Waxing the Hood

[Peter Cairns]

I am posting this here for a sort of CMx2 general discussion, as there isn't actually a place for that and we'll as the latest instalment this is probably the most active place.

Firstly let me say that I love all the CMx2 games and have been a bit of an addict since the very first CMx1 BO demo. So what follows is in no way a criticism of the game, far from it. It's driven by the fact that I want me favourite game to be better rather than there is anything wrong with it.

The reason for the Topic title is that most updates or additions to CMx2 seem to be in two type; additions, things like new scenarios, content, settings etc. and changes to the game mechanics, sometimes referred too as "Under the Hood".

This sort of falls between the two, as it's more about things that I think are  under the category of housekeeping than building work or buying furniture. Most of it covers the look of the UI and map design.

So Her goes;

Thumbnails;

A hopefully simple addition would be to add thumbnail pop ups when making maps or choosing forces. Two examples.

While buying a US armoured unit either when designing a scenario or a quick battle when a formation is chosen it moves from the LH formations side to the right hand side. At this point it would be good if a Thumbnail of the TOE appeared at the bottom of the page. You can go into a formation before or after choosing it by clicking on it but seeing it laid out would IMHO be better.

Next, once a unit is selected and put on the RH you often get a series of options and defaults below.

A good example is regularly seeing five or six different Sherman's to choose from. At this point when you clicked on a particular tank, if a thumbnail of the picture from the manual with it's details appeared you could make a more informed choice. I know this is all in the manual, but rather than have it to hand or opening another window to the online or PDF version, it would just appear.

With Map making it would work the same way.

Click on a particular building and a picture of it would appear, which would be particularly useful with Independent building in terms of  the ridge orientation or door locations that can't be changed. Depending on what orientation you choose you would see a different angle of the building, but the front would always be towards the one you choose. 

Equally with Flavour objects, particularly when there are several options, in some cases up to nine, getting a picture of that roadside object so that you get a Gas Pump instead of a bucket would save either having to remember which is which, check the manual, or as most of us probably do, choose them all open £D view, delete all the wrong ones and move the one we want to where it's needed.

With Trees seeing a picture of it, ideally with a man beside it for scale would make it easier to choose the right one for the right place. I know you get the hang of it after a while, but this would be more user friendly.

Logical Grid;

This might seem a bit picky but stick with me. 

When building a map there are a range of great terrain choices, and you can pick from a list of categories ( Roads, Foliage, Walls) and then options (Brick Wall, Wire Fence, Hedge) all of which is good. The is however no order to them and it would be more logical and perhaps helpful if there was a set pattern.

Take foliage, the two key characterises for game play are, for me anyway, height and density. Height determines how it impacts on long range sighting and density how much cover it gives. Changing the grid so that density was left to right and height top to bottom would mean that the Top Left would be the smallest spindliest bush and the Bottom Right the tallest bushiest tree. There would be a logic to it. 

For fences it would be similar but in this case it is cover and protection, so it would start with the Wire Fence and end with the Tall Stone Wall. I know walls also block sight and that that there are some terrains that just won't quite fit but putting them in more or less the right place lets you focus quickly on what you want for that particular setting.

For buildings it should be from smallest to largest and probably weakest to strongest, with Top Left a tiny wooded shed and Bottom Right a huge concrete structure. Flavour objects, with or without thumbnails should also be from smallest to largest ( or the other way round but with a logic).

Equally modular buildings are classified by height but should they also be ordered by size and strength, with the Top Left the smallest and weakest and the Bottom Right biggest and strongest.

I would also like to see the ground cover palates tidied up, with least cover to out cover and lowest to highest, but also as their are now more than three sets, recorded to things like Grasses, Crops, Man-made, Water etc. or  Open, Wet, Rough, or perhaps Light, Medium and Heavy. Not changing the content as such just making the presentation more ordered. This isn't that different to the way that Independent buildings are ordered by class.

Filling the Gaps;

Although I said this isn't about content, if you order terrain by size or height you will notice gaps and that raises a question.

Do you leave them or fill them. My answer to that is to ask is there something logical that fits there that is needed or would enhance the game or are we taking order too far and trying to squeeze nature into a gamers grid?

For example if we take Foliage, the Top Left would be a spindly rush the Bottom Right a huge oak, but what about the Top Right, should't we have a dense low bush, something that isn't in the game, or the Bottom Left, is there a place for a tall thin tree like a Scots pine, hard to look over even if you are on a hill, but easy to look though at ground level?

For buildings, Top Left would be or small hut. Right now the closest to that are the two one storey barns two boxes long, but what about one half the length that could be added to buildings as an add on or as a stand alone out house. What about Top Right, a small tough building to represent, like an industrial concrete structure.

Then there is the Bottom Left, a small, tall weak structure, is there a place for the Water Tower or fire escape?

For Fences and Walls what about railings, ditches and high chain link fencing, all of which fill logical gaps on a grid arranged around line of sight and protection and which exist in the real world.

For ground terrain, do we need large crag style rocks like outcrops or is that best done by favour objects just for show or perhaps rock options like foliage. Is there a place for dense ground cover like Ferns or grass a meter high.

There would seem three game options if we think this is needed.

Add a heavy ground cover that covers the whole box, create a new type of stand alone thick dense bush in foliage that can be put in or to look again at Brush and change it fro On or Off to, Off, Light, Medium or Heavy.

On balance I think the grid approach highlights where gaps might be, but you shouldn't fill them for their own sake as much as ask;

How would they change the game?, would there inclusion be realistic? and does that gap really need filled?

Well that's it folks just some thoughts for discussion on tidy up and possible changes that the might bring about that which, hopefully, BF could incorporate with relative ease over time to make a great game series even better.

 

Peter.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Thumbnails;

 

A hopefully simple addition would be to add thumbnail pop ups when making maps or choosing forces. Two examples.

While buying a US armoured unit either when designing a scenario or a quick battle when a formation is chosen it moves from the LH formations side to the right hand side. At this point it would be good if a Thumbnail of the TOE appeared at the bottom of the page. You can go into a formation before or after choosing it by clicking on it but seeing it laid out would IMHO be better.

Next, once a unit is selected and put on the RH you often get a series of options and defaults below.

A good example is regularly seeing five or six different Sherman's to choose from. At this point when you clicked on a particular tank, if a thumbnail of the picture from the manual with it's details appeared you could make a more informed choice. I know this is all in the manual, but rather than have it to hand or opening another window to the online or PDF version, it would just appear.

Sounds good.  And tool tips too.  Very frequently requested.

 

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

With Map making it would work the same way.

Click on a particular building and a picture of it would appear, which would be particularly useful with Independent building in terms of  the ridge orientation or door locations that can't be changed. Depending on what orientation you choose you would see a different angle of the building, but the front would always be towards the one you choose. 

Oh yes that would be nice.

 

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Equally with Flavour objects, particularly when there are several options, in some cases up to nine, getting a picture of that roadside object so that you get a Gas Pump instead of a bucket would save either having to remember which is which, check the manual, or as most of us probably do, choose them all open £D view, delete all the wrong ones and move the one we want to where it's needed.

Yes, would be nice.  It would be nice to either be able to see placed flavour objects in the 2D editor or pick them and place them while in the 3D editor.

 

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

With Trees seeing a picture of it, ideally with a man beside it for scale would make it easier to choose the right one for the right place. I know you get the hang of it after a while, but this would be more user friendly.

For some reason I find the trees easier to keep track of - perhaps the icons in the editor are better or something.  But sure for consistency it would be nice.

 

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Logical Grid;

This might seem a bit picky but stick with me. 

When building a map there are a range of great terrain choices, and you can pick from a list of categories ( Roads, Foliage, Walls) and then options (Brick Wall, Wire Fence, Hedge) all of which is good. The is however no order to them and it would be more logical and perhaps helpful if there was a set pattern.

Take foliage, the two key characterises for game play are, for me anyway, height and density. Height determines how it impacts on long range sighting and density how much cover it gives. Changing the grid so that density was left to right and height top to bottom would mean that the Top Left would be the smallest spindliest bush and the Bottom Right the tallest bushiest tree. There would be a logic to it. 

For fences it would be similar but in this case it is cover and protection, so it would start with the Wire Fence and end with the Tall Stone Wall. I know walls also block sight and that that there are some terrains that just won't quite fit but putting them in more or less the right place lets you focus quickly on what you want for that particular setting.

For buildings it should be from smallest to largest and probably weakest to strongest, with Top Left a tiny wooded shed and Bottom Right a huge concrete structure. Flavour objects, with or without thumbnails should also be from smallest to largest ( or the other way round but with a logic).

Not a bad idea

 

5 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Filling the Gaps;

Although I said this isn't about content, if you order terrain by size or height you will notice gaps and that raises a question.

I'm not 100% sold on this.  Filling a gap because its there is not always correct.  You allude to that later so I guess you are not off base.  The more important question is should the terrain, fence, foliage or building actually be present?  I'm not saying that BFC always has every thing covered for a given environment just that they usually start from the point of view of what kinds of terrain, fencing and buildings does this region have?  Rather than, we are missing a size x fence lets add it. 

IMHO starting with the what does this region need is the best approach.  Like I said that does not guarantee everything gets built though.
 

 

[Pak40]

All these are good ideas but certainly will not happen for CMx2. However, this is a good starter discussion for CMx3 development, the future of the Combat Mission franchise.

[Peter Cairns]

Pak40,

Just now, Pak40 said:

 

All these are good ideas but certainly will not happen for CMx2. However, this is a good starter discussion for CMx3 development, the future of the Combat Mission franchise.

 

I think that applies to thumbnails and filling gaps, but changing the positions of existing terrain items to a more logical order shouldn't require much work. As I understand it the big time and effort from CMx1 to CMx2, was going from a 20m to 8m grid, hugely increasing the graphic quality of the models and of course real time as opposed to only WEGO.

The stuff for thumbnails takes more work but all the stuff for weapons is already there and pop up  screen shots of buildings might not be that difficult.

I do agree that new terrain presents problems because as every round is tracked it  doesn't just need to be drawn but to be fully modelled for sighting, movement and penetration.

Peter.

[Bulletpoint]

10 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Click on a particular building and a picture of it would appear, which would be particularly useful with Independent building in terms of  the ridge orientation or door locations that can't be changed. Depending on what orientation you choose you would see a different angle of the building, but the front would always be towards the one you choose. 

Equally with Flavour objects, particularly when there are several options, in some cases up to nine, getting a picture of that roadside object so that you get a Gas Pump instead of a bucket would save either having to remember which is which, check the manual, or as most of us probably do, choose them all open £D view, delete all the wrong ones and move the one we want to where it's needed.

With Trees seeing a picture of it, ideally with a man beside it for scale would make it easier to choose the right one for the right place. I know you get the hang of it after a while, but this would be more user friendly.

This would be enormously useful and save tons of time when making a scenario.

[womble]

Lots of good UI design ideas there. Hopefully some or all of them will be candidates for inclusion at some point, whether that be the inevitable 4.0, probable 5+ or the notional CMx3. I wouldn't hold out much hope until x3 though for some of the suggestions, cos the decisions are deep in the architecture and would effectively require a complete re-write of the non-game-engine code.

[Peter Cairns]

Again. not sure why people think these things are "deep in the architecture"

The Thumbnail idea is effectively letting you see a unit panel when you select a unit. but that already happens when you select a unit in the game. It's really only having the image that is already available appear during the scenario builder or unit selection. Compared to the mechanics and graphics of the actual game real time, changes to the look of the UI shouldn't require opening up andy of that.

Equally, moving the locations of terrain icons should be really about changing the location of the picture and the link to the game files. All the pictures already exist and all the game files for the terrains are already there.

New content in terms of filling the gaps would need work, both graphics and working out the mechanics of it, but new content be it bocage, small trees or snow is regularly added (not to mentions dozens of vehicles,) Although it will always require work the process of making a denser type of ground as an example might only be starting with the closest existing terrain and then tweaking the values and refining it.

New and different building sizes and and types would probably be the most difficult, but then we have seen windmills, canal bridges and even huge bridges added.

On general filling the gaps, although I am wary of adding terrain for it's own sake, as an example  I think there is a strong argument for some denser ground cover. Be it heather, ferns or just thick high weeds, like Willow herb.... it both wood add something and is a fairly ubiquitous terrain.

 

Peter.

 

[Peter Cairns]

And this one is Bracken.... continuous dense ground cover, mostly ferns...

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Again. not sure why people think these things are "deep in the architecture"

Actually none of us are really qualified to speak to how deep anything is or how related to an architecture decision some feature we want is.  Not you, not me nor anyone else.

We, as players, get more traction by talking about what we want to see improved in the game - not by saying X or Y is easy or hard.  In fact I have seen a discussion about "why some easy thing has not been done yet" lead to pointless hours of debate and name calling and in the end none of us were any further along.

You have offered some useful thoughts and some examples.  Keep the focus on that part of this thread.

[Bulletpoint]

10 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

And this one is Bracken.... continuous dense ground cover, mostly ferns...

+1 to that. As a scenario designer, I am always hungry for more variation of tiles, to produce maps that are more varied, look more natural, and provide a greater range of gameplay variations.

I think that currently, the "light" and "heavy" forest tiles are supposed to represent a variety of herbs and ferns that are found in forests. However, the forest tile looks quite bland and generic, and it doesn't really do much to show players that it in fact provides quite good concealment.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Peter Cairns]

BulletPoint,

 

I am okay with theForest Tiles as they do represent well the typical terrain you get on a forest floor, that and I like to use them along road sides with fences and hedges (sometimes ditch locked a metre higher) to simulate that dense grass and weeds that never gets cut at field edges. 

Bracken and the like are for me something beyond that, not only do they provide the same or better cover than tallest crops but more than they do it would also impede movement. Trying to move through Bracken be it Ferns, Willow, Herb or being Scots, Heather is not only slow but tiring. 

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

Oh and Broom is a nightmare, but not as bad as Gorse...It's not me in the picture but it helps with scale!

You can get whole forests of this stuff and it is quicker to go round it than through...it's like natural Bocage.

 

Peter.

[Bulletpoint]

On 23/8/2016 at 4:27 PM, Peter Cairns said:

Forest Tiles as they do represent well the typical terrain you get on a forest floor, that and I like to use them along road sides with fences and hedges (sometimes ditch locked a metre higher) to simulate that dense grass and weeds that never gets cut at field edges. 

I personally think forest tiles provide a bit too much concealment for being used around the edges of fields.. I usually use tall grass and/or weeds instead.

My main problem with forest tiles is that they don't really look like they would offer much concealment, but they do. For me it's no problem, as I have been playing the game for years, but I can remember how it confused me when I first started playing.

[Peter Cairns]

Bulletpoint,

 

I remember a discussion years back where Steve, said that so that you could see your units clearly ground cover wasn't depicted as densely in the game as in reality. Things like VT grass look thin and spindly but they actually give quite good cover. 

I use the forest tiles because this is the fence line beside my house.

 

[Peter Cairns]

Bulletpoint,

Actually this is a better example. I am doing a Black Sea map of around my own house, so this is a street view image and a I'll add a game image pdf roughly the same area in the next post.

And yes I do live in a "Pink" house......

 

[Peter Cairns]

Sorry no game image... No matter what i do I can't seem to get a screen shot below 500kb for some reason on my Mac????

Peter.

 

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, Peter Cairns said:

Bulletpoint,

Actually this is a better example. I am doing a Black Sea map of around my own house, so this is a street view image and a I'll add a game image pdf roughly the same area in the next post.

And yes I do live in a "Pink" house......

 

I think forest tiles provide a lot more concealment in the game than you would be able to find along that fence in reality. A sunken road with tall yellow grass would probably be how I would represent that road in game.

But of course there's no one true way to use the editor, it depends on the designer's interpretation as well.

[Peter Cairns]

15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

A sunken road with tall yellow grass would probably be how I would represent that road in game.

I tend to ditch lock the fence line 1 m higher than the road or field.

I used both a fair bit on this map I did for black sea in "A Few Good Men";

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons-maps/cmbs-map-junction-2/