What do you expect from a map?

[Quintaxel]

I would like remap an existing map to see if I can improve the scripting to make the map more interesting.
Therefore I would like to understand what players expect from a good map. (Define “good” as fun to play). I'm especially interested in the player’s opinion about the behaviour of the AI.
So if anyone is interested in playing a map and share their experience then this would be helpful. I would also appreciate suggestions about improving the map. What is good in the map, what could be improved, how much time did it take to finish it ?
Maps are "Vanilla gameplay" so let's not discuss ranges

The map of choice are;

Desert Fox (mapper Elvin, BK 1.2 version)
Kasserine Pass SM by SergantMajor (BH,RT version)

Maps can be downloaded from Kaoz’s site www.blitzkrieg.be/bkmaps/sp/africa

Why these maps? Well I played them so I use my own experience as a reference

I'm afraid that for some experienced players playing these maps will be a walk in the park but that is also interesting information.

[atlas555]

Right now, I am playing the vanilla VI SS Balaton chapter by Manhunter.

It is the usual Manhunter work with lots of units I don't really use or need.

I like maps that don't begin with horrific artillery barrages on my positions before I have a chance to see what the map is about. Hate running around like a chicken right from the start.

I like a map with interesting terrain features, such as Stanenberg's Kursk 5 map with the fields of sunflowers. that was really tough to navigate thru.

I like maps where you have just enough stuff, if you are careful, to win. Not an overload of units.

I like maps that are set in the 43/44 time period, when the Germans have the best they will pretty much have.

In vanilla, there is no point in having an 81mm mortar, the thing is useless. But range issues are not part of the discussion.

I like maps that make me think and plan-no tank rushing BS.

Not a crazy overload of AI artillery or aircraft.

[atlas555]

One other important item: No timed missions unless it is the amount of time till a counterattack.

[Stanenberg]

I only have some general things that i expect from "good" maps:

- acceptable mapping. Doesnt have to be super detailed or innovative but mistakes like cut roads and plants on roads or random fields only are just ugly and not fun to play
- A limited number of units. Totally agree with atlas here, but thats personal perferance

About behaviour of the AI and fun-to-play:
- I like if the player has more than one way to approach targets. It sucks to have objectives were you can attack from the front only or they have 360° defence (yes, tedi88, i am looking at you). As long as this is given, a mission can be pretty good already. Everything else, like counterattacks or retreating AI, are just additional things if you want really good maps above the standard.

What is cool for the AI: Counterattacks, retreating when under pressure, when attacking the ai should stop attack once it took heavy losses, combined AI attacks with inf/tanks/artillery/airsupport.

If you can script pretty well, there are some more cool things that make maps very enjoyable, for example the AI using trucks to transport men and guns for defence/counterattack or the AI moving the position of its artillery so its more difficult to hit.

If you are a good scripter you can also use an active AI to increase difficulty instead of just adding a fuckload of units (especially artillery) with surprise counterattacks or other moves. 

Generally it can said be said that the more active the AI is, the better it is. On the other hand its very important the player can chose how to reach a target. Some missions have so many objectives they tell you virtually what to do and you dont have to decide any tactical moves or something. You have to find a fine balance between all these things to make a good mission!


Sorry for going a little bit offtopic there. I havent played the maps you posted. I am not a big vanilla fan 
Stanenberg

[Quintaxel]

Interesting feedback guys,thanks! Keep it coming.
Anyone, feel free to post examples of things you like in map or things of which you think they could be improved.
The purpose is to learn from this.

[Major Pain]

I mostly agree with the previous guys... but my vote is for Kasserine Pass.   That was a learning experience for the US Command and forces involved.  But it is also a great way to use tactical balance and flanking opportunities, even though the real life opportunity was very constrained.     Rommel sat for more time trying to figure out what to do next as the US continued to send him cannon fodder.  

I do not mean any disrespect to those brave men, but the truth is the truth... the US Command was utterly ill-prepared for this battle. My mother's eldest brother was lost at Kasserine, so this has a connection to my past.

Depending on which part of Kasserine you will focus on will almost dictate the expected outcome.  High ground defensive locations were not favorable to the US Forces and they were repeatedly challenged and dislodged by Rommel's Force.


However, this is the opportunity to change the outcome, for either the US or the Germans Forces.    Rommel had to contend with Generals that would not follow orders and deploy their armor.   This was the lost opportunity that Rommel needed to destroy the US force in its entirety.   While he had lead with his shear guts, he was finally able to prove his worth as the Desert Fox.  No other German officer would have pulled the first phase off like Rommel had done.

The US commanders had no idea how to fight in a desert battlefield.   They struggled with egos based on seniority and false pride.   None had battlefield experience as a Corp Commander or even as a Divisional Commander.    The US leadership was about the weakest it would ever be and Rommel was unable to exploit his true measure.  


It was within Rommel's reach to completely own the US forces and cause widespread panic within the United States citizens.   That was what he had set out to do, but despite his excellent battlefield tactics he was unable to get his own Commanders to join the fight.   The 10th Panzer Heavy Tank Unit was not deployed by Von Arnim as requested... and this might have been the only break the US needed to turn the outcome around.   

Rommel later commented that he was impressed how quickly the US Army had adapted to desert warfare.    He had less than praise for the same Army just a few days before the battle.   He always felt that he was confined by events of his subordinates as well as his own superior Officers for they rejected or denied understanding what Rommel already knew about the US Forces.    A total all-out decisive victory here would have shell shocked the US leadership for at least 6 months.   Patton would have never been turned loose, Bradley would have never been promoted and and Eisenhower would be left with a very dire situation of a total failure of his command.  This could have even cost IKE his overall Command as things went from bad to worse.


I am more attracted to missions which include some random factoring.   Things like reinforcements that are delayed or never reach your front due to some other event are extremely favorable to me.  I am not into tank or infantry rushes...  I prefer a combined arms approach where you must use all of your available assets to support each other.   The Germans were expert at this in 1939 into 1942...   but the defining moment of Kasserine for the US Commanders was their failure to understand what combined arms was about.  At the time, only Patton understood what the Roman Legions perfected during his first life...  (tongue in cheek).  

Without Patton the US was almost benign in Africa.   But this where Patton cut his teeth and defined what the US Army Mechanized Blitzkrieg was about.  
   
Go for it my friend, and we will see if your are the Master of your craft of scripting as I believe you are.      I would enjoy facing off against either Rommel or Patton as you decide.   I will watch whatever you decide to do with a great expectations.  

I do not flinch from the chance to be the underdog since it measures my ability to get out of the box.   Tough only means I have to step up and be tougher.  

-Even If I destroy a mouse or keyboard as I educate my grandkids in the finer arts of using expletives.   They are going hear much worse than what I can throw out before their reach puberty... so who better than PaPa to explain how this works.




For the rest of you...   speak up now or forever hold your peace....    

I might add a little bonus to this offer and work out a method of scoring that we can list the top players...   I need to study the After Action data to see if I can run some extra code with it to improve the picture.    But at any rate there is enough there to make it interesting... with a screenshot or two...  


Consider some changes in the medals and make it a two-parter so Cores Matter.

[bb]

Well, I agree with most comments of Stanenberg, but I'm not a supporter of the Rambo syndrome, very present in the "German School" of mapping, in real life there is no reload. So, in my opinion, the ideal balancement of a map is when the ordinary veteran player wont reload more then 2 times. Is not really important, after all, if you have much or few units because is possible to compensate it with terrain, air support and so on... the miost important thing is balancement.

Also, I believe is not necessary a great knowledge of script to make fun maps, just check the scripts of Dmitry M. maps and you will see my point. Also, I hate snipers or "escape" objectives, like "kill 1.000 enemy generals and you will receive 3 tanks", or "make a truck pass in the middle of the enenemy trenches and you will receive reinforcements".

In synthesis what makes a good map is a good concept, balancement, units placement, use of terrain, space to manouver, movement of the AI units, and a good timing in the events (like use of planes and counter-attacks).

BTW, today I almost just play eastern front scenarios, for the Soviets all the time and for the Germans between 1941-1942.

[kaoz]

Why not rework both of them? Just beware that Kasserine Pass is using LaPlata Gold Edition!

I like all map variations, except races against time and steamroller missions (where you run over AI enemy troops in 10 minutes). I've said it 100 times now, but I hate having one supply dump on the other side of the map, sure this can be historically correct but to me it's the point where BK becomes boring. However, this is not frustrating either as you can always add one through the MapEditor.

I do not hate objectives, soldiers need to follow orders sometimes, but of course, it's ok to have different approaches on a map. Although there a few maps where, in case you take another direction, you get reinforcements on top of your head. Not that I hate it but it just looks stupid. So, AI reinforcements should in that case check whether the player is in that specific zone or not. In most cases, the map-maker follows the direction he has in mind and does not test the what if player takes another direction possibilities. I have made that mistake a thousand times myself.

Having snipers or not is a personal taste. In most of my maps, I put one in a house and so the player can decide whether to use it or not. There are indeed lot of maps (even my own) that have overload of units. It doesn't matter that much: you can simply leave them at the start, not using them.

I hope for an AI that (counter-)attacks, nothing more boring than an enemy entrenched waiting for player to shell it to pieces, but it is a point in BK that's often an unavoidable part of it.

[Quintaxel]

Thanks again for the feedback.
As I see it, based upon the limited experience I have, there are different aspects of making a map.

1. Layout of the map, the terrain, roads and rivers.
2. The choice of units, the way they are positioned on the map and the AI setting of these units.
3. The scenarios. How does the AI has to react to the players actions and gameplay ?

IMO the scripting itself is probably the easiest part of making a map. Once you have figured out the different scenarios, so once you know what you want to script, it just comes down to code.

Although I can use the map editor I do not have the interest, time nor talent to start a map from scratch so I’ll stick converting an existing map.

Dec 13, 2015 14:49:12 GMT 1 kaoz said:

Why not rework both of them?

Let me start with one an see how far I get.
It seems that there are 2 versions of the Kasserine pass on your website. I’m looking at the Kasserine Pass by Dimitry M. right now because the scripting in the original map is really very basic.
I use the map as a sandbox to try out new ideas and scripts.

I've said it 100 times now, but I hate having one supply dump on the other side of the map, sure this can be historically correct but to me it's the point where BK becomes boring. However, this is not frustrating either as you can always add one through the MapEditor.

Fine,... there goes my first bright idea
I was thinking to have rather long supply lines on the map. Not that I care so much about being historical correct but the idea is that  supply lines need to be controlled by the player. I was hoping to "automate" the supply trucks movement because I agree that otherwise BK could get boring.
In most cases, the map-maker follows the direction he has in mind and does not test the what if player takes another direction possibilities. I have made that mistake a thousand times myself.

Correct, knowing what the player could do, how he will act is a true challenge. I guess you have to be a good player to become a good mapper.

I hope for an AI that (counter-)attacks, nothing more boring than an enemy entrenched waiting for player to shell it to pieces, but it is a point in BK that's often an unavoidable part of it.

Correct, the entrenched units should be smart enough to either retreat, surrender or take their chances and launch a counter attack. Surrender if retreat is impossible and a counter attack comes down to suicide. Launch a counter attack when there is a fair chance of survival. I need to think on how to deal with this.

First I need to figure out which units saw action in the battle of the Kasserine pass, the boring part of mapping I guess.

[kaoz]

First I need to figure out which units saw action in the battle of the Kasserine pass, the boring part of mapping I guess.

Even though I do not always care for historical correctness in BK maps, I like the part of doing a little research. Every story, no matter how terrible, has a historical value and there's always something to learn from. In real life, I hate war, but I like war-stories, I don't know why really.

I was thinking to have rather long supply lines on the map. Not that I care so much about being historical correct but the idea is that  supply lines need to be controlled by the player. I was hoping to "automate" the supply trucks movement because I agree that otherwise BK could get boring.

This is only my opinion, maybe others think different about this. Don't let my opinion stop you from doing what you want... In the MapEditor, there is a specific "rule" on supplies: the warebase plays an important factor on the automation of supply trucks and the smaller supply dumps will connect to this somehow. That is why a truck will not automatically drive to a supply dump if the player hasn't got a warebase. Distance between those also plays an important role. Moreover in the MapEditor, there is a way to test these "supply connections". Maybe you know all this already and want to try something new >>> great!

Correct, knowing what the player could do, how he will act is a true challenge. I guess you have to be a good player to become a good mapper.

Well, you always need to test the other options. You can order a player to go right, but you need to test what happens if he goes left, so to speak. Will your script still work in this case? Not sure if you need to be a good mapper, but having others to test and give feedback on the map is the best way. The mapper himself is always "biased" and will never do what others do/try innocently. What is obvious to the mapper, is not to the tester. And believe me, ten of us players will each play the same map somewhat different (except simple 6x6 maps where it's impossible to take another direction).

Correct, the entrenched units should be smart enough to either retreat, surrender or take their chances and launch a counter attack. Surrender if retreat is impossible and a counter attack comes down to suicide. Launch a counter attack when there is a fair chance of survival. I need to think on how to deal with this.

Yes, this is trial/error and testing over and over. Until now, I have never let the AI retreat. In my latest maps I have often marked the map into specific zones/areas and I let the AI continuously attack the player until a specific zone is taken. I like this because the player has to move forward while the action keeps going until that specific point. I am aware that not everybody liked this. It has an overwhelming effect on players who like things the easy way.

Just an idea: if you want to adapt these maps, maybe they could fit into the IUII mod. It has all the units for that battle and it would be an extra map to the mod. But don't feel obliged either, just thinking out loud.

[atlas555]

I like the option\idea of surrendering-it is factual. Would like to see more of it incorporated into maps.

[Stanenberg]

I love doing research. I find inspiration for my maps while reading books about WW2 lol

Letting the AI attack an area constantly untill another area is taken make, maps really difficult. 
Working with time limits after which enemy reinforcements arrive and counterattack the player seems imo more realistic and more fun to play. 

Generally i dont understand why time limits are so rare on BK maps. Its a wonderful way to make maps hard without adding tons of units for the AI, but for some reason everyone hates time limits in BK. I remember the Stalingrad map with 30 minutes timelimit, which everyone was complaining about. Everyone likes to slowly crush the AI and then they complain about the stupid AI which isnt moving.

Timelimits are a great way to make maps challenging without making the AI super active   Especially for those like me who suck at lua scripting

[Quintaxel]

Dec 15, 2015 14:24:27 GMT 1 atlas555 said:

I like the option\idea of surrendering-it is factual. Would like to see more of it incorporated into maps.

I have seen this in a map of one of the Panzerkrieg campaigns. I just cannot recall which map it is.
It should not be to difficult to script the AI to surrender units.

[Stanenberg]

Both Kursk campaigns and the Barbarossa campaign have massive surrender scripts on every map. 

[atlas555]

Thanks Stan. It really turns up the realism with that option scripted in. Soldiers do surrender.