Look-at-Terrain Feature?

[Captain Bo]

Hey Blokes,

I'm somewhat new to the Combat Mission 2 engine, but know the first three titles of the CM1 engine well enough. There was a feature to target some surface and get the description for it, i.e. "forest", "swamp", "clear" or something, in case the graphics were not enough to tell the tale. Is there such a feature in CM2? Sometimes I'd find it easier to simply get it written down than to decide what it is by counting bushes or using my tanks to see if they can move through some amount of trees or not. Especially annoying if there are no vehicles in the scenario to be used like that.

 

An entirely different thought: After a battle sometimes I'd find it nice to have the full battle video available, to get the full immersion of what my men were doing, instead of loading one video after another for 20 or 50 times. Has anybody ever thought of making a utility for that? Is it already included or ready for download? Because unfortunately I rarely look at my old battles anymore because it is simply not worth the effort with all the split-up videos...

 

Thanks for your help!
Cheers,

Captain Bo

[Vacillator]

Welcome back to CM2 Captain Bo.  'Blokes' is interesting but probably correct .

I don't think there's such a tool in CM2, I might be imagining it but I think I read that in the interests of 'reality' the player should be able to observe and decide, or take the chances that real life would have offered.  My paraphrasing of course... 

Anyway, I've not experienced that many problems with such things, the worst actually being crossing bridges with large armoured columns but that's a bit different.

Also I don't think there's a 'full-battle-video' function or mod, but it has been discussed a few times.

I'm sure other more knowledgeable people will come along and correct me if I'm wrong...

[mjkerner]

Vacillator is right on the money. No terrain cheat sheet, and because the files would be so huge, there is no feature that allows you to view the whole battle with just one file. Would be nice, though. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by mjkerner

[chuckdyke]

Shells which fall in swamps, or in water. You could use common sense when calling for a mission. @Vacilllator what you think of move orders in which you can specify the number of waypoints. If you are familiar with Photoshop our function is like the pen-tool. The move tools could have a magnetic function in which they generate a waypoint according the terrain. By moving your move tool over a buildup area, it would generate a way point at the corners. 

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

 @Vacilllator what you think of move orders in which you can specify the number of waypoints.

I hadn't really thought about this, but of course we do it all the time albeit manually.  For example we use more points if crossing bridges, negotiating narrow village streets, woods etc.  So you mean you would be able to issue an order 'get to Point X using (for example) 5 waypoints' and the points would be automatically positioned to avoid obstacles?  Might not allow for precise control of exposure etc. but then that doesn't always work anyway.  Or am I misinterpreting your tool?

Using the swamp example (or bocage), it also occurs to me that you can sometimes tell if the game will not be able to drive a tank through as it will not let you plot a waypoint where you want it.  However, sometimes it will let you plot it and then sends your tank off on a sightseeing tour of the battlefied, ending up eventually at your waypoint if it hasn't been shot up on the way.

[chuckdyke]

@Vacilllator It would be a tremendous help if you plot A to B and you have2 or more waypoints. You can always drag them in place for a more precise adjustment. As it is a Vector adjustment in doesn't take more memory out of your system. We were addressing two issues. Terrain was in the event of calling artillery, we should assume a little knowledge where artillery is more effective. Wet terrain needs the proximity fuse so that the shells explode in the air instead of in the mud.  

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

We were addressing two issues. Terrain was in the event of calling artillery, we should assume a little knowledge where artillery is more effective. Wet terrain needs the proximity fuse so that the shells explode in the air instead of in the mud. 

Yes, agreed.  Of course we may not have proximity fuses available to us.

[chuckdyke]

56 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

Yes, agreed.  Of course we may not have proximity fuses available to us.

That is after Christmas 1944 if I remember correctly. 

[Vacillator]

Not if you're playing as Axis .  But if you're Allied then the following applies...

Following some limited use by the British where the fuses would not be 'captured', and some use in the South Pacific, Wikipedia says:

The Pentagon refused to allow the Allied field artillery use of the fuzes in 1944, although the United States Navy fired proximity-fuzed anti-aircraft shells during the July 1943 invasion of Sicily. After General Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded he be allowed to use the fuzes, 200,000 shells with VT fuzes or (code named "POZIT") were used in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Vacilllator

[A Canadian Cat]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

what you think of move orders in which you can specify the number of waypoints. If you are familiar with Photoshop our function is like the pen-tool. The move tools could have a magnetic function in which they generate a waypoint according the terrain. By moving your move tool over a buildup area, it would generate a way point at the corners. 

Interesting concept and could be useful. I have two thoughts. First, the better way to handle roads would be to have the game automatically follow them - which they cannot do now. Once that is possible a lot of this multiple plotting goes away. Second, the exact path to the next way point is actually figured out when the unit gets to the previous way point. That means you can do things like breach a wall and have the truck drive through the whole as long as the wall is breached before the truck gets to the penultimate way point after the wall breach happens. But if your tool plotted way points automatically it would go around the wall.

Neither of those concerns negates the usefulness of your thoughts in general just a couple of specific cases.

[chuckdyke]

21 minutes ago, IanL said:

Interesting concept and could be useful. I have two thoughts. First, the better way to handle roads would be to have the game automatically follow them - which they cannot do now. Once that is possible a lot of this multiple plotting goes away. Second, the exact path to the next way point is actually figured out when the unit gets to the previous way point. That means you can do things like breach a wall and have the truck drive through the whole as long as the wall is breached before the truck gets to the penultimate way point after the wall breach happens. But if your tool plotted way points automatically it would go around the wall.

Neither of those concerns negates the usefulness of your thoughts in general just a couple of specific cases.

We have a computer game, and the memory is taken up by the computations in the background. The setting of way points is done by vector graphics. The road also could have a vector line in it. In other words, in the editor you configure the road with a vector already plotted in it. The move tool just copies it and set your way points automatically. It takes next to no memory away from your pc. It is tedious at present because the vector interacts with the bitmap pixels. 

[LongLeftFlank]

On 2/17/2021 at 11:56 PM, chuckdyke said:

We have a computer game, and the memory is taken up by the computations in the background. The setting of way points is done by vector graphics. The road also could have a vector line in it. In other words, in the editor you configure the road with a vector already plotted in it. The move tool just copies it and set your way points automatically. It takes next to no memory away from your pc. It is tedious at present because the vector interacts with the bitmap pixels. 

Yes! I've been advocating (politely) for some time for putting this kind of 'paint a route that units will tend to follow' feature in the Editor.

(Even better would be a feature where a unit waypoint for any move but FAST automatically 'snaps to' a road or ditch or hedgeline when the route roughly matches it. But that's a rather more complex brainjar coding task, and I am trying to keep my wishlisting to what seems like tweaks to existing functionality).

Such a feature seems readily doable. The TacAI already causes pixeldogs to 'follow' a fence, trench or hedgeline even when it wavers back and forth a bit across their waypoint, rather than hopping back and forth over it.

For example, I have put hedge segments into ditches and streambeds as a hack to get troops to use them (staying in good cover), rather than their default behaviour of moving alongside in 'easier' ground where they get shot up. The Pont du Hoc CMBN scenario cleverly used a fence to get the Rangers to 'climb' a cliff they would otherwise circumnavigate (at their peril).

1.  So basically, the idea is to let a designer paint a kind of 'invisible fence' over road terrain, inside buildings, etc. It has no LOS/cover effects, but units will tend to follow it as they would an actual fence rather than defaulting to 'easier' (but more exposed) terrain.

2. Another helpful and versatile add would be to be able to paint map squares in the editor that are invisible to the player but that AI forces will not enter; as if they were invisible marsh or deep water hexes. That way you can effectively tell the AI troops 'don't run up that particular alley because we already know it's swept by enemy fire.' Find a different alley, or maybe use this series of breaches in rowhouse walls, instead of getting gunned down in the open like idiots (thinking Ramadi, or F&R Berlin here!)

[chuckdyke]

@LongLeftFlank thank you for your attention. 

[LongLeftFlank]

I have a few rules to live by, and one is: never turn your back on a Rottie. 

[KGBoy]

On 2/27/2021 at 12:26 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

I have a few rules to live by, and one is: never turn your back on a Rottie. 

LOL. Even one that looks as friendly as that?

[Bulletpoint]

On 3/1/2021 at 6:14 PM, KGBoy said:

LOL. Even one that looks as friendly as that?

Friendly? It looks like it wants my school lunch money.

[Thewood1]

A huge time saver in Steel Beasts is holding shift down while plotting snaps the path to a road or path.  You can also specify a unit or formation stick to roads or move in covered advances.  All incredibly helpful.  I have always wished CM would have that capability.

 

edit:  Just to dig this hole a little deeper, in SB you can specify that a unit or group of units moves in close column on the road as well.  Again, just makes life simpler.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Thewood1