A simple question about roads in the future versions of CMx2

[mazex]

So, been away a long time from CM even though I've bought most of the games and modules in CMx2. Hate to admit it but I have not played them much - waiting for the return to the only front where the tanks where closely matched... It simply gives me no satisfaction blowing up Shermans with a Tiger (more than a few times )

So - eagerly awaiting CMRT and my wallet is on the table waiting for the download version to get released. CMRT looks really awesome and in general it does not look far behind many titles developed by really large teams. I guess that it's not only Charles coding now with the pace that modules and games are pouring out now?

One thing that I really think would make this title take that last step to look really "AAA" after looking at the great AAR images is some kind of spline road implementation? The good ole zig-zag roads really look more out of place now that the game looks so good in general? Not that it really matters as it's the amazing tactical game engine that counts but are there any thoughts of doing something like that? I fully understand that this topic has probably been discussed a lot in other threads so sorry for bringing it to the table if that is the case

/mazex

[womble]

...waiting for the return to the only front where the tanks where closely matched...

If you play "typical v typical", Sicily has even matchups, and so does BN. Not every german tank is a Tiger, contrary to popular accounts at the time (nor is every german ATG an 88).

[mazex]

If you play "typical v typical", Sicily has even matchups, and so does BN. Not every german tank is a Tiger, contrary to popular accounts at the time (nor is every german ATG an 88).

I know, the "bulk" was Pz IV:s in the mid war and the long barreled Shermans match them well... And the earlier PZ IV:s are not that far from a regular Sherman. But in mid 1944 and later there where a lot of Panthers and Tigers out there - even though many PZ IV:s still where called Tigers

But the reality of 4-6 Shermans per Tiger are a bit boring IMO at least. With some bad luck one of the Shermans knock a track off your Tiger or Panther (fully realistic naturally) but I like scnearios with about equal number of tanks better.

But - having done quite a number of CMx1 scenarios (and some CMSF ones too) - I'm interested in the roads these babies sometimes ride on It's very hard to do a scenario that looks good "from some altitude" and matches a historical terrain with the 0,45,90 degree roads. Sure, the forests and towns get a bit "square" too, but it looks rather good anyway. Having spline roads would be really nice, no real need for "softer" forest lines etc... Maybe something for version 4.0? In CMx1 the roads where "on par" with the rest of the terrain - but now the rest of the landscape looks so good

Then of course having a vehicle following a road gets a bit harder and as the base engine is "square" based for calculations it maybe gets hard to determine if a unit is on a road "square" or not?

[Battlefront.com]

I have to agree that the existing CM games are extremely well balanced. I know our scenario designers don't put heaps of Tigers and expect Stuarts to take them out

As for the zig-zag roads, unfortunately that is going to remain with CMx2 until the day we make our last CMx2 game. The underlying system would require too many massive structural changes to allow for smooth roads at anything less than 45 increments. I know this for sure because at the top of my list for Upgrade 3.0 was getting rid of zig-zags and both Charles and Phil said "not a chance".

Steve

[Flying Penguin]

I have to agree that the existing CM games are extremely well balanced. I know our scenario designers don't put heaps of Tigers and expect Stuarts to take them out

As for the zig-zag roads, unfortunately that is going to remain with CMx2 until the day we make our last CMx2 game. The underlying system would require too many massive structural changes to allow for smooth roads at anything less than 45 increments. I know this for sure because at the top of my list for Upgrade 3.0 was getting rid of zig-zags and both Charles and Phil said "not a chance".

Steve

Now, having no idea of the underlying codebase (and fully expecting a kicking for this suggestion), but would it be possible to have the road tiles for a different angle? Five minutes with Paint gave the below suggestion with an additional 3-10 tiles plus possibly rotations of them (I'm not sure they cover every combination but beer + trig is a bad mix ). Not perfect but would give us options at least....

Would this cause AI/Pathfinding issues or would it be a (relatively) simple graphical change?

I admit to a great deal of ignorance, but as a possible third way it would be a definite improvement

Cheers,

Jamie

Edit: It would be (imho) worth it even if the auto-road command didn't support it

Edit2: Top left tile is wrong as the road changes width, but I think you get my gist

[Fenris]

It would indeed be nice. I'm slowly building a large map of Chambois. Making something based on real terrain and lots of sunken laneways makes for a lot of unattractive jagged edges.

If poss doing angled ground texture edges would be good too. I'm talking about crops and fields losing the zig-zag edges. Not a noticable but a nice to have.

-F

[sburke]

while I for one would also love to see less jagged roads, I am not sure just adding one additional angle will significantly alter things. It can also complicate them. For example now you need buildings, fences and hedges to also allow the same alignment. Then you have fields that only have squares to create them etc etc

Been working on a large map of Veghel (4x4km) and the RR and road just are not going to match up using the overlay. Where I have started going instead is using a terrain type for the road to give me a little more flexibility. So far not too bad. It can also avoid some of the odd behavior a road can occasionally induce.

[Battlefront.com]

Would this cause AI/Pathfinding issues or would it be a (relatively) simple graphical change?

That and (I think) some other things, yes. I'm also pretty sure that your suggested graphical solution would work. I think the roads would be significantly narrower doing it that way.

As I said, I pushed for this and both Charles and Phil said "no way". They know how much the zig-zaggy stuff detracts from the game and they do understand trigonometry Which is why I've accepted it will not change.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

If you play "typical v typical", Sicily has even matchups, and so does BN. Not every german tank is a Tiger, contrary to popular accounts at the time (nor is every german ATG an 88).

For instance, in CMFI/GL I set up a series of QB MEs with equal numbers of PzKw IIIs against Sherman 75s and the Germans gave a very good account of themselves indeed.

Michael

[poesel]

Hmm, that's bad news.

Maybe it is at least possible to make them LOOK less zig-zaggy?

[sburke]

Hmm, that's bad news.

Maybe it is at least possible to make them LOOK less zig-zaggy?

squint

padding

[The Teacher]

Making maps that almost look like the real countryside is always a challenge for anyone trying their hand at map design.

A simple solution I found was to simply do my best and if some roads arnt exact due to the limitations of the scenario builder so be it.

I'm sure most people wont get to upset that a road is slightly out of place while they are locked in combat.:eek:

Cheers

Stephen

[Macisle]

As a guy who does a lot of QBs vs the AI, my rule, if the situation allows it, is:

the AI gets Tigers and Panthers. I don't.

[Sequoia]

That and (I think) some other things, yes. I'm also pretty sure that your suggested graphical solution would work. I think the roads would be significantly narrower doing it that way.

As I said, I pushed for this and both Charles and Phil said "no way". They know how much the zig-zaggy stuff detracts from the game and they do understand trigonometry Which is why I've accepted it will not change.

Steve

I'm unclear about what you're saying. You say his suggested graphical solution would probably work but also you've accepted the zig zag roads won't change.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm unclear about what you're saying. You say his suggested graphical solution would probably work but also you've accepted the zig zag roads won't change.

There's a difference between the pretty graphics we see and what goes on under the hood. I'm saying that Charles and Phil both said the game engine itself would not handle more road angles, so it doesn't matter what the graphics look like.

Now, for sure there's a graphical way to have roads go off at other angles without looking zig-zaggy. But it involves a lot more pieces than what Flying Penguin suggested. That's because his method doesn't produce road pieces that are wide enough. At least that's the way I remember it when I was playing around with the graphics a couple of years ago.

Whatever the case, Charles and Phil know what the problems are and they both say it's a deadend. That's really the only thing that matters.

Steve