Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 From my testing, it appears that a river will always become its lowest height level for the entire length, regardless of what you put in for elevation. For ewxample, say I make a river going from one end of the map to the other, all at height '7' but then at the very end I make the last river tile a '6', then the entire length of river becomes 6. Is this true, or am I losing my mind? [Edited to make the title ultra-snappy] [Edited again to get rid of the 'quick' as well as to add marsh to the list] [ November 12, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pud Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Nope, you are correct, this I hope is a bug and not intentional. Not seen any remark on it from BFC though???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 What, really?? Has it been brought up? I don't remember reading anything about it, but it refutes what the manual says about placing rivers (a la "Be sure to remember that rivers flow downhill...etc."_) Surely, this can't be intentional. How will I finish my mountain pass map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pud Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I havent done a great deal of testing since I was trying to make a map and it wasnt working for me. I tried making one tile hieght 15 or something and the other 6, it just dropped it down to the 6 so I gave up. It may have been because I was also using river to water tile rather than river to river so that may have complicated matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I'm fairly certain that it didn't used to be that way in CMBO ... but perhaps I'm wrong. I was sure that I had to edit more than one map to take out goofy elevation changes in the river. However, there's no question that it works as you say in CMBB ... hmmmm. EDIT Just ran a quick test, the river follows the terrain elevation in CMBO, that is it rises and falls with the terrain. It does NOT do that in CMBB but rather stays at (I presume) the lowest elevation chosen. Joe [ November 11, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Joe Shaw ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 This is very unfortunate. While I can _barely_ see a reason for it (as a way for doofuses and idiots to make semi-attractive maps without effort) dammit, there's no good reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 COOL! I hadn't noticed this before. Makes it hard to do waterfalls though, doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pud Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Nope, it wasnt the case in CMBO for sure, I made a map with a river coming down to a central lake. Also able to make water falls with a high tile/low tile combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: This is very unfortunate. While I can _barely_ see a reason for it (as a way for doofuses and idiots to make semi-attractive maps without effort) dammit, there's no good reason![sneer] No doubt thay had YOU in mind Panzer Leader![/sneer] See if I ever trust YOU to keep your word in a game again "Oh good idea, Joe, I'll just turn my lads around and you can exit yours and we'll be done with this variable turn never ending game that we're stuck in ... good idea." I tell you the man has NO honor ... waterfalls either apparently. Joe [ November 11, 2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Joe Shaw ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 OK, there is something seriously weird going on here. I set my sloping river up, check preview, and it is all lowest level (1) I change it to open, check it in preview, and it is normal, with varying height. Good. I go back and change the open to "marsh" and check it in the preview, now the MARSH tiles are as low as the lowest water tile!!!\\What the hell is going on. Thinking something wierd like rubble and tile 'memory' might be happening, I changed it BACK to open, previewed, all looked good, so I saved and closed. Then I open it, preview it (still open) and it looks good. Now I change the open tiles to marsh and ONCE AGAIN FOR NO REASON the marsh tiles are all at level 1 in preview, even though they were never made into water and the editor still calls them out at their correct elevations. There is something wacky happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I just experimented - soft ground, fords, and marsh when attached to a river are automatically reduced to the lowest level. I thought I could find a way around this for you, but no go. If you break up your river with a non-wet tile, though, it will allow you to use different elevations (just not adjacent to each other). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 It's sheer insanity I tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 OK, with soft ground, you can change elevation, but with swamp or water, or EVEN a combination of swamp and water, if any tiles touoch each other (even just a cater-corner) then they automatically go to the lowest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 So, it's true, undocumented, and even goes against wheat is written in the manual then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 That's a pain in the backside. I like including waterfalls or wiers in my scenarios. I'm with you on this one, Parts of Wetlands - I want the option to decide on the river levels myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 As it is now, you can't even have a marshy riverbank rising up to the level of the ground, since the marsh auto-defaults to the river level. Also, you can't have a bridge going through marsh, since it auto-defaults to lowest level. No multi-leveled marshes or rivers at all. I just can't believe it. The only posiive thing to say about this whole 'feature' is that rivers always look nice and flat now, rather than jaggedy edges, but really, all it does is LIMIT map-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: OK, with soft ground, you can change elevation, but with swamp or water, or EVEN a combination of swamp and water, if any tiles touoch each other (even just a cater-corner) then they automatically go to the lowest.From a programmers point of view that's pretty cool! Must have taken some hacking to put that in! And it is kind of physical, isn't it?! [ November 12, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Rollstoy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 ya I posted something about this in teh Bug/Inconcistancies thread but no one seemed to notice. pics for ya.... This becomes this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 For anyone else interested, I give you Rune's comments, a scenario designer of world renown, evil incarnate, and a punisher of the tactically challenged: As for the Rivers, since i made many scenarios, yes I know about it. Actually I like the feature, as I rather have flat rivers then the editing like crazy where the "water" was on a slope where you didn't want it. However, I see the other viewpoint too. Altho, how many fights took place near a waterfall? So, I see both points on that one. It has been mentioned by Berli to the guys. And: Like I said, having made maps, I can tell you it took a lot of time to get a river looking right in CMBO if you had bends and any type of elevation. I would have to get down to level 1, and follow the river to see if it was level or not. This way, i know the river is flat and cuts time off of the editing. Drawback is exactly as you pointed out. Marsh has to be flat. There is a scenario i made where the terrain was in actuallity swmapy forest...but with slopes I could not do it. You can still do a bridge over the terrain, you just have to view the bridge at level 1 to be sure it iw level with the embankments. Workaround for riverbanks for me is trees. I just did one where the cliffs over the river are rough, for the stone out croppings. Like I said, I see both viewpoints on this one. Will send an email to the gang shortly. Taken from Save the Camera Angle +1 Default Campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Followup, email has been sent. Either I or one of the guys will reply soon. Yes, this is a Matt definition of soon. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 A follow up question. If, by some miracle, they were to replace this with the old style of doing rivers, would it make all old scenario maps obsolete and damaged, i.e. those riverbeds would be jagged and no longer uniform? Or, would (as I suspect from limited testing) the saved scenario already have its river elevations reduced to the lowest denominator, thereby even if they patched this, old scenarios would still look ok? I have a feeling whether or not this gets fixed/changed/returned or normal will depend on how it affects disk scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: As it is now, you can't even have a marshy riverbank rising up to the level of the ground, since the marsh auto-defaults to the river level.That sounds totally realistic to me, since a marsh usually is on the same level as the water. The banks can be covered with either Soft Ground or Woods. That's the way that nature seems to do it. What's the problem? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: It isn't a problem... except for those wishing to put water falls in their scenarios. So, no waterfalls... and no hours spent tweaking elevations to avoid weird water effects. Seems like a good trade off to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Well, it can also be a lesser problem for situations in which there is a gentle downslope from one side of the map to the other. 5m of drop (1 level) across 1 km of distance isn't an awful lot. It isn't a waterfall, but actually represents a reasonable downward slope for a river, especially a smaller one. The Isar river through Munich has a much steeper slope than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by tar: Well, it can also be a lesser problem for situations in which there is a gentle downslope from one side of the map to the other. 5m of drop (1 level) across 1 km of distance isn't an awful lot. It isn't a waterfall, but actually represents a reasonable downward slope for a river, especially a smaller one. The Isar river through Munich has a much steeper slope than that.Okay, this is a different matter than marshy banks. I agree with this. I had intended to design a map with a stream that rose among some hills then flowed across some flatlands. I can still do the part across the flatlands, but can no longer do the part on the hills. You win some, you lose some. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts