Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I just want to be able to see a 5 meter elevation change in sand without spending an hour per turn doing so.

Which some nice bright ugly neon contour lines will do for me, just fine.

Those who don't want or need them can turn them off.

Yes this is what it comes down to. The game graphics look nice, but they're not good enough to give all the information that a normal eye in the same situation would see.

Therefore, the contour lines (easily toggable) would support the eye.

It has _nothing_ to do with whether troops would have had contour maps, terrain fog of war, shifting dunes or any of that.

It only has to do with being able to see what's on the screen in front of you.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think that a fuzzy logic 'fit' could be applied to Canadian retardation.

[Michael Emrys]

All right already! You've worked that one to death. Man, that paint thinner must make you obsessive or something...

Michael

[Ruthless]

Sorry for not returning to this thread--I know ya missed me--but Real Life intruded.

I think it's fine to try to make the game as frustratingly realistic as possible for some gamers, but they can certainly add features that are optional (that's why they have different FOW settings, after all.)

Right now, I don't particularly want the game to be "gamey". However, it is. There's no getting around it. Part of that is that (and I think some here miss this point) CM is not meant to be a "command" simulation. You are not the company commander, you are not the platoon commander, you are not the grunt firing his rifle, etc. You are all of these to some extent. CM is meant to allow you to create scenarios, to give your troops orders, and to have the outcome be reasonably realistic. (I tend to think they really need to make the game a "command" game with real command effects and more realistic orders before it will really work right, but I think in general the system works well.) So, to be honest, I think the argument about these tools being unavailable to WW2 commanders is totally irrelevant. You are NOT a WWII commander; not in real life and not in this game. In the game, you are sort of "god" with constraints put upon you to simulate the problems of command and control, etc....but you are not a commander. (For example, while giving orders to an entire battalion on one map, I gave very detailed orders to some squads that were completely cut off and waaaaay the hell away from all the rest of my forces, with hostile forces in between.) So, since the goal of the game is not a command simulation, but to simulate the outcome and basic actions during a battle, it falls short some times in its current implementation (for example, as I mentioned before, it is not possible to guarantee that your men will actually be able to see the area you want them to cover, despite the fact that in real life, they'd shift positions if they couldn't see it.)

Currently, when trying to figure out LOS, you pretty much have to get down to level 1 and look around. A WWII commander would have less ability to do this than we do. If you wish to simulate this, then simply fix your viewpoint on level 1 locked onto the company commander, never use the LOS tool and never jump to another squad or move the camera except to rotate it about the commander. I think most players would tire of that very quickly, but there are a few who'd eat that up (though I'm unaware of anyone who actually plays that way; even the "CM Ironman Rules" allow you to jump from squad to squad, IIRC.)

For most of us, however, we move the camera to where we want to check LOS, we go down to level 1 (or maybe 2) and look around. That's fine, but I don't have that much time to play, I mostly play from levels 3+, so I can see more of the field at once and it doesn't take me so long to play. I simply want tools that will replicate the experience of going to level 1 and looking around, without having to go to level 1 and look around.

Also, I reckon that in real life, you could order your troops to stay out of LOS of a nearby town, for example, and they could probably do it pretty well. In CM, this can be much more difficult. Similarly, as previously mentioned, it is very difficult to order them to get to a position where they have LOS on something, but preferrably they stay in cover. In real life, the troops would be smart enough to figure this out.

I'd be totally onboard with adding better TacAI and better orders, rather than adding more tools. However, adding tools is a much more realistic option, IMO, in terms of difficulty to implement.

Also, the idea that BFC has given for wanting imperfect things to happen (so to speak), is somewhat valid, but is totally incongruous with the game itself. It is, for example, much more unrealistic for me to be able to coordinate an attack with a platoon that is totally cut off from friendly lines--meaning I can use the platoon that is cut off to execute a very complex coordinated attack if I want-- than it is for my men to have enhanced ability to stay in cover and to figure LOS. I would reiterate, though, that CM is still an excellent and elegant design. Certainly it breaks at times and the odd thing happens in almost every game, and certainly we can all name things about it that are unrealistic (time compression, for example)...but overall it produces reasonable results most of the time; I'd just like to remove some of the frustrations of playing and to reduce the number of odd things that happen.

What I'd recommend for future releases is that they implement a realistic C&C system and much improved orders and TacAI; then add the grid lines as optional for the player to use. That would, IMO, be the best solution, but MUCH harder to implement.

[JasonC]

"try to make the game as frustratingly realistic as possible for some gamers"

Look, if this is what you want, play TCP-IP games with a 60 second time limit, use iron-man rules, play from a laptop while driving in heavy traffic in a thunderstorm in a convertible with the top down in wet clammy clothes on an empty stomach after going without sleep for 36 hours, and then if you are really hard core play a round of Russian roulette every time you lose a scenario. Or just cut to the chase and enlist.

Some of us play wargames because we enjoy them. If you play wargames to torture yourself, feel free. Just don't expect the rest of us to do so.

[ May 08, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

Also, the idea that BFC has given for wanting imperfect things to happen (so to speak), is somewhat valid, but is totally incongruous with the game itself. It is, for example, much more unrealistic for me to be able to coordinate an attack with a platoon that is totally cut off from friendly lines--meaning I can use the platoon that is cut off to execute a very complex coordinated attack if I want-- than it is for my men to have enhanced ability to stay in cover and to figure LOS. I would reiterate, though, that CM is still an excellent and elegant design. Certainly it breaks at times and the odd thing happens in almost every game, and certainly we can all name things about it that are unrealistic (time compression, for example)...but overall it produces reasonable results most of the time; I'd just like to remove some of the frustrations of playing and to reduce the number of odd things that happen.

What I'd recommend for future releases is that they implement a realistic C&C system and much improved orders and TacAI; then add the grid lines as optional for the player to use. That would, IMO, be the best solution, but MUCH harder to implement.

"for future releases is that they implement a realistic C&C system and much improved orders and TacAI; then add the grid lines as optional for the player to use. "

Add to this some SOP orders for the attacker and defender so that units could in some way be "programed" or "SOP'd" with a perdetermined type of response (if all goes well and they don't break or rout) to contact or enemy fire.

I would be surprised if the Steve and Charles have not AT LEAST thought about such considerations and design elements of the game as they are working on CMX2.

-tom w

[Pinetree]

Some of us play wargames because we enjoy them. If you play wargames to torture yourself, feel free. Just don't expect the rest of us to do so.

Damn straight.CM is just a brilliant computerized

table-top wargame,nothing else.Some people take it WAAAYY too seriously.Perhaps they need to get out more.

[Pinetree]

Back OT: contour lines would be cool and real-time shading would be nice.Even if just for the cosmetics.

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"try to make the game as frustratingly realistic as possible for some gamers"

Look, if this is what you want, play TCP-IP games with a 60 second time limit, use iron-man rules, play from a laptop while driving in heavy traffic in a thunderstorm in a convertible with the top down in wet clammy clothes on an empty stomach after going without sleep for 36 hours, and then if you are really hard core play a round of Russian roulette every time you lose a scenario. Or just cut to the chase and enlist.

Some of us play wargames because we enjoy them. If you play wargames to torture yourself, feel free. Just don't expect the rest of us to do so.

Just so there's no confusion, my original quote (in entirety) was intended to mean that it's ok for BFC to try to make the game as "realistic" as possible, as long as they also keep it reasonably accessible for those who don't want to spend an hour plotting a turn and pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to play properly.

I agree with JasonC's quote above.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Pinetree:

... and real-time shading would be nice. Even if just for the cosmetics.

I get the impression that there is two sorts of shading being discussed. They are

1) LOS-shading, which would highlight all the areas your selected unit can see

1b) some peoples variant of the above, in which all the areas that can be seen from any spot on the map are shaded, regardless of whether you have a unit there or not

2) cast-shadow shading. This is the kind of difference in brightness and shadow you see on any day, and is due to sunlight not falling evenly on all surfaces. You also see it reproduced on good quality topo maps as an aid to reading the map.

No.2) would, in a perfect world, change at different times of the day, and perhaps even during the course of a single scenario. However that level of detail is not required to make it workable. The position of the 'sun' that throws 'shadows' in the game could be fixed, and completely arbitrary, as long as the cast shadows were consistent. Recall: the aim is to make the ground easier to read, not to make a fully featured Sim-Earth.

My feelings on the three options, for what they're worth, are:

1) 0 to -

1b) ---

2) +++

Regards

Jon

[ May 09, 2004, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

1) 0 to -

1b) ---

2) +++

Agreed.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

1) +++++++++++

Yes please: let's have LOS highlighting instead of the drag-the-line-around!

[Pinetree]

Yep I meant 2).Real-time would be nice tho' but thats just chrome.

[Mr. Tittles]

The game can be made better (read more enjoyable and less tedious) but its not to the exclusion of of realistic gaming.

Some kind of map general elevation representation, be it an overhead type psuedo-topo, or a super-sweet-eye-treat, is needed to quickly situate the player to the field. This is NOT an LOS aid and its purpose should NOT be confused as such. Whether this is generic or presented to the player in realistic levels (that would be set through FOW) is just further enhancement to the game. I tried to share information about actual maps and the level of precision and detail that may be present on them earlier in this thread.

Fly-Over Restrictions: Or actually restrictions on how low-you-can-go when NOT over a friendly (or near a friendly) are meant to combat Gamey-Surveying. Gamey Surveying is when you eyeball every square meter after selecting an enemy unit. As I said before, the highlighted selection rectangle is visible through terrain. The bottom line is you can tell if that enemy unit has LOS to terrain that you are nowhere near. Its gamey. Its almost like you are pulling an LOS check line FROM that enemy unit. This could, by the way, be eliminated easily from the present system if the enemy unit just did not have a rectangle highlighting it. Theres no point in it and it leads to gamey results.

Terrain FOW: Players are so used to flying over and getting absolute terrain info that this is viewed as a much more radical departure. They expect knowing what all vegetation terrain is before getting there. They also want to know where every small dip is behind the enmy hill in front of them.

True LOS aids: I mentioned a dynamic covered arc LOS command and other games have absolute terrain highlighting (where every area a LOS line COULD reach is highlighted). The present LOS line and graphics are the real problem. Its almost impossible to play the game without messing around at different levels and whipping the line around. Its a headache to use.

[ May 09, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

These demonstrate cast shadow terrain and contour lines.

http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/reading.html

[ May 09, 2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

... and real-time shading would be nice. Even if just for the cosmetics.

I get the impression that there is two sorts of shading being discussed. They are

1) LOS-shading, which would highlight all the areas your selected unit can see

1b) some peoples variant of the above, in which all the areas that can be seen from any spot on the map are shaded, regardless of whether you have a unit there or not

2) cast-shadow shading. This is the kind of difference in brightness and shadow you see on any day, and is due to sunlight not falling evenly on all surfaces. You also see it reproduced on good quality topo maps as an aid to reading the map.

Regards

Jon </font>

[aka_tom_w]

1b) some peoples variant of the above, in which all the areas that can be seen from any spot on the map are shaded, regardless of whether you have a unit there or not

I have utter and complete confidence Steve and Charles will NEVER let this(1b) be a feature or an option in any game like CMxx or CMX2 that they release.

(for clarity see my signature line and Steve G's quote)

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Good post

right on!

thanks

some people really get into maps.

I am a Map fanatic!

here is a WHOLE page about how to read topo maps:

http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~dha5446/topoweb/guide.html

More About Contours

This map may look considerably more difficult to interpret, but don't panic. First, look at index contours (A) and (. You can see that (A) is at 8200 feet and ( is at 8300. Therefore, a walk from (A) to ( would be uphill (you can examine the stream at (G) to confirm this). Now look at the line at ©. The contour interval for this map is 20 feet. This means that © has an elevation of 8220 feet, since it is one line uphill from (A). Line (D), then has an elevation of 8240 feet.

The elevation of areas between contour lines is simple enough to approximate. Location (E) is between the 8220 and 8240 contour lines, so its elevation is somewhere between those figures. But what about the contour line surrounding (F)? If you were to walk from (E) to (F), would you go uphill or downhill?

To answer that, it helps to know that every regular closed circular-shaped contour line is a high point. The contour circle at (H), for example, shows that the land inside it is higher than the surrounding land. Similiarly, (F) is a high point, and a walk from (E) to (F) would be uphill. The elevation of the contour line around (F) is actually 8240, the same as at (D). If you were to walk between (D) and (F), your elevation would drop somewhat, then increase as you crossed the 8240 contour again. Concentric circles, such as those found around (K), always have a high point at their center.

There is one exception to the above rule about closed contours being high points. Note the index contour at (I). There are tiny tick marks pointing to the inside of the shape. This is a depression with no outlet. The contour line is at 8200 feet, and everything inside it is less than 8200 feet. Contour lines (I) and (J) are both at the same elevation. If you were to walk from (J) to (I), you would climb slightly above 8200 feet before dropping into the depression (8199 feet).

so sure

I would like to see the game have topo maps but the real challenge is how to make the editor render or display a "true topographic map??

tom w

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

These demonstrate cast shadow terrain and contour lines.

http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/reading.html

[aka_tom_w]

another page with the same example

from:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~esci111/111topomap/reading%20contour%20lines.htm

-tom w

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

These demonstrate cast shadow terrain and contour lines.

http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/reading.html

[Michael Emrys]

Good posts, tom. I hope they clear some things up. I too have always been a map freak. I drew my first one 50 years ago.

Michael

[Thomm]

I think this is close to what you guys are looking for (hope the image shows!):

The elevation differences around the pyramid are 5 meters maximum!!

Regards,

Thomm

[flamingknives]

Strewth! Is that what you were up to with C++?

[jrrich0000]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Well, me, I don't think you need to fuzzy up everything and confuse the players as much as possible and map hangnails and whether socks are dirty or clean.

I just want to be able to see a 5 meter elevation change in sand without spending an hour per turn doing so.

Which some nice bright ugly neon contour lines will do for me, just fine.

Those who don't want or need them can turn them off.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled complexification and unplayability "realism as snipe hunt" factory.

HALLELUIA Brother, and AMEN!

[Chelco]

@ Rollstoy:

Hi!

Are you the guy who made the 3D conversion of Close Combat maps?

If yes: Nice to see you around, man! Your picture is exactly what I would want.

If not: Your picture is exactly what I would want. It looks awesome.

Cheers,

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Are you the guy who made the 3D conversion of Close Combat maps?

Yes, it's still me!!!

But my methods are refined!!!!!!

You should see this map in motion!! The 3D effect is really cool and also 'hides' the terrain polygons very well!!

Regards,

Thomm