should we be able to see so much?

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

All I'm saying is that I don't see a need for terrain FOW.

I know Steve & Charles have been awesome about implementing feasible ideas, but not ones that would be a nightmare to code that only offer a minor enhancement to gameplay and a major hit to CPU power.

Perhaps you don't remember the "Smoke" threads. Or was that when you were AWOL? SS?

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Yah I remember some of the Smoke threads - but I also notice that the smoke has been improved - do you think that would've happened if everybody sat around and said "oh the smoke is wonderful don't touch it"?

And just because YOU don't think it can be done; doesn't amount to a whole helluva lot IMHO - The only ones who have the say are STEVE and Charles - if they say hey it can't be done because its impractical or undesirable then it will hold some weight, but last time I checked you wern't on BTS' Payroll! :eeK:

There is nothing wrong with taking an opposing stance and being firm in your convictions - what is lame is being NASTY about the way you do it

When I really believe in something Im a damn hard sell to change my mind - but I do TRY to remain civil EVEN when people take popshots at me

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-21-2000).]

[MERC]

I don't like the FOW terrain idea for several reasons:

1. Doesn't make the game any more realistic, because your taking it to another extreme that is not real life. If you really want this FOW, all you would have to do is strictly play it from 1st person view

2. I have played several games that had the terrain FOW and they have not been that enjoyable.

3. If you get say a mission of "Capture Objective B", but you can't see the terrain and where objective B is, then how do you know what your doing.

[Guest JonS]

Whenever I think of terrain FOW, I get this fuzzy picture of what it would be like:

You know exactly what is to your front. You have been told there is a 'small' village at a crossroads about 1500m to the NW. You can see a tree covered ridge to your front, and hints of another beyond. The assumption is that the terrain is all bush clad till teh village, and there is probably a stream in the valley over the first ridge. It might be a trickle, or a torrent. No way to tell from here, so you'll have to see when you get there. In the meantime, you have to make some assumptions about what you think the terrain will be like and make you initail plan and approach based on that. Bad news is - at least some of your assumptions will be wrong and the plan will have to change. Maybe the heavy road bridge has been blown, and you're going to have to reorient your entire armoured thrust onto that ford that your foot recon elements have found 800m downstream. Then again maybe not. Who knows until you get there.

In terms of UI, I imagine it as something like the way enemy units are gradually uncovered. They start off as a national icon, become a standard type marker, then improve to the point where you know all their names and perversions. Terrain FOW could gradually be lifted in the same way.

To me, IMHO, it seems like a great idea. Of course, I know about as much about coding as I do about the pain involved in childbirth. So, I'll leave it there - something that would be really neat if carried off well, but not vital, and not something I can't wait for.

Cheers

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[Guest PeterNZ]

Just a point..

If people are going to bicker in one thread, can they try and keep it there instead of bringing their bickering to another thread in an attempt at point scoring?

I'm sure it'll just get annoying for everyone else as it has a bit for me! ;p

PeterNZ

------------------

.C O M B A T. .V I S I O N.

* Film From The Front *

http://combatvision.panzershark.com/

[Guest Bobb]

Obtaining a comprehensive total view of the battle, a historian's ultimate dream, and obtaining something more approaching a virtual battlefield reality are diametrically opposed directions of game design.

CM as presently designed is something of a compromise solution to the delimma of satisfying both impulses. A rather satisfactory one too. Neither impulse invalidates the other. This brings together two strains of player preference. It is not surprising that they should emphasize their differing preferences.

I find it most interesting to see the vision of gaming in the Combat Mission mode producing growing dreams of what is possible, now that the old mold has been broken. I don't see any criticism of CM in these dreams, rather an afirmation.

Practicality may be another matter, but nevermind. Practicality is hammered out the stuff of life as dreams are taken up and slammed against, what is thought to be impossible or undesirable. Don't worry, about practicality, it is the dream that is fragile and disappears as thin smoke when dreaming is neglected, leaving the practical unwatered and stunted.

If the CM concept is at some future time looked upon as sadly stillborn and neglected, dieing when it made for promise such an outstanding example, it will be because it was left to lie, untouched by further dreams. I doubt that will happen.

[Moon]

Alright, I might be pretty alone with this opinion, but I think that terrain FOW is, in a way, implemented in CM. Here's why (I hope I can explain it somewhat clearly):

although you are able to see the whole map of a scenario, CM's maps are usually relatively "complex", i.e. it takes time to analyze them, get a feel for the lay of the land, possible lines of sight, approaches etc. If you only casually look at the map, you might (and will) miss a lot of these. Even when you spend a lot of time before a battle to "recon" the map by moving your camera around, checking ground level views etc., you still will not be 100% of the possibilities, because eyeballing only gets you so far (without the LOS tool).

So in a way, you will not know 100% what is ahead before you send your troops there. Maybe it's just me, but I usually find that only after several turns into a battle I am able to "understand" the map fully - and often I am surprised with regard to the possibilities and lines of sight.

Sure, this is not a perfect FOW as discussed above, but it's not like you have 100% knowledge of what lies ahead. It might even be not an intended feature but rather a nice side-effect of the way CM is designed, but I find it a nice compromise between terrain knowledge and terrain FOW.

Something else I'd like to mention: in operations, only the portion of the map you're fighting on is known. You do not know what lies ahead until you fought through the initial area. So here, in operations, terrain FOW is implemented in a way.

[Mark IV]

Well, my darn ISP went down yesterday and perhaps it was just as well...

The original post asked "Is it possible in future upgrades...?" There were some enthusiastic responses, mine among them, which referenced "suggestions for future CMs". Later I pointed out that "I'm gonna buy the next CM whether it does my map thing or not" (in retrospect, it sounds a little presumptuous to call it "my" map thing).

So it should be really, really clear that we are talking about "suggestions" for the "future". We are not badgering BTS for immediate modifications, just dreaming out loud, the spirit of which was captured quite eloquently by Bobb.

In addition to the example of smoke, there is that of rifle-grenades, which are now in the game after much discussion, thanks to the substantive evidence provided by LOS. As so many posts attest, including those in this thread, CM is a great game, and BTS has been unique in their responsiveness to the gamers.

Remember that topo maps are intrinsically cool. Battles are planned on topo maps (or lines drawn with sticks in the dirt). And most battlefields in WWII were first "seen" by the participants on maps.

JonS has done a nice job of visualizing how this might be implemented. To this I would add that your forces begin on one side of the map, and that anything in their initial LOS is already filled in. Beyond it is the topo map (hypothetically, in theoretical future versions).

As your units advance, the topo map recedes according to their LOS and is replaced by filled-in terrain (the seam between the map and reality could be nicely feathered). That's it. Once filled in, it stays filled in. Simple, no? My CPU is all over that one. There are utilities out there now which convert topos to shaded elevations. It is completely possible. Whether it's desirable is up to my esteemed colleagues and BTS.

As the lower-case major_tom/tom w has pointed out, CM is innovative, radical, ground-breaking, etc., and there is every reason to believe it will continue to be. BTS has discussed several years worth of future development INCLUDING mods to the engine (it would be ridiculous to think that that all that time and talent would be required just to add more unit types and scenarios for other fronts).

So, the CM we buy in 3 years may look a little different than Beyond Overlord. You might see the airplanes (btw, they're usually a little outside the elevation scale in CM- I guess if one actually landed in downtown Reisberg I'd want to see it).

Moon: I, too, have found that subtle terrain characteristics take getting used to, and sometimes the same scenario revisited exposes whole new possibilities based on terrain awareness. I agree that the level 1 view could preserve FOW, except that there is far less information available for planning that way than with the simplest of maps.

I'm not sure I would pursue this much further until BTS chimed in to pour the icy waters of reality on the whole scheme....

[Guest tom w]

Yes, Moon sees it the same way I do.

I agree with him completely, terrain FOW is

already implemented to some degree, as you

have to get a unit to a specific terrain location

(i.e. tank hull down on a slope) to really KNOW

what you can see or hit from that position.

I think this is one of CM's GREATEST features.

I would like to re-state my suggestion again

(if I may)

All I/we was/were suggesting was basically "out of date"

maps or some inaccurate terrain feature info

that must be reconoutoured (sp?) (actually seen

by a unit with LOS to it) to be

accurately determined. Mostly I just mean bridges

as shown to there that are blown or buildings

destroyed . Simple things that could be "fun"

surprises for attacking forces to recon.

I mean the MAP would look exactly as it does now

but some map or terrain features might simply change,

(just like spotting emeny units) when you actually

have friendly units get LOS to them.

(i.e. forward unit move up to a position and

can see that bridge now, its NOT

there, map changes {just by forward friendly unit

looking at it, EXACLTY the same way they spot

enemy units} to show the blown bridge, now

new plan! ... where's that DAMN pontoon bridging

unit!)

Nothing more.

I agree with OB&G's point when he suggests the

shroud of greyed out area common to Age of

Empires and Warcraft II really has no place

here. But I think LOS to simulate FOW and

a map that "might" contain some limited

inaccurate structures or terrain features

would add an element of fun and surprise to

the game.

Again its just a suggestion....

I do really like the feature Moon just noted:

"Something else I'd like to mention: in operations, only the portion of the map you're fighting on is known. You do not know what lies ahead until you fought through the initial area. So here, in operations, terrain FOW is implemented in a way"

That sounds GREAT to me....

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

Alright, I might be pretty alone with this opinion, but I think that terrain FOW is, in a way, implemented in CM. Here's why (I hope I can explain it somewhat clearly):

although you are able to see the whole map of a scenario, CM's maps are usually relatively "complex", i.e. it takes time to analyze them, get a feel for the lay of the land, possible lines of sight, approaches etc. If you only casually look at the map, you might (and will) miss a lot of these. Even when you spend a lot of time before a battle to "recon" the map by moving your camera around, checking ground level views etc., you still will not be 100% of the possibilities, because eyeballing only gets you so far (without the LOS tool).

So in a way, you will not know 100% what is ahead before you send your troops there. Maybe it's just me, but I usually find that only after several turns into a battle I am able to "understand" the map fully - and often I am surprised with regard to the possibilities and lines of sight.

Sure, this is not a perfect FOW as discussed above, but it's not like you have 100% knowledge of what lies ahead. It might even be not an intended feature but rather a nice side-effect of the way CM is designed, but I find it a nice compromise between terrain knowledge and terrain FOW.

Something else I'd like to mention: in operations, only the portion of the map you're fighting on is known. You do not know what lies ahead until you fought through the initial area. So here, in operations, terrain FOW is implemented in a way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest tom w]

Again, I agree with Mark IV

And I should have said "the suggestion" rather than my suggestion

in my previous post. My appologies.

Mark IV's vision and mine are similiar enough that

they could be considered varying shades of the same

color or different folds in the same cloth.

Some folks here really don't like the idea

of a "shroud" of over the terrain you cannot

see. I understand that. But think of it this

way its easy, the LOS tool very quickly

tells us what can be seen and what cannot.

What we are saying is the LOS tool exists,

it presumes there are commanders in tanks

with binoculars, BUT instead of actually

asking the LOS tool what I can see,

just show me right away on the Map

EXACTLY the limits of the LOS of

all my troops. If you did this on

any of the three Demo maps, your

troops LOS, if you added them

all up, especially from the second

story buildings, would quickly

reveal an LOS map that would

"let" you see (reveal) almost the whole

map. This is NOT a big leap...

really the LOS tool is already there

The time it would take in extra cpu

computation would likely take place

during the crunch phase of the

simultaneous resolution as the

cpu prepares the one minute

movie or summary of the movement/

orders of the previous turn. As the units advance

in the move resolution summary, the map

would reveal what they actually see and as Mark IV

suggests, (and this "should" be do-able") it would

turn into a brightened up 3D terrain, and where you

have no line of sight its just a boring

simulation of a 2d (road?) map.

I will happliy wait an extra minute or two (much likely,

less than that) for the cpu to crunch this FOW

terrain LOS info for me, since I have

to wait anyway, whats a few more

seconds (minutes?)

As for Coding the thing myself....

I was just looking to see if BTS is

hiring ......

Hey Mark IV, I think BTS will need a

defense department software

development grant to pull this off!

(I'm not joking the Marines use

DOOM straight of the shelf

for training purposes!)

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Well, my darn ISP went down yesterday and perhaps it was just as well...

The original post asked "Is it possible in future upgrades...?" There were some enthusiastic responses, mine among them, which referenced "suggestions for future CMs". Later I pointed out that "I'm gonna buy the next CM whether it does my map thing or not" (in retrospect, it sounds a little presumptuous to call it "my" map thing).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

SS - please stop, my sides are acheing man, I gotta get up off the floor.........you are one sarcastic dude.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

HEhe i'll cease fire - I made my point

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

Although you are able to see the whole map of a scenario, CM's maps are usually relatively "complex", i.e. it takes time to analyze them, get a feel for the lay of the land, possible lines of sight, approaches etc. If you only casually look at the map, you might (and will) miss a lot of these. Even when you spend a lot of time before a battle to "recon" the map by moving your camera around, checking ground level views etc., you still will not be 100% of the possibilities, because eyeballing only gets you so far (without the LOS tool).

So in a way, you will not know 100% what is ahead before you send your troops there. Maybe it's just me, but I usually find that only after several turns into a battle I am able to "understand" the map fully - and often I am surprised with regard to the possibilities and lines of sight.

Sure, this is not a perfect FOW as discussed above, but it's not like you have 100% knowledge of what lies ahead. It might even be not an intended feature but rather a nice side-effect of the way CM is designed, but I find it a nice compromise between terrain knowledge and terrain FOW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, excellent point! With the complexity of CM's 3D maps, and all the little nooks & crannys that make LOS different in this game than any other hex-based game, you achieve a partial terrain FOW.

I can still play the Demo scenarios and still discover new contours of the land that may or may not provide good LOS or hull-down positions.

The visuals have and will always be there, but you have to be in one particular place to discover the benefits and/or drawbacks of that particular place. That's the reason why the LOS tool ONLY works from the CURRENT location of the unit, to provide you with the terrain information from that spot.

That is the exact reason why the idea of having the LOS tool working from any waypoint has always been shot down, because it will provide the player with TOO MUCH information. (The "you'll see when you get there" theory)

So in this way the terrain FOW is already implemented to a point. It would be "impractical" to overlay the field with a shroud.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something else I'd like to mention: in operations, only the portion of the map you're fighting on is known. You do not know what lies ahead until you fought through the initial area. So here, in operations, terrain FOW is implemented in a way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This also brings up one of my earlier points. The time duration of a single scenario is too short to conduct "recon" as you suggest. IIRC, recon takes a hellava lot longer than just say 40 minutes. So as Moon says, in Operations you only "see" the field of the current engagement. So just assume that by the time the next engagement takes place, the recon has already taken place. (Which, if you'll notice, is probably already mentioned in the briefings before the scenarios start.)

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Ok. I'll just wait to hear BTS's take. My work here is finished.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

SS_PanzerLeader, here's something YOU mentioned in another thread just 3 days ago, concerning the LOS tool on how it relates to terrain FOW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MCH

I think this has been brought up before and it was shot down for being to unrealistic. The basis behind this was IIRC that you wouldnt know what LOS you had until you actually got to the position in question.

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who's the hypocrite now?

CM, HAS had terrain FOW in it all along, just not in the form that was brought up in this thread. Like I said, a shroud over the battlefield would do little to enhance the FOW that is already there.

My point is, that there is no need to code up a "visual" effect to simulate this when it's already there to some extent. To do so, would hog up CPU time and further slow down gameplay.

In my experience with RTS games that do have a shroud over unexplored areas, I hate wasting my time exploring to uncover the land instead of concentrating on my forces or "empire" at hand. With a relatively short time frame of 30-40 minute battle, I don't wanna waste my time in exploring the field just to see what it looks like as persay a recon unit should have already done before the battle starts.

For example, in the game "Age of Empires: Age of Kings", I just got to the point where I chose, "Explored" maps, besides, don't you think that when a civilization starts building an empire, wouldn't they already know the lay of the land and where the resources are?

When a body of people start to build a city, don't you think they know what the surrounding area looks like before they start laying the first bit of concrete.

This "shroud" of not knowing what the terrain looks like, is actually unrealistic in itself.

So in CM's view, not having the LOS tool active for anywhere on the map is FOW enough for me and the rest of us, I'm sure.

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

You know OB&G you really are a piece of work - Boy you really had to dig to try and find something else to start on somebody about didnt ya - boy you must lead one pathertic existance, I really feel sorry for ya

As for your statement about be being a hippocrit it would help if you researched what the hell you were talking about, jsut a little bit better. Had you done so you woulda realized that your "factual" statement is a joke, because its not even inthe same context.

So let me make things plain enuff for your "GENIUS" level of intelligence(as you so elequently described yourself) can comprehend

#1 the LOS that i was reffering to was in another thread and had to do with viewing terrain from points on the map NOT YET REACHED BY TROOPS

#2 the context here is BETTER FOW by utilizing EXACTLY what troops can see - overlapped with what ever blind spots are appropriate

BUt being as BRILLIANT as you are I guess you already knew that huh EINSTIEN

[endit]

I agree with most of the postings here. I played the demo and am impressed by the war action.

Re: War Game FOW

Has anyone here got hooked on XCOM, it is not at 'war' game in the sense of reality. But, it did include the concept of unseen FOW. Areas not explored were unvisible, and it really added to the suspense and uncertainty that must be felt by anyone going into combat.

I does sound like a big CPU hog though in a real time game. The early Xcom's were turn based and could be classified as slow.

Looking forward to the game release.

[Mike D]

My 2 cents FWIW,

I agree with Moon's statements above.

And as cool as terrain/map FOW might be, I really don't think it adds a whole lot to the game. And the reason I say this goes back to something OB&G said. Namely, this is a game meant to recreate/simulate combat, not scouting and map making. And while recon and scouting are definitely a part of military operations, I firmly believe that this aspect of op's really falls mostly outside of what CM is focusing on. Namely military combat and tactics of the battle itself.

Furthermore, I think that BTS has plenty of other items on "The List" that in my opinion are more worth adding to the game as a patch, or CM2, vs. terrain FOW. In fact, I would venture to guess that terrain FOW isn't even on "The List".

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Mike, you may very well be correct, and this isn't something I'm totally for either- But since it so far has been BTS 's policy to alllow us to discuss this kind of stuff; then whether we agree or not with the suggestion being made, it doesnt give certain nameless individuals the right to tell them to basically shut up without hearing BTS's views on it. The purpose of these threads I believe, is to explore the possibilities of the game as it exists, and its possibilities in future releases. Bts has stated its plans for many in the future so while it may not be a "priority" at this time it may be something two releases down the road they could explore in part or fully.

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Mike D]

SS_PL,

I understand what you are saying and agree. I was simply stating my opinion and views on the subject. This is, and should be, an open forum for the discussion of all matters related to the game. As for people telling others to "basically shut-up", that is their affair and a matter for Steve to address should he feel that it is out of line in terms of the "code of usage and conduct" for this board.

Thanks,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Mike,,

I hope you didn't misunderstand my post I didnt mean that you were telling anyone to shut up - hope that isnt what you thought

I was merely pointing out that someone else here besides BTS (NOT YOU )thought they had that right

I read what ya had to say and looking at the fact they may look into this later _ Your post wasn't in anyway out of line IMHO

sorry for the confusion

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Mike D]

SS_PL,

No misunderstanding, no problem.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

SS, are you really looking at my points, or are you just looking at my tactfulness? 'Cause you never seem to comment toward my ideas, just the way I bring them across.

Sometimes, when one is not being listened to, then they tend to get a little, shall we say, "colorful". And I never claimed to be a brilliant tactition.

BUT ENOUGH OF THAT!

After re-reading one of, I think, tom_w's posts, about having to allow the map features to change on the fly like that (such as a building, to a pile of rubble or a stone bridge to a knocked-out wooden bridge) based on LOS, I believe this is a major limitation on the map editor. I don't think that *ANY* map editor to this day, can do this. You see these are *fixed* terrain features, while units are things that the game engine itself handles. Just like in the Demo, there is only a Tiger, two variations of StuGs, and basically one variation of Sherman. These are models that the game uses and puts on a map. However, the map features are more or less, *hard-coded* once the map is built or randomly generated. To code up such a feature of a changing map based on limited knowledge and LOS, would be a nightmare, if not impossible to do at this stage of technology. Yes, CM is not your father's wargame, but I think even as brilliant of a programmer as Charles tends to be, I believe there's a limit to what can be done, especially when you're dealing with a 3D battlefield.

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Guest Big Time Software]

OB&G and SSPL, do everybody a favor and stop responding to each other's posts. It is clear that the two of you can't have a detached, rational discussion between each other, so it is probably just better to have none at all rather than the constant bickering that the two of you have engaged in within, what, three threads at THE SAME TIME. It was old in one thread, it is REALLY old in this one.

Knock it off.

As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost.

Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running. We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out, motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes, and so on. We think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY...

Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly.

We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can have an unknown map feature.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-21-2000).]

[Guest tom w]

Hi OB&G's

I did not know you were into computer war game

programing.

But since you are perhaps you could tell me how

those "hard coded" terrain features like trees

can be so easily toggled off and on with the

Shift T command. And how about Smoke

Shift I and its gone and Shift I and its back

No problem.

If I shoot enough rounds into that

two story building it turns into rubble, does it not,

how "hard coded" is that ?

Why could I then, Not simply, get a friendly LOS

to that building and see it reduced to rubble?

(which it really was in the first place,

I just couldn't seen it), when before

I saw it on the map as a 2 story building?

Simple answer ... "I could" its not hard

at all, the game

ALREADY changes terrain features

(alledged to be "Hard coded" by you) like

buildings or a bridges (the bridge in LD can

be destroyed) once they have received enough

hits or damage, so really.... how hard would it be

to actually spot that same feature with a friendly

unit and watch it swap the graphic to the

blown bridge or building reduced to rubble?

Really?

I ask you?

-Tom W

(Had enough of me yet ????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

After re-reading one of, I think, tom_w's posts, about having to allow the map features to change on the fly like that (such as a building, to a pile of rubble or a stone bridge to a knocked-out wooden bridge) based on LOS, I believe this is a major limitation on the map editor. I don't think that *ANY* map editor to this day, can do this. You see these are *fixed* terrain features, while units are things that the game engine itself handles.

Yes, CM is not your father's wargame, but I think even as brilliant of a programmer as Charles tends to be, I believe there's a limit to what can be done, especially when you're dealing with a 3D battlefield.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>