Anyone want to play this one? CMBN

[Bulletpoint]

I agree with the others that it looks like a very poor map. Most of the stock quick battle maps seem poorly designed.

In my opinion, a good map:

• Looks like a real, believable place, not a tabletop with cardboard cutout forests and books for hills.
  
  
• Prevents both sides from gaining LOS to the opponent's setup zone.
  
  
• Provides enough terrain features to prevent you from quickly going all the way to the other side of the map.

But if you (many turns later) manage to infiltrate his setup-zone, because your opponent did not protect his flanks, then I say go for it. That would be like a boxer not keeping up his dukes - a knock-out is only fair and proper.

 

[axxe]

@axxe
matter or aren't related to my standard agreement/rules/guidelines I explained earlier. No offense.

None taken.

That would be very easy to do, even with the small setup area. I would imagine the empty green setup zone is sloping away from your LOS as the defender. If not it is an even worse map than I imagine.

It is a worse map than you imagine ;-) The attacker's setup zone is level with the entire rest of the map.

If you think my agreements are not in line with what you enjoy about this game, then we should not play, which is totally fine.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm a newbie and still figuring things out: what makes a good map, what people expect as far as fair play and gameyness, etc. If we play I'll be agreeing to your house rules. And I'll let you choose the map ;-)

 

[axxe]

I agree with the others that it looks like a very poor map. Most of the stock quick battle maps seem poorly designed.

Where does one find good maps?

But if you (many turns later) manage to infiltrate his setup-zone, because your opponent did not protect his flanks, then I say go for it. That would be like a boxer not keeping up his dukes - a knock-out is only fair and proper.

I agree completely. My preference is good maps and less house rules.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Where does one find good maps?

I recommend this map pack.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=0&func=fileinfo&id=1716

 

[Meat Grinder]

@axxe CMBN (being the first of the WW2 CM2 games) was released with some very simplistic, unrealistic, and rather boring quick battle maps. The two add on modules offered some better choices. The other games (CMFI, CMRT, CMFB) have a much better selection of QB maps, IMO.

 

[Will S]

Finding good maps is the crux, I go about it by just looking around until I find one I like and that can take a while. I'll also admit I'm a map dork, and in more ways than just this game. Came away from college with a BS in Geography and love well made maps.

CMFB vastly improved QB maps. The MG module helped with CMBN. I've never seen that repository, thanks for sharing!

I have slowly started a project where I want to take some scenario maps from CMBN and turn them into QB maps, offering more objectives, and including some other ideas I have going. Hope to put some time into it someday. Also some of the meeting engagement maps are improved over the probe/attack maps, just I don't enjoy meeting engagements as much...some of those are also on my redo list.

 

[Meat Grinder]

Shouldn't be too difficult to convert scenario maps as long as they are for H2H play only. That way you don't have to fool with "programming" the AI.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Shouldn't be too difficult to convert scenario maps as long as they are for H2H play only. That way you don't have to fool with "programming" the AI.

Getting the balance right is extremely difficult though. Singleplayer missions are designed with a lot more troops on the AI side, to make up for its extreme incompetence. Such incompetence cannot be guaranteed when playing against a human opponent

 

[Meat Grinder]

However most scenarios are also designed for H2H play.

 

[Bulletpoint]

That has not been my impression, but then again I only played CMBN so far.