Hi guys quick question,

The paper maps in this expansion cn they be made with existing tiles? I have everything except the tile set.

Rgs

Dec

You will need the tile set (or 2) as you requires 6 tiles of river, 2 having bridges. I don't have any problem with the paper maps personally as they don't move about and the edges line up properly.

I prefer the tiles, but don't mind the paper maps. The paper maps are quick to set up, but limited in battlefield layout.

My one disappointment with Zverograd's is the inclusion of another bridge map. That significantly reduces the functionality of the overall map set, as only those who don't have either the tile set or the Revised Core Set would not have a bridge and river set available.

While it gives the possibility of a slightly over 7' (2.16m) river with 2 bridges combined with the Revised Core Set, I would have preferred more varied building/open terrain as from the opposite side of the Revised Core Set maps. As it is, unless going for very long battlefields, the second river set creates a far more restrictive set of options for battlefields with the paper maps, as we only have two with buildings, and two with open fields. Two more versions of ground maps would have been far more functional.

I don't find frequent bridge battles that interesting, though they can be fun on occasion.

A two map set with several buildings, for closer urban terrain, or one with several buildings and one with few or none, would have been far more viable than another bridge.

Well, if you want several buildings, just use the ones on SeeLowe..

I doubt we'll see tiles released with campaign expansions anymore, simply because Dust Warfare players aren't going to want to be paying for them.

I'm not a fan of the paper maps myself, but can understand where they're going now that there are 2 games, and I hope if future expansions have more paper maps, they're relase more tile set expansions that can replace them.

Loophole Master said:

I can, and do, but for those without Seelowe, or simply looking for a quick and easy map to set up, having two bridges, and only four other map options, gives only 6 map layout pairs other than a bridge battle.

If they had given two additional ground map sections instead, players could have the bridge and 12 map layout pairs of ground terrain. That's a significant difference in the options allowed using just the paper maps.

The two sets of bridge maps only allow a few variations of a 4x6 map tile equivalent battlefield of 42.5x65" (108x162cm) (an error on my earlier post where I used the wrong orientation of the maps). I'm not going to consider using a really long map of only two map tiles wide (21x130"). Two maps with off center bridges technically give eight variations flopping the map pairs end for end and playing from both sides, but they're still just two maps sections with off center bridges. Having the twin bridges also adds the issue that twin bridges are not very common, and so make less sense as a possible battlefield option.

Sets of ground terrain allow for variations of the map that way, or with a 3x8 map tile configuration of 32x85" (81x216cm). Each ground map could also be oriented two different ways with the other maps, as there is no need to match up bridge sections.

Three sets of ground terrain would give 192 base combinations in each layout (4x6 and 3x8), but each map within the configurations can be oriented two ways individually, creating hundreads of map options without the need for Seelowe's building tiles.

Ease of setup with a huge variety sounds much better than a long bridge set that's rarely used and makes little sense.