Sten Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Steve, you said: -One of the major improvements, on the tips of many of our brains, but brought out by Fionn first,was the request to double the number of terrain elevation levels (20 now instead of 10). This allows for slightly smoother slopes, or more subtle dips and rises. Very nice addition which is already in use! Regarding an earlier discussion about whether shellholes were really 'holes' or just dark flat patches in the terrain, albeit with the proper defensive bonuses. Couldn't we have all the standard action take place on level 1, allow 18 levels of elevation above that and reserve level 0 for shellholes, basements or fords? Sten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Can't see this working. For a start, imagine a hill that is at level 18. Set the shellhole at level 0 and you end up with a very deep well. Even the idea of the shellholes being current terrain -1 has problems. For a start I don't think the maps allow for dynamic modeling of major terrain features, so this would probably require a complete recode. Secondly the shell holes are smaller than the minimum size for a terrain square (20m?). It would be nice to be able to see depth in shellholes, but I think this is a CM2 issue, if not CM3. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 10-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Hi Sten, You are mixing things up a bit "elevations" has nothing to do with "layers". Think of blanket draped over the back of a chair. This is all one "layer". Stick something to it and it is a second "layer". It doesn't matter where on that blanket you put it, since layers are all relative. "Elevations" is simply how far you can extend the blanket into the air. Keeping with the blanket, the old elevation system was like putting the blanket on top of 10 large boxes, stacked on each other, to reach a total height of say 10m. Now it is like you have 20 smaller boxes to achieve the same height. The only difference is that you can make more subtle slopes and angles with 20 elevations than you can with 10. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 It wasn't just Sten who misread this then! Now I understand the original post, that the layers make it possible to add more subtle changes. All I can say is: I am *really* looking forward to playing with the editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 22, 1999 Author Share Posted October 22, 1999 OK, I see. Brian, thanks for explaining the level 18 hill and mineshaft-like shellhole problem. I would NEVER have figured that out for myself. Could the 'elevation -1' be implemented in a later release then? With CM's LOS rules a deep shellhole should be able to completely hide a small team from view. I don't know if that is in fact already so, but I got the impression that if two combatants were 50 meters apart on level ground, they could trace LOS to each other even if one of them were in a shellhole. Is that the case? Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 10-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Sten, This has already been discussed and explained by Steve. Go to: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000929.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 22, 1999 Author Share Posted October 22, 1999 Bil, thanks for the link, but my main question has not been explained, nor discussed, earlier. The thread you're referring to was the very one that led up to my question. The LOS into a shellhole could be done realisticly if CM had had an 'elevation -1' level. I was wondering how it is done now that CM doesn't. Can a small number of men (i.e. an FO team) be OUT of LOS from an enemy fairly close by and on level terrain? Sten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Sten, I understand your concern. But: Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Impossible to do depressions. This would require remaking the entire terrain tile on the fly since the depression requires that a "hole" be poked into the tile. The result would cost a couple dozen polygons per shell hit (some for the depression, some to create the "hole" in the tile). Not on today's computers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The LOS question I cannot answer(as I don't have the damned game either!), perhaps Steve, Fionn, or Martin could enlighten you. I think it is perfectly clear though that making a -1 depression(physical)is not going to happen, probably not even for CM2, CM3, or CM4, it would come at too high a cost. If I had to guess, I would say that the Shellhole has a value that goes towards providing cover. Concealment? I don't know. That is a good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Yep, concealment, too. In a very recent game (details withheld ) I had a whole platoon hide along a stone wall line in foxholes and the enemy wasn't able to spot me from 50 meters away. That was when I opened fire, but I am sure I could have let them even closer than that (mayb 20 meters) before they would have gotten the first hint of that ambush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 The -1 one thing for terrain won't work because in CM the height differences from one elevation level to another can be of THREE different heights. So having the shellhole be -1 would result in some shellholes from 105s on one map being 4 times deeper than the EXACT SAME shellholes from 105s on another map with a different "height differential" Also, what is being recommended by some, the -1 one thing would effect an entire "tile" of 20 metres by 20 metres. BTS' current system makes shellholes distinctive to the individual shells and historical amounts of earth they blasted out. I don't want to give too much away but I can say that the system that is in is more precise, more flexible, more tactically useful, more consistent and works well. The system of using -1s simply would not work as well on any of those measures. Of course I only know that cause I have the game so I can see how the variations would work. I can see how you all thought it would be better to use -1s but it would actually be much worse. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 22, 1999 Author Share Posted October 22, 1999 OK, fair enough. Sten (Who will now go out and dig himself the mother of all foxholes to make him forget his PDSD - Pre Demo Stress Disorder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Hehe... Sten, isn't the ground a bit too hard for digging in your neck of the woods around now? One thing that hasn't been made clear, and is partly why Sten got confused, is that LOS does not need to be drawn to a particular elevation level to achieve results like he is looking for. To use the foxhole example, we don't have to put in a -1 (even if we couldn't graphically, we could code wise) to simulate LOS looking at a depression in the ground. What we can do is use a "cover" rating similar to 2D games. The 3D gives the approximate area (height, angle, etc.) and the "chance of spotting" tells you the chance of spotting that particular unit, in that particular situation, at that particular piece of terrain. The end result of putting these two systems together is better than having everything be tied to elevations. I say better because it is not be possible to tweak an elevation's value to achieve different results for different terrain. Instead, you would have to make an elevation level for *each* piece of unique terrain. For example, a foxhole should conceal your guys more than a medium shell hole, but maybe not as much as a big one. Well, we can't have 3 seperate elevations for each (technically problematic to do so), but we can have 3 different cover values. So assume all three are on the same plane (elevation), you get 3 different spotting results. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 23, 1999 Author Share Posted October 23, 1999 Heh, that's why I rarely dig foxholes (or do any type of gardening) with anything but a 15cm howitzer. I see what you mean, and I agree, it is a good system. *Academical question mode on* Ok, but what if my guys in the foxhole engages an enemy (50m, level terrain) and then I decide that they bit off more than they could chew, so I tell my by then spotted guys in the foxhole to hide. Realistically they should be able to get out of LOS, but as I understand "cover rating" that would not be possible, right? *Academical question mode off* Sten (Who is facing charges for reckless endangerment for the howitzer stunt. "It was Steve, I tell you!" "He made me do it!!" - NOOOOooooo...... Finally breaks down and whimpers in the squad car.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted October 23, 1999 Share Posted October 23, 1999 It seems to me that "cover" would have differnent values depending on the status of the unit... A pinned unit would gain more protection (which is exactly why they decided to pin themselves). True, they would still be in the LOS of the enemy, and the enemy would be free to lob shells at their location after they had revealed themself. But thats only realistic. "Sir, the germans who fired on us from the foxholes.. they're gone.." "They must have vanished.. cease fire." As for the broader shellhole issue, I imagine it will be a long time before the cm series has the resolution to properly model a shellhole in 3-D. They're just too much variety in their shape and size. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts