atiff Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hi all, I've been making up a lot of maps lately using the auto-generator with North Africa/Arid Rocks setting, and been getting a lot of Rough ground (like groups of 20-30 Rough tiles). Now I haven't been to Libya or Egypt, but it seems like there is too much to my eye - especially as it is impassable to vehicles. I can understand how it might be programmed that way as a game issue, as Rough gives good cover to infantry, but if it isn't what is really out there then.... it doesn't seem right. I've been replacing a lot of the Rough with Brush or Rocky tiles, still gives some concealment (admittedly not much cover) for infantry but not vehicle-impassable. Any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I don't think it's overdone, your setting is arid rocks. If you set it to sand you won't get hardly any rough terrain. If you're QB was part of an escarpment, you'd expect that most of the map would be rocky/rough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 If I remember my geology (and WWII reading) correctly, the chief feature of the North African coastal terrain is loose rocks and stones. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I recall when CMAK first came out there were lots of board complaints about 'un-desert-like' rough, rocky, and mountainous terrain being generated (which is funny because the pre-release fear was of finding wide open flat landscapes in the game!). When actual combat photos of the N Africa campaign began being posted to the board the number of complaints started to drop off. The battle of Kassarine Pass, for example, was called by that name because it took place in a mountain pass! The Churchill earned a reputation for climbing impossible slopes because there were impossible slopes to climb! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atiff Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by xerxes: I don't think it's overdone, your setting is arid rocks. If you set it to sand you won't get hardly any rough terrain.No, with the Sand setting instead of Arid Rocks I get the same amounts of Rough tiles (tested over a dozen or so auto-gen maps). I believe the Sand/Arid Rocks/Dirt setting only affects the qualities of the ground with respect to traction, bogging, speed of infantry moving over it, etc. Originally posted by Dalem: If I remember my geology (and WWII reading) correctly, the chief feature of the North African coastal terrain is loose rocks and stones.Yes, this is my understanding too. What doesn't gel with me is that there is so much of this "rock" on a auto-gen CM map which is impassable to vehicles. I get the impression that tracked vehicles could pretty much go where they liked - or, perhaps more accurately, I *don't* get the impression that they had to avoid lots of impassable places (with the frequency they show up on CM auto-gen maps). Also, I can't think of many scenarios where the designer has put out as much Rough as I have seen on auto-gen maps, and I am assuming they have researched their terrain. What I am wondering is if the Rough is overdone, and perhaps Rocky would be a better representation of what was/is out there. Your thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by atiff: What doesn't gel with me is that there is so much of this "rock" on a auto-gen CM map which is impassable to vehicles. I get the impression that tracked vehicles could pretty much go where they liked...Not strictly true. Especially the early British tanks were apt to throw a tread if you looked cross-eyed at them. But all tracked vehicles could be broken if you weren't careful with them. ...or, perhaps more accurately, I *don't* get the impression that they had to avoid lots of impassable places (with the frequency they show up on CM auto-gen maps).You may be right about that part. It really depends on where you mean the fighting to take place. There were definitely places in the theater that were that bad or worse. Much worse. But that's not where the big armor battles took place for the most part. There were also large expanses of the Libyan Plateau that were covered by hardpan with a thin sand or dust topping or gravel. In those cases a vehicle either tracked or wheeled could be driven at about the same speed it could be driven on a graded but unpaved road. Since that was where the good going was, that's where the armies tended to go and consequently that's also where they tended to fight. What I am wondering is if the Rough is overdone, and perhaps Rocky would be a better representation of what was/is out there.Various combinations of rocky, sand, and dirt, with the occasional patch of rough would probably do for most cases. But it would be good to study as many photos of the specific area you intend to model as you can to get a precise idea. There were also battlegrounds where the defenders were dug into steep, rugged terrain and to get to it the attackers had to cross miles of flat, open terrain. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Various combinations of rocky, sand, and dirt, with the occasional patch of rough would probably do for most cases. But it would be good to study as many photos of the specific area you intend to model as you can to get a precise idea. Michael Are you missing the point of the original question, which was about QBs? Sure - map designers can study photos and make things realistic, but I think the general trend of the answers here is "Yes, rough is over done, one would expect AFVs to be able to travel most places with just patches they have to go round". Note that the issue of being careful about throwing tracks is modelled to death by the SLOW rate of progress across rocky... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: Are you missing the point of the original question, which was about QBs?Where in the original post does he mention QBs? After careful examination I decided that he was referring to maps auto-generated in the editor. Note that the issue of being careful about throwing tracks is modelled to death by the SLOW rate of progress across rocky... I tend to agree with you. Progress should be slow and careful, but I think they went overboard on this one. Especially turning around. I have seen tour busses navigate difficult, constricted terrain faster than that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Oh, and regarding QBs, it is possible to design one or more maps in the editor and then place them in the QB Map folder. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: Are you missing the point of the original question, which was about QBs?Where in the original post does he mention QBs? After careful examination I decided that he was referring to maps auto-generated in the editor. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: Too much rough is too much rough, QB or or not QB... Agreed, but the advantage of it happening in the editor is that you can correct it manually. Tedious, but possible. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atiff Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yes, this is what I have been doing (some manual editing for the worst parts). All this is for a campaign I am running at Band of Brothers. Ideally, I would be using Mapping Mission to make the campaign maps but no CMAK version exists yet. Still have to investigate (very carefully!) the possibility of using CMBB Mapping Mission files to make CMAK maps (mouse clicks are mouse clicks, just have to make sure they rae in the right places) Andrew [ April 09, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: atiff ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.