Terrain modeling in CMx2

[HarryInk]

Ooooooh...the editor STILL in 2D!! *bangs head on desk several times*

*sobbing*

OK. I can live with 2D if you could adjust the presentation of it (is that UI in the language of them that know?). How about full-colour coded contours rather than the clunky/ugly numbers in the current CM games. The closer it can look (during development) to a topo map the better.

The rest of the news here sounds fabulous and I can hardly wait to start making maps...

[Liebchen]

Will people be able to design a terrain feature (such as particularly interesting buildings) and save it independantly of a scenario or map?

In other words, I can imagine modders and designers creating models of, say, the Reichstag, and offering them for DL. Scenario authors could then insert that terrain feature -- predesigned -- into their map.

This could both reduce the turnaround time (potentially) for scenario design and increase the variety of terrain features we'd see. I could just imagine scenario designers shopping for just the right model tavern, for example, with the 'shopping list' growing exponentially as terrain features and their variants appear.

[Battlefront.com]

Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody

The 2D Editor UI will be a lot easier to use than in CMx1. Even if Charles winds up refusing to code 90% of the stuff I came up with, I can assure you it will still be better

No, you will not be able to cut and paste parts of one map into another, no matter how the mechanics work. All you can do is download someone else's map, bring it into the Editor, and work on it as you would do in CMx1. In order to do more than that we'd have to support the concept of placing "assembled" stuff instead of just creating it. It's not going to happen simply because it isn't necessary (it is also a time sink we ain't touching). If someone makes the Reichstag, then why wouldn't they also put the neighboring terrain around it? And if the person doesn't do that, why can't you just import the map, increase the size, and then work on it yourself? Piece of cake.

Steve

[JonS]

What if someone makes a nice ridge, and someone else makes a nice village, and you want to combine them?

Not a piece of cake

Will the file formats at least be 'open'?

[Thomm]

Thank you very much for the new info.

The new system sounds a lot like evolution (as opposed to revolution) of the old system.

If I understood correctly, buildings and roads can still be placed only facing (N,S,W,E) or diagonal (NW,SW,NE,NW)? Is that correct?

For me as an observer it is interesting to notice that tile-based systems still cannot be replaced by vector based systems in this field of gaming (or any other, it seems).

Another question: Will individual trees be accounted for when simulating the actions of individuals or will they be "smeared out" LOS-wise and it will be possible to see guys run through trees?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Sure, and what if someone bakes a cake and I can't get to eat it. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life can be so cruel sometimes

No, the file formats will NOT be open. All the same reasons as CMx1 still apply for CMx2 to keep it this way. CMx1 enjoyed (and still does for the most part) a long period of cheat free gaming. Now, even with cheating, the effects are far less pronounced and more obvious than if the file format was open.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thomm, that is correct about the directions. If the game were on a smaller scale, and used hand built maps, we could have things be more chaotic. But probably still not freeform. The grid would just be less noticable. Computer code hates disorder, and freeform placed items is about as disordered as you can get.

Good question about trees. I'm fairly certain they can't be run through. I haven't thought to check My PC is disconnected and Charles is not around to ask. In fact, it is 4am and I should be going to bed. G'night!!

Steve

[Thomm]

Good night!!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm fairly certain they can't be run through. I haven't thought to check ...

Do you remember whether they block LOS?

What I think that should be prevented is what could be called "Freak LOS": With an array of individual trees and empty sub-tiles in between, you can occasionally get very long LOS-paths, which is probably realistic, but can be frustrating at times, when you thought your troops are well hidden!

Clearly such a problem does not happen in a smeared-out wood ... I am curious where you guys drew the abstraction line this time around!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Bonxa]

Grr, I'm so angry about the not open file formats! Even more so because you are correct Steve. :mad:

The one thing that should not be of any use to cheaters though is the endgame file (the very last one that player two gets to look at). Could you please make it possible to save that one and load it in the editor?

[Gryphon]

Deformable terrain? :eek: This is going to be good

[Ron]

Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody

This is something I don't understand. Are we going to have more variability, when reason dictates, in each terrain type where finding uniformity is the exception not the rule? For example, a "Heavy Forest", or "Sparse Forest" for that matter, could have a 'range' of values for sighting, cover, and movement but still be a "Heavy Forest" visually and for ease of use.

Ron

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Ron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody

This is something I don't understand. Are we going to have more variability, when reason dictates, in each terrain type where finding uniformity is the exception not the rule? For example, a "Heavy Forest", or "Sparse Forest" for that matter, could have a 'range' of values for sighting, cover, and movement but still be a "Heavy Forest" visually and for ease of use.

Ron </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Gromit is almost correct. We will likely have a few 8x8 "tiles" of tree types and densities. So if you want to put down closely packed 50m trees... you can do that in one spot or many. Your choice. If you want to instead put down sparse 50m trees, you can do that too. Picture making a 50m x 50m spot of dense trees of type x. You can then "paint" a path through using sparse trees of type x winding through the middle. This simulates a wooded path through a dense wooded area. You could alternatively make it open ground and get a small open trail instead of the 20m x 20m open swath in CMx1.

LOS blocking of individual trees... no, I don't think that is possible due to CPU/RAM issues (see the thread on units for a similar answer, but more detailed).

Steve

[Gromit]

URRRKK!! :eek:

I just realized we are asking Steve about...

TREES!! Aaaaaagggghhh!!

** runs away screaming **

[kipanderson]

Steve,

As usual all sounds great.

Just a few quick points.

1)Allow us to build “huge” maps. I know there will be server limits on what any current PC could handle in a game, but technology moves on . In short-hand I am such a fan of CM because it is “almost” optimised for platoon v company play, yet I am still able to play near operational, brigade v brigade battles . Thus the wish for the freedom to build vast maps. I have read all your comments on CMX2, but I do expect to still be playing versions of CMX2 that particularly appeal many years after their release. (And enjoy new modules as they come along.)

2)Try to find time to take a look at the Uber nature of some obstacles; mines, wire and such. Yes, this does relate to my wish to play huge/operational games . I am also a big fan of games with 90 odd turns, thus giving time for realistic breaching operations and such. Fully understand that the first version of CMX2 will just concentrate on getting the basics in place. But if Uber obstacles were “on the list” to be looked at in later versions, I would be happy chap .

Fun stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Sequoia]

Minor detail but will we have a seperate "orchard"

terrain type?

[Battlefront.com]

Trees are a personal hobby of mine

Kip, map sizes and troop density are probably going to start out being a tad bit smaller than what CMAK was capable of. It will likely increase over time, just as it did for the CMx1 family of games.

Orchards are doable now. Depending on the type (grape, apple, date, etc.) all it means is supporting an 8x8 tile with the correct density and spacing one would expect for tht type. We could have done this in CMx1 if making new terrain wasn't such a pain in the rump. Which is why CMx2's terrain system is significantly different

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Wait, wait. Did I understand that right? We'll get to choose the crops grown in our orchards & fields? All right!

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Wait, wait. Did I understand that right? We'll get to choose the crops grown in our orchards & fields? All right!

You'll be able to change the skin on the grape form purple to green, but not from seed to seedless.

Oh, and each grape will be represented, but will fall off the vine in a "bunch".

[Salkin]

Hmm...you said fortifications was terrain now, and you said the terrain was deformable .

If I purchase sandbags , can the enemy blow them away with a well placed blast from a Tiger ?

//Salkin

[RCHRD]

This all sounds just great. I want buildings and more buildings. With different skins I'll draw myself, if I have to.

[Mace]

Just thought of a couple of more terrain related questions.

IIRC dynamic lighting was discussed some time back so that means that the CMx2 representation of 'height' by the shaded grass/snow bitmaps/skins would be replaced by a dynamic light map?

And...what are the limitations (if any) on altitude? Could we build a better representation of, say, Monte Cassino which we couldn't really do with the CMx1 due to the height limits.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, dynamic lighting has been in and working great for a long time. Time of day is set by the scenario and that changes, obviously, how things are lit up.

Altitude limitations... don't really know. I assume we'll be able to do a lot more, but not sure about the extremes of something like mountains.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yeah... I keep forgetting to mention that the terrain mesh is 1m x 1m. So even though the terrain itself is measured in 8x8 pieces, the underlying shape is significantly more flexible. This is why you guys don't need to worry about houses in sides of hills and whatnot

Steve

[Gordon]

Will trenches, foxholes, craters etc. be 3-D?