David Aitken

An even shorter, wider flight. This seems to serve little purpose; such a feature would only be found in a location of particular value, such as leading up to an important building, or in this case, leading down from a main street (Princes Street) to adjacent Gardens. The main point of interest here is the thick stone barriers at either side. These are carved and are not solid, but are rather sturdy and would serve the same purpose as the battlements of a castle. Infantry could use the gaps as firing ports, and would be afforded considerable small-arms and shrapnel protection by the stonework. This serves as an example of how certain architectural features often carry embellishments which alter their tactical value. This is a slightly different concept. Very steep hills might seem unsuitable even for a flight of steps. Set at an angle, in this case even a simple ramp is sufficient. Even a near-vertical cliff can be made traversible in this way. On CM's scale this would maybe be too subtle a feature; such ramps tend to be very long and thin, and cover a large area without occupying much space. This would not just apply to urban scenarios, however – a mountain trail would be done in the same way. Consider how the apparent insignificance of a mountain trail belies its importance – it may just be a little ramp cut into the side of a hill, but without it there's no way to get up unless you're a trained mountaineer, and even then it'll take you a long time. (10 of 12)

A feature of King's Bridge takes me on to my next section: 3. STEPS I think urban scenarios are much poorer for the lack of steps. Currently in CM, when a squad traverses a slope they will slow down, and a cliff is completely out of bounds. In a rural scenario this makes sense. In the city, however, there are many situations where a slope or a cliff is easily traversible thanks to a flight of steps. Moreover, when a city is constructed, constant, rolling terrain is terraced to allow for buildings and roads, creating dramatic elevation differences where steps are a necessity. CM cannot yet handle terracing, and as such, steps are not so much of a necessity. They would definitely make a difference just now, but they will really come into their own as the CM engine develops to allow for more dense and varied terrain. Steps are very often to be found sandwiched between buildings. As with the closes featured earlier, in this case the steps pass underneath a tall building via an archway. Consider the "A Walk In Paris" scenario included with CM. Restricted to the tile system, a city becomes a grid where each large square is either a building, a road or a garden. A narrow 'alley' can be approximated by interspersing the 'heavy' tall buildings with 'light' tall buildings, which are slightly narrower with space on either side. This creates a means of passing through the row of buildings without having to enter them. This 'alley', of course, can only be flat and grassy – it cannot take you up to a higher level, and if it were sloped, it would slow infantry down, when in reality a flight of steps would allow them to move nearly as quickly as a level road. Of course, whether it would be advisable for infantry to rush around in confined spaces between buildings is another matter. This is a nice example of terracing. Here we have two parallel roads with a row of buildings in between, but they are at different levels. I didn't check, but if the buildings have an entrance at the back, it will be a floor higher than the front entrance. A flight of steps (essentially a helical staircase) facilitates a vertical ascent to the higher level. This also illustrates how steps are not always just a ground-hugging feature, but are very often almost a building in themselves. (The blue kiosk is either Dr Who's Tardis or a Victorian police box, depending on who you ask.) A wider, more open flight. Notice how, rather than each step being longer to follow the slope, they are of set dimensions and there are landings at regular intervals to spread them out. In tactical terms, this would provide infantry with some cover if fired upon from the top or bottom of the steps. An uninterrupted flight would offer no more cover than a road. (9 of 12)

Back to the Cowgate. This is what George IV Bridge, pictured earlier from above, looks like from below: It's not the kind of obvious bridge found in CM – it merges in with the surrounding buildings to carry one road over another. It would be normal for a minor road to pass over a major road, but in this case it's the other way round – everything is focused on the higher level, and it's not too difficult to overlook the bridge altogether when you're crossing. Here is another good example of that. King's Bridge, directly below the castle. What bridge? This one. Rather big, rather wide, and not apparently a bridge when seen from above. Tactically, negotiating such an obstacle would be a different issue from a plain bridge. (8 of 12)

The station is rather interesting in itself. This is the east end, which illustrates how it is not a building, but rather just a large shelter. At either side is a tall wall, and the roof is perspex I think – I suspect it would have been wood or corrugated metal when it was first built. It is held up at regular intervals by iron columns. This is the west end. Waverley Bridge actually forms part of the roof of the station. It looks relatively modern, but the whole structure dates back to Victorian times and the construction of the New Town. Two large ramps provide vehicular access to the station, to either side of the purple building in the picture. These ramps form yet more of the station roof. Again we have a construction which is different things depending on where you see it from. A roof from below is a bridge or a ramp from above, and again these roadways hover above the ground without affecting what is beneath them. You might be wondering where I took that picture from. Floating above the railway line? Here is the view in the opposite direction: This is The Mound. Remember that the railway runs along the bottom of a dry loch; when the New Town was built, debris from the excavations was dumped into the loch, and this 'mound' became a roadway and home to a couple of large buildings. This picture features in my 'bridges' section due to the railway tunnels. Terracing (which I discussed at the beginning of the thread) sets the railway at a lower level from the Gardens on either side, and the tunnel in question is quite short. In tactical terms it would present quite an interesting obstacle. Tunnels, of course, do not feature in CM. (7 of 12) [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 02-18-2001).]

2. BRIDGES As they are currently implemented in CM, bridges are very limited. They must be one of two specific heights, and most importantly, a tile must be reserved at each end for the bridge to run into. This picture nicely illustrates why that is a problem: This is Waterloo Place (an extension of Princes Street, Edinburgh's main commercial street) crossing over Calton Road. I love it because it is so freakin' huge, and is surrounded by some extremely tall buildings. Again, the buildings' main entrances are on Waterloo Place, but this is actually halfway up. In CM terms, the bridge occupies a single tile, and the four diagonally adjacent tiles are occupied by tall buildings. CM cannot handle bridges in this way, nor does it have such tall, thin buildings. (Notice the ornate structure on top of the bridge instead of a simple railing.) North Bridge, which crosses over Waverley Station. Not sure why I cut off the north end of the bridge. How this differs from the CM concept of a 'bridge' is obvious. Whereas the arches in a CM bridge are arbitrary, and they don't really matter because the only thing you can put under a bridge is a perpendicular road or river, here the positioning of the piers is crucial. The spans are much longer than a CM bridge, and there are two or three piers at specific locations in or next to the railway station below. The bridge essentially 'floats', and is largely independent of the station. It does not hug the ground CM-style to the exclusion of all else. (6 of 12)

This picture was taken at the top of Johnston Terrace. The church is in between this street and Victoria Street. The grey building on the left is on the other side of Victoria Street. Starting to make sense? Look closely at the model posted earlier. The ground slopes sharply away from Johnston Terrace, so buildings fronting onto the road are practically falling down the hill. The buildings lining Victoria Street below are at the bottom of the hill. Taking this into account, the builders have seemingly wedged Victoria Street's buildings underneath Johnston Terrace's buildings. This is the view from Upper Bow (the upper level of Victoria Street) looking back up. The 'side entrance' to the church is a floor down from the front entrance. These steps take you down to Victoria Street. They are built into the row of buildings. The situation is very strange – what looks like the ground from one side, you realise is actually rooftops from another. Understandably, this kind of sculpting is far beyond what CM is capable of – but at the same time, it is essential to the kind of scenarios that CM seeks to portray. (Notice the railings – being necessary to stop people from falling off buildings, I suspect these are originals.) (5 of 12)

And now, by special request of Andreas: Victoria Street! On investigation I found this to be far more interesting than I had previously realised. I shall start with a rather nice model provided by the cooncil (to be found on The Mound). On the left, Johnston Terrace, from where I took my pictures of the castle. On the very right, George IV Bridge passing over the Cowgate (and disappearing into oblivion, according to the model). The spiral street in the middle is Victoria Street, and it's even better than it looks here. Here we are at the bottom. How does it strike you? The tenements up above look a bit out of place – where are they, on the roof? Notice how the curving, sloping street affects the buildings – five storeys at the bottom quickly condenses into three storeys further up. Also notice on the very right, a building with four storeys which actually has more space than the adjacent building with six storeys. The former obviously has high ceilings. Moving around the corner, the mystery deepens – more buildings built on the rooves of others? Notice how the storey condensation leaves the shops at the top of the hill with only a single storey to play with, and the very curved façade of the building on the right. Up on the rooftops, we find there is actually a walkway between the two levels of buildings. But what the heck are they doing on the roof? (4 of 12)

This is a very interesting picture. This is the junction between Candlemaker Row and George IV Bridge. Referring to the map (bottom middle), you will see that the bridge in question passes over the Cowgate, while Candlemaker Row takes you down to the lower level. The main issue here is the block of buildings between the three streets – they form a triangle, with the roads sloping up on one side, down on the other, and level at the back, and the up-sloping road passing over the level one. Very complex, and totally beyond the capabilities of CM. I will come to the bridge later, but just now, look up the road on the right – from this angle you would never guess it actually passes over a bridge. This is an important issue – very often two roads can cross over each other, but each road is a world of its own, and you're not aware of what's going on on the other road. This is very different from a simple bridge of the CM variety, where it might as well be a large plank of wood. Cockburn Street (pronounced without the 'ck'), an S-shaped road leading down from the north side of the Royal Mile. It slopes and curves, and the buildings follow suit. Think about the shape of the buildings as seen from above – the map will give you some ideas. They aren't definite, self-contained buildings – they're all kinds of different shapes and merge in with each other, following the roads and filling out the available space. This is also similar to the Candlemaker Row example; behind the rearmost buildings you see here is North Bridge (pictures later), which passes over Market Street on the left – so this block of buildings fronts onto a straight, level street on one side, a sloping, curving street on the other, and backs onto a third street at a lower level. (Tactical note: notice the building on the right with a turret on the corner. This is a more recent design, but is based on medieval castles, which were built this way for military purposes – providing a lookout post to cover potential blind spots, a purpose which they would still serve in modern times, although being much more susceptible to modern weapons.) (3 of 12)

1. STREETS The New Town was planned and executed in a modern fashion. The Old Town, like all ancient settlements, developed over hundreds of years. Modern roads mark thoroughfares which were not devised by city planners, but were simply the most logical routes over the terrain taken by the eariest inhabitants of the area. Buildings are not distinct and uniform – they follow the winding roads, adapt to the shape of the terrain, and are so dense that they practically merge into each other. Narrow closes (alleys) disappear into the edifice with little indication of where they lead. The Lawnmarket forms the top end of the Old Town's main street, otherwise known as the Royal Mile, with the castle at the top and Holyrood Palace at the bottom. This is 'wide' by Old Town standards. The street is sloped all the way, and does not form a straight line. (Tactical note: the winding street allows occupants of certain buildings a clear LOS of large stretches without having to lean out of their window.) Notice that adjacent buildings have floors on different levels (eg. on the right, above the shop with the dark green façade, the lower floors of the building do not align with those on either side). This clearly suggests that we have a tall, thin, five or six storey building which forms part of a row, but which is not connected with adjacent buildings. Consider the difficulties this would present in trying to move up the street during combat, even when 'mouseholing'. The sloping ground also necessitates the continual realignment of 'ground floor' without breaking the continuity, a technique impossible to achieve in CM. The Cowgate runs parallel to the Royal Mile, but at a lower level. There are several tiny closes piercing through the buildings to link the Cowgate with the streets on either side. This is a more dramatic example of street sloping. Compare the cobbled road with the windows on the adjacent buildings – there is a whole floor's difference from one end to the other. The close actually enters the street above through an archway in the buildings. An even narrower close, squeezing through some very imposing buildings. Again, access to the street above is through an archway. The combination of tall, thin buildings and steep, narrow pathways is alien to CM. Another narrow close hemmed in by very tall buildings. (An item of tactical interest here: a kink in the façade creates a column of windows set at an angle, with perfect LOS down the street.) (2 of 12)

Back by popular demand, welcome to the second edition of European Architecture To Make Game Programmers Weep! Our intrepid correspondent, armed with a Nikon Coolpix 990, on Friday ventured into the heart of the ancient city of Edinburgh with the sole objective of revealing just how poorly suited Combat Mission's engine is to simulating the kind of urban terrain common to Europe and Russia. BTS, please fix or do somefink!! The first thing I did was to borrow a Fiesler Storch from the Luftwaffe and effect a daring reconnaissance mission in the skies over peacetime Edinburgh. This is what my target area looks like from above: I wouldn't have posted this, as I don't want to turn the thread into a guided tour of Edinburgh, but for the fact that it's a very good example of what I'm getting at. This is the city centre. Princes Street Gardens is a large depression which used to be a loch (lake), and it forms a barrier between the New Town and the Old Town. Compare the street layout to the north, which was constructed in Victorian times, with that to the south, which is many hundreds of years old. The New Town is a rigid grid layout not unlike that common to the USA. It should be noted, however, that it is actually built on a slope – George Street marks the top of a ridge line, and the ground drops south to Princes Street, and north, over a longer distance, all the way down to the Firth of Forth (River Forth). Even this situation is a bit beyond what CM is capable of, with buildings side by side going down a slope. The Old Town is fascinating. It is a miscellany of narrow streets, twisting over and under each other, all hemmed in by tall buildings which very often front onto different streets at different levels. I have concentrated my study in this area, as it brilliantly exemplifies everything CM cannot do. Before I get into my main sections, there is quite an appropriate issue to deal with. Many of the oldest towns and cities in this part of the world propagated around a port or a castle, centres of Roman or medieval activity. Edinburgh is an example of the latter case. Where do you build a castle? In an easily defensible location with good visibility (remember we're thinking in terms of swords and horses, not the SAS and ballistic missiles). Edinburgh Castle is built on top of a volcanic plug. It is surrounded by near-vertical cliffs on three sides. If you wanted big cliffs, you wouldn't think to look in the middle of a city, but that's what Europe is like. Currently there is no 'cliff' terrain in CM, although this can be approximated with steep ground and the 'rough' tile. In the lee of the volcanic plug (ie. the ground which was shielded from the glaciers which shaped the terrain) is the castle esplanade. This is essentially a forecourt and the entrance to the castle. The main compound has a drawbridge, but the esplanade is also protected, by a high wall. Notice how the wall forms the crest of a steep ridge line. (The curved structure in front of the main living quarters is a gun platform with cannon ports.) On the opposite side of the city centre is Calton Hill, with some more nice examples of buildings right on the edge of cliffs. Notice on the very right, the cliff has been complemented by a large wall. This kind of feature is alien to CM. (1 of 12)

I picked up a Voodoo 5500 for peanuts – before 3Dfx went bust, that was like the most powerful card available for Mac. I tried it for a bit, and then went back to my ATI RAGE Nexus 128. The RAGE 128 is a generation earlier than the Voodoo 5500 (The ATI Radeon is equivalent), but the Nexus just works a lot better, and more importantly, 3Dfx's RAVE support seems pretty poor. This wouldn't matter, since Apple discontinued RAVE a while ago, but many recent games, CM included, are written for RAVE and I think Apple is continuing to support it (I think they'd have to). ATI has a compatibility advantage, since up until recently they supplied all the graphics chips/cards for Apple. Apple has now effectively switched to nVidia, but GeForce cards are only currently available in new G4s. So, an ATI card would be your best bet. If your "G3 300MHz" is a blue-and-white model, go for a Radeon. If it's an older beige model, like mine, this means the system architecture is slower, and you won't be able to make full use of a Radeon. Technically there's no reason why you shouldn't get one, but I think a Nexus is a better match for the system (or an Orion, which is the same but with half the RAM). You should be able to pick one up pretty cheaply. Disclaimer: This advice makes sense to the best of my knowledge, but I could potentially be talking rubbish without realising it. =) David

Germanboy wrote: > Large buildings have firewalls in between them in Europe Suck on that, Yankees! Us Europeans had the internet 60 years ago!!

The standard size for a browser window is about 700 pixels wide. Netscape 4 Mac has this as a default setting, which I like, even though it only takes up about half of my monitor width. Anything wider and I have to scroll sideways. Any picture wider than 600 pixels will distort the message layout on this forum. This will be a particular problem for people with small monitors (15" or less than 1024x768), and I think this represents a significant proportion of CM players. I tend to keep the pictures I post to 500 pixels wide, or less if they are vertically orientated. 600 is okay, but this also makes for a bigger download. Depends how compressed it is. David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 02-07-2001).]

The Commissar wrote: > Someone posted an example somewhat like your own, but was then severely flamed said person presented his argument in an offensive way. I assume you are referring to CPT STRANSKY. W&C, you might want to take a look at this thread: CRAP AI, Other BUGS ,Fix Or implement IPX/TCP!!

aka_tom_w wrote: > AND this is JUST the DEMO!!!! Full games don't usually do anything different from demos, they just have more of it. In other words, they don't require any more RAM. ------------------ This allows me to consider my Draw a Major Victory, according to the modified curve standard in use by the World Massacre Association. – Mark IV

That was beautiful man. Now for heaven's sake get a life. I highly recommend you sell your computer and pass your time by going for walks in the fresh air or communicating face to face with other human beings. I can assure you, from extensive experience, that computers are a waste of time and money, and half of the effort expended in front of a computer is to simply keep the damn thing working. Unless you are bauhaus, in which case we won't discuss expended effort in front of computers. And computer games are a waste of time... huh? Matt? What are you doing here... what is that, chlorof..MMFFLE!!! I believe what David was trying to say is that time NOT spent playing computer games, Combat Mission in particular, is wasted. Except where earning money to afford computers and copies of Combat Mission is concerned. David needs a rest now, I think... Madmatt

God that was awful. Four weeks with a tiny Compaq goldfish bowl of a monitor while my Apple 17" was employed on the Dark Side. Almost as bad as the work itself. Never again. ------------------ This allows me to consider my Draw a Major Victory, according to the modified curve standard in use by the World Massacre Association. – Mark IV

Joe, I believe PintnerZee is currently hurling himself down mountains with a couple of sticks tied to his feet. I would have suggested he should try tying them around his neck, but he owes me money.

The wee icon at the top of your post with a face and a question mark takes you to your profile. Edit your profile through the link at the top of the page. David

We should know better by now. All Gunny ever does is drop by to start pointless threads, and then proceed to ignore any replies he gets which disagree with him, just making more posts on the original subject and trying to suppress the feeling that he's on his own. We should all just let this thread go, because we're not going to conduct a proper discussion with him. He just wants to be heard, he won't listen to dissenting voices.

MikeT wrote: > Paras; I do wish they had factored having random placement for paras at mission start. Say each unit could have its drop zone plotted on the map and then the program would factor a random displacment in direction and distance when reinforcement arrives. Also would like to see fatigue level be randomized as well, simulating loosing some troops in the drop or having units be disorganized from the drop. Now an AA unit nearby would have an afffect on this. Only in exceptional circumstances will paras drop into a combat zone. CM rightly simulates paras having dropped previously, organised, and gone into battle basically as infantry. The scale of a CM map is too small for a drop zone anyway – the whole map might be the target, but then you'd have troops all over the place. Likewise, reinforcements aren't exactly going to parachute down on the enemy's heads. As always, if you want to model special circumstances, do it in the map editor. There is a good example of this bundled with the game. David

The only issue concerning opponents is the times they are available. If someone is free for the next few hours, it doesn't matter what time zone they're in. There aren't any other issues with TCP/IP, and PBEM is even less of a problem, because you don't have to be available at the same time. David

It's more difficult to Fast Move vehicles in a convoy. Ultimately Move is quicker, because they're slower, but they get jammed up less often. I think this is pretty realistic. I'm not saying the inability to swerve is realistic, but have you thought about what it would take to program vehicles to move in convoy? Sure, a simple "follow" command would probably work, but expecting the AI to decide whether a stationary vehicle is an obstruction or not, and whether or not it should wait, swerve, reverse, replot its waypoints or whatever is a bit much. This is a combat simulator, not a convoy simulator. David

Gunny, BTS is a small company and must take measures to avoid piracy. Microsoft can handle it, but not BTS. They've got better things to spend their time programming than a complex CD "refuelling" system. Since you have so much money to buy top of the range graphics hardware, why don't you invest in a cheap CD drive, so the CM CD doesn't have to occupy your main drive all the time? David

A server for what?