Jump to content

How to recognise terrain?


Recommended Posts

I got no idea what any of it is meant to be

Seriously? Ok, here, let me help:

* The green floofy things are trees.

* The green hedge-y things is bocage.

* The brown ground with straight lines is a plowed field.

* The yellow fluffy ground is a wheatfield.

* The green flat areas are grass.

Did I miss any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But, but... what do I do if there's small fluffy green things and big fluffly green things in the same spot on top of some green and brown stuff!?!

My firepower tables don' t cover what to do! I can't predict the exact outcome of standing in that species of grass! ARRRGH!

(but yeah, seriously, what's so hard about some common sense? What you see is pretty much what you and ground softness doesn't vary much, just stay on roads if it's really damp in the conditions. I don't understand where the memorization comes in.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of my discussion

We get your point, CM2 requires some more thought, common sense and at times guess work to determine what surrounds your units and how they will interact with it. You'd like more information readily displayed to you in the UI ala CM1.

I for one am enjoying the greater level of player interpretation required, it's got me thinking about the entire map in a different way. Just a moment ago I crawled a panzerschrek behind a tree to fire at a vehicle, and that tree saved his ass from return fire.

In CM1 those 'woods' would have provided him with a slightly higher percentage of cover than say 'scattered trees' or 'open ground', but not as much as 'rough' would have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We get your point, CM2 requires some more thought, common sense and at times guess work to determine what surrounds your units and how they will interact with it. You'd like more information readily displayed to you in the UI ala CM1.

I for one am enjoying the greater level of player interpretation required, it's got me thinking about the entire map in a different way. Just a moment ago I crawled a panzerschrek behind a tree to fire at a vehicle, and that tree saved his ass from return fire.

In CM1 those 'woods' would have provided him with a slightly higher percentage of cover than say 'scattered trees' or 'open ground', but not as much as 'rough' would have!

I don't want to make "guesses" about what I think a certain terrain is meant to be, there are lots of combinations. Have you looked at the map editor?

Here is a top down view of 320 x320 section of CMBN map. It has 25 different terrain types/combinations on it. Can you identify them all?

cmbnterrain3.th.jpg

Some basic questions:

Of what I believe to be the set of "Grass" bases, there are 8 different types:

Grass

GrassY

Clover

Flowers

GrassT

GrassTY

Weeds

GrassXT

Are the way they are listed (from top to bottom/left to right) in the Map Editor perhaps a clue to how they are "graded"? Does "Weeds" offer more concealment than say "GrassY"? It certainly "looks" like it might.

How about if we now add "Brush" to it (there is only one type). Did this improve things or are they just for show?

And what then if we add "Bushes" (three types BushA, BushB, BushC) on top of the brush, placed in densities of 1, 2 or 3 per tile. What difference now?

At what point does it stop making any difference? Are they all different just for show?

I really do like this crazy range and combination of terrain. I don't like not knowing what I am looking at and hence how it may affect cover/concealment/movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole terrain and land reality thing is a pain, no better than CMx1. You look at some of the scenarios and it all looks so artificial, like WTF is this supposed to represent? Once the gameplay starts then reality does kick in but trying to work out a defense during setup is a nightmare ground wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing: the discussion about flavour objects, and indeed any "above ground" object is a red herring to the original point.

There remains quite a basic question which is "what is this stuff at the ground level?"

The cheat sheet posted a few pages back is fantastic. As I said, it means that one needs to mod terrain with great care... and why all this trouble? Why not tell us what the basic terrain under the pointer is? The things on top that are made of polygons we can see by what they look like what they are. Fountains, tree trunks, logs etc. I don't need a tool tip to tell me that it is a log. But what is the log lying on?

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? Ok, here, let me help:

* The green floofy things are trees.

* The green hedge-y things is bocage.

* The brown ground with straight lines is a plowed field.

* The yellow fluffy ground is a wheatfield.

* The green flat areas are grass.

Did I miss any?

Makes perfect sense to me.... Can't say I've had an issue thus far...

But then most of the city slickers I've come across that never venture into the country barely know what a cow is hehe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two basic types of players... Intuitive and Statistical. These are always, always in conflict with each other. We had this in CMx1 as well. I think people forget how much information isn't explicitly given to the player and how much people complained about this until they got used to it. Or they stuck with something like Panthers on the Prowl (which was in recent memory of CMBO at the time).

There are two game design philosophies, not surprising. One designs a game around data, the other designs a game with data. These are two different approaches and we have always done the latter. We always will.

However, we do try to cater to the "need data" types to the extent it doesn't distract us from making the game or catering to the majority of our audience (which is not the "need data" type). We have some features planned for the future which were much requested in CMx1 and never realized, in fact.

One thing we will never do is try to quantify things like terrain values. It's too complex. The data that we could show you would be meaningless. We didn't give that sort of information out in CMx1 either, so we're being consistent here.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??? This is a very odd combination basically supporting my reason not to "trust" everything I see in the game.

When in doubt, ask a question (as you did) or read the manual. It's actually quite logical...

So I could try to hide infantry behind a fountain but be wasting my time because this fountain does not hinder LOS, but it does block fire? So it may as well be an invisible force field?

I'd like to see 6 men hiding behind a fountain and not being seen. Houdini could probably learn something from that :D

Sometimes people look too hard to find fault and see it where there is none. The logic is consistent and entirely realistic. Flavor Objects are purposefully kept small. Too small to effectively hide behind. On top of that, I doubt in real life if you saw a bunch of guys run behind a fountain you would suddenly ask yourself "HOLY CRAP! Where did those guys go?!?!" At least I hope not :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a top down view of 320 x320 section of CMBN map. It has 25 different terrain types/combinations on it. Can you identify them all?

No, and why should I need to? I don't play the game from that height 100% of the time throughout the entire game.

Of what I believe to be the set of "Grass" bases, there are 8 different types:

Grass

GrassY

Clover

Flowers

GrassT

GrassTY

Weeds

GrassXT

Are the way they are listed (from top to bottom/left to right) in the Map Editor perhaps a clue to how they are "graded"? Does "Weeds" offer more concealment than say "GrassY"? It certainly "looks" like it might.

Do you really think that Yellow Grass or some Weeds will offer a soldier, loaded with kit, a statistically significant difference in concealment? Or do you seriously think it matters if you park your Tiger in the middle of Clover or if you park it in the middle of Flowers? I'm not talking about what you think the game does, I'm asking what you think it does in real life.

How about if we now add "Brush" to it (there is only one type). Did this improve things or are they just for show?

Would Brush offer an improvement to concealment in real life? Yes? Well...

And what then if we add "Bushes" (three types BushA, BushB, BushC) on top of the brush, placed in densities of 1, 2 or 3 per tile. What difference now?

Would it in real life? Yes? Well...

At what point does it stop making any difference? Are they all different just for show?

They aren't for show, but they aren't necessarily wildly important for any particular specific engagement. As it would be in real life.

I really do like this crazy range and combination of terrain. I don't like not knowing what I am looking at and hence how it may affect cover/concealment/movement.

A reasonable guess based on what you see is all you need to make an informed decision. This might not be the most comfortable way for you're particular style of play, I do understand that, but it doesn't mean the information isn't easily obtainable.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but I don't see a reason why a mouse over couldn't just tell you explicitly what the terrain layers were, or even better, also have this listed somewhere on the unit info box. The most important terrain would be the base terrain I suppose.

eg. plowed field/soft/brush

It doesn't seem that complicated, jut give us SOME feedback on what the terrain type actually is.

Agreed.

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on. I think the numbers game should be left here.

While you could make efficient plans in CMx1 based on simplified tiles weighing penalties and data values, the current game makes you think about your plans much more naturally.

Correct. And to be fair, CMx1 did that far more than the games that came before it. I think people forget this now, but at the time we saw a lot of this "push back" from Steel Panthers and other more traditional boardgames. We did not get "push back" from the hardcore Close Combat gamers. They tended to just hate us for everything else :D

I wonder wether there is a split in users here between the people already used to the engine from CMSF and the people being introduced to it by CMN.

It's a similar discussion we had once CMSF launched. People needed to adjust to the 1:1 representation.

I don't find it hard at all in CBN to read the terrain, but I have played CMSF a lot as well. And I did have problems adapting at first with that game too.

This is definitely a part of it. Especially those CMx1 players who are still actively playing CMx1. 5-10 years of habits are not going to vanish in 3 days of gameplay. Especially for those features a particular person built their gameplay experience around.

To repeat the queston that has already been asked, what would you like to see taken out?

It is an obvious question to ask, so I'm glad someone asked it :D When we were actively developing CMx1 people kept asking us for more variety of terrain. Not only in terms of their effects but in terms of creative placement for pure aesthetics. For example, you couldn't have ANY terrain around a house. So for 400m2 there was nothing there but grass and a house. Try and find me any rural area where that happens. Just try ;)

What I'm saying here is the reason CMx2's terrain is more complex is because people wanted it that way. And so did we. CMx1's terrain was far too simplistic and narrow.

Can we do something to help with terrain identification? Probably. But I bet by the time we get around to it there won't be need as people will have either adapted or put the game away for a host of reasons (CMx2 is a scary thing for some CMx1 players... very scary).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[variety of terrain] in terms of creative placement for pure aesthetics"

Resist... Must resist... Resist the urge to comment on spoiling the aesthetics and immersion by getting the flora wrong... Lavender forsooth!... no... no... must resist.. aargh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying here is the reason CMx2's terrain is more complex is because people wanted it that way. And so did we. CMx1's terrain was far too simplistic and narrow.

No-one is saying that complex terrain is a bad thing.

The only question was "now that they are complex, how do I tell what I'm looking at?"

So far the answer to this seems to be "get a chart from somewhere, there are a few, and learn the differences in texture".

Note that this solution is only helpful at camera elevations where these textures are viewable. At the higher elevations, where you are trying to get the lie of the land, I'm still not sure what the answer is.

It may be that experience (trial and error) will quickly get people good it it. It's the 'error' part that's not so much fun...

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the answer to this seems to be "get a chart from somewhere, there are a few, and learn the differences in texture".

...

It may be that experience (trial and error) will quickly get people good it it. It's the 'error' part that's not so much fun...

For some the "error" part, or more specifically mastering it, is indeed fun. But I have to come back to the primary advice...

Play the game more intuitively for a while and see where that gets you. You should be able to figure out cause/effect of almost all terrain like that very easily. Then you use other methods, such as the manual or discussions here, to figure out the nuances of the stuff that still doesn't make sense to you.

It's like a sort of 90/10 rule, if you will. Spend 90% of your time not worrying about 90% of the game, then spend 10% of your time figuring out the other 10%. Or 95/5 or 85/15... whatever it is for you personally, the issue is that going into the game with a mindset that 100% of the terrain is incomprehensible is definitely not going to be helpful.

Can we do something to help out with this a bit more? Undoubtably. But the game's fate doesn't hang in the balance over this as much as it does other things. So we focused on the other stuff first. There's always more to do and thankfully we're planning on doing more.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one is saying that complex terrain is a bad thing.

The only question was "now that they are complex, how do I tell what I'm looking at?"

GaJ

I agree with the other posters: Why does it matter? Being intuitive will offer all your answers. If its a tree, can I hide behind it? If its a bush, will it conceal my movement? If its clover, will it protect me from HE shells?

Not quite sure, but it seems people are looking for "Bush - 16.34% concealment, Tall Grass A - 13.65 % concealment, Tree 36.9865% protection" Seriously, ask yourself, does this make a difference? Look outside, can you tell what percentage concealment a shrub gives you ? No, because its an absurd statement. I mean, you NEEDED numbers when everything was abstracted at the level of a hex.. now its more irrelevant as common sense should take over in terms of terrain.

As we move from more abstracted platforms (ie- board games with hexes) to more and more detailed environments (CM1) and now, 1-1 representation, this number crunching is seriously irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also having a bit of difficulty with both cover and concealment in CM:Norm. I was used to CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and Farmville. As an expert in Farmville, I found that a surplus of livestock might help. I was spoiled for years with heavy forest, light forest, etc and dropping down to eye level and I could see the depressions in the ground. Its a bit more difficult for me now with CM:Norm but am hoping to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also having a bit of difficulty with both cover and concealment in CM:Norm. I was used to CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and Farmville. As an expert in Farmville, I found that a surplus of livestock might help. I was spoiled for years with heavy forest, light forest, etc and dropping down to eye level and I could see the depressions in the ground. Its a bit more difficult for me now with CM:Norm but am hoping to adapt.

Yea :) This is a lot different than the old days of board games, Advanced Squad Leader, where you could move into the "light trees" and get a +1 defense :) Now there are actual trees and your individual guys actually need to seek shelter behind them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for getting every spot of terrain down exactly: Do ppl think the GI's gave half a rat's a$$ about whether they were standing on "dirt" or "short grass?" Tactically speaking, who cares? The terrains that actually matter in terms of cover and concealment are graphically obvious. I love the move away from %'s, dice rolling, etc. I always felt, playing those wargames, like I might as well be at a casino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A related note to those moving over from CMx1, that may help you stop worrying so much whether you're in a "scattered trees" or "woods" tile, and thinking more in a CMx2 mindset:

"Lay of the land" matters A LOT more in CMx2 than CMx1. The terrain elevation itself provided no cover in CMx1 from small arms, unless the unit was in complete defilade and therefore out of contact -- as far CMx1 was concerned, the "electron cloud" squads of CMx1 were either fully in LOS, and could shoot at each other, or they were out of LOS, and couldn't. Once units in CMx1 were in LOS, while abstract terrain tiles like "scattered trees" and "woods" provided a cover bonus, being just behind the crest of a hill, but still in LOS did nothing to protect your pixeltruppen from bullets (though, AIUI, terrain elevation could provide some protection against HE weapons in CMx1).

It's totally different in CMx2. In terms of cover, a decent "fighting crest" position is among the best positions you can occupy in CMx2, even if the crest is in open ground (though such a position may not offer much in the way of concealment). So you should worry a lot more about finding small variations in elevation that provide fighting crest positions, covered routes of withdrawal and the like, than you should whether you are in "scattered trees" or "open ground".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have one gripe/request on this subject and it's that I would like to be able to mouse over a terrain tile in the map editor (2D) and have it tell me what it is. And that's mainly just to save a lot of time jumping in and out of 3D to look at it, or deleting tiles and replacing them with something I know, just to be sure they aren't what I don't want. If that makes any sense. :)

As far as gameplay, I think the answer's already revealed. Play by what you see; you're not going to get any "hard numbers". "Is that a +2 Woods tile or just a +1 Light Woods?" isn't going to get you anywhere. Look at it. Does it look like sufficient cover/concealment for your MG team? Yes? Then go. Maybe not? Keep looking.

I can understand not wanting to accidentally drive a tank into a swamp tile because you couldn't tell what it was. Honestly I haven't run into a situation like that yet, so *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm - you are in a M4 and you want to cross a field - what would you do?

1. I would know, how the weather was in the last days.

2. I could get off the tank, touch the ground and inspect it, to get a feeling if it can bear the pressure maybe?

3. Now do that in the game.

Especially when not perfect ground conditions are in place, without any infos for the player, it could become quite frustrating, because it forces decision from the player without giving him any knowledge.

At least a hint of the ground conditions would be very helpful. If the layers are a problem, then why not giving the player some projection of technical game-data, the engine maybe has anyway, to deal with ground pressures of the vehicles?

i.e. "compactness" & humidity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I would know, how the weather was in the last days.

Ground conditions are reported before the start. I do get your point, but the info presented is essentially what you'd have IRL.

2. I could get off the tank, touch the ground and inspect it, to get a feeling if it can bear the pressure maybe?

You could, sure, but there's a good chance you'd get your head shot off. The scope of CM puts you directly into a "hot" combat zone; it's not like a rear-area/redeployment simulator.

I do not mean to blindly defend the design as it stands. There are areas where I'd agree that more info (or at least different info) would make a better game (in the UI, for one). But what some folks are asking for, IMHO, actually detracts from the realism, while not adding to the gameplay enough to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...