Why can't Combat Mission look and run as well as Wargame: European Escalation?

[MikeyD]

I wonder at what camera elevation people who are having problems with terrain are playing at. There's an old business maxim called the 'Peter Principle' that says an executive will get promoted until he finds himself in a job he's incompetent at, then he'll stay at that post. I sometimes get the idea people often raise their camera position up to the point where they can no longer discern detail then will stop there. They won't go any higher, but they won't go back down either.

[mjkerner]

Double-plus good, JonS!

[moeburn]

I hope I'm misreading this.

Are you really saying you want to get rid of micro terrain? I think the would be a horrible, horrible step backwards. One of my little joys is accidentally finding that perfect spot where a change of elevation by 1m makes infantry almost invulnerable. I would hate to see them go away. And I think those micro terrain features should be hard to find, so that better/more-diligent players getter a payoff for their efforts, and the rest of us get an unexpected bonus from time to time.

Yeah, actually that's what WEE did. Instead of smooth hills, they have levels. Usually no more than 3. This makes seeing hills way easier, because their is a clearly defined slope that goes around the entire thing that is always the exact same grade and length on every side of the hill. It also makes it look like you're pushing toys around on a table cloth, as previously said.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello Jon et al.

You are not misreading what I wrote. At the same time I am not asking for Levels as in ASL.

So a request from me then for you Jon, Mikey, and mj. Can you give me some guidance on how you go about reading the lay of the land. I go down as far as level 2 mostly and up to higher levels to get a picture of the road network and bocage, etc. Even if I find some hiding spots it's going to be hard to remember them all. And it's hard to remember where all the holes are in the bocage. I try and focus on the major terrain features. However, I find it hard to start any battle. I am overwhelmed I guess with: 1) all the micromanagement I will have to do to try and compete; and 2) the difficulty in seeing a 3D world through a screen.

The main thing is to move my units over the terrain and this is where it is really daunting for me. Assume you started with 4 platoons and say that is an average of 4 units each (3 squads and 1 HQ). So now we have 16 units and there will be support weapons also. And maybe tanks. And this is not even a big scenario. So as not to get wasted via artillery and MGs I split the squads into teams.

So in this smallish scenario I now have around 50 units to manage. The system is amazing in terms of graphics, detail, etc. But I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I want so much to enjoy the system. And the announcements really makes one excited. But I am intimidated when I open most scenarios.

Any help appreciated.

Gerry

[moeburn]

Hello Jon et al.

You are not misreading what I wrote. At the same time I am not asking for Levels as in ASL.

So a request from me then for you Jon, Mikey, and mj. Can you give me some guidance on how you go about reading the lay of the land. I go down as far as level 2 mostly and up to higher levels to get a picture of the road network and bocage, etc. Even if I find some hiding spots it's going to be hard to remember them all. And it's hard to remember where all the holes are in the bocage. I try and focus on the major terrain features. However, I find it hard to start any battle. I am overwhelmed I guess with: 1) all the micromanagement I will have to do to try and compete; and 2) the difficulty in seeing a 3D world through a screen.

So in this smallish scenario I now have around 50 units to manage. The system is amazing in terms of graphics, detail, etc. But I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I want so much to enjoy the system. And the announcements really makes one excited. But I am intimidated when I open most scenarios.

Any help appreciated.

Gerry

The way you describe it makes it sound fun! Having to manage all the little holes in the bocage that each tank can be shot through... that's just an extra challenge that makes it all the more rewarding when it leads to success. It also helps differentiate between the newbie players and the cautious experienced players.

But I too do not like large scenarios with too many units for this exact reason. I only play scenarios that show up with a "1 man" or "2 man" symbol for unit size.

[Mord]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already or if you have tried this; As the engine stands now, your best bet would be to DL one of the grid mods. That should help some.

CMX1 had more BMPs/shades per grass type, they went darker to lighter, so as you moved up in height the area became lighter and lighter, making it easier to see elevations. I think that's where people who have played both games have a problem. In CMX2 each grass type only has one shade and it stays consistent at all heights. So it blends better. The old CMX1 maps could look like patch work quilts...not very aesthetically pleasing visually but easier to read.

Sorry if any of this has already been mentioned, I haven't read everything in the thread.

Mord.

[moeburn]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already or if you have tried this; As the engine stands now, your best bet would be to DL one of the grid mods. That should help some.

CMX1 had more BMPs/shades per grass type, they went darker to lighter, so as you moved up in height the area became lighter and lighter, making it easier to see elevations. I think that's where people who have played both games have a problem. In CMX2 each grass type only has one shade and it stays consistent at all heights. So it blends better. The old CMX1 maps could look like patch work quilts...not very aesthetically pleasing visually but easier to read.

Sorry if any of this has already been mentioned, I haven't read everything in the thread.

Mord.

Yeah, I did mention this, except I dont think it was ugly. If anything, varying elevations in real life often correspond to vastly different ecosystems, so the marsh-grass-dirt-rock-snow range of elevation-based land types looks great to me.

[Vinnart]

I honestly don’t think the graphics for CMx2 are bad at all compared to other engines especialy if you have good graphics card. Graphic cards do make a difference. For me the bottom line is depth of play. From the screens the of the other engine I could see the maps being that big when CM goes more than 1x1 RTS multiplayer.

[Mord]

Yeah, I did mention this, except I dont think it was ugly. If anything, varying elevations in real life often correspond to vastly different ecosystems, so the marsh-grass-dirt-rock-snow range of elevation-based land types looks great to me.

What I meant to say was the grass could end up looking patch worky. mostly because you could see the outlines of each square. The tiles didn't bleed into each other like we have now.

Mord.

[JonS]

Can you give me some guidance on how you go about reading the lay of the land.

As a general rule, I read the lay of the land very badly. And it often costs me men and tanks.

Usually I just try and get a sense of where the major features are ... "Ok, ridge over here, that village is in low ground, and that road skirts the edge of the big hill", and plan in broad strokes from there.

If I'm making the effort, though, I'll use the targeting tool to see where ground rises and falls. The targeting line runs perfectly straight from the unit to the end point (which is a small fixed height above ground level), so if it disappears along any stretch you know that stretch is a bit higher. If I'm on high ground and run out the targeting line, where it first starts to disappear below ground level is - probably - where the plateau drops off. Close personal recce from a variety of angles can confirm or deny that. It doesn't matter whether you have LOS to the point you're interested in - the targeting line will still work, and give you an indication of the rise and fall of micro terrain.

It's not perfect, and I'm often surprised when my own or the enemies troops find a really great spot, or alternately I plonk them on the only knoll in the area and they die quick smart. But I'd rather that than terrain that holds no secrets or surprises.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Gridded terrain mods do help. I use Niessuh's, but there are several good ones out there.

Even so, I spend a lot of time moving the camera around the map at view level 2 (which is about eye level for a standing soldier). That seems to be the only way to see those subtle dips and rises.

[moeburn]

Gridded terrain mods do help. I use Niessuh's, but there are several good ones out there.

Even so, I spend a lot of time moving the camera around the map at view level 2 (which is about eye level for a standing soldier). That seems to be the only way to see those subtle dips and rises.

That looks awesome! Is there one for CMSF, as I haven't yet bought CMBN?

[GerryCMBB]

I am trying Niessuh's mod now. My previous mod was only for grass.

I am finding it hard to get a view like in the top part of his preview on the Repository: http://www.battlefront.com/components/com_remository_files/file_image_1177/img_1177_01.jpg

I know it is set up to clear the lines close to you. Maybe I need to play around with the higher camera views more. But anytime I navigate to move around the map it clears the near lines of course. Is there some way to go over the map without triggering the loss of the nearby grid lines?

Thanks,

Gerry

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, you just have to keep the camera at a high altitude.

I would personally have preferred the lines to be persistent at a closer distance. It would be perfect if the distance at which the lines disappear were reduced by about half. Unfortunately I haven't seen Niessuh around for a long time and I haven't a clue how to do it myself.

There are other grid mods out there that are persistent. Bil Hardenberger made one. Aris also made a hi-res one, but the lines are very thin and only visible at close distance, kinda the opposite of Niessuh's.

[moeburn]

I would personally have preferred the lines to be persistent at a closer distance. It would be perfect if the distance at which the lines disappear were reduced by about half. Unfortunately I haven't seen Niessuh around for a long time and I haven't a clue how to do it myself.

Is that even possible? I thought these were just bitmap mods. I assumed they achieved the distance effect by modding the low-res distant versions of the textures with grids on, and the hi-res close up textures with the grids off, leaving the distance to decide between the two up to the game engine.

[Vinnart]

It is not hard to make a grid mod. All you need is photoshop or equivilent. To make one use the mod tools with the game to get to the terrain bmp’s. Bring these into a photo editor, and make one grid then copy, and paste it into the rest of the bmp terrain tiles for uniformity. Kaki dirt color works best IMO. I made one especially for my machine, which is minimum requirements, and is 7 yrs old, but with a good graphics card. It is a low res gridded version of Birdstrik’s Syrop terrain mod from CMSF. I can see the grid up close, and just fine. The key for getting better terrain elevation orientation is grid mods, good graphics card, optimal game, and graphic card settings. There is a good thread on Nvidia setting in the tech help forum if I recall. With my settings I can see good enough shading from a top down view to see elevations with shading. Also, do not forget the LOS tool, and dropping down to camera level 1.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good to know. But I just looked and Photoshop costs $600. Is there something... cheaper that will work as well? I know nothing about this stuff.

[LJFHutch]

Good to know. But I just looked and Photoshop costs $600. Is there something... cheaper that will work as well? I know nothing about this stuff.

Gimp works perfectly well, it costs $600 less than that. $1200 less if you live here in Australia.

[moeburn]

Good to know. But I just looked and Photoshop costs $600. Is there something... cheaper that will work as well? I know nothing about this stuff.

Paint.net, if you're on Windows. Or uTorrent, it has a habit of bringing the price of expensive commercial software down a little

[Wodin]

Because CMBN is far more hi fi than WE. Way more going on under the hood. WE isn't exactly aiming for realism now is it and will have mechanics going on far more basic than CM does. Simple as that really.

[moeburn]

Because CMBN is far more hi fi than WE. Way more going on under the hood. WE isn't exactly aiming for realism now is it and will have mechanics going on far more basic than CM does. Simple as that really.

jesus man I think you missed the whole discussion...