Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[The Hapless General]

Which rocky mod are you using?

[McAuliffe]

I could be wrong, but isn't there for each height interval a "grass" bitmap available.

Now, if one of the modders could make 20 colour variants from light red to dark green and make it compatible with the CMMOS-selector in order to switch the mod quick on or off, you should be able to get a quick impression of the elevations on a map. Provided, the designer has not created table mountains, the gradual change of colour, should give you an indication about the slope percentages.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

I could be wrong, but isn't there for each height interval a "grass" bitmap available.

Now, if one of the modders could make 20 colour variants from light red to dark green and make it compatible with the CMMOS-selector in order to switch the mod quick on or off, you should be able to get a quick impression of the elevations on a map. Provided, the designer has not created table mountains, the gradual change of colour, should give you an indication about the slope percentages.

Be careful what you wish for. Michael Dorosh's ASL conversion mod does that very thing. The resultant range of 'delightful' colours nearly made me fall off my chair when I first saw it.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think the shading does help BUT only if you are above a friendly unit and checking LOS from THAT unit. In other words, Gamey Surveying would be further helped by shading.

Note in that pic how the dunes are not permanent. On a map, you may just have an overlay that encompasses the area and denotes 'Dunes'. Since they change/shift/etc. they would not be mapped like hills/mountains.

[Chelco]

When creating desert maps, I partially alleviate the lack of cues for the slopes by surrounding them with different terrain. I mean that if the slope is sand, I place at the begining and at the end of the slope a line of bushes. I try to not use bushes in other way (i.e. not in plain surfaces which are far from slopes).

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I think the shading does help BUT only if you are above a friendly unit and checking LOS from THAT unit. In other words, Gamey Surveying would be further helped by shading.

Hi Mr. Tittles,

I am not sure that I understand what you say. I cannot understand how giving the battlefield a more realistic look would result in gamey attitudes. Shading could help you to perceive better the terrain even in birdseye views.

In real life, I look at a countryside and I clearly perceive a ditch which is 0.5 meters in depth and is 30 meters away from me. In CM, I have to put the camera at "soldier's shoulder level" and advance the cursor in order to have a similar perception of the same ditch.

How do you survey the battlefield?

Note in that pic how the dunes are not permanent. On a map, you may just have an overlay that encompasses the area and denotes 'Dunes'. Since they change/shift/etc. they would not be mapped like hills/mountains.

Can you elaborate more on this? Dunes change or shift in CM?

[ May 04, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

[Chelco]

Ah, I see. You mean shading the LOS of a selected unit. Well, that's debatable.

Cheers,

[JonS]

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

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]

I think the shaded enhancement should only appear when you are fixed on one of your own units that you have selected. To just fly about the battlefield and check things out is Gamey-Surveying. I also do things like select an enemy unit and then fly about the battlefield. I get down low and even though the selected enemy unit is out of my surveyed LOS, its rectangular selection border shows through the terrain. By doing this, I can spring gamey well coordinated shoot n scoots from many directions at once.

As far as dunes shifting, in RL they do. So a real topo map would not have singular dunes marked and contoured. They would display an area, much like a forest is designated by an area, so that a commander knows dunes are in that area. They are more like derelicts than hills.

[JonS]

you don't think you might be going into a tad too much detail? The request is for a basic topo feature that shows the state of the CM map in use. Talk of shifting dunes etc is all very well, but it rather misses the point. Or, is missing the trees for the woods. IMO.

[flamingknives]

Actually, I rather like the idea of contour lines for maps, or possibly a separate map screen. You could add some terrain FOW as well, by having out of sight terrain represented by (possibly inaccurate) contours.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think you miss the point. A battlefield commander in the desert would not have the detail on his desert map like you believe.

I think there are several interesting ideas going about here. The need for some kind of map, whatever its detail level, the gamey-surveying issues, improved graphics, etc.

Relax Jon. Try to have fun.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I think the shaded enhancement should only appear when you are fixed on one of your own units that you have selected. To just fly about the battlefield and check things out is Gamey-Surveying. I also do things like select an enemy unit and then fly about the battlefield. I get down low and even though the selected enemy unit is out of my surveyed LOS, its rectangular selection border shows through the terrain. By doing this, I can spring gamey well coordinated shoot n scoots from many directions at once.

As far as dunes shifting, in RL they do. So a real topo map would not have singular dunes marked and contoured. They would display an area, much like a forest is designated by an area, so that a commander knows dunes are in that area. They are more like derelicts than hills.

Gee Mr. Tittles!

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

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?

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).

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

[Michael Emrys]

I want shaded (because I think it would be purty) and contour lines. So there!

Michael

[Chelco]

LOL

At least one person is happy!

[c3k]

Put me in the "Toggle Contour Lines On and Off as Part of the New Game Engine" camp.

Regards,

Ken

[flamingknives]

Yeah, dynamic lighting to account for clouds and angle of the sun.

CM may be a game, but some things go too far. Taking LoS from a point that you don't have troops on is ridiculous and cannot be justified by any argument.

I want to see mistakes caused by not reading the ground correctly. IIRC, that's also the line of BFC. Making every move perfect just isn't fun, IMHO. Granted it's no fun when you make a mistake and you lose your only tank, but it's great when your opponent does it .

Don't get me wrong, I'd like some contour lines and side-lighting to get a better impression of relief, but some of the LoS issues are daft.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Taking LoS from a point that you don't have troops on is ridiculous and cannot be justified by any argument.

Is it any more ridiculous than being able to fly around the battlefield and look at it from different angles?

TacOps, which is a much better simulation than CM, allows LOS checks from anywhere to anywhere. I'm not sure exactly why, but it's probably to counter the fact that the AI can't do things that humans would naturally do, such as stop once you've got LOS. (as has already been said). That seems to me like a good argument for allowing it.

[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.

[ May 05, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[flamingknives]

Is it any more ridiculous than being able to fly around the battlefield and look at it from different angles?

Slightly - you can still make mistakes while flying about the battlefield. In addition, it's not something I tend to do, so I'm slightly more biased against it.

Perhaps a command like seek hull down but with different movement and sight paths would solve the problem.

I use the CM terrain like I imagine one would a sandbox - get a general feel of the lie of the land - and use my troops and scouts to actually determine what I can see on the battlefield.

To know that there's a perfect observation point at this particular spot on the side of a hill without sending someone there to have a look seems beyond the pale to me.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

To know that there's a perfect observation point at this particular spot on the side of a hill without sending someone there to have a look seems beyond the pale to me.

Of course I agree. The thing is that the game is already FULL of gaminess. Many of them come from the weakness of the AI. Too many functions are left to the AI, which the AI can't really handle. Simpler behaviors, with more player control (like TacOps) makes for a better game IMO. The LOS tool described would indeed be gamey as you say, but it would be to compensate other, already existing problems.

[Mr. Tittles]

CMPlayer: I don't see your logic. The game is already pro-attacker due to its present state. This mobile LOS tool is an attackers dream tool in the gamey-box.

If anything, it should be available to the player at the lowest realism setting.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I want to see mistakes caused by not reading the ground correctly. IIRC, that's also the line of BFC. Making every move perfect just isn't fun, IMHO. Granted it's no fun when you make a mistake and you lose your only tank, but it's great when your opponent does it .

Hi flamingknives!

At the first sight, I thought your sentence was stating something totally wrong. However, now I am confused by my own thoughts.

Imaginary CM story:

You send a platoon of infantry into position A, which is a wood terrain your troops hold. The path you select for this is open terrain and it has woods on both sides (which you had cleared). Surprisingly, at the middle of the turn, your troops became pinned by frontal heavy MG gun fire coming from like 200 meters. You replay the turn and discover that actually the path you chose was accross an unperceivable tiny hill that exposes your troops to fire from other unperceivable hill 200 meters away.

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?

Absolutely yes, even from certain distance.

-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.

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

-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.

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,

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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.

Well, I admit my passion about ideas could be often offensive. If so, I apologize. However, I am not a forum administrator or nothing or the sorts, so I don't see why you would feel so compelled to interpret my comments as threatening your point of view.

Regarding the Nazi thing, that was disgusting. The never found bones of my grandmother and her sister (killed somewhere in Poland during 1942, we believe) must be shuddering in joice now that Nazi is such a cool name to call people you don't like in the internet. Use it with caution, we really don't know a thing about Nazis.

Cheers,

[ May 05, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Not just my point of view, just the ones you feel like limiting conversations to. And now you are trying to play up some emotional aspect of a word. Classic.

I think the game can be many levels of enjoyment. It can provide entertainment for those that like a more fun-based experience and it can be more challenging and realistic for others. Thats the reason for FOW.

Game design should factor in:

1. What quality of map would a commander have at CMs level?

2. How detailed should terrain (either out of LOS or far from friendlies) be represented to the player.

3. Can terrain out of LOS be scouted prior to play (allow some fly-over method)?