Ken Talley Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I like the look and variety of buildings that we are seeing in the screenshots. Will buildings occupy terrain in proportion to their actual sizes? In other words, will a building represent a single building rather than a cluster of buildings? I followed the discussion below concerning CM and it's role in advancing computer wargaming with interest. My impression is CM will be the cutting edge of tactical WW2 wargames in a variety of areas including 3D graphics, AI, game mechanics- and perhaps with weather. I don't know if the interface will be cutting edge or not. But one area of CM I am a little concerned about in regards to cutting edge is type and variety of terrain. Terrain is a very important consideration in WW2 tactical wargames as it shapes/controls troop movement and positions. For example, I believe both brush and footpaths are not going to be in CM which is disappointing to me. I may end up eating my words on this and I hope I do, but types of available squad level appropriate terrain may be the one area in which CM may not be cutting edge vs their competitors. I mean no offense but as an individual with a geology degree, it is one pet area that has been on my mind. I have no doubt that CM will have enough terrain types but I am not sure it will be cutting edge in this one area vs its competition. Now please make me eat my words ... Thanks, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 Ken, The terrain types in CM are: Open Foxhole/Crater Scattered Trees Woods Tall Pine Woods Roadblock Barbed Wire Dirt Road Paved Road City Pavement Train Tracks Marsh Grain Rough Rubble Slopes Cliffs Water Ice Bocage Stone Wall Hedge Wood Building (small, 1-level) Wood Building (large, 2-level) Stone Building (small, 1-level) Stone Blockhouse (very large, 2-level) Church (very large, 2-level) Bridges (various types, over water or land) How's that? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted August 12, 1999 Author Share Posted August 12, 1999 Thanks Charles, very impressive. I really like the variety of woods types. And it is always nice to have a neat looking church. But is it too late to see scrub brush as an intermediate form of cover between open and woods? The footpaths are also nice to offer some rapid channelized movement of infantry w/i woods. In addition, they would offer some tactical objectives from what could be a featureless massive block of forest. Brush could also break up forests or be used to represent forest firebreaks. I am still curious about buildings. Do they represent a single building or a clump of buildings? I still have some trouble visualizing how objects appear in size w/i a hexless map. Thanks in advance, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 Ken, Footpaths had to be shelved a long time ago due to VRAM limitations. Roads (or paths) are the most expensive element in the game in terms of memory load. So they just have to be simulated with Scattered Trees. What you do is make a thick forest and then put scattered trees in a "path". If you want to make sure vehicles can't enter the path, cap it off with heavier stuff on either end. Not perfect, but it is pretty close. Brush was shelved too, although I would like to see this in future versions. Although not as much of a VRAM issue as paths, we decided to not include it. Definately too late for it now. Personally, I don't miss either of these. They would be nice, and I would use 'em if they were in, but I don't feel that the lack of them hurts the game at all. WAY too many other things going on for two little things like this to have any impact. Smaller buildings are individual, while the larger ones simulate "row houses". As far as visualizing how to play without hard lines... it is easy. Just don't think about it What I mean by that is you act on intuition. This will be hard for some, but it is a skill that any good wargamer should be able to develop in just one or two games. It also makes for easier and faster game play as you don't sit there trying to figure out how to beat the system since the system is not something that can be beat The IGO-UGO system is more like an abstract puzzel than a wargame in many respects. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-12-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 Ken, I felt that a generic brush terrain was unnecessary. The sort of terrain you have in mind should be simulated with a mixture of rough, scattered trees, grain, and hedges. Not only does it give more variety that way than a generic "brush", but I don't think a generic "brush" is really appropriate for northwest Europe. The above mixture of light terrains strikes me as more realistic. (If we take CM out to the American west I'll reconsider. ) Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted August 13, 1999 Author Share Posted August 13, 1999 Thanks Steve and Charles. I really appreciate you giving us the reason for the choice. It certainly helps to understand the choice. Most companies wouldn't do that. Thanks again, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted August 13, 1999 Share Posted August 13, 1999 Out of interest, isnt the rough terrain representive of the brush, longer grass, sort of terrain, the type of terrain that if you keep low give you good cover, but not too much protection? Or have I got it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 13, 1999 Share Posted August 13, 1999 Infantry would behave the same in both, but rough ground doesn't allow vehicles to move through it, where as brush would. So it really isn't the same. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted August 14, 1999 Share Posted August 14, 1999 Ahh, I see, so I guess it represent somewhat rocky terrain, etc, where a vehicle may through a track. Out of interest, do the crop field differ in protection through different parts of the year ? Sorry if that one has been asked before, I have a feeling it may have been... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 14, 1999 Share Posted August 14, 1999 The wheatfield protection doesn't change with the seasons because if it's winter you shouldn't put the wheatfield on your map in the first place. It's supposed to represent a crop field in full "bloom" so in winter, you should just use open ground where a harvested/cut wheatfield would have been in warmer months. Deciduous trees, however, do block line of sight considerably less in winter. Pine trees stay constant. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted August 14, 1999 Share Posted August 14, 1999 Thanks for the reply Charles, Hehe, and your totally right about the field not being necessary in winter I like the idea about the trees loosing their leave though, that sounds great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts