Map and Battle maps

Here is the map and the list of nodes and their corresponding SOW maps.

I have tried to correlate the terrain on the historic map to the best-fit map in SOW.

Note, the following nodes represent eastern mountain passes:
5
11
14
18
28 (which also represents Thorton's Gap)
34
43

Link to the official map: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Battle maps. Each number corresponds to a respective node labeled on the map. These should be clear.
1. Alpine
2. Ant pm
3. Gettysburg
4. Ant am
5. Fox
6. PPT
7. ECF
8. Mac Map
9. Gettysburg
10. Ant pm
11. Fox
12. Alpine
13. Ant am
14. Cramp
15. Devil
16. PPT
17. Gettysburg
18. Cramp
19. PC2
20. ECF
21. PC 1
22. Ant pm
23. Culps
24. Alp
25. ECF
26. Cramp
27. Kansas
28. Fox
29. Devil
30. PC 1
31. Gettysburg
32. ECF
33. PC3
34. Cramp
35. Ant am
36. PC 1
37. Gettysburg
38. Culps
39. ECF
40. Kansas
41. Alpine
42. Ant pm
43. Fox
44. Kansas
45. ECF

Let me know if there are any discrepancies which you notice.

Good luck, the campaign is now begun!

I'll check the list tonight.

Remember you have Elpine1 and Elpine2, Olustee, Trevallion Station and DaVinci's new 10 mile map we could use.

Mr. Digby wrote:I'll check the list tonight.

Remember you have Elpine1 and Elpine2, Olustee, Trevallion Station and DaVinci's new 10 mile map we could use.

These are maps I do not have! I'll have to add them and modify.

-N-

Trevalion has road problems. I fixed them, but have not put it into the mod. The Elpine maps are pretty boring, just being a flat plane.

Mr. Digby wrote:I'll check the list tonight.

Remember you have Elpine1 and Elpine2, Olustee, Trevallion Station and DaVinci's new 10 mile map we could use.

I opted against the 10 mile map because it's just ridiculously huge. Of course, I don't have to place the units so far apart either, but in all, I kinda feel it's a bit boring as a map. Fairly featureless, just trees.

Father General wrote:I opted against the 10 mile map because it's just ridiculously huge. Of course, I don't have to place the units so far apart either, but in all, I kinda feel it's a bit boring as a map. Fairly featureless, just trees.

I was playing playing around with it earlier this week, and rather like it. It does have buildings, fields, fences, walls and high ground. It's just that it's much less densley populated with that stuff than the Gettysburg map for example. OTOH it's actually slightly better than that map in FPS.

Should you use it, I agree you would need to place the units of both sides in just one sector. It just takes too long to make contact otherwise.

Martin

+1 for the 10-mile map. I've played with it a bit. Just meant to do some testing and got sucked in ... If it works, I'd be happy to play on it.

Jeff

Yes, the 10 mile map is a must, its new ground and its interesting terrain too.

While the Elpine maps are flat, the vegetation is attractive and they might suit 1 or 2 of the nodes on the valley floor where there's no big towns.

In all these maps we can start the sides quite close together, so 2 brigades fighting 2 brigades could use a small area of the Elpine maps, you just use 4 markers to show the boundary like Stefan did with his 1st Manassas scenario.

Mr. Digby wrote:Yes, the 10 mile map is a must, its new ground and its interesting terrain too.

While the Elpine maps are flat, the vegetation is attractive and they might suit 1 or 2 of the nodes on the valley floor where there's no big towns.

In all these maps we can start the sides quite close together, so 2 brigades fighting 2 brigades could use a small area of the Elpine maps, you just use 4 markers to show the boundary like Stefan did with his 1st Manassas scenario.

Good point. I'll revisit the assignments today and add the 10 mi map to a few spots. It does offer the prospect of marching to the sound of the guns, and reinforcement from an adjacent area.

-Neal

Don't forget Valverde & Secessionville once Kevin remakes the maps for it or whatever fixes are needed for it to work. Course it seems to be working for me with the Couriers&Maps mod, but I'll try and test it in MP to make sure.

Baldwin1 wrote:Don't forget Secessionville once Kevin remakes the maps for it or whatever fixes are needed for it to work. Course it seems to be working for me with the Couriers&Maps mod, but I'll try and test it in MP to make sure.

Please not Secessionville! It looks lovely but I don't want to touch it again until the AI has learnt not to go through a swamp when there's dry land 20 yards away.

Jeff

There shouldn't be too much AI in player vs player.

Baldwin1 wrote:There shouldn't be too much AI in player vs player.

I meant AI in the sense of the game engine, not as in AI / Human. Regiments will wander into the swamps.

If there were a "march via dry land rather than a swamp unless there is no alternative!" button for troops, I'd consider playing on Secessionville again. Till then, I'd rather not ;-(

I thought Kevin had done a fix for Seccessionville that allowed troops to move reasonably quickly through the swamps.

Either way I don't see that map being suitable for representing any location in the Shenandoah Valley.

Seccessionville was fixed but as Digby said, not really appropriate. Valverde is desert and not really appropriate either. We probably won't have so many battles that we would go through all the maps Neal picked. The south should cave pretty quick.

Neal, I've given some thought to the suggested maps-to-nodes question and I have many alternatives.

One thing you can easily do is rotate the map 90 deg clockwise or anti-clockwise or 180 deg to give a different N-S-E-W orientation. This does many useful things and fits many more maps into potential locations, particularly where water courses or railroads are concerned.

I'll PM you the list later.

Neal, could you update the first post with the custom maps which are being used. Many thanks.