Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: South Mountain needs more maps to its rotation

  1. #11

    USA Captain

    Cairnsy44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    157
    I would absolutely love having Crampton's Gap. I posed that question a few months ago, mostly to get regiments of the Vermont Brigade to be playable. Agree on NJ as well. Thanks, Saris for bringing it up again and in such a detailed manner!
    Descendant of David Jewell - 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, Philo Johnson - 11th Vermont/1st VTHA

  2. #12
    Forrest_3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Tenn.
    Posts
    14
    Battle of Shiloh ?

  3. #13
    Battle of Shiloh was not in the 1862 Maryland Campaign...

  4. #14

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    590
    Fuck it.

    Alamo.
    1st Maryland is pretty cool, ya know?

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    Compared to South Mountain, also recreated in 1:1 on a 4x4 kmē map, Cramptons Gap does not fit on the map layout and is outside the map border, since its way down south of the actually map size. For Cramptons Gap, you would need to create a new battlefield itself, which is still an option for the future development
    Is 4km the maximum dimension for a map in the editor? Why not utilize a 8km x 2km playing field and retain a 16sqkm playing area? Or 5kmx3km for 15sqkm? Engine limitations? Or is the 4km on the east-west axis actually utilized in a meaningful way? Because from the maps that im looking at the battlefield seems to have had a depth of a little over 3km. Would it not be possible to trim the margins on the east-west axis to allow for more playing area on the north-south axis?

  6. #16
    Agreed, it would be amazing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •