCan maps were a lot better at showing elevations along with the terrain and we might just go back to something a little more like that. I'm not sure but I think that Mark S is thinking about just that when he has a spare minute.

The original maps themselves are elaborate multi-layer Photoshop files that have been flattened down into ordinary bmps for me. As you can see from a glance, these are painted maps, not tiled.

Rob



IronManBeta -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 4:34:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Catgh

The maps that were created are a group of bmps that are complied into a bml file. Don't ask me what a bml file is, I don't know. Robert is working on documenting and cleaning up how to make maps for FPG. It will probably be a bit before he gets it out though.


Ah, very complicated, very secret! BML = "bitmap list". It is just a way of keeping multiple bitmaps together and providing a very light layer of security to prevent unauthorized tampering. As Catgh stated, the files within are just bmps.

Rob



CommC -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 4:37:15 AM)

Speaking of maps... is there any plan to release more maps in the future.. including perhaps desert maps? Maybe that will be left to an expansion pack called ... Flashpoint Middle East?



IronManBeta -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 4:42:51 AM)

Well, David didn't spend all this time coddling me along just to stop after one game from this engine. SimCan followed up the Central Germany and Northern Germany titles with Middle East so that would be a really, really good guess in due course.

Nuff said, Rob



IronManBeta -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 4:49:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stephen newberg

Originally, the sizing of the maps was done to be in sync with the FM requirements for the coverage zones of the sizes of the forces involved. Keep in mind that this game is a long term outgrowth of military work. Though one could certainly make for a bigger area, if you were to keep to FM considerations, you would also have to increase the size and number of involved forces for both sides, assuming you wish to continue to correspond to the reality of the time frame.

pax, smn


Stephen of course wrote the original SimCan game. When we talked early on about this new title he made the same point to me and asked me how much I wanted to write an AI that had to worry about cooperation between multiple sovereign units. 20 x 15 km sounded a lot more reasonable all of a sudden!

My biggest reservation was that effective ranges for tank guns had stretched out to 3,000 m or more. Just 3 tanks could span the whole 15 km with their fields of fire! That seemed totally out of scale but once the maps were done I saw how there could still be room for maneuver and such and the frontages worked out again.

Cheers, Rob.



CommC -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 5:07:24 AM)

I think the depth is ok, but the maps need to be a little wider, say 40 x 40 instead of 40 x 30.

I haven't seen all the scenarios yet, but so far my view is that there are far too many NATO forces on the map, given the "width". Nato forces should be stretched pretty thin on the front line with the WP in Germany.



hank -> RE: Map sizes (2/12/2005 7:49:11 PM)

For a test case or example; I just checked Red Hammer's Map; its 20 Kilometers wide by 15 Kilometers high. (40 squares x 30 squares @ 500 meter squares).

If I have an aerial photo of a landscape of an area this large, in pixels how many pixels wide and high would I have to shrink my bmp file to make if work in FPG? I'm thinking in pixels since that's one way Paint or Pixia or other programs I use determines bmp size.

Or is it just not that simple?

If I need to be asking these questions in the scenario section let me know ... this was just a convenient thread.

thanks
Hank



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125