How to recognise terrain?

[stikkypixie]

other games have a toggle button that you click, after which you click a point on the map and a pop-up with the surface and various penalties for each unit.

That's my point, the penalties don't exist (or more precisely not to the extent as in CMx1).

[TrailApe]

Hmmm - you are in a M4 and you want to cross a field - what would you do?

Use some weird lazer like beam that gives you a read out and tells you whether it will support your tank?

Or do you say

a) what the hell I'm going for it

not sure about that, I'll take another route.

Simples

[Crushingleeek]

yes, this seems like a case of reactionist who are used to a certain style (CM1) that was great, and understandably having a difficult time adjusting pitted against the new age of increased gameplay difficulty/complexity derived from added realism.

I second the "What would you do if you were that soldier/driver?" approach to this new game. Taking yet another step away from the classic wargames, percentages, and dice rolling, and really putting up a temporal-spatial simulation.

[Yskonyn]

yes, this seems like a case of reactionist who are used to a certain style (CM1) that was great, and understandably having a difficult time adjusting pitted against the new age of increased gameplay difficulty/complexity derived from added realism.

I second the "What would you do if you were that soldier/driver?" approach to this new game. Taking yet another step away from the classic wargames, percentages, and dice rolling, and really putting up a temporal-spatial simulation.

Spot on. I think the numbers game should be left here.

While you could make efficient plans in CMx1 based on simplified tiles weighing penalties and data values, the current game makes you think about your plans much more naturally.

I wonder wether there is a split in users here between the people already used to the engine from CMSF and the people being introduced to it by CMN.

It's a similar discussion we had once CMSF launched. People needed to adjust to the 1:1 representation.

I don't find it hard at all in CBN to read the terrain, but I have played CMSF a lot as well. And I did have problems adapting at first with that game too.

[Lt Bull]

Like what?

Open up the editor...all those "Flavor" items.

eg. fountains, rocks - can these actually be used for cover? concealment? hinder movement?

Each and ever shrub/tree truck?

Just remember how important knowing terrain is when looking at the map.

It's not just the COVER you are trying to access, its the level of CONCEALMENT it would provide as well as the impediment to MOVEMENT of different units/vehicles.

It's one of the things that struck me. It's comparable to the lack of tooltips on the icons - a little feedback would help considerably. Not everyone is going to either read or memorise the manual, or the editor. The lack of these things adds unnecessary complexity.

Exactly.

I don't find it hard at all in CBN to read the terrain

Essentially everyone needs to use the Map Editor before they can DEFINITELY say they can recognise terrain tiles just by look alone. Why I should need to do this when all I really want to do is just play the game is a bit annoying.

[stikkypixie]

Open up the editor...all those "Flavor" items.

eg. fountains, rocks - can these actually be used for cover? concealment? hinder movement?

Each and ever shrub/tree truck?

Yes. Flavor object block movement. Flavor object do not provide concealment. Flavor object block incoming round according to what you would expect (haystack vs concrete fountain). Yes every shrub, tree, truck block to some extent incoming fire.

[GreenAsJade]

I realised that this "more complex terrain scape" doesn't rule out a simple report of what is being pointed at by the targetting line. At least, it seems not...

... take the example of boggy ground covered by light undergrowth that was given before. Since each of these elements is represented by geometry (did I understand that right) then simply report what is the geometry under the pointer at the time. If I'm pointing at a leaf, say "shrub". If I'm pointing at the ground, say "boggy ground".

What's wrong with that?

GaJ

[Sirocco]

For me the point isn't about if you spend long enough with this or that you'll figure it out, rather that it shouldn't require that much work.

CMx1 had some cool stuff in it. The C2 and targetting lines were really helpful in at a glance understanding situations. Terrain feedback in helping to quickly understand the ground. You pull these little things out of it and it adds workload.

Without a doubt CMx2 is more complex, but some of that complexity is unnecessary. A little more of the CMx1 elegance returning in future patches would be really helpful.

[Zatoichi]

What's wrong with that?GaJ

Personally speaking, I'd find this pretty distracting, so if BFC ever did bother with this feature, I'd hope it was something I could toggle off.

I guess having played CMSF a lot helps, but I took to that pretty quickly too. Learning all the new bits and bobs in CMBN is fun for me, and adds to my enjoyment rather than detracts from it.

But hey, it's all personal taste at the end of the day.

[Lt Bull]

Yes. Flavor object block movement. Flavor object do not provide concealment. Flavor object block incoming round according to what you would expect

??? This is a very odd combination basically supporting my reason not to "trust" everything I see in the game. So there are objects that block movement and incoming fire but not LOS? So I could try to hide infantry behind a fountain but be wasting my time because this fountain does not hinder LOS, but it does block fire? So it may as well be an invisible force field?

For me the point isn't about if you spend long enough with this or that you'll figure it out, rather that it shouldn't require that much work.

CMx1 had some cool stuff in it. The C2 and targetting lines were really helpful in at a glance understanding situations. Terrain feedback in helping to quickly understand the ground. You pull these little things out of it and it adds workload.

Without a doubt CMx2 is more complex, but some of that complexity is unnecessary. A little more of the CMx1 elegance returning in future patches would be really helpful.

Elegantly put! My thoughts exactly.

[Yskonyn]

??? This is a very odd combination basically supporting my reason not to "trust" everything I see in the game. So there are objects that block movement and incoming fire but not LOS? So I could try to hide infantry behind a fountain but be wasting my time because this fountain does not hinder LOS, but it does block fire? So it may as well be an invisible force field?

From what I know of CMSF this is due to some abstraction in the game engine. It's not true 1:1 regarding LOS.

Wouldn't an enemy be able to spot a unit hiding behind a fountain quite easily? Helmets sticking out, seeing movement now and then over the edge of the fountain's basin.

Radioman's antenna sticking out, etc.

Hitting it, on the other hand might be much more difficult.

So there are some abstractions made. For example (don't honestly know it its the same in CBN) in CMSF friendly vehicles do not block LOS for units hiding behind it, but it does block incoming fire.

Think of it like the hiding crew is able to peek around it. This is detail, however, we lack in the game (e.g. the actual animations are not there of the crew peeking around or under or over the vehicle). Hence the abstraction.

But more knowledgable guys should chime in and/or correct me. But this is my understanding at least.

[stikkypixie]

??? This is a very odd combination basically supporting my reason not to "trust" everything I see in the game. So there are objects that block movement and incoming fire but not LOS? So I could try to hide infantry behind a fountain but be wasting my time because this fountain does not hinder LOS, but it does block fire? So it may as well be an invisible force field?

The flavor object in the game are relatively small, a grown man would find it hard to hide behind it, let a lone a whole squad. This goes for all the flavor objects in the game. Barring some very unrealistic map, not LOS doesn't change anything to the intuition of the game and saves a lot of CPU cycles.

Too each his/her own, but what "complexity" would you drop from CMBN?

[Zatoichi]

??? This is a very odd combination basically supporting my reason not to "trust" everything I see in the game. So there are objects that block movement and incoming fire but not LOS? So I could try to hide infantry behind a fountain but be wasting my time because this fountain does not hinder LOS, but it does block fire? So it may as well be an invisible force field?

Erm, the fountain flavour object is more like a drinking fountain, not much chance hiding one person behind them, let alone a squad.

For this very reason, the flavour objects are all pretty small so as not to cause too much jarring of the 'what you see is what you get' principle. I think the hay bale object is about as big as they get.

[De Savage]

I made reference picture in map editor for recognizing terrain.

Forest ground (even without trees) is impassable for vehicles. Vehicles should avoid mud, sand and marsh at all cost.

[Blackcat]

...

Without a doubt CMx2 is more complex, but some of that complexity is unnecessary...

To repeat the queston that has already been asked, what would you like to see taken out?

Not that it is going to be, so the question is somewhat redundant. There is at least one fairly simple tactical wargame which has all the features you seem to want...

[Michael Emrys]

You can see that's a plowed field. You can see that it has some brush over it.

Er, if you do, then you know that the map maker has thrown naturalness to the winds. In the amount of time it take for brush to grow, a plowed field would have long since ceased to be a plowed field.

Michael

[womble]

yes, this seems like a case of reactionist who are used to a certain style (CM1) that was great, and understandably having a difficult time adjusting pitted against the new age of increased gameplay difficulty/complexity derived from added realism.

Condescending, much?

I second the "What would you do if you were that soldier/driver?" approach to this new game. Taking yet another step away from the classic wargames, percentages, and dice rolling, and really putting up a temporal-spatial simulation.

I don't want to have to have to undertake the equivalent of tank training and terrain appreciation classes to be able to have a decent idea of the going that the trained troops that I'm giving direction to would have a far better idea than even the best JPG can show on a computer screen. If I "were that soldier/driver" I'd have a far better idea in my head of what I'm actually looking at, and my vehicle's (in the driver's case) capabilities: can a halftrack squash/cross that wire fence? As it stands, I have to try it and see.

Essentially everyone needs to use the Map Editor before they can DEFINITELY say they can recognise terrain tiles just by look alone. Why I should need to do this when all I really want to do is just play the game is a bit annoying.

This.

[Champagne]

I agree with those who contend that CMBN would be improved by addition of a Tool Tip of some kind that would name the terrain in the tile.

[Vinnart]

I have been thinking about this ever since CMSF. As mentioned it is a layered terrain so the simplicity of say, "brush, or "rough" are gone. Some have suggested having the cursor say rocky/brush/trees, but I do not think that would be as helpful than just havening a concealment %, and cover% rating shown as a sum computed of whatever layers they are. After all, this gets to the heart of what the player really wants to know regardless of what the terrain may be. The only terrain that you really need to be cautious of is MUD. In just that case having the word mud shown if it is a layer wouldn’t be a bad idea. MUD with bushes, and trees on it can still be a bit precarious even to an eye more familiar of what the different terrain tiles look like.

My answer: Just have it computed into a percent # that is idiot proof. Move the cursor here and it says Cover 10%, and move the cursor there it says Cover 50%. Even Gomer Pyle would figure which is better turf.

If I am not mistaken didn’t Cmx1 give a cover, and concealment % ?

[Lt Bull]

I have been thinking about this ever since CMSF. As mentioned it is a layered terrain so the simplicity of say, "brush, or "rough" are gone. Some have suggested having the cursor say rocky/brush/trees, but I do not think that would be as helpful than just havening a concealment %, and cover% rating shown as a sum computed of whatever layers they are. After all, this gets to the heart of what the player really wants to know regardless of what the terrain may be. The only terrain that you really need to be cautious of is MUD. In just that case having the word mud shown if it is a layer wouldn’t be a bad idea. MUD with bushes, and trees on it can still be a bit precarious even to an eye more familiar of what the different terrain tiles look like.

My answer: Just have it computed into a percent # that is idiot proof. Move the cursor here and it says Cover 10%, and move the cursor there it says Cover 50%. Even Gomer Pyle would figure which is better turf.

If I am not mistaken didn’t Cmx1 give a cover, and concealment % ?

That certainly is, as you say, getting to the heart of the matter. This would work for me. Even just guides like "poor", "good","excellent" cover/concealment.

[MikeyD]

Open up the editor...all those "Flavor" items.

eg. fountains, rocks - can these actually be used for cover? concealment? hinder movement?

Uh, yes, some of them can for movement and concealment. The appropriate ones, anyway. Don't try concealing yourself behind the milk jugs though. Hay stacks and logs are pretty good.

I frankly don't get the problem. You don't want to drive through the mud then don't drive through the mud. Its not like they're hiding it. Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between marsh and cobblestones? Don't be deliberately perverse.

[Lt Bull]

I frankly don't get the problem. You don't want to drive through the mud then don't drive through the mud. Its not like they're hiding it. Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between marsh and cobblestones? Don't be deliberately perverse.

Really? OK, then please help me identify what all the terrain types are visible in this battle screenshot. If you want me to zoom up on any just let me know and I will post closer up images.

[akd]

What terrain in that picture do you think is not what it appears to be?

[ChrisND]

Really? OK, then please help me identify what all the terrain types are visible in this battle screenshot. If you want me to zoom up on any just let me know and I will post closer up images.

Trees, bocage, dirt, some plowed fields and some grain. I spent about five seconds looking at it. I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. If it looks like dirt... it's dirt. If it looks like rocks... it's rocks. Etc.

What could use better feedback is fords and water.

[Lt Bull]

What terrain in that picture do you think is not what it appears to be?

I got no idea what any of it is meant to be (of course I can tell roads), only the scenario designer knew at the time. Are we compelled to open up the scenario editor view each and ever one of the wide range of terrain bases/layers combinations, in all the different lighting conditions, memorise them all and then play the game and rely on to remembering what they look like? Now THAT sounds like a deliberately perverse thing to have to do!

So you tell me...which is mud? :confused: Or isn't there any?

Here is a closup of some.

There looks like two types of grass on either side of the hedge. Is one more brown because it is soft/muddy ground? As far as game play goes, is there any difference between these two grasses or are they "just for show" (another case of don't believe/trust what you see?)