Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[jrrich0000]

This game desparately needs some kind of contour line system to differentiate elevations!

[Dave H]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You can zoom in right over your pixeltruppen's shoulder to see the lay of the land. Since the actual soldiers made do without contour lines neatly plotted on the ground, I think we can do without them as well. :cool:

[Michael Emrys]

Well, I for one would be delighted to have contour lines, at least in the overhead views.

Michael

[Hans]

a button for contour lines would be much appreciated in the next version

[GreenAsJade]

DaveH's response would be more relevant if we were actually playing the role of one pixeltrupper.

Since we are not, it hardly seems relevant that one can zoom in to see the point of view of one of many units when one actually needs to be able to get a reasonable overall view.

I agree with Hans that a contour lines button would be awesome.

In the mean time, people who apprecaite the assistance can download Caffino's excellent grid mods... (when's the snow grid due, Caffino!?)

No-where near as good as contours would be, but better than nothing.

GaJ.

[jrrich0000]

Originally posted by Dave H:

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You can zoom in right over your pixeltruppen's shoulder to see the lay of the land. Since the actual soldiers made do without contour lines neatly plotted on the ground, I think we can do without them as well. :cool:

I take the opportunity to rebut: Yes, it is true that as a soldier you do not see contour lines on the ground in front of you. But you do carry a map which has that information and you plot avenues of advance, defensive positions and etc. on the map before you place them.

Even just during the unit placement phase, contour lines would greatly improve the playing experience for me.

[HarryInk]

Yes dammit, they'd just look pretty. This is entertainment, afterall.

[AK3Hiker]

To be able to generate a topographical map! To print it out and pour over my strategy at work! Then all those hours I spend away from my PC could be consumed by CM as well!

Ooooh, I've got goosebumps...

[Dave H]

Dear map grogs, I spent 20 years (1974 to 1994) at the Defense Mapping Agency, making topographic maps for the US Department of Defense. I think most of you have a very inflated opinion of the maps available in WW2. Until the advent of satellites, most of the elevations on a topographic map, and ALL of the contours, were no more than best guesses by a cartographer.

A 1970's era 1:50,000 topographic map had no more than a handful of surveyed points (benchmarks). Even the surveyed points were often inaccurate, because of different datums being used. All the rest of the relief was drawn by a cartographer using a stereo pair of aerial photographs. Mapping in 1970 was just as much an art form as a science. Just guessing here, but I suspect maps in the late 1930s and early 1940s were a lot less accurate.

To top it off, even perfectly accurate contours can be misleading. The shape of the terrain between contours makes all the difference in the ability to sight men and vehicles. Where a concave shape can mean perfect sighting, a convex shape can hide an army. You have to look at the ground to be sure.

[JasonC]

Give me contours. Telling me to go to view 1-2 instead is a cop out. It is micromanagement pain and unworkable in large fights. Also, please make things like "rocky" visible from views above 4.

[Mr. Tittles]

I say give me a map at the vertical elevation. It doesnt matter if its super accurate but should give some rough elevation lines. Something so I can quickly assess the general lay of the land. The contour lines should only appear when looking at birds eye view of the maps.

If the graphics could possibly be improved to convey what is seen at lower levels, that also would be good. Many games 'light up' the terrain a unit can see when it is selected. The use of the LOS tool is just a eye strain.

The germans were shocked at some of the maps the US paratroopers were carrying. In many cases, they were better than the germans!

Ive used those stereo scopic setups with over lapping aerial photography. Its the ability to focus and not get vertigo that is important.

In any case, the game needs playing aids. If the battlefield commander had SOME kind of two dimensional rendering of the earths surface available, the player should also. If the player has to make decisions on what the units see, then something better than the LOS tool is needed.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Dear map grogs, I spent 20 years (1974 to 1994) at the Defense Mapping Agency, making topographic maps for the US Department of Defense. I think most of you have a very inflated opinion of the maps available in WW2. Until the advent of satellites, most of the elevations on a topographic map, and ALL of the contours, were no more than best guesses by a cartographer.

A 1970's era 1:50,000 topographic map had no more than a handful of surveyed points (benchmarks). Even the surveyed points were often inaccurate, because of different datums being used. All the rest of the relief was drawn by a cartographer using a stereo pair of aerial photographs. Mapping in 1970 was just as much an art form as a science. Just guessing here, but I suspect maps in the late 1930s and early 1940s were a lot less accurate.

No-one is saying "give me maps like the ones the troops have" (or I'm not anyhow).

I'm asking "please give me some relief from going to level 1/2 on every unit to get the overall picture of what I face".

The idea of lighting up what each unit can see would be *awesome*.

GaJ.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

In CMBB, I increased the contrast between the different levels of terrain in addition to the grid lines... It looks less realistic but it is way more functional from overhead...

Al

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Dear map grogs, I spent 20 years (1974 to 1994) at the Defense Mapping Agency, making topographic maps for the US Department of Defense. I think most of you have a very inflated opinion of the maps available in WW2. Until the advent of satellites, most of the elevations on a topographic map, and ALL of the contours, were no more than best guesses by a cartographer.

A 1970's era 1:50,000 topographic map had no more than a handful of surveyed points (benchmarks). Even the surveyed points were often inaccurate, because of different datums being used. All the rest of the relief was drawn by a cartographer using a stereo pair of aerial photographs. Mapping in 1970 was just as much an art form as a science. Just guessing here, but I suspect maps in the late 1930s and early 1940s were a lot less accurate.

To top it off, even perfectly accurate contours can be misleading. The shape of the terrain between contours makes all the difference in the ability to sight men and vehicles. Where a concave shape can mean perfect sighting, a convex shape can hide an army. You have to look at the ground to be sure.

All very true no doubt, but not the issue as far as I am concerned. For my part, I am not seeking to know perfectly where every unit should be placed before it gets there. I just want a better sense of the lay of the land in the overhead views.

Michael

[JasonC]

As for the level 1-2 solution, I testify that in typical desert terrain I frequently can't see the slope of the ground even at view 1. The only way I can see a blessed thing is by using the LOS tool and scanning for kinks in the line at various distances. This is Not Fun ...

[Mirfee]

Even a crude map with general elevations would be a tremendous help (as enjoyable as the graphics are, their quality does create difficulties with actually reading terrain). I agree that modern topo information would not exist in this game era, but since commanders did have some kind of maps (however inaccurate), that the player should have them likewise. It would put an interesting spin on things if the maps had built-in inaccuracies too (or simple omissions, to save work), so a player couldn't rely on that solely. Individual units have to make the most of the situation they're in once their commander(s) put them in it (and hence the unit view/LoS is perfect from then on).

[SSG D]

I vote for contour lines with the overhead views. The game badly needs a topo to simulate one of the most important tools that every real combat leader carries

SSG D

[86smopuim]

{gamey}you can use the grid mod. ugly as sin, but it helps alot.

{/gamey}

[Halberdiers]

I think that "contour line system" can help too little in the game. The complexity and the work to develop it in the game do not correspond with the help that a "contour line system" can give to the player.

The game need a simply elevation cross section of the "Game lines" along a distance between units and target/terrain ,as player do it now:

-Line of Sight

-Line of Movement(maybe)

-Line of Target(maybe)

Elevation cross sectionof the "Game lines" could appear/disappear with a hotkey replacing the tool bar a while (if the game line appear in the main screen window in a selected unit).

For example:

-Line Target at 135 mts.

-Hotkey "s" (activates the elevation)

-Appear the elevation cross section (only of this 135 mts) replacing the tool bar (if the game line appear in the main screen window.)

-Hotkey "s"

-Dissapear the elevation cross section and you see the tool bar again (again full time).

elevation cross section of the "Game lines" could be simple ,easy and a lot efficient and could include the relevant for the battle :

-maybe rivers

-maybe different houses

-maybe obstacles

-maybe Vehicles

-etc

Furthermore "contour line system" gives redundant information or in excess than "elevation cross section" who gives it dosificate to specific unit.Finally, if "elevation cross section" is limited to the "Line of Sight" only,this could help a lot to the player of the game but not to delete the realism of Combat Mission.

thanks guys

[ May 02, 2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.ww2dday.com/zoom/zoom_east.html

This website has an example of a WWII map. This map shows elevation lines in increments of 10 (ft? yds? meters?).

In any case, its as good a map as anyone would make right up to the mid 80s.

It would be great if you could go to an overhead birds eye view and just see different colors for different tiles at different elevations. I just want something that I can look at when starting a scenario to quickly get me situated.

[flamingknives]

Perhaps you're confusing resolution with accuracy?

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Perhaps you're confusing resolution with accuracy?

Is this directed at my last post? I neither mentioned resolution nor accuracy.

Ive made maps and that map is as good as one that could be expected till about the mid 80s or so. My post shows what a combat commander in this particular situation might have. And as I have said, its pretty good.

Since you seem to be a student and someone with limited real world technical experience; would you explain what you mean by resolution or accuracy or how they can be confused?

[Mr. Tittles]

I think some thoughts about maps and map reading are in order. One does not make a map with contour lines ( a map is a two dimensional representation of the earths 3 dimensional surface) so that anyone can tell if they have LOS from one spot to the other. In fact, if a map with 10 foot incremental contour lines was accurate to withing 1 inch elevation (hah!) for those lines, it STILL would not allow anyone to say with certainty if one point had LOS to another. The contour lines are meant to show the lay of the land. A good map reader will look at a hill and be able to tell that there are gullys leading up to higher elevations and in sparsely wooded areas, he will know that the vegetation is seeking water and lower terrain is present at that elevation.

The non-3D elements on the map like houses, crossroads, etc ARE surveyed and very accurate. The reason being is that maps are the main means for directing artillery. The lat and long elements of a map are very prcise and the corners of the map (which is not always a perfect square or rectangle) need to be dead nuts accurate.

Most pre-computer age maps are made with over lapping aerial photos. The two photos are put next to one another and a stereoscopic vision device allows you to see in 3D. The contour lines are then determined by focusing the 3D at certain levels.

Buildings are particularly important also. The maps I made showed actual building shape and size. They are used as land marks and things like graveyards, churches, etc are marked on the map and the legend. The technology I used is the same as WWII.

Of note is that while the much wanted contour lines are not in the game, gamey surveying is! I will highlight an enemy unit and then go all over the map and see if I can see its highlighted form from different vantage points. There is no reason that a player should be able to drop down to level 1 and 2 when he has no troops closeby.

[ May 02, 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[aka_tom_w]

Just as a side note I have been requesting contour lines as an off/on toggle option on the maps since the Gold Demo of CMBO.

And if I recall correctly "they" (at BFC) always say you don't need them and will not get them because we CANNOT generate them in the current CMxx game engine.

NOW the real issue is can we make enough noise to see contour lines in CMX2 (the Next BIG thing from BFC)

I would guess by now they would know if contours lines are on "the list" for CMX2 or not.

(But as always no one is talking BUT I am guessing they are listening)

-tom w

[Mr. Tittles]

I forget which game it was but i played a demo where the people MUST have real carto experience. The way the vegetation and hills followed natural tendencies amazed me.

Nothing personal but many 'player created maps' are so funny. A landscaper could not make the terrain happen!