New game

[Grognard Gunny]

At any rate, I do plug on. My primary problem in the map design situation is; Do I make the maps as close to the original landscape as possible, or do I keep it as "generic" as possible?" (Decisions. Decisions.)


GG

[Shad]

Original landscape.

[plloyd1010]

At any rate, I do plug on. My primary problem in the map design situation is; Do I make the maps as close to the original landscape as possible, or do I keep it as "generic" as possible?" (Decisions. Decisions.)

You want generic representation. That means keeping town, farm, woods and whatever terrain densities approximately correct. You might like HexDraw to play with.

[Grognard Gunny]

Now I've got the two "most experts" guys on the postboard with opposite POVs! NOW I'm back to an either/or decision... Oh well. 

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

The real "crux" of the battle (situation) IS at the Northern end of the corridor. If we take that "area" of the campaign, convert it into campaigns/maps, ect., we are looking at roughly 30 scenarios over 6 maps (?). We can still have additional scenarios for the other areas (comes to 10 -15 or so) that we can include with maps to be found in "other" PG games (Giving the old "advert" to the PG line.....!).

That seems a bit more manageable and likely as a design mechanism.

More to come, I'm still doing "refreshing the old head" research.

GG

[JayTownsend]

I agree with Peter on this one: generic representation. Because knowing AP/Mike, if you want additional supplements and games to use your maps, generic is better.

[Grognard Gunny]

That's two (of three) votes for the generic. I've been thinking that the "major" town map COULD be inverted to represent both Arnhem as well as Nijmegen. Looking at the scale of the area it COULD easily be 4 Maps for the Arnhem area and 4 maps for the Nijmegen area. Inverting one map for both towns would be good (both towns ARE practically the same, "generically"). One map (possibly two) for the polder. Another to represent Groosbeek Hts. Just "thinking".

How's about "The Crux of Battle" for the title?

Still doing my background research.

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

OK, the best I could do is eight mapsheets. Drawing them out is going to be another problem.... hexdraw is not working at the moment (I've seen this before, the site is probably going to go defunct...), so I will have to do the maps by hand (something I have done before, but REALLY dislike!).... so off I go....

Got a fairly smooth and final set of scenarios now. I need a couple of Bn of Polish paratroopers (and a better collection of British Paratroopers). Then it will be but a matter of writing out the scenarios, along with historical "notes" to go with them.

Fortunately, the Campaign is set up so that I can do a map or two, write the scenarios for each map as I go along as well as write the history, fold the whole into the campaign history, play test, "balance" etc. ad infinitum. (Easy, right!  )

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

Note: Not that "balance" should overtake the way a scenario "came out". "Balance" is more of an artistic affect, making the game more enjoyable (Particularly for the underdog!), while in keeping with the overall theme of the scenario/campaign. A fine balance to be sure!

GG

[plloyd1010]

Note: Not that "balance" should overtake the way a scenario "came out". "Balance" is more of an artistic affect, making the game more enjoyable (Particularly for the underdog!), while in keeping with the overall theme of the scenario/campaign. A fine balance to be sure!

GG

It helps to think about balance less of a "win the battle" proposition. Think more of accomplishment the mission. Now define the mission in light of relative forces and available terrain. If one side holds up the other for 4 turns, that might be a "victory".