Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[Ruthless]

Although equally unrealistic (and IMO, an equally irrelevant point since the C&C structure is hosed, the fact that I can move the camera to any spot on the map and look around, etc. make it so), I'd like to add what what tool I'd like:

A floating LOS tool. What I really want to know is whether or not my unit can see something when they get there (or if they will be under observation from a position while on route somewhere.) It IS unrealistic, but in real life, you could order your troops to get to a position of good cover with LOS to a spot, which the troops in CM aren't smart enough to do on their own. It would also make it easier to see what kind of terrain is under my cursor without selecting a particular unit and using that unit's LOS to determine what the terrain square is. And in real life, individual soldiers would have a lot better knowledge of when they are concealed from a location than the user gets on CM.

[Mr. Tittles]

So you would want ultra-super-gamey surveying? Unfortunately, who's to say they get there? Your logic seems flawed and ultimately, gamey.

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

So you would want ultra-super-gamey surveying? Unfortunately, who's to say they get there? Your logic seems flawed and ultimately, gamey.

I'm sorry, but I believe it is your logic that is flawed. In Real Life, an individual soldier or commander would know if he had an LOS to something and could shoot at it; if not, he'd move to get the LOS if he was supposed to have it. This is not possible in CM currently because the soldiers are not smart enough; this will likely never change (unless BFC comes forward big time with an AI upgrade), so a floating LOS tool would do it.

If you prefer to not use it, you don't have to. You should also note that in Real Life, you wouldn't be able to see what your soldiers see. You'd only be able to see...wait for it...what you can see! Commanders in WWII rarely played from level 4, as they felt it was too gamey.

This is a suggestion for a tool that would eliminate some of the frustration due to limited AI. Nothing more. The designers probably won't go for it, as they've said they don't want people to plot "perfect" positions and routes, but (IMO) if that is the case, we really need better AI. They are also ignoring the rather "unrealistic" part about being able to drive around the map with the camera to see the map from whatever position/angle you like. How is THAT not gamey?!

The grid or other elevation map suggestions would also be welcome. Did they have such luxuries in WWII? No. Did they have the ability to scout out the land before hand? You betcha.

I guess what I'm saying is: Of course it's gamey. It's a game! (Heck, the interface is "gamey". No one in real life tells their tank commander: "Take your tank platoon down that line, hunting, then go fast down the next line, then turn right 73.5 degrees, then move to contact, then...") The whole game is gamey. This, and other suggestions, however, IMO, make for better results because we can minimize the "gamey" parts of the game (dumb AI, for example.) It's better to have useful tools that you can turn off (if you like), than to have frustrate players.

[JonS]

For a CMBB scenario called "Pt 238" (available here) I created a very basic topo map to go with it. Fairly simple really - I took a screenshot of the map editor, then used that as a background layer in Paintshop, and joined the squares of the same elevation together as contour lines. The ground coverage was done ina similar manner. I deliberately introduced some errors and omissions. It's not especially pretty (and incidentally it highlighted the poor layout of the map ... but anyway), but it was fairly easy and is an option open to the scenario designer.

In another scenario I've created that was based on a real map, I have included a cut out from the original with the scenario file to aid players.

Those approaches aside, I would love to see a contour toggle in game, be it overhead-only or whatever. I have some difficulty in 'reading' the lay of the ground from levels 1 and 2, possibly because I'm colour blind, but also I think because most of the ques for depth and relationship we take for granted in the real world are missing in the CM universe (for example, colours don't change based on distance from observer, there is no shadowing, the level of detail doesn't appreciably alter with distance - esp with respect to 'grass' on a open ground tiles, etc -, there is no wind effect on the doodads, and the wind effect on the trees isn't terribly useful, etc etc).

In smaller scenarios it isn't too much of a problem to zoom around and get close to everywhere, and thus 'see' what is what. In larger scenarios it becomes too much of a burden. IMO.

Regards

JonS

[ May 03, 2004, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

So you would want ultra-super-gamey surveying? Unfortunately, who's to say they get there? Your logic seems flawed and ultimately, gamey.

I'm sorry, but I believe it is your logic that is flawed. In Real Life, an individual soldier or commander would know if he had an LOS to something and could shoot at it; if not, he'd move to get the LOS if he was supposed to have it. This is not possible in CM currently because the soldiers are not smart enough; this will likely never change (unless BFC comes forward big time with an AI upgrade), so a floating LOS tool would do it. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

[ May 03, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[jrrich0000]

OK, maybe I should have amplified on this a bit more in my original post. I don't want contour lines for nitty-gritty LOS computations and they don't necessarily have to be super accurate nor closely spaced.

My problem is that it is nearly impossible to get the feel for a map's general terrain from a distant zoom. I find myself trying to apply the lessons I learned at OCS and Armor School about estimating terrain, and it is nearly impossible. I don't want to micro-analyze the terrain, but a couple of times I have found myself in trouble during a game because I missed a terrain feature that in 'REAL LIFE' would have been obvious.

[simovitch]

jrrich,

There are "gridded terrain" mods available for download at cmmods that allow a better visualization of the 3D terrain undulations on your screen.

I'm a little suprised that this forum missed your point and led the topic down an interesting, yet unhelpful path... hope this helps.

[JasonC]

simovitch - it is not nearly enough. I use gridded mods. I still can't see 1-2 level terrain height differences in typical desert terrain. Small folds in the ground are often all there is, to break up long lines of sight in the desert (well, that and dust). And to get hull down, obviously.

I can go to view 1 with gridded terrain and I still can't see the bleeding height - let alone on view 4, let alone from overhead view which I often want to use to caliberate a movement exactly.

What I wind up doing is pulling the LOS tool, and scanning for line kinks over a fan of angles, looking for where the ground actually folds, while in view 1-2. Which is a micromanagement pain in the backside. Fine for 1 tank, annoying for a platoon of vehicles, not worth the trouble for a company.

Just give us a "contours highlighted" button to toogle on and off like targeting lines or waypoints. It is not like the game doesn't have them already - that is how it does terrain height internally anyway.

[Sergei]

I expect from the next engine better light modelling. Terrain and objects are shaded according to how sunlight hits them, and they also cast realistic shadows to ground and objects. That should help a lot. The current way of showing different altitudes with different colours is neither realistic nor good-looking, and totally neglects grain and forests.

[JasonC]

Realistic shade won't help with the sand, which is where I have the greatest difficulty...

[Determinant]

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.

Interesting. Do you know anything about map-making in Europe? Nor do I. I do know that in the UK that when Ordnance Survey resurveyed the work of their Victorian predecessors with GPS and other modern gadgets they found that the Olde Ones were overall within feet spot-on with their surveys.

It is a modern error to assume that without technology nothing can be done. The steam age surveyors knew their business and could draw accurate maps. No doubt there is an equation that directly links area of land and number of surveyors to accuracy of maps. The difficulty for the continental US is that the area overwhelmed the number. The same is not true in most of Western Europe.

Indeed in Georgia FUSSR in 1999 we used maps that had been surveyed by the Red Army in 1942. Frenzied work that must have been with AG South sniffing at your heels. And they weren't that bad. The lines of latitude went a bit wonky in Eastern Georgia but I suppose that that is understandable in the situation...

[simovitch]

As far as I know the process used to generate topographical maps in the 30's and 40's was similar to modern techniques of aerial photogrammetry using aerial stereo pairs and stereo plotters. The process was only a lot slower than it is today because the maps had to be drawn by hand by the photogrammatist. And we still don't have a cost-effective way of dealing with mapping the terrain beneath dense tree cover.

It is interesting to note that most of North America was mapping on a datum established in the early '30's (NGVD 27). This datum was held as gospel until the mid '80's with the development of NAD 83, but NGVD 27 was being used by FEMA flood mapping until only recently.

Even today, mapping standards only require that aerial topography used for construction be accurate to within 1/2 of a contour interval.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by simovitch:

And we still don't have a cost-effective way of dealing with mapping the terrain beneath dense tree cover.

Radar?

Michael

[Sergei]

Cutting down the trees?

[GreenAsJade]

Well - at least this is modelled in CM: the grids don't show through the treebases!!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Well - at least this is modelled in CM: the grids don't show through the treebases!!

I have made gridded treebases and grain fields for CMBB, they can be found at CMMODS.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by JonS:

I have some difficulty in 'reading' the lay of the ground from levels 1 and 2, possibly because I'm colour blind,

Regards

JonS

Hold the ‘phone!

How can you be colour blind and be a gunner ??!!

Or do the Kiwi’s only have one ammunition nature to choose from?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

I have some difficulty in 'reading' the lay of the ground from levels 1 and 2, possibly because I'm colour blind,

Regards

JonS

Hold the ‘phone!

How can you be colour blind and be a gunner ??!!

Or do the Kiwi’s only have one ammunition nature to choose from? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Cutting down the trees?

If you saw the aerial photos of where logging has been going on in the Northwest and Caifornia, you'd swear that that project is well underway.

Michael

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

I have some difficulty in 'reading' the lay of the ground from levels 1 and 2, possibly because I'm colour blind,

Regards

JonS

Hold the ‘phone!

How can you be colour blind and be a gunner ??!!

Or do the Kiwi’s only have one ammunition nature to choose from? </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I expect from the next engine better light modelling. Terrain and objects are shaded according to how sunlight hits them, and they also cast realistic shadows to ground and objects. That should help a lot. The current way of showing different altitudes with different colours is neither realistic nor good-looking, and totally neglects grain and forests.

I second your opinion. Shading with the light source at an adequate angle would help me a lot. It would make the game look even better.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Realistic shade won't help with the sand, which is where I have the greatest difficulty...

Hi JasonC!

I think shading can help.

Cheers,