Too much Foliage on Maps

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi all,

 

Does anyone agree that maps with lots of trees are horrible to play on? If I load a scenario downloaded from the Repository and the map is over 50% dense foest I am instantly put off playing it. Yes, I know you can turn off trees or reduce the nearest trees to stumps but to my mind too many trees on a map just looks ugly. I don't want to fight a battle in the Ukrainian equivalent of Endor from Star Wars!

 

Whenever I design a map I try to keep the number of tree tiles to a minimum and to limit most tree tiles to only one or two trees, with the centre of each wooded area being reserved for those dense three-tree tiles. I also tend to leave some clearings here and there just to break up the forest a little.

 

I am wondering if maybe the three-tree tiles are just more dense than is found in nature, as when I look at photos of real forests they seem to be a lot less dense than a typical CM:BS forest map.

 

Looking forward to your opinions.

 

 

[c3k]

Alt-T

 

 

The denstiy depends upon what you're used to. A lot of the western European forests are really just tree gardens. (IMO) They've been so heavily controlled and managed that they have more in common with gardens than forests. OTH, I've been in primordial woods which are also very open. The age of the woods makes a big difference in their density.

 

A freshly cut zone (several year) will have riotous growth. Mature woods will have "winners" which have choked out the "losers". It'll have large, mature, trees spaced equidistant, with little to no undergrowth. The winners keep the sunlight for themselves. The edges of woods still have the fight going on, so there should be very dense growth in the ~30m zone on the edges of woods.

 

That's where I'd put triple trees.

 

Ken

[George MC]

That's the beauty of designing your own scenarios. You get to make that scenario that ticks all your personal special, specific and idiosyncratic requirements. 

 

TBH it's rare I play other scenarios now. I mostly play about in the editor and play my own stuff. Why? Cos I'm such a fussy ****er

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Forests suck! I find CMSF environment to be the best. Good balance tree-wise. I also tried CMFI demo once, and it looks very similar to RL Crimean environment, which is also less tree intensive (especially in the western part).

Edited September 2, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[MikeyD]

Remember, this is a 'tactical combat sim'. Dense urban, open rural, mountains, deserts, forest, they each have different tactical demands that require very different tactical thinking. Just a couple days ago I threw together my very first 'solid forest' combat map. Complex hilly terrain, a few foot paths, but otherwise a solid sq km of dense pine forest. Holy crapoly, its like entering something from Grimm's fairy tales! No standing off and blasting houses from a safe distance there, no spotter calling in rounds from a km away. This kind of fighting is up-close-and-personal! Heh heh, to each his own. Most CM maps with woods on them really are mostly there to channel the action, not to actually fight in. 

[fivefivesix]

Forests suck! I find CMSF environment to be the best. Good balance tree-wise. 

 

While I have to agree, a map 1/2 covered in forest is not the most exciting thing, CMSF maps are equally drab to me because of the lack of foliage. Some CMSF maps have just one or two small copses or lines of stubby trees. 

 

I'll agree with the OP that when large forests are placed, they look more natural with thinned out or even open pockets within them. Maps that I have made will often have a dirt track with thin or no overhead cover breaking up the larger forest. It is much more time consuming, but using a variety of the tree density tiles also gives a more realistic aesthetic, rather than having solid clumps of dense tree growth among solid clumps of sparse tree growth. 

 

That being said, I hate fighting in forests. More so because they become LOS / LOF nightmares. If the forest is big enough, artillery and/or armor are mostly useless in providing support for infantry that has to clear them out. Its one thing if a forested area happens to be on a map. I'm likely to avoid it all together if I can. If the entire map is forest, you can't really avoid having to move through it. 

[Bootie]

All noted for my next design project... LOL

[MikeyD]

One thing that makes a BIG difference in map design in recent years is the combo of Google Earth and the game's editor map overlay function. Its hard to overindulge in certain terrain features if you're exactly matching a real world location. Reproducing actual locations, its less likely you'll arrange your buildings just-so for 'optimal' tactical game play or place copses of trees in precisely the 'optimal' spot. The real world is not often so cooperative. On the flip side, if you decide to reproduce a real-world village in the middle of a dense forest then you're going to have lots-o-woods to contend with!

Edited September 2, 2015 by MikeyD

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, AFAIK nearly all of the official scenario maps and a large chunk of the QB maps are based on real world locations so the amount of trees isn't necessarily a design decision.

[Cpl Steiner]

To anyone who is thinking of designing a heavily wooded map, my plea would be "make it interesting". Don't just have a big flat area covered in trees. Add little hills, ravines, rocky areas, glades full of flowers (where the woodland animals presumably feed), areas of differing tree density, and maybe a stream or two draining into a marshy area. For inspiration take a look at some screenshots or gameplay videos from the game "Cabela's Big Game Hunter Pro Hunts" (which has some of the most natural looking wooded terrain I have ever seen in a computer game). Before plonking down a huge flat forest, remember that some player's like me will most likely quit the scenario on turn 1 if half the map is filled with max tree density tiles unbroken by any other terrain.

 

Thanks for your replies.

[MikeyD]

In cultivated country often wooded areas have remained wooded FOR A REASON. The ground is too boggy or uneven or badly sloped or rocky. So design your maps accordingly. Unless you've got 'tree farming' going on, then the real world forest looks just as boring and monotonous as if you had swiped a CM 'foliage' terrain brush across it. 

[sburke]

To anyone who is thinking of designing a heavily wooded map, my plea would be "make it interesting". Don't just have a big flat area covered in trees. Add little hills, ravines, rocky areas, glades full of flowers (where the woodland animals presumably feed), areas of differing tree density, and maybe a stream or two draining into a marshy area. For inspiration take a look at some screenshots or gameplay videos from the game "Cabela's Big Game Hunter Pro Hunts" (which has some of the most natural looking wooded terrain I have ever seen in a computer game). Before plonking down a huge flat forest, remember that some player's like me will most likely quit the scenario on turn 1 if half the map is filled with max tree density tiles unbroken by any other terrain.

 

Thanks for your replies.

yeah, for me the point isn't do not have woods, but rather make the woods interesting if they are there for any reason beyond just funneling an attack.  Creek beds, fire cuts, trails, variations in terrain, anything to make it interesting and varied.

 

Bois de Baugin is a classic little map.  It has a couple small patches of forest, but they add a lot to the battle on the map.  Besides having a profound influence on the battle space they are interesting in their own right...ahh shall I regale you all ... yet again... with the tale of a tenacious fighter by the name of Probst?

[Imperial Grunt]

Guilty as charged! Many of the maps in the Spartan Resolve campaign and my other scenarios have forested areas. I do try to thin things out and not make the foliage overly dense for game play purposes however.

[Cpl Steiner]

Guilty as charged! Many of the maps in the Spartan Resolve campaign and my other scenarios have forested areas. I do try to thin things out and not make the foliage overly dense for game play purposes however.

 

Hi Imperual Grunt. Thanks for your honesty. I have to admit that your Spartan Resolve campaign was one of the downloads I had in mind when I started this topic. When I saw the map for the first mission I thought wow, this one has a lot of trees, but I gave it a go and got a minor victory. Then I started the next scenario and again, lots and lots of trees. At that point I unfortunately lost interest in carrying on. I did enjoy the first scenario once I got over the trees issue and just got on with it, so I am sure the campaign is well designed - but if it's Endor every mission I can't see me finishing the campaign. Sorry for that, and please recognise that this is a personal pet hate of mine that is obviously not shared by all.

 

[uPDATE]

 

I decided to reload the mission 2 save and once I scrolled around the map a bit I could see that there are a fair number of clearings and interesting features scattered around so maybe I will give it a go after all and see what map 3 looks like. I can see that you have tried to break up the Endor look so apologies for my knee-jerk reaction - which could be due to the initial camera placement being more or less in the thickest part of the forest.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Cpl Steiner

[sburke]

Hang in there, it is not Endor for every map by any stretch of the imagination.  I don't want to give anything away, but re read the overview and you may get some idea of what is coming. 

[A Canadian Cat]

My handling of forests has certainly evolved.  Seeing some work done to create forests with one tree per tile I was floored.  No more three and four trees per tile as standard for me (not saying none but not standard).  It was a real eye opener for me recently when I was creating a forest and intentionally created a thinned out area - less than 50% light forest and lots of empty tiles with never more than one tree per tile for the 50% plus a few more.  Then I went into the 3D preview and discovered I could not tell the difference between my thinned out area and the main forest from just 50m away.  Wow, back to the editor to take out even more trees.

 

Having said that don't knock forests too much.  They are challenging but it sure is satisfying to finally succeed in clearing one.  I have nearly totally infantry only game going right now in CMRT and the fight is in the woods.  It is a real slog but I am finally starting to dislodge those Russian SMG squads.  Very costly but it has been fun.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I hate alt-T.  Translucent trees is the way to go.

[WallysWorld]

Trees add a real dimension to the game. CMSF with its mostly treeless setting can get a little monotonous after a while while the other CM games have a lot more variety in their maps.

 

One CMRT PBEM battle I played, my opponent and I basically slugged it out in the forest which was really interesting due to the limited LOS. Ian mentioned that forest fights are challenging and I agree.

Edited September 3, 2015 by WallysWorld

[slysniper]

Really, if you don't like playing in the forest, then avoid them maps.

 

But wanting designers to fit your concept of what a forest should be is a little self centered.

 

As pointed out, it is just a terrain feature that is part of nature, at times it needs portrayed.

 

And yes there are woods out there in the real world as thick and as boring as some designers can make them within the game.

 

 

but again as has been mentioned, a good map designer can make a forest as interesting as anything else. But it takes time to craft a good map and there is plenty of designers not willing to spend that kind of time.

 

 

I do give my thanks to those that do spend the time on their maps, there are some maps that are just beautiful as to their added touches, and that includes the efforts made as to the wooded areas

[Blazing 88's]

Why I love North Africa and can not wait until it is eventually available years from now….  sigh.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There is  quite a lot of forest in Ukraine particularly in the north. Wooded areas make for close range engagements 

 

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~peremysv/ukraine/forestry.htm

 

However, further south  we have  the steppes which are better for tank warfare. I would expect quite a few tank battles down that way in our 2017 scenarios and maybe we can have some scenarios reflecting this? In the steppes we can  still have vegetation including some wooded areas as well as  hills and balkas (the local term for ravine, Also grasses and crops to hide in

 

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A7x9UnhjkuhV.EcAifh3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsYWhiN2NvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr=yhs-SGMedia-sgm_fb&va=ukrainian+steppes&hspart=SGMedia&hsimp=yhs-sgm_fb

 

However, both forest and steppe maps need sufficient detail to make them tactically interesting. Balkas for example can cut up he steppe and act as useful defensive positions or routes of approach for tanks and infantry. In the steppe even a  low rise could be tactically important.

[MikeyD]

We've got the Bulge title looming. Comparatively little of the fighting took place actually IN forests, as opposed to fighting going on around them (those Bulge battles were rather tank-heavy). But forests played an important role in breaking up LOF, channeling/restricting movements and providing cover. Steve lives in Maine (USA, not France) and your humble 2-D artist was born there. Rural farming Maine bears a strong resemblance to Ardennes region northern Europe. And yes, rolling open farmland bordered by dense trackless forest only frequented by the occasional hunter and firewood scrounger is a 'thing' 

[Sublime]

spartan resolve rocked imperial grunt

[gnarly]

I hate alt-T.  Translucent trees is the way to go.

 

I'm no expert, but I have a feeling such a solution would be graphics-intensive.

[eniced73]

There is a MOD for that.  Will not hurt your frames and is not graphic-intensive.