Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Questions and possible answers:

-If you were walking along the real life path to A, would you realize about this hill and its exposure to the other hill?

Highly unlikely, I would have thought. You might notice a hill in your path, but not that it gave LoS to an enemy position, or it could be that the woods drop away to the sides, allowing for a LoS over the trees that you wouldn't notice until someone starts firing at you.

-Would a real life squad in a real life scenario use the path to A? I don't know how much initiative and flexibility squad leaders were given in real life. If I would be a squad leader, I wouldn't put my guys in open terrain overlooking enemy positions.

How do you know that it's visible to the enemy unless you're there? I certainly can't look at a point 50m ahead of me and tell you what I could see from there, unless I'd been there before.

-Why the squad in CM was so stupid and used the path anyway? The player (commander) told them to do so.

Perhaps improved commands or SOPs would help, like move-to-contact

-Would that tiny hill be ploted accurately in WWII map and would a commander realize from it that the path is exposed to enemy fire?

I am not sure but I don't think so.

I doubt it too. There's terrain variations that don't appear modern OS maps, which are exceedingly good. Add on that contour lines are typically every five or ten metres, and a moderate hillock will never appear.

At this point I am so hopelessly confused!

However, something is granted: the game designers provided us a way to avoid the previous mistake. They gave us the flexibility to fly around the battlefield at low levels to discover its topological intrincancies. That's how they envisioned the game to be played. What we are asking for is just something to make this process a bit less time consuming.

Cheers,

I'm not sure of that actually. As I posted earlier, there was a similar thread a while back where one of the BFC team, I think it was Moon, said that players were expected to make errors and that they didn't want every thing to go off smoothly. I agree with that sentiment.

[Mr. Tittles]

I wonder hard hard the following would be to program:

Covered arc scan: A covered arc is angled on the map as in the game now. Menu pops up and asks ? Scan Y/N?

The graphics then sweeps a point starting at the unit and moving at greater radius. The effect is like a TV screen where the flicker is not noticed. The visual effect I envision would be a sort of expanding pulse moving outwards from the unit within the rays of the arc. The moving LOS 'dot' could leave behind some persistance effect on LOS points that gradually fades out.

This would quickly show what is in the general LOS of the unit and give a good 'lay-of-the-land' feel. Not as great as dynamic shading but it would help out.

[ May 05, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Chelco]

Gee Mr. Tittles!

Translation: You surprise me with your ultra-realism passion. Good for you, surprising for me. That's it, nothing else or offensive.

Your statements about gamey attitudes in CM strongly suggest that CM is actually a game(y)!

Translation: a funny (well, not very funny) way to say that CM was designed as a game and is a game.

How do you envision the perfect CM? How do you play it as it is now? You don't fly around the map? You stay in the HQs unit shoulders all the time?

Translation: These are honest un-answered questions, not aggressions.

The only thing I ask for is for 3-D shading the elevations in CM. This conversation is going off target by ultra-realism fundamentalists. Very similar to what happens when flight simulators enthusiasts discuss if the padlock view is realistic or not (even when real-life pilots clearly stated that the computer monitor imposes critical problems to perceive your enemies).

Translation: No guys, don't stop posting your opinions. I am not, repeat, I am not a forum administrator. So, when I say that the thread is off-target, it doesn't mean I am next to close it. At ease with your opinions then.

The starter of the thread wanted an aid to understand and use better the terrain elevations. I second him.

Translation: This is an opinion. It's resemblence with an statement like "I order you to keep on the starter's path" is unfortunate.

Question to myself: How much of a jerk you have to be to quote yourself?

[Chelco]

Thanks flamingknives for your feedback.

Regarding that we are supposed to make mistakes, I wish they wouldn't be related to missjudging the terrain and they would be all related to improper tactical use of my forces.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Gee Mr. Tittles!

Translation: You surprise me with your ultra-realism passion. Good for you, surprising for me. That's it, nothing else or offensive.

Question to myself: How much of a jerk you have to be to quote yourself?

I'll quote someone else.

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic."

-Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002

[Mr. Tittles]

The game allows the friendlies to misjudge enemy units. A Panzer IV is reported as a possible Tiger perhaps.

Why not have terrain misidentified? A clump of scattered trees far away are actually woods? A foxhole is actually a trench (yikes!)?

Missing a hill (which is in LOS) is sort of a wierd example. But missing a small depression would not be.

My point is that the game should control info-feed. If its left to the player to 'make the mistakes', the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn.

[ May 05, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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

Gee Mr. Tittles!

Translation: You surprise me with your ultra-realism passion. Good for you, surprising for me. That's it, nothing else or offensive.

Question to myself: How much of a jerk you have to be to quote yourself?

I'll quote someone else.

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic."

-Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002 </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Tell it to Seinfeld.

[Papa Khann]

Call me gamey and unrealistic, but I fail to see why BFC wouldn't improve the map and LOS tools in the next version of the engine. We are, after all, using a computer to play a GAME. And the great thing about computers is that they can do all the drudge work for us. Don't buy that? Just compare playing CM to playing ASL with mapboards and cardboard chits. I used to do that, and I ain't EVER going back.

Now I for one appreciate the efforts BFC has placed on making CM as realistic as possible. I love the fact that the trajectory of each AP round is tracked individually, my men's morale may not allow them to do what I want them to do, targets are mistakenly identified, etc. But on the topic of terrain elevations and the LOS tool, why not provide us with better tools that are easier to use?

We aren't playing the role of a single battlefield commander in CM. If you want to do that, IMHO, you'd really need to find a program with no 3d graphics or movie playbacks. Not to mention no ordering individual units around. No, that game would probably need to use an orders interface with an overhead map, and text messages reporting troop movements and casulties. Doesn't sound like a very fun game to me. Maybe the realism police would eat it up though.

Papa

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

I love the fact that the trajectory of each AP round is tracked individually,

Unfortunately it's not. That's just eye candy. The engine decides 'hit or miss' then it does some animation to make it look nicer.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Tell it to Seinfeld.

You mean the 'Soup-Nazi' gag? Funny, yes. But it's not the same thing as calling someone you're talking to a nazi.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

We aren't playing the role of a single battlefield commander in CM. If you want to do that, IMHO, you'd really need to find a program with no 3d graphics or movie playbacks. Not to mention no ordering individual units around. No, that game would probably need to use an orders interface with an overhead map, and text messages reporting troop movements and casulties. Doesn't sound like a very fun game to me. Maybe the realism police would eat it up though.

Papa

Your first sentence puts everything in place. Once you appreciate this, having some of the tools discussed here may not look so gamey.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

The engine decides 'hit or miss' then it does some animation to make it look nicer. [/QB]

Off topic question: when you click "go" then the machine takes some time calculating "something". After that it starts the timer and the turn unleashes. Is that "something" all the stuff that's gonna happen during the turn? Sorry for my ignorance.

[ May 05, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

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

Tell it to Seinfeld.

You mean the 'Soup-Nazi' gag? Funny, yes. But it's not the same thing as calling someone you're talking to a nazi. </font>

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Chelco:

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

The engine decides 'hit or miss' then it does some animation to make it look nicer.

Off topic question: when you click "go" then the machine takes some time calculating "something". After that it starts the timer and the turn unleashes. Is that "something" all the stuff that's gonna happen during the turn?[/QB]</font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

We aren't playing the role of a single battlefield commander in CM. If you want to do that, IMHO, you'd really need to find a program with no 3d graphics or movie playbacks. Not to mention no ordering individual units around. No, that game would probably need to use an orders interface with an overhead map, and text messages reporting troop movements and casulties. Doesn't sound like a very fun game to me. Maybe the realism police would eat it up though.

Papa

Many company and even multicompany sized actions had the ground-commander eyeballing the situation. Especially in the attack. So I think that you are really talking about a different scaled game than CM.

Personally, I like company sized infantry actions with few supporting arms.

[Papa Khann]

But I doubt that he radioed every single squad and support weapon team and laid out exactly what their path of advance was going to be...

Papa

[Papa Khann]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Papa Khann:

I love the fact that the trajectory of each AP round is tracked individually,

Unfortunately it's not. That's just eye candy. The engine decides 'hit or miss' then it does some animation to make it look nicer. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

But I doubt that he radioed every single squad and support weapon team and laid out exactly what their path of advance was going to be...

Papa

He doesnt have to. He may have briefed the platoon commanders and the exact path is being abstractly plotted by the distributed command. Thats what the delays are for.

[ May 05, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[c3k]

Wow. This thread seems to be highlighting the different approaches and philosophies behind playing this game.

I like as a GAME. I don't see it as being a simulation or as putting the player in the position of company (or battalion) commander.

It's not a simulation because, limiting this to just a discussion of current technologies, that would entail a first person perspective. You're not the company commander either. That would entail limiting you to just having direct control over your HQ section and writing orders on an order pad, then handing it over to a runner, or doing it verbally on a telephone, radio, or to a runner to relay. Then you wait for the replies. That would be boring.

Instead, in this GAME, you get to directly command each and every squad, section, and vehicle. I like it as a GAME. As such, why not allow a toggle function as described? If you (and your partner) don't like it, just don't use it. Just like the current Iron Man rules, totally optional, totally up to the player.

Regards,

Ken

[Mr. Tittles]

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

[jrrich0000]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I would also want a contour map if the situation warrants it . As I have tried to explain, theres terrain/situations where detailed maps would not be available.

The shading (obviously a future products request) would be nice but I would want it linked to FOW. So on extreme FOW, shading will only be turned on when you are above a friendly highlighted unit. This way, people can play the way they like.

I would also want the lower level 'fly-around' restricted on extreme FOW setting (to be clear, the player could not get down below a certain level UNLESS over a friendly). Again, not imposing any will here, just like to play on different settings. I would also want selected enemy units to NOT be highlighted due to the gamey surveying I described earlier. The highlighting is not needed.

I think a Show-View option (highlight all terrain the selected friendly can see), is another needed player aid.

Chelco, don't be a thread Nazi. I play the game to win. Unfortunately, like most people, I abuse whatever I can to do that. Thats the point of having freedom to choose options. I play 100% on extreme FOW. I would like that more extreme. You try to limit the thread to the initial request for a contour map player aid and at the same time think your dynamic shading request is worthwhile but anyone else's idea/conversation isn't? Gee! yourself.

You are operating under a mistaken assumption here I think. Very very few deserts are actually sand; most are arid rocky terrain and the terrain features, at least the prominent ones, do not change. I point you to Fort Irwin near the Mojave for an example. Maps there are perfectly serviceable.

[c3k]

Mr. Tittles,

Ahh, you have a point. No, obviously the squaddies are not voting on whether Sarge is right. They only do that in armies with democratic ideals. For Soviet forces the delay represents time for impassioned rhetoric from the zampolit to motivate the troops. For the Germans it's the delay while the ardent National Socialists compare bloodlines to see who is genetically best predispositioned for successfully carrying out the orders. Etc. That's why the delay is less for veterans. They've done these things before, so they don't have to go through the preliminaries, e.g., caucuses, nominations, speech draft re-writes, blood-typing, etc.

Or, you could consider it a GAME mechanic to represent command delays...

Ken

[jrrich0000]

Gee... Didn't expect this much reaction to my post...

OK, how about this? That little window that shows the geographic area of the battle is useless... I mean I know I'm fighting in Italy for gosh sakes. Why not use that space for a topo map of the battlefield with widely spaced contour lines that would give an overall impression of the terrain? That would be perfect for me.

[Mr. Tittles]

You are operating under a mistaken assumption here I think. Very very few deserts are actually sand; most are arid rocky terrain and the terrain features, at least the prominent ones, do not change. I point you to Fort Irwin near the Mojave for an example. Maps there are perfectly serviceable.

No. I do not consider deserts to have to be sand (where did that come from?) but I do consider dunes to be sand. Dunes are similar to other terrain features like vegetation. That is, they change with time. One does not map a forest with individaul tree symbols for a good reason. The area is dilineated by a closed area and symbols or color show that area to be a forest.

A major point is that sparsely populated areas like deserts in Noth Afrika may not have had maps smaller than a certain scale. Navigation being akin to travel on the seas.