Moderator: Cartographers
German Railroad Gun at Elsenborn
ELSENBORN BELGIUM
We dug in, on the fields in front of the town, with “F” & “G” companies in front of us. My company was in reserve as we only had 18 men left. There was lots of our artillery setting up around Elsenborn and behind it. Came a time when the Germans down in the heavy woods began to fire a large railroad gun at prime targets and our artillery. Word was put out for everyone to search for the railroad gun. Artillery planes were out looking, and we infantry were sent out on special patrols, looking for railroad tracks, but still the railroad gun would set up and fire one or two shells, then disappear again
HitRed wrote:Bombarding from railroads will be a dramatic start. The Bastogne area won't have a sigle blade of grass standing.
Minister X wrote:HitRed wrote:Bombarding from railroads will be a dramatic start. The Bastogne area won't have a sigle blade of grass standing.
Wait. I think we overlooked something. If railroads are bombard like Waterloo, you'd never be able to cross them. They have to be bombard like Feudal, where you can also attack normally into adjacent terts. On the Feudal Epic map this is explained as follows: "Castles can conquer adjacent kingdom regions and bombard non-adjacent kingdom regions." We'll have to say something like "Troops on railroad hexes can conquer adjacent hexes or bombard two or three hexes distant." I think that's clear enough. Understood
You're extremely correct about the Bastogne area. It's going to be wild fighting around there what with all the ranged attacks and bombardments. I see both positive and negative aspects to this. Negative: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. Positive: extreme chaos and an inability to form a coherent plan of action until a player has managed to secure the whole area and force the fighting to the perimeter. In other words: these rules will make play on this map, especially around Bastogne, unlike play on any other map. Players will have a tough time adapting. But that unique quality is what will set this map apart and hopefully make it popular as a diversion from the routine. I can foresee some CCers getting very good at this type of play and offering game after game to the unwary in an effort to up their ranking. I'm okay with that. Winning games and advancing through the ranks is sorta the whole point of CC for most. In a 2 player game only is there a viable option from the outside if player 2 gets kicked out of the Bastogne area?
Fog games are going to be interesting on this map. With ranged attacks, if you're hit from a tert you can't see, the system simply reports the hit without telling you from whence it originated, right? That's cool and certainly not unrealistic. Doubly so for bombardments... get too near a railroad you can't see and suddenly, out of the blue... Pow!
Hey! Maybe we should make towns like railroads - able to support bombardment. Not unrealistic - artillery sometimes hid in towns. And most towns would be within range of another town or two. There could be an artillery duel between Monds-St-Etienne and Chanogue. Why not? More danger and chaos and it makes towns have even more strategic value. Perhaps we ought, if we adopt this rule, increase their starting neutrals from three to four (and Bastogne to seven?) and make towns worth a three bonus instead of just two.
Towns are towns. The +2 autodeploy for attacking only 3 is already gold.
HitRed wrote:In a 2 player game only is there a viable option from the outside if player 2 gets kicked out of the Bastogne area?
Minister X wrote:I respectfully request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum. Thanks.
MrBenn wrote:Further to the swastika debate, I have had confirmation that the symbol should not be used on any CC maps. This represents official CC policy, and is not open to negotiation. Please use the German cross instead.
iancanton wrote:i'm somewhat surprised that this is regarded as one of the most famous battles of the last hundred years, as i've never heard of it! a tagline saying battle of the bulge below the main title might help players to place the battle.
iancanton wrote:i also suggest something for which u'll probably hate me: try turning the hexagons 90 degrees, so that the troop counts are more spaced out when they reach 3 digits on the small map.
iancanton wrote:u'll notice that virtually all of our really big maps have been by established mapmakers who've already proved that they have the staying power to see their projects to completion. however, i like the concept, while the gameplay has clearly been given some thought. ... if u wish to make a supersize application for this map, then EBConquer, the cartography assistant for graphics, will be able to look at it after his return.
iancanton wrote:consider whether u need so many regions for the concept to work.
Minister X wrote:Ijex: glad you like the concept. The legend must be as concise as possible to save space. I'd love to spread it out and show examples of everything but that would mean reducing the number of terts on the map. As for your problem with the columns and rows, yes, you are missing something. Take another look and don't miss those arrows - they will help you.
Minister X wrote:The additional advantage of your suggestion is that when the grid is rotated the army numbers become staggered and can bleed into the neighboring hex without overlapping other numbers. This allows for the use of smaller hexes.
Minister X wrote:Any chance you can let me make just one size? If not, any chance I can make the small one just 5% smaller instead of 9%?
Minister X wrote:But my intent when I started this map was to make one of reasonable size with maximal terts and if your responses are positive maybe I can even do that at 840x800 (and whatever).
ljex wrote:ljex wrote:the columns / rows dont line up unless i am missing something. 1-20 on the top and 8 - 27 on the bottom.
I get it now but would recommend making the columns vertical instead of angled.
iancanton wrote:if there's little prospect of the gameplay working at 630 x 600 for the small map, then a supersize application is ur best option, after u establish the size that u need.
Minister X wrote:I appreciate the criticism. My map depicts only a fairly small part of the Ardennes Offensive but it is the same battle. I'd be quite open to adapting the "system" used here to a different battle but certain criteria would have to be met:
• Because my intent is to maximize the number of terts, the shape of the battlefield must be roughly rectangular, wider than it is high, because that's the shape of CC maps. And most of the area must be tert-able (to coin an adjective).
• There should be a variety of terrain, such as forest, swamp, river, mountain or rough/broken, city/town. Most, but not necessarily all.
• Ideally there should be tactically significant roads and railways.
Based on your post I just spent a good two hours looking at WWI and WWII battle maps, seeking one that's not already a CC map and that could work with my system. None would work nearly as well as what you see above centered on Bastogne. I'm not kidding. I can't say my search was exhaustive but I must have studied at least 25 maps of battles with names that are famous enough to attract the attention of potential CC players. It was frustrating. But eventually I arrived at a possible solution. Consider a CC game named "Patton Advances". With that title I can choose any area of any size/scale along his lines of advance in North Africa, Sicily, France or Germany. It doesn't have to be the site of any famous battle. Simply by using the name Patton in the title I create an anticipation of an exciting, fast-moving armored battle. I can find some rectangular area with famous cities/towns, a nice river or two to break up the map, some forest and/or swamp, roads and railways. It would be easy to adapt the ranged attacks from roads/rails that we've employed above.
Is this a good idea? Vote yes or no - should I create "Patton Advances"?
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users