Map Grid Overlay With Stock Game

[Col Deadmarsh]

Instead of having to install a mod to get a grid that tells you the elevation of the terrain, why can't we get this as a stock option to toggle back and forth?  That way, you can use it when you need it but turn it off when you don't want to see it.

 

 

[womble]

It's not something that can be toggled on and off without restarting the game, as BFC have explained it in the past, any more than other terrain features can be dynamically shown/altered. Maybe BFC could reverse-engineer/develop from scratch/buy the mod off the guys that have created it and include it as "sanctioned" z-folder content, but that seems a little pointless when you can download it freely already and it's the kind of file that can't really pose any danger to your rig from malicious software.

[Col Deadmarsh]

It's not something that can be toggled on and off without restarting the game, as BFC have explained it in the past, any more than other terrain features can be dynamically shown/altered. Maybe BFC could reverse-engineer/develop from scratch/buy the mod off the guys that have created it and include it as "sanctioned" z-folder content, but that seems a little pointless when you can download it freely already and it's the kind of file that can't really pose any danger to your rig from malicious software.

 

It's not that I'm worried about malicious files. I just think the grid takes away from the realism when you're playing. So I'd like to be able to toggle it on when I'm plotting my turn and then switch it off to play the video.

[Childress]

Best solution, imho: Mouse right click on tile = elevation in meters.

Scenario maker determines base elevation.

[womble]

It's not that I'm worried about malicious files. I just think the grid takes away from the realism when you're playing. So I'd like to be able to toggle it on when I'm plotting my turn and then switch it off to play the video.

 

You can do that with the mod, if you're playing WeGo, to a point, since you have to load turns anyway. It isn't technically feasible to have it as a toggle like smoke or trees though, in the current architecture. Maybe that will change when they ditch OpenGL. Pretty sure everyone agrees that it would be a neat option to have.

 

Best solution, imho: Mouse right click on tile = elevation in meters.

Scenario maker determines base elevation.

Which would do nothing to improve the visibility of contours for most people. A grid overlay gives a very intuitive appreciation of the hollows and hummocks of a 3d periplane which is being rendered on a 2d screen. Your suggestion would not achieve that for most people.

[Childress]

  Which would do nothing to improve the visibility of contours for most people. A grid overlay gives a very intuitive appreciation of the hollows and hummocks of a 3d periplane which is being rendered on a 2d screen. Your suggestion would not achieve that for most people.

 

You're right. It would be more comprehensibly useful than the right-click concept that is probably only mildly helpful. But do we really want to beat the game over the head with the ugly stick? More clutter? This is from a recent civil war game:

 

 

Players seem to underestimate the importance BF places on aesthetics. That may be the reason that they took so long to re-introduce command lines. The originals were butt ugly and intrusive. So they came out with a useful but muted alternative.

 

And how much geomorphical knowledge is a commander supposed to possess? It may come down to chess players (win!) vs simulators (atmospherics) . 

 

 

  Edited December 27, 2014 by Childress

[John Kettler]

womble,

 

Thanks for putting up a word I'd never encountered before! "Periplane" sent me straight to Google. And other places. I've found the word in conjunction with microscopy and cell migration induced by American cockroach extract,  Dictionary.com was a bust, as was Merriam-Webster online. At which point the internet jammed!  So far, I've found nothing like your usage. Is this expression something peculiar to the UK, yet so obscure Google doesn't know of it?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

[Dynaman216]

> But do we really want to beat the game over the head with the ugly stick? More clutter?

 

The same clutter that trees represent?  They can be turned off and on for good reason.  More visual aid toggles for things like terrain height and where doors and windows are would be most welcome.

[Childress]

Trees are real, man!

[womble]

womble,

 

Thanks for putting up a word I'd never encountered before! "Periplane" sent me straight to Google. And other places. I've found the word in conjunction with microscopy and cell migration induced by American cockroach extract,  Dictionary.com was a bust, as was Merriam-Webster online. At which point the internet jammed!  So far, I've found nothing like your usage. Is this expression something peculiar to the UK, yet so obscure Google doesn't know of it?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

It's probably a neologism, John. I started to say "surface", but the gross  undulations of the terrain surface don't need the additional emphasis so much; it's the subtleties of a surface that is "close to" a plane that a grid mod helps highlight. So I made up a word I thought should probably exist to describe something that's sort of averagely flat but really isn't.

[poesel]

And how much geomorphical knowledge is a commander supposed to possess? It may come down to chess players (win!) vs simulators (atmospherics) . 

 

We already know anything about the map (with the exception of enemy units). We can fly where we want and take a look from any angle. So every information is already there for us as players to get. It is debatable how hard it should be to get that information.

 

Every now and then someone suggests that we get toggleable fields for LOS so you could see at a glance to which areas a unit has LOS and which not.. This has been rejected by BFC as making things too easy. I partly agree: for the higher difficulty levels it should stay as is but it would be a big help for beginners of this game.

 

Now contour lines are IMHO something different. First I would guess that commanders in WWII would have had such maps. Probably the first thing you do when you sketch out a plan: hills, valleys, rivers, settlements - the important stuff. All the nice details WE get like where bushes are or what kind of crop is growing on that specific field would be left out of such a map. A map with contour lines only is much easier to 'read' that the 3D representation we have.

 

This leads to the second point: what we see is a 2D representation of a 3D world. The real world observer would have a much better impression of distances and heights than what we can get from our 2D view. This is remedied somehow by our ability to fly around and look at things from several angles. Contour maps provide 3D information for a 2D map.

 

IMHO it wouldn't be necessary to get an overlay like in the example above. A simple 2D map would be more than enough.

[sburke]

 

First I would guess that commanders in WWII would have had such maps

 

This leads to the second point: what we see is a 2D representation of a 3D world. The real world observer would have a much better impression of distances and heights than what we can get from our 2D view. This is remedied somehow by our ability to fly around and look at things from several angles. Contour maps provide 3D information for a 2D map.

Actually that is not an assumption I'd make.  Decent maps were hard to come by.  A CM player has far better knowledge than any WW 2 commander would have had.  Even in Normandy with all it's preparations, maps were not so great.  As to the 3D aspect, the WW2 commander wouldn't know that over the next hill is a creek and a great hull down location (okay maybe he'd know there was a creek, but not it's details including fording locations).  Rarely would the man on the ground get data about what lay over the next hill till they got over the hill.  We know every little detail on the entire map area in play no matter how large.  Heck we even know holes in the bocage that are 2 KM distant. 

[Childress]

Well stated, sburke. The player already knows too much.

 

Poesel, your mastery of English is astonishing. Unless your an ex-pat.

[poesel]

Yes, we know too much. No arguing about that. But to remove some of that information without adversely affecting gameplay and fun is difficult (unless BFC invents FOW for terrain which IMHO would be great ).

 

Terrain info is there in the game. Contour lines would add no additional information which we don't have. So they would only be an easier to access representation of them. Question is: would contour lines make it too easy? Or better: do we have historical data if WWII commanders had such maps or not? That is usually the best trump card vs. BFC.

 

IMHO they wouldn't make things too easy and they would look great for making plans, AARs and screenshots. But I wouldn't mind too much if we never get them.

 

@Childress: no, no ex-pat. So thanks but most of it is the spell checker

[BigDog944]

 

Maybe that will change when they ditch OpenGL.

Really? And they will be ditching Mac support while they're at it?

 

What I would like to know is when they are going to start supporting Linux!

Edited December 30, 2014 by BigDog944

[womble]

Really? And they will be ditching Mac support while they're at it?

 

What I would like to know is when they are going to start supporting Linux!

No idea. Pretty sure Steve has said he does want to move away from the environment though. Equally, as Mac heads, I'd be surprised if whatever they choose to replace it with doesn't work just dandy on Apple hardware.

[BigDog944]

OpenGL has the benefit of being cross platform compatible, but has the drawback of having poorer driver support than D3D in Windows. OpenGL is also well supported in Linux...

 

Not sure what their options would be if they were to move away from OpenGL. Whatever they did they'd still be working to the lowest common denominator between the two platforms. It's interesting stuff.

[LukeFF]

Not sure what their options would be if they were to move away from OpenGL. Whatever they did they'd still be working to the lowest common denominator between the two platforms. It's interesting stuff.

 

Unity has already been stated to be the next engine for CM.

[BigDog944]

Unity has already been stated to be the next engine for CM.

Thanks for the info.

 

A switch to Unity will reap many dividends in graphics quality upgrades I am sure! I've always thought that BFC was great at programming games, but merely average at programming 3D engines. A switch to Unity would bring a welcome upgrade to the visual experience I'm sure. And hopefully support for Linux as well!