WWII Ardennes Offensive [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

Congrats Qwert.

C.

[Qwert]

Thanks to all who whas in pre forge stage give feedback,now its time for XML to start.

[wcaclimbing]

its been quite a long time.
good job reaching final forge!

[wcaclimbing]

I don't see why DiM keeps complaining about this map.
It looks good to me, can't wait for it to be playable.

It will be interesting to play on.
good luck in these last few days/weeks before its playable.

[Incandenza]

So by and large I like what you've done here. It's like a funky mash-up of berlin and midkemdil, and you've made a lot of elegant decisions that help you capture a reasonably reaslistic sense of the battle.

But there is one big gameplay issue that I have. I apologize if this has been brought up, but even if it has I can't imagine what the argument was. But there are waaaay too many dead end bottlenecks here. Two places in particular are really bad (unless, of course, I'm reading the map wrong): V Panzerarmee has 5 terits behind it, and US1 HQ also has five, with british guards behind it blocking three. Plus there's four or five other terits that can only be attacked from one other terit.

This is not a good thing, and it's what makes valley of the kings such a crap map (sorry, cairns). The drop becomes much more important, and it'll be basically impossible to play with escalating cards. There's a really good reason that few maps have so many dead end bottlenecks.

I understand that there's historical accuracy to consider, but I'm pretty firmly on record as saying that sometimes real world accuracy has to take a back seat to playability and graphics.

And the solution is really simple: an attack route from US VII corps through 17th parachute division to british 53rd division, and one from LXVI korps to IISS korps. The bonus structure demands holding multiple, sometimes unconnected terits with strength, so it's not like the elimination of these bottlenecks will make it impossible to hold bonuses.

[yeti_c]

So by and large I like what you've done here. It's like a funky mash-up of berlin and midkemdil, and you've made a lot of elegant decisions that help you capture a reasonably reaslistic sense of the battle.

But there is one big gameplay issue that I have. I apologize if this has been brought up, but even if it has I can't imagine what the argument was. But there are waaaay too many dead end bottlenecks here. Two places in particular are really bad (unless, of course, I'm reading the map wrong): V Panzerarmee has 5 terits behind it, and US1 HQ also has five, with british guards behind it blocking three. Plus there's four or five other terits that can only be attacked from one other terit.

This is not a good thing, and it's what makes valley of the kings such a crap map (sorry, cairns). The drop becomes much more important, and it'll be basically impossible to play with escalating cards. There's a really good reason that few maps have so many dead end bottlenecks.

I understand that there's historical accuracy to consider, but I'm pretty firmly on record as saying that sometimes real world accuracy has to take a back seat to playability and graphics.

And the solution is really simple: an attack route from US VII corps through 17th parachute division to british 53rd division, and one from LXVI korps to IISS korps. The bonus structure demands holding multiple, sometimes unconnected terits with strength, so it's not like the elimination of these bottlenecks will make it impossible to hold bonuses.

That's a great post Inca... - Bit surprised Oak missed out on this though?

C.

[Qwert]

by Incandenza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:24 am

So by and large I like what you've done here. It's like a funky mash-up of berlin and midkemdil, and you've made a lot of elegant decisions that help you capture a reasonably reaslistic sense of the battle.

But there is one big gameplay issue that I have. I apologize if this has been brought up, but even if it has I can't imagine what the argument was. But there are waaaay too many dead end bottlenecks here. Two places in particular are really bad (unless, of course, I'm reading the map wrong): V Panzerarmee has 5 terits behind it, and US1 HQ also has five, with british guards behind it blocking three. Plus there's four or five other terits that can only be attacked from one other terit.

This is not a good thing, and it's what makes valley of the kings such a crap map (sorry, cairns). The drop becomes much more important, and it'll be basically impossible to play with escalating cards. There's a really good reason that few maps have so many dead end bottlenecks.

I understand that there's historical accuracy to consider, but I'm pretty firmly on record as saying that sometimes real world accuracy has to take a back seat to playability and graphics.

And the solution is really simple: an attack route from US VII corps through 17th parachute division to british 53rd division, and one from LXVI korps to IISS korps. The bonus structure demands holding multiple, sometimes unconnected terits with strength, so it's not like the elimination of these bottlenecks will make it impossible to hold bonuses.

These can be arange.

[DiM]

qwert, you said nobody complained about your map hence it is good to go. i say nobody complained because nobody cared. i still don't care but you asked for it.

first of all i'd like to mention the below average graphics. because honestly what you have here looks more like an early draft than a final image.
for my post i chose another map that i believe is the most similar to this one. the battle for gazala. we have below the 2 images:





please compare the 2 images you'll see a huge difference. heck if i look at the original draft for gazala and that looks even better than what you currently have.

original gazala draft:


notice how your map is made out of little icons connected by black lines superimposed on another image?
notice how cairns has taken the time to recreate the landscape the town tanks mortars mines and basically everything in that battle field?
basically what you have done there is the work of maybe 1-2 hours maximum.

i would try to give you feedback as to what needs to be changed and improved but honestly everything has to go and made from scratch.

[fireedud]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but on US V you only have 2 white stars, unlike the other two HQ's.

[TaCktiX]

DiM, there's one thing about the Ardennes Offensive that I like that the Battle of Gazala draft is missing. The entire theme of the map resembles an army placement map in wartime, including the coordinate boxes. qwert is using official schematic symbols to correspond with units, the legend is structured like it's a breakdown of enemy and allied forces, the non-attack route backdrop resembles a simple terrain map of the area. Just like a commander would see as he was plotting his next move. The only thing departing from the theme is the necessary attack routes for CC use, and that's an acceptable loss. When it comes to consistency with theme, qwert's work far outstrips Cairns.

As two further "blueprint/schematic" examples, how about consider your own CC Mogul (a blueprint with stains on it) and qwert's prior-quenched Iwo Jima? Just because it's not bling doesn't mean that the maps graphics are not up to standard. I'd rather have something with thematically correct graphics than something with shnazz that had no place.

[TaCktiX]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but on US V you only have 2 white stars, unlike the other two HQ's.

It's because a Major General commanded that corps, as opposed to the Lieutenant Generals of the other two ones. The map's authentic to the last.

[DiM]

DiM, there's one thing about the Ardennes Offensive that I like that the Battle of Gazala draft is missing. The entire theme of the map resembles an army placement map in wartime, including the coordinate boxes. qwert is using official schematic symbols to correspond with units, the legend is structured like it's a breakdown of enemy and allied forces, the non-attack route backdrop resembles a simple terrain map of the area. Just like a commander would see as he was plotting his next move. The only thing departing from the theme is the necessary attack routes for CC use, and that's an acceptable loss. When it comes to consistency with theme, qwert's work far outstrips Cairns.

As two further "blueprint/schematic" examples, how about consider your own CC Mogul (a blueprint with stains on it) and qwert's prior-quenched Iwo Jima? Just because it's not bling doesn't mean that the maps graphics are not up to standard. I'd rather have something with thematically correct graphics than something with shnazz that had no place.

well it's agood thing you mentioned iwo jima. compare that with ardennes and you'll see that's a map schematic with true feeling. it's shaped like paper it has utensils on it it has a nice map and so on. same goes for cc mogul. yes it's a white print but there are tons of little details that make it accurate. creases from the triple fold stains from coffee a curl in the corner.
ardennes doesn't even resemble an authentic war map like iwo jima does. if that's what he aimed for then he failed. iwo jima is a far superior representation of a war map.

[TaCktiX]

Army Diagram

Found a picture of an army diagram, of the Ardennes front prior to the Offensive proper. qwert has taken a map very similar to that, colorized/idealized the situation, and added strength information, similar to what a military historian would do to analyze a battle. It's not a "top secret plan", it's not a "blueprint", it's a look back at how things were set up, diagrammed properly with a breakdown of all relevant information right there. (Yes, I realize I'm partially contradicting myself here, but what a commander uses and what a military historian compiles are virtually identical in substance, the latter looks better) Again, I contend that this map is thematically proper graphically speaking.

[Qwert]

To incandensa
aim check map gameplay,and i must say,that so many botleneck in these case its not advantage for players. In these map you must hold some number of same unit to get bonus.
In your example if i conect 17th parachute division with British 53rd infantry division(you very good read army symbol but you forget infantry here) you will get same result,and player can hold all these unit defending one place US I Army,but bonus score is same 0,even if he take US VII Infantry Corps and 75 infantry division bonus score will be same.
Situation with Conection LXVI korps with IISS Korps(you very good read german symbols)give oposite result,because if i connect these two player will have chance to holdind Bonus for korps and in your case he will have chance to hold bonus for korps.
Like i say Botleneck situation will not bring any bonuses.
One player can hold Group unit and defend in US I Army.
Second can hold group in II SS Korps and 3 PanzerGrenadire and 12 VolksGrenadire(waith a moment these is not botleneck because player must defend these group in three units).
3 player can hold group in 4 Infantry Division and US III Infantry Corps.
Four Can hold group of unit in V Panzer Armee.

And do you know what reinforce get?
hold terittory 3 army
bonus 0 army.
Can you imagine no card game in these map,full strategy thinking to get any unit on map who need for bonuses,and these unit who need is very good conected with 3-4 roads.
But if you thinking that these two conection will be good then i can add,but will not change nothing in gameplay.

[Qwert]

Dim
first of all i'd like to mention the below average graphics. because honestly what you have here looks more like an early draft than a final image.
for my post i chose another map that i believe is the most similar to this one. the battle for gazala. we have below the 2 images:

First i must say that cairnswk create hes style to present Army unit,and i my self give hem Sugestion to add Germans symbols for Army and Panzer units.
I present map to be(you dont read first post) like military map with official Map marking symbols.
Autenticaly mine map will be close to military map then Cairnswk,but again i repeat that i dont want to compare with hes,because these is Cairnswk vision of GAzala Operation.

notice how cairns has taken the time to recreate the landscape the town tanks mortars mines and basically everything in that battle field?

Do you notice that in mine map without Legend,only general(i mean real General)will know what some unit present.and Cairnswk is use non official military symbols(General will not understand what mortar,tank present on map),again i repeat you can not compare map with official military symbol,with Cairnswk Artisitic view of some armys.

basically what you have done there is the work of maybe 1-2 hours maximum.

Yea in your dream.First you must spend very large amount of time to find all relevant information abouth Ardennes Offensive,and not like yours AOR,who you create with yours names.Why you not try to create Some historical battle from WWII,and you will see what you need for these maps.

notice how your map is made out of little icons connected by black lines superimposed on another image?

Its these a problem for you?How will you connect symbols on map?

by fireedud on Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:01 pm

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but on US V you only have 2 white stars, unlike the other two HQ's.

Tackticx
It's because a Major General commanded that corps, as opposed to the Lieutenant Generals of the other two ones. The map's authentic to the last.

Yep,3 stars for Lieutenant General and Two starts for Major General.If you want i can give you names of comanders.

well it's agood thing you mentioned iwo jima. compare that with ardennes and you'll see that's a map schematic with true feeling. it's shaped like paper it has utensils on it it has a nice map and so on. same goes for cc mogul. yes it's a white print but there are tons of little details that make it accurate. creases from the triple fold stains from coffee a curl in the corner.
ardennes doesn't even resemble an authentic war map like iwo jima does. if that's what he aimed for then he failed. iwo jima is a far superior representation of a war map.

Iwo Jima is autentical also,except aim not put map marking symbols,maybe you ask why,i can not find JApanese army symbols,only USA symbols.Also these is NAvy operation.
In these case Ardennes Offensive is Far more Autentical Military map in CC(Iwo Jima dont have Military unit symbols).

[cairnswk]

DiM...I do wish you hadn't dragged me into this discussion on Qwert's map.

How the bloody hell can you compare Gazala with Ardennes. While they're similar "line maps" they're totally opposite in design aspects and ambience, and Gazala is a far more "artistically licensed" map. Both maps have good amounts of detail to produce good play.

Qwert is right when he says he has used official material to create his map, whilst i used a basic map and drew some shapes onto top of that, and then added some paintbrushing.

I beleive Qwert has put a lot more into his map towards making his an official style of map, which is yet another variety of the different types of maps we have in CC.

To say that it is anything less than AAA+ you gotta have rocks in that head of yours.

I will grant that Ardennes is busier than my Gazala particularly in the legend, but then that is how Qwert has done his map, and perhaps all that business is why there has been some lack of feedback; perhaps this is also a seasonal change, and the Ardennes Operation is not a well known as other battles like Midway and Market Garden.

To be honest DiM, i think you're clutching at straws again, and making mountains out of molehills trying to compare Parmesan Cheese with Swisse Cheese.

And Dim, once again, i have to say....if you don't like a design work then don't play the map, create your own version in the hope that you'll do a better job and then let us all come in and trash it.

[DiM]

cairns, i didn't drag you into anything i just compared 2 similar maps. one with great graphics one with no graphics.

and qwert i don't deny the fact that you spent hours researching i just said the graphics are crappy and look like they took you 1-2 hours to create.

as for my AoR map it's a totally different thing and it can't be compared. i had no reasearch to do but i had to use my imagination and create something good and i certainly spent more than 1-2 hours to create the graphics.

if you guys really think this map can be considered as having good graphics then i can accept that and let it go. but i will also create a war map like this one and with the same shitty graphics and i don't want to see a single soul complaining. ok?

[cairnswk]

cairns, i didn't drag you into anything i just compared 2 similar maps. one with great graphics one with no graphics.

well DiM, if comparing my map with Qwert's isn't draggin me into this then i don't know what is.

What is up with you this weekend? There has to be something amiss somewhere.

[cairnswk]

if you guys really think this map can be considered as having good graphics then i can accept that and let it go. but i will also create a war map like this one and with the same shitty graphics and i don't want to see a single soul complaining. ok?

No...that won't happen...everyone will trash it in payback.

[cairnswk]

And another thing DiM, i won't bother to comment on your maps anymore, because everytime i do, even if it is to suggest a little improvement, you put up the biggest defence barrier on why you don't want it changed, that i simply just don't even bother anymore to comment on your maps. Ever noticed that happening lately!!
One day Dim, you might wake up and smell the flowers and realise that you're not always right even though you like to think you are.

[DiM]

if you guys really think this map can be considered as having good graphics then i can accept that and let it go. but i will also create a war map like this one and with the same shitty graphics and i don't want to see a single soul complaining. ok?

No...that won't happen...everyone will trash it in payback.

i won't mind i'll just say i spent countless hours doing the community a service and the foundry should have the decency of quenching the map. also in the process i will create at least a dozen additional threads complaining nobody visits my map or that other maps are getting the attention mine deserves or that we should put a stop to all maps (except mine) because we have a map inflation.

And another thing DiM, i won't bother to comment on your maps anymore, because everytime i do, even if it is to suggest a little improvement, you put up the biggest defence barrier on why you don't want it changed, that i simply just don't even bother anymore to comment on your maps. Ever noticed that happening lately!!
One day Dim, you might wake up and smell the flowers and realise that you're not always right even though you like to think you are.

no problem mate, you don't want to comment it is your choice and i respect it. as for me defending and not changing things you're a bit wrong here since i implement lots of changes according to people's feedbacks. for example mayhem is in final forge and i just made a gameplay change because somebody suggested it and i liked it and saw no reason to refuse it.

and yes i know i'm not always right but in this case i am. ardennes has a shitty graphic compared even to maps quenched one year ago. yes i'm not diplomatic, yes i don't sugarcoat things and i always say what i think even if might hurt people's feelings. consider me brutal, consider me a jerk, an asshole or whatever but if i think something is wrong i will say it and not sit around ignoring it. that's just how i am.

as for something happening the past week to trigger my outburst i think it's pretty clear what happened. ardennes got forged. just that, oh and i'm tired of qwert bumping his map and creating topics all over to draw attention to a map instead of improving it or abandoning it.

[cairnswk]

and yes i know i'm not always right but in this case i am. ardennes has a shitty graphic compared even to maps quenched one year ago. yes i'm not diplomatic, yes i don't sugarcoat things and i always say what i think even if might hurt people's feelings. consider me brutal, consider me a jerk, an asshole or whatever but if i think something is wrong i will say it and not sit around ignoring it. that's just how i am.

And strangley....i still luv and respect ya!

Now back on topic....

[DiM]

and yes i know i'm not always right but in this case i am. ardennes has a shitty graphic compared even to maps quenched one year ago. yes i'm not diplomatic, yes i don't sugarcoat things and i always say what i think even if might hurt people's feelings. consider me brutal, consider me a jerk, an asshole or whatever but if i think something is wrong i will say it and not sit around ignoring it. that's just how i am.

And strangley....i still luv and respect ya!

and i thank you for that mate the feeling is mutual

Now back on topic....

ok, qwert, change the graphics and stop blinding us with the horrible image you have now. god damnit take a look at your other maps and compare them to this one. you have talent and can create something much better instead of running around the forum bitching that nobody visits your map.

[cairnswk]

ok, qwert, change the graphics and stop blinding us with the horrible image you have now. god damnit take a look at your other maps and compare them to this one. you have talent and can create something much better instead of running around the forum bitching that nobody visits your map.

If you ask this of qwert, i'm going to ask it of you in mayhem. Because i think you mayhem is shocking.

[Incandenza]

qwert, I don't want to change the bonus structure or anything like that. But the bottlenecks will really impede gameplay, and the thought of playing no cards on this map give me the shakes (tho, to be fair, I'd rather slit my wrists than play any more 6p no cards games). Those extra 2 attack routes will help the map flow a lot better, otherwise you'll have situations were people will just camp on the big bottlenecks. And like I said, the bonus structure is such so that it's not like you're creating a connection between argentina and eastern australia, for instance.

As far as the graphics go, they're all right. It actually reminds me of those tabletop war games I played as a kid, with the little cardboard squares that denote the units. Is this the most beautiful map on CC? No, not by a long shot. But the graphics work well with your overall concept, which is the whole point.