Map\Scenario Designers Please do when placing trees and terrain

[Artofwar]

I think many of us at some point when in a battle turn off the trees or at least take them down 1 notch lower which shows the long stumps.

I did some Line of Sight stuff using the targeting key and the following occurs:

If trees are on clear terrain it affects Line of sight. (ok woopdi do everyone knows this)

Trees by themselves in clear terrain, the Line of sight, depending on the angle the unit is viewing can be affected at 40 meters - but different angles of line of sight enables the unit to view much further.

If only "Lt Forest" or "Hvy Forest" terrain is put down meaning no tress are put down in the terrain this also affects Line of sight. (It begins being affected at about 130 meters if angled and 140 meters if straight on) Again, this is terrain that only has "Lt Forest" or "Hvy Forest" tiles in it and nothing else - This tile is easily distinguishable in my opinion from other tiles - Mud, weeds, flowers etc.

I was going to do screenshots but to get the file size right and this and that it was going to be an ordeal anyway I hope this is understandable.

Ok here is my whiney gripe. I play mostly with tress off cause I don't like to see the tall stumps nor can I see my units that well when trees are on all the way.

Ok so having trees at all the way off - WHEN there are TREES on the Map IN CLEAR TERRAIN then this freaks out my expected line of sight.

I don't want to get into elevation changes or other line of sight factors but my point is I wish all maps when trees where put down that they would be put down in "Lt Forest" tiles or "Hvy Forest" tiles this way the player

- when trees are turned off would know where the trees are on a map and could more comfortable manuevor there units around in respect to where they trees are located for cover and convealment ... one would know where the trees are at because of the Lt or Hvy Forest tiles being down.

Otherwise I have to keep toggling the trees on or off to try and remember where the trees are.

Oh I did some screenshots anyway figured out how to crop picture duh ...

Left to right 1st one is clear terrain with trees - 40 meters

2nd one is same exact stand of trees different angle 77 meters

3rd is "Hvy Forest" 147 meters NO TREES

But notice how that if trees were off one would see the Hvy Forest tiles and would know that trees are there - if the map was made this way - if trees were put only in Hvy Forest or Lt Forest tiles - which would mean that the Line of Sight depending on angles would be affected by the trees there.

CLEAR terrain with no trees in it placed by a scenario designer has like infinity viewing distance if it is flat of course. so when trees are off a noob like me sees clear terrain and thinks its clear with no trees there ... having Lt or Hvy forest tiles there would be great

[Broadsword56]

I've evolved my style for Normandy orchards so that I place the trees on single light forest tiles. Looks more realistic around the base of the tree, where the shade would keep grass from growing and/or the farmer may have cultivated around it. And there's a bit of light weeds that comes with the light forest tile that looks good under a tree, too.

[umlaut]

Well, playing with trees on is certainly a problem at times. Just like playing with trees off can be.

I guess, that is why BFC introduced a - in my view rather ingenious - compromise.

Normally, when I make scenarios I place light forest or heavy forest tiles under the trees in forests. Because that is the most realistic thing to do.

But when making orhcards or plantations, I dont. Because that would be wrong.

And sorry: I have no intention of changing my way of designing maps, simply because you "don't like to see the tall stumps"

[Childress]

OK, here's my bugaboo: Low Bocage tiles with no or rare gaps. Some map makers are *still* doing this. Also how painful is it to plop down a Dirt tile to distinguish openings in either High or Low Bocage?

[JonS]

And sorry: I have no intention of changing my way of designing maps, simply because you "don't like to see the tall stumps"

+1, well stated.

[Artofwar]

Yeah Childress thats another easy fix many of the stock Quick Battle maps seem to have a dirt tile in openings really helps

[Broadsword56]

But when making orchards or plantations, I dont. Because that would be wrong.

Just curous why you say it would be "wrong" to put a light forest tile under orchard trees (it doesn't even have to be all of them). It's a useful tile and its use isn't strictly limited to forests. Different designers have their different styles, but I don't understand what you've got against this. It looks good and I see no negative effect on play. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But why the sweeping judgment on this?

[JonS]

Just curous why you say it would be "wrong" to put a light forest tile under orchard trees (it doesn't even have to be all of them).

probably because of things like this:

taken near Honfleur, 2003. Imagine that orchard with the trees turned off.

It's a useful tile and its use isn't strictly limited to forests. Different designers have their different styles, but I don't understand what you've got against this. It looks good and I see no negative effect on play. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But why the sweeping judgment on this?

Personally I use a variety, almost at random. Dirt, long grass, weeds, etc. I may have even used light forest sometimes, although I don't recall.

But, like adding dirt tiles to bocage gaps, I don't really intend to get bogged down in committing to ALWAYS associating one terrain tile with another.

By the by, I don't really think of Light Forest as being 'strictly limited to forests'. I tend to use the terrain tiles very flexibly to create visually interesting and tactically varied terrain. For example, I very seldom limit myself to using Light and Heavy Forest tiles in forests. I mix those ones up with Long Grass, Weeds, Extra Long Grass, plain Grass, Flowers, and even Dirt to get the overall effect I'm after - changing the weighting of each depending on the density of forest I'm after.

[Broadsword56]

probably because of things like this:

taken near Honfleur, 2003. Imagine that orchard with the trees turned off.

Personally I use a variety, almost at random. Dirt, long grass, weeds, etc. I may have even used light forest sometimes, although I don't recall.

But like adding dirst tiles to bocage gaps, I don't really intend to get bogged down in committing to ALWAYS associate one terrain tile with another.

By the by, I don't really think of Light Forest as being 'strictly limited to forests'. I tend to use the terrain tiles very flexibly to create visually interesting and tactically varied terrain. For example, I very seldom limit myself to using Light and Heavy Forest tiles in forests. I mix those ones up with Long Grass, Weeds, Extra Long Grass, plain Grass, Flowers, and even Dirt to get the overall effect I'm after - changing the weighting of each depending on the density of forest I'm after.

Spoken like a true artist. :-)

[Paper Tiger]

I wish all maps when trees where put down that they would be put down in "Lt Forest" tiles or "Hvy Forest" tiles this way the player

You'll see even less of this in the MG module as Dutch forests in the main don't seem to have dense undergrowth like they do in Normandy. However, I'm developing a 'trick' to make their location knowable with trees switched off because you will have to fight in them from time to time and that means you'll have to switch trees off if you're going to see anything.

[Artofwar]

I played with the other setting tried it again to where the trees are on but up close they expose the terrain and this is a great way to do it for some reason I got convinced I didn't like that either and only could play with everything off - which I didn't ever see any trees which sucked now I got the best of both worlds thanks for reminding me of the other setting some how I had gotten away from it..