Terrain modeling in CMx2

[wunwinglow]

How 'editable' will the terrain be? Working on a beach assault, for example, a generic 'beach' tile isn't enough to reflect all the types of 'beach' one might encounter. Sand, soft sand, mud, shingle, dune, marsh, etc. Same for terrain everywhere else! In other words, will I be able to adjust the terrain characteristics independantly of the bitmap/3D stuff sitting on top of it? Either that, or a LOT more types of terrain to cover these variations?

Looking forward to version 2, but still enjoying CMAK immensly!

Tim P

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Corect. More ingame atmospheric stuff is now possible thanks to the 8x8 size. But we won't be going nuts with the stuff.

Steve

So you're saying we shouldn't expect "Modd Sluts Go Nuts: Volume I".

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve

[Dogface]

Bump for Gunneroz

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve

Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve

Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water! </font>

[Andrew Kulin]

And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andrew Kulin:

And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely.

Awww, now you're gonna make me regret not finishing my M.S.

-dale

[Andrew Kulin]

What would your reaction have been had I used the term "facies" somewhere in my previous post?

And I should have used the term sedimentology grog instead. My apologies to all!

[Gordon]

Great, now the facies is gonna hit the (alluvial) fan.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andrew Kulin:

What would your reaction have been had I used the term "facies" somewhere in my previous post?

And I should have used the term sedimentology grog instead. My apologies to all!

I would have wept enough to flood a backbeach.

-dale

[Znarf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...The concept I have should make it easier to make large maps than CMx1. However, dense urban maps will likely be more time consuming to make. But that is the tradeoff one must accept....

I think it is a tradeoff that scenario designers will gladly accept and look forward to. To be honest, I don't know which I enjoy most - playing the game or making scenarios. Making the terrain and the editor more detailed will likely increase the enthusiam of those of us who make scenarios for the CM community. That will only add to longevity in the CM series.

[tankboi55]

Getting back to ‘deformable terrain’; if my ‘Shermie’ knocks down a wall, troops can now utilize the gap at a much reduced movement penalty? The gap is now passable (but risky) for a halftrack to attempt?? Another thing on my wish list is the ability to cut a road into the side of a hill or simply drape it over the terrain. (Hopefully, the 1x1 mesh will take care of this?)

Jon S

(the other JonS)

[Nicdain]

And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely.

I'd say more: terraforming should be closely affected by underlying geology, so the terrain editor in CMX2 should have firstly a "stratigraphic sequence builder" and secondly a "water/wind selective erosion module" in order to generate a geologically correct landscape!

[Tuomio]

I would like to see much improved quick-map algorithms. Ie. CMx1 random patches of sc.trees close to eachothers should be something like scattered trees surrounded by larger smear of bushes etc. I also want a lots of more water in automated maps, streams and ponds.

Streams should attract thick bushes and woods alongside of them. You get the idea.

Will there be track marks from tanks?

[hoolaman]

Steve, I would like to know what is planned with regards to different types of cover and concealment that the new terrain will provide.

This is a factor of cmx1 I ended up finding depressingly restrictive to the type of play that would occur.

What I mean by this is, there are really only three types of trees: scattered, woods, and forest/tall pines. The terrain in cmx1 was so abstracted that you couldn't really have ditches and gullies and so on to take cover in. All this made each CMx1 battle "samey" for my tastes. (only after a year or so of hard playing of course!)

So an infantry advance would more or less go through the squares of woods, making the game a little too chess-like.

[Questions]

Will CMx2 have more variation in tree density maybe something like "% thickness", or are you expecting the 8x8 terrain to take care of this by itself?

Will open terrain still be similarly abstracted for cover or will elevations have more practical effect?

Is the elevation grid 8x8 too, or will smaller "game-grid" elevations (1mx1m?) be possible to build ditches and gullies?

Can terrain be combined eg. "light trees and rocky ground" or "woods and brush" to give more game variation?

[/Questions]

I personally think if the above features would be great in game terms as each new bit of terrain would be a new tactical surprise, just like it must have been IRL. In CMx1 you see the brown square of whatever treebase mod you have on and you know exactly what to expect, and I know you guys have said in the past you want to add uncertainty for the commander.

[ August 31, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[hoolaman]

Oops, a more thorough read of this thread reveals the tree question has been partially answered, but not the others I think.

[RockinHarry]

Wow! Now that sounds promising! I see all basic stuff included for now so I keep waiting till there is something playable before I start asking for more (if ever).

Now another related question: Will the tac AI make use of the extra terrain contours with regard of what it considers "cover"? The problem in CM1 was that the Tac AI (in particular for AIP´s) more or less ignored "cover" as given by terrain contours. IE if there was patches of woods AND a seperate small valley (leading towards the enemy frontline, providing cover against direct fire and observation) the Tac AI always chooses for moving from those patches of woods to another, instead of using the small valley for its movements. That made the AIP movements almost 100% predictable. Even AIP minefields placed in those patches of woods did not hinder the TacAI much to move its troops from and into those (mined) woods.

So with regard to the new 1x1m terrain meshes, will the TacAI make use of say 2x1m ditches (IE along roads) for his movements? For maximum protection a human would creep along the bottom of this ditch, so will CMx2 troopers do the same? I would rather prefer this feature before adding more terrain types per 8x8m ground tile if there would be the choice!

Beeing a non programmer I could imagine that the map, once created (by human or auto generation routine) could undergoe an internal evaluation ONCE with regard to possible cover postions that are provided by terrain contours (terrain folds, ditches, hills, valleys ect.) and then is stored into something like a "cover map" that the Tac AI can always refer to when in need to plan movements (or deploy forces for any other reason).

A human commander with a map of the battle area would do the same: Evaluate terrain with regard to cover, concealment, traversability, commanding positions ect. and then base any battle plan upon this information. ( In real life a (german) low level commander (below divisional) would do this job on in the terrain, oftenly without help of a map)

Another question: Will there be underground stuff, like dug-outs, tunnels ect.? My imagination would be that these serve only as abstracted cover/protection (a sub class of "entrenchment" maybe) or for movement. These don´t need necessarily modelled with 3D geometry and can be handled abstractly like "sewer movement" in CM1 was, or possibly the new "basements" in CMx2?

[flamingknives]

Tac AI doesn't determine an AI attack plan, there's another level of AI for that, IIRC.

The trouble with cover provided by defilade is that it is dependant on the position of the enemy. Predicting where an enemy is likely to be is rather difficult for AI, AIUI. Certainly things as abstract as commanding positions would be very difficult to write a set of procedures for.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct about the TacAI. It can figure out "I am here, the enemy is there. I need to find some cover. That trench looks good". It is the StratAI that needs to say "I don't know where the enemy is, but I suppose he is over there. Ah... a trench runs in just the right spot for defensive line. Let's see... the enemy's approach path is level so the trench actually will provide some cover. I think I'll put 2 platoons along this trench and my heavy wepaons behind it." Two different concepts. The TacAI is the easier of the two to do in this case.

Terrain grid is 1m x 1m, but every 1m a height can be assigned of between 1 and 100mm. This means that you can have a 100m long slope with the high point being 1m.

For every one tile you had in CMx1 you can have roughly 4 tiles. So even if there were no mixing of terrain within a CMx2 8m x 8m tile, you will still get (roughly) 4 times the varried terrain as you could get in CMx1. In reality, over a larger space of map, you get a little more than 6 tiles for every 1 of CMx1. That's a pretty huge jump in variety all on its own. However, we will allow some mixed tiles in CMx2. Some of the mixing will be dynamic, but some of it will have to be hand coded by us. In the latter cases we'll have to go easy on the variations simply because there is only so much time in the day

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Terrain grid is 1m x 1m, but every 1m a height can be assigned of between 1 and 100mm. This means that you can have a 100m long slope with the high point being 1m.

1mm-100mm? That doesn't sound right. With that kind of elevation changes you could do a gradual slope 1km long and end up with a 1m high. And a maximum slope of 10cm of height per 1m of length which is hideously low. Or did you mean 1m-100mm in which case a 100m long slope would be a minimum 10m high. :confused:

I'm still catching a 'chum for the sharks' vibe here.

***Yes, I will keep on editing my post until I can put under words what seems off. Sorry***

[ September 04, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[hoolaman]

What seems off is that 100mm = 10cm. To get a 100m run with a 1m rise, the height division would have to be 1cm per 1m.

What would be the largest height division? A cliff may have 10m rise per 1m run.

Does that mean the height change per 1m square would be +/-10m in 1cm increments? Surely 1mm increments is unneccesarily fine, that would give 10,000 height levels in a 10m cliff which would be better than pixel sized resolution!

[ September 04, 2005, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[Mace]

From Kwazydog elsewhere

The height grid is set at a 1m resolution across the map, but the actual height at each point on that grid can actually be set down to the millimetre I beleive. Does that make more sense?

So let's see....this suggests that the variation between height elements is 1m....so the map builder nominates the contours (which vary by 1m each) and the CMx2 terrain engine then renders the slope in 3D between each.

Taking this further, rather than nominating a 'height per tile' as per the CMx1 engine, the map builder simply draws in the 1m contours using the 2d map editor?

If so this would be done by a free hand vector?

Which of course leads to another question......if there are contours of 1m variation, What's the minimum distance between contours allowed in the system?

[edited to add...reading above it looks like the minimum is 1m per 1mx1m 'tile' so that's a slope of 45 degrees maximum?)

OOOOH. With all the possibilities I think I just wet my pants as well. Must ask Mord for that depend back.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mace:

Must ask Mord for that depend back.

You'd take a used Depends from Mord? Eeeewwwwww.

[shudder]

Michael

[Mace]

Hey, I'm frugal!*

* Aussie for tight b*stard.