Terrain

[nzgunner]

Hi

I had the original CMBO and CMBB and really enjoyed them, although I eventually went back to CC and played that more through the mid-2000s.

I couple of years ago I was tossing up between the new CM and PCO, and ended up going with PCO, mainly because of scope and content.

But recently I've been going back to the CM demo and looking at other WW2 tactical games.

So what does this all have to do with terrain?

Well, the biggest hurdle for me are CM's terrain graphics - they looked ok a few years ago, especially stacked up against PCO, but they look really bad in comparison to other games like ToW. The bottom line is that the maps don't look natural, and I think this is mostly to do with the way it is created using linear features - roads and rivers in particular.

I've seen some good terrain improvements in the screenshot thread (eg Aris' HD terrain mods), but they still seem to be constrained by the linear feature problem - and I assume that this is too embedded to change?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

CM is a reasonably pretty girl who's brilliant, loving, giving, and just about everything you could ever want on the inside. She isn't perfect, but it's easy to overlook her faults.

ToW is a hot girl with very little else going for her.

PCO is a plain girl that's bitter and dried up on the inside.

CC is just plain ugly, inside and out.

I know who I'd rather be with over the long haul.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life

Never make a pretty woman your wife

So from my personal point of view

Get an ugly girl to marry you

[womble]

There are some very natural looking maps out there, but they do take an extra amount of work, because, you're correct, the way roads and other linear features are placed is constrained by the square grid. Note, however, that this is at least in part so that maps can be created readily using the included editor, rather than having to be painstakingly crafted by a large art department.

She's tolerably pretty, scrubs up well with a little warpaint, and will do what you ask her to rather than just serving up the same old fare over and over.

[Michael Emrys]

So from my personal point of view

Get an ugly girl to marry you

This reminds me of a guy I met 40-some-odd years ago. He played saxophone in a jazz combo that toured playing in nightclubs in various towns. He told me once that during the break, he'd pick out the homeliest girl in the place and go chat her up. He said that they would be so grateful for the attention that they do anything he asked them to.

I don't know how much of that was embroidery, but he was a good looking guy and it's reasonable to suppose that his approach worked often enough. I tried it and it worked for me several times.

Michael

[nzgunner]

There are some very natural looking maps out there, but they do take an extra amount of work, because, you're correct, the way roads and other linear features are placed is constrained by the square grid. Note, however, that this is at least in part so that maps can be created readily using the included editor, rather than having to be painstakingly crafted by a large art department.

She's tolerably pretty, scrubs up well with a little warpaint, and will do what you ask her to rather than just serving up the same old fare over and over.

I want to like her, I really do, there is some awesomely good work done on uniforms and vehicles - it's just a shame it makes for beautiful models on passable maps rather than the other way round.

[Baneman]

I want to like her, I really do, there is some awesomely good work done on uniforms and vehicles - it's just a shame it makes for beautiful models on passable maps rather than the other way round.

Thing is, much like in CM1 as well, the bulk of the processing power is going into the realism aspects - Tactical AI, tracking every round, shrapnel etc. calculating the hit locations and results of hits and so forth.

Other games may have the eye-candy, but they fall short in the details. Clearly the market exists for both types of games and if BFC wasn't a very small outfit, they might well be able to put people onto making amazing terrain, but I for one can't fault them for where they place their emphasis - I wouldn't be playing their game otherwise

[$Pec5]

This game is certainly not for everyone. Potential players are turned away by the graphics, I'm sure. But those who can look passed the graphical flaws and see how impressively the terrain is represented in the actual game play will be find in CMBN a great game with unlimited replayability.

[JRMC1879]

Hi

I had the original CMBO and CMBB and really enjoyed them, although I eventually went back to CC and played that more through the mid-2000s.

I couple of years ago I was tossing up between the new CM and PCO, and ended up going with PCO, mainly because of scope and content.

But recently I've been going back to the CM demo and looking at other WW2 tactical games.

So what does this all have to do with terrain?

Well, the biggest hurdle for me are CM's terrain graphics - they looked ok a few years ago, especially stacked up against PCO, but they look really bad in comparison to other games like ToW. The bottom line is that the maps don't look natural, and I think this is mostly to do with the way it is created using linear features - roads and rivers in particular.

I've seen some good terrain improvements in the screenshot thread (eg Aris' HD terrain mods), but they still seem to be constrained by the linear feature problem - and I assume that this is too embedded to change?

I have never had any issues with the CM graphics - to me I dont understand what everyone complains about. You should realize that PCO has a very difficult map editor - one of the trade offs in being able to create limitless content with CM in a relatively easy way is it works that way. I cant really see the chasm like difference you refer to between CM and TOW.

Beyond that - I would say if a couple of non curvy roads or rivers put you off then likely you are missing the point of the game and its not for you.

[Pak40]

CMBN:2112

PCO:Oops... I Did it Again

For those of you that get it, congrads.

[Lt Belenko]

Serious folks, I did know what PCO was so I googled "PCO game". Pokemon Cyrus Online. I was laughing too hard and quit searching.

[kensal]

This reminds me of a guy I met 40-some-odd years ago. He played saxophone in a jazz combo that toured playing in nightclubs in various towns. He told me once that during the break, he'd pick out the homeliest girl in the place and go chat her up. He said that they would be so grateful for the attention that they do anything he asked them to.

I don't know how much of that was embroidery, but he was a good looking guy and it's reasonable to suppose that his approach worked often enough. I tried it and it worked for me several times.

Michael

Great euphemism, 'homeliest'

[nzgunner]

Beyond that - I would say if a couple of non curvy roads or rivers put you off then likely you are missing the point of the game and its not for you.

As I said in the OP, I am no stranger to CM and probably got CMBO* before the vast majority of people here - and I've also played and enjoyed similar games with graphical limitations (despite their age I think CC games with the top down 2d view are actually still visually appealing). I also own Advanced Squad Leader and a few other tactical board games, so I have a pretty good appreciation of simulating this level of conflict, the detailed mechanics that can go into it, and the design compromises that get made along the way.

Graphics aren't the be-all and end-all, but they are obviously important to a large part of the player base or there wouldn't be so many graphical mods and screenshot threads. For me, zoomed out views are more interesting than extreme closeups, which is why terrain is more important to me that seeing the SS insignia on a unit model's collar - but again, the content of screenshots and mods suggests that mine is a minority view.

In my OP I was mostly clarifying what I understood to be the case with the linear terrain features. I'm assuming that they don't have too much of an effect on game play.

And in terms of game play, from what I've seen in different demos and reviews, CMBN is by far the closest simulation and strikes the right command/control balance.

Maybe in future upgrades/overhauls of the engine the underlying grid will be made finer to allow for more natural looking terrain. Probably heresy to say it here, but I think CC makes the right compromise between displaying terrain (all hand drawn of course, and a lot more effort) and defining what this means on a very fine underlying grid - so you see nice curved roads, even though parts of them aren't actually road in the engine.

* interestingly, when I bought CMBO it failed to arrive, but an email to the guys sorted it out and they sent off another copy at no extra charge - this was in the days of CDs and big printed manuals, and I've always remembered that excellent customer service experience from a small company just starting out

[Pak40]

Maybe in future upgrades/overhauls of the engine the underlying grid will be made finer to allow for more natural looking terrain. Probably heresy to say it here, but I think CC makes the right compromise between displaying terrain (all hand drawn of course, and a lot more effort) and defining what this means on a very fine underlying grid - so you see nice curved roads, even though parts of them aren't actually road in the engine.

I don't think a finer grid will give you what you're seeking. The answer is to get away from a grid tile map system and design the editor to use vector objects. Roads stretches can be drawn with two simple clicks, then use an arc tool to draw the curves of the road. Basically any Medieval street layout can be replicated with this sort of vector based line/curve combo.

Years ago, before CMSF, I was hoping CMx2 would have changed to vector but I realized that BF just didn't have the time and resources to develop a system that radical to what they were used to.

Recently, the premier mapping company in the world ESRI released a software called CityEngine. Just imagine if Combat Mission's editor could do vector drawing like this:

[Michael Emrys]

...it's just a shame it makes for beautiful models on passable maps rather than the other way round.

I am largely sympathetic to your view. I seldom have the camera close enough to either vehicles or personnel to take full advantage of the models, and I am frequently dissatisfied with the maps. There aren't many that I am apt to want to play on for one reason or another, and one of the chief reasons is that to my eye they lack a natural appearance. Why not make my own and show the world how to do it? The answer to that is that I am simply too lazy and that kind of chore just doesn't appeal to me enough to undertake it.

But the thing I wanted to say when I started this quasi-diatribe is contrary to what a lot of people think and say, CM is not so much a replacement for ASL—although it is that too. Instead, it seems to me and always has that it satisfies the same urges that miniature gamers have. And what do miniature gamers do? They spend hours, weeks, even years preparing and painting their miniature armies in great detail. How many commit even a major fraction of that energy on preparing the maps they play on? Well, I never met one. Not one single one. Usually they get together with their buddies on a Sunday afternoon, and throw together some mock terrain on a table and play their games. A carefully painted Panther will inspire admiring comment. Maybe a carefully created house with rubble will too. But any kind of vegetation is strictly a jackleg production as is ground contour, and taken for granted. Any details are to be provided out of your imagination.

Now compared to that, I'd say that so far a lot more effort has been expended by the BFC visual artists to try to create convincing environments in which to fight our battles. Credit where credit is due. Do they still have a ways to go before I will be completely satisfied? Yep. But I promise you that in the meantime I have no plans to remove any of the games I have from my hard drive nor to fling the DVDs against the wall in a blind, frustrated rage.

Michael

[JRMC1879]

As I said in the OP, I am no stranger to CM and probably got CMBO* before the vast majority of people here - and I've also played and enjoyed similar games with graphical limitations (despite their age I think CC games with the top down 2d view are actually still visually appealing). I also own Advanced Squad Leader and a few other tactical board games, so I have a pretty good appreciation of simulating this level of conflict, the detailed mechanics that can go into it, and the design compromises that get made along the way.

Graphics aren't the be-all and end-all, but they are obviously important to a large part of the player base or there wouldn't be so many graphical mods and screenshot threads. For me, zoomed out views are more interesting than extreme closeups, which is why terrain is more important to me that seeing the SS insignia on a unit model's collar - but again, the content of screenshots and mods suggests that mine is a minority view.

In my OP I was mostly clarifying what I understood to be the case with the linear terrain features. I'm assuming that they don't have too much of an effect on game play.

And in terms of game play, from what I've seen in different demos and reviews, CMBN is by far the closest simulation and strikes the right command/control balance.

Maybe in future upgrades/overhauls of the engine the underlying grid will be made finer to allow for more natural looking terrain. Probably heresy to say it here, but I think CC makes the right compromise between displaying terrain (all hand drawn of course, and a lot more effort) and defining what this means on a very fine underlying grid - so you see nice curved roads, even though parts of them aren't actually road in the engine.

* interestingly, when I bought CMBO it failed to arrive, but an email to the guys sorted it out and they sent off another copy at no extra charge - this was in the days of CDs and big printed manuals, and I've always remembered that excellent customer service experience from a small company just starting out

No, what I am saying is seriously - what is so bad about this ?

Click the link ...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109386&page=28

or this...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109386&page=24

Its not that I dont understand you are a wargamer - its just that I dont understand what people think is so bad about the graphics in the game. As far as all other wargames out there it is streets and shoulders above everything else. Sure if you wanted to compare it to battlefield 3 or some other equally worthless comparison then its not as good but as far as wargames go - it is exceptional.

[Baneman]

...

But the thing I wanted to say when I started this quasi-diatribe is contrary to what a lot of people think and say, CM is not so much a replacement for ASL—although it is that too. Instead, it seems to me and always has that it satisfies the same urges that miniature gamers have. And what do miniature gamers do? They spend hours, weeks, even years preparing and painting their miniature armies in great detail. How many commit even a major fraction of that energy on preparing the maps they play on? Well, I never met one. Not one single one. Usually they get together with their buddies on a Sunday afternoon, and throw together some mock terrain on a table and play their games. A carefully painted Panther will inspire admiring comment. Maybe a carefully created house with rubble will too. But any kind of vegetation is strictly a jackleg production as is ground contour, and taken for granted. Any details are to be provided out of your imagination.

...

I have to agree with this.

I remember spending hours painting accurate tartan onto my Napoleonic 15mm 92nd Gordon Highlanders and being happy to stand them on a piece of green polystyrene "hill".

[Agua]

I have never had any issues with the CM graphics - to me I dont understand what everyone complains about.

I'm not getting this either. Looks fine to me.

[Fuser]

The only feature I see lacking, without too much expense or redesign of the engine would be bumpmaps and normal maps for the terrain textures and better 3d modelling for trees and bushes.

Edit: ah, a better water shader depiction, too...

[A Canadian Cat]

...Instead, it seems to me and always has that it satisfies the same urges that miniature gamers have. And what do miniature gamers do? They spend hours, weeks, even years preparing and painting their miniature armies in great detail. How many commit even a major fraction of that energy on preparing the maps they play on? Well, I never met one. Not one single one. Usually they get together with their buddies on a Sunday afternoon, and throw together some mock terrain on a table and play their games. A carefully painted Panther will inspire admiring comment. Maybe a carefully created house with rubble will too. But any kind of vegetation is strictly a jackleg production as is ground contour, and taken for granted. Any details are to be provided out of your imagination.

...

Very interesting perspective. So true, hell I spent as little time painting details as possible. I just wanted to spend my time playing:-)

I have never had any issues with the CM graphics - to me I dont understand what everyone complains about....

Yeah, I think in general things look pretty damn good. However there is one area that is bit off - straight line roads. Many roads curve or run at different angles. In CM maps we can only get certain angles and curves - not really. When you view things low down they always look good. But when you view things from high up you can sometimes see the odd jaggy roads.

[$Pec5]

BFC has suggested that there is a trade off that occurs between gameplay and graphics because of the limitations of today's computers.

I recall them saying that so much is going on with the game engine (calculating every bullet, shrapnel effects, AI reactions etc) that the complexity of the game engine eats up a lot of a computer's performance, leaving little to be used on graphics. If graphics were significantly improved and the game engine kept the same, then the majority of computers that players are using would have significant performance issues.

[Michael Emrys]

BFC has suggested that there is a trade off that occurs between gameplay and graphics because of the limitations of today's computers.

I recall them saying that so much is going on with the game engine (calculating every bullet, shrapnel effects, AI reactions etc) that the complexity of the game engine eats up a lot of a computer's performance, leaving little to be used on graphics. If graphics were significantly improved and the game engine kept the same, then the majority of computers that players are using would have significant performance issues.

Mine already does. More than likely though that represents a limitation of my GPU, which I cannot change.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

One thing I was trying to say in my initial post in this thread that may not have come through is that my dissatisfaction with maps was largely due to a lot of the QB maps that shipped with the original release of the game were pretty crude. I had the feeling (which I admit may not have been accurate) that the designers had spent their lives in the city and really didn't know how real terrain is put together. This produced what was for me some real clinkers. As designers have gained more experience, the quality of the maps has improved noticeably. However, it would help if designers would keep a few rules of thumb in mind:

1. The basic contours of the land are established by tectonic forces. Learn how these work and what they tend to produce. The best way to do this is to spend a lot of time in rural and wilderness areas, hiking around and actually noting how things look. Failing that, there are some books that might help.

2. Once the basic contours have been established, they determine how water will flow through the landscape (hint: it does not flow uphill). This in turn will modify the landscape through erosion and deposition. It will also determine where vegetation will grow most abundantly.

3. Animals, both wild and domesticated, will modify the landscape in various ways, through grazing and path making for instance.

4. Human habitation can and will have an enormous impact on the landscape. But keep in mind that, especially prior to the end of WW II, they nearly always took the easy way. They built near water, both to consume for themselves, their crops, and their livestock, and also as a means of transportation. They did not build roads that go straight up the side of a ridge if there was any way to avoid it, and there nearly always was, including simply not traveling that way.

There is a lot more that could get added to this list, but just keeping those four rules in mind should produced better maps, or at least not glaringly unrealistic ones.

Michael

[Baneman]

Mine already does. More than likely though that represents a limitation of my GPU, which I cannot change.

Michael

I'm surprised - although I don't know what size GPU you have - but I'm running a distinctly "past it" nVidia 260GTX with only 896MB Ram and have had no problems even in a 12000 point battle on a 3x4km map.

Are you on Windows 7-64 ?

[A Canadian Cat]

One thing I was trying to say in my initial post in this thread that may not have come through is that my dissatisfaction with maps was largely due to a lot of the QB maps that shipped with the original release of the game were pretty crude.

Oh yeah - agreed. I only play QBs on maps with a number larger than 200.