Skip to main content

Mega-Game Mapping: 1 Map Size

This blog has been pretty dry for the past few months. A new job with long hours and a lot of mega-game mapping. So lets talk shop mega-game mapping.

I've started doing maps for the Pennine Mega-gamers, a group formed last year that intends to run about 5 mega-gamers a year. You can find us here http://www.penninemegagames.co.uk/.

I've done one map for Sengoku;

Liberated from my friend  Pete Sizer's blog: https://spprojectblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/sengoku-a-samurai-megagame/
I am currently just rounding off the map for a Very British Civil War, and I am working on map for the Jena Campaign and will soon start work on an update to the Urban Nightmare game map. I have also more or less completed the map for a Chosin Reservoir campaign game Pete and I will run later on this year. Starting with this one I'm going to throw together a couple of posts of the things I have learned from doing these maps.


1. Size

Mega-games are mega. The maps have to be pretty big, bigger than I expected in fact. I, despite being a geographer, am not very good seeing size in my minds eye. That Sengoku map in the above image is 1.5m across and about twice that length long. I originally designed it to be 4A0. We then found a printer that would do vinyl banners for slightly cheaper at 1.5m wide so we switched to that. 4A0 is about half the size I thought it was. This turned out to be ok for Sengoku, we only had around 20-25 players and only 7-10 around the map at any time and a 4A0 map can handle around 8 players but it would have been too small for a game with 40 or 50 players. The map for a Very British Civil War will be two maps each the size of Sengoku. I would say that a game centered around one map, with 10-20 players at or around the map should be around 8xA0 in size. I think that is roughly the size of the D-Dodgers and Don't Panic megagame maps. The only downside with this size is that its quite a stretch to reach the middle which is a limiting factor. If you have a double blind game, Jena, Chosin Reservoir it can be smaller because you will have fewer than 10 control players moving units.

The other key thing to consider with map size is the size of the units. In Sengoku the military units were square wooden tokens about 5cm by 5cm. We needed to fit the at least two stacks of these units into the smallest territories. I sized the map with that in mind and the above was the result. For Jena and Very British Civil War the designers requested Hexes and I have sized these hexes to hold the counter sizes they have asked for.

2. Working with Size

Large maps require a lot of computational power to draw. I did Sengoku with 8gb of RAM, a Geforce 680 and an Intel I5-25k. This managed with a 4A0 map but it was a struggle. I have since blugged in another 16bg of Ram to bring me up to 24. This has helped, alot, but it still not exactly smooth, particularly with my current method of doing hex grids. I've also had to learn Inkscape as raster graphics takes way too much memory to handle these sizes at any reasonable resolution. Sengoku was printed at 200dpi, which looks fine for a poster print. To draw a map of that size you have to use vector graphics (google vector vs raster graphics for an explanation). Inkscape is a good bit of freeware software and whilst it handles bigger maps better than GIMP it can still be rather power hungry. In short if you want to design graphically complex large maps you are going to need to learn some good vector software and have a machine that can handle the load. I may talk more about software in a later post, but for now this will do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Looks: Cimean War Battles - Tchernaya River

 A quick one today I traded off Across the Narva by Revolution Games (should post something on this) for an oldish (2000) copy of an S&T magazine. The mag came with two battles reprinted from the 1978 Quad game on the Crimean War. The full Quad also contained Inkerman and Balaklava, this magazine version just has Tchernaya River and Alma. Initial setup Early SPI games (and actually GDW and AH come to think of it) of the 70s tend to have lots of rules you already know. I go, U go, movement, fire, melee, rally, and most of the rules are standard. Command and control rules and friction of war arrived a lot later. To couter this I have added a simple house rule. For each division (units are brigates and regiments, about 2-8 per division) roll. On a 1 in 6 movement is halved unless the unit can charge, in which case it must charge the nearest enemy.  A simple easy to apply rule for generating those light brigade charges. You could also easily convert this to a chit pull game by division

Quick Looks; Red Star / White Eagle

I generally hate it when people describe designs or ideas in games as dated, because many of the most innovative games  are older than I am. Equally it implies there is something innately good about new designs, which I don't think there is. Dune is arguably the best multiplayer 'war' boardgame and the 70s basic DnD is in my view still the best RPG. I wasn't born until the late 80s and didn't discover these things to the mid 2000s so this isn't nostalgia doing my thinking, its just that some old ideas are better than new ones, despite our apparent 'progress'. Back when Roger B MacGowan did cool art house covers But having said all this Red Star / White Eagle is a dated game design. And this matters if you are looking at popping £70 on a new reprint of it from Compass Games. I am a wary cheapskate so I picked up a second hand copy with a trashed box of ebay for £20. It was worth it, but only just. Poles have just been creamed on the south we

Wilderness War is probably the best CDG (review)

One attribute of a good war game is that it opens up rather than narrows down the more you play it. Each time you play you see there is more strategic depth than you thought there was. When I first started playing Wilderness War, a card driven wargame design (CDG) on the French Indian War by Volko Runke, I thought it was simply a case of the British building a large kill stack and marching it up the Hudson and the French trying to get enough victory points (vps) from raiding to win before the inevitable. The outcome would likely be decided by card play and who got the reinforcement cards when they needed them. The game is afoot.  Four games later I have realised that this is not the case. Yes the British will sometimes win by marching a big army up the Hudson and sieging out Montreal, but a lot of the time things will play out quite differently. Maybe the French strike first, perhaps the British realise that going up the Hudson is going to be a slog try another route. Ei