How to recognise terrain?

[akd]

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?

You can check ground condition at any time by going to MENU --> CONDITIONS.

[BigJ62]

I have not done any testing to see how easy it is to bog a vehicle under varying weather conditions so my concerns may be unwarranted. Someone posted that the ground condition can change during a scenario, not sure if this true but if it is then some indication as to ground condition would be a nice feature and even if it is not true I would still like this feature.

As in “Real Life” not everything is as it seems. Long ago I did landscaping and before we drove our big heavy lawn tractors across their very expensive turf we would test the firmness by walking on it not by looking it. Grass can be wet and still be firm enough for tractors or it can appear dry yet be very saturated due to heavy rains from previous days. In either case the grass still looks like grass.

I’m not going to lose any sleep over whether not I can tell if the ground can support my AFVs or not but if there is a chance of bogging it would be nice to know the degree of it.

[Steiner14]

You can check ground condition at any time by going to MENU --> CONDITIONS.

Only info seems to be DRY, WET, MUDDY.

So what if it starts to rain? Then i do have to check every turn, when the condition jumps to WET. And when it changes to WET, for high pressure vehicles, that could already be way too late.

At least a finer resolution than 3 levels and a popup-message, informing of weakened ground conditions, would be very nice, if the info can't be displayed with the cursor.

[JonS]

So what if it starts to rain? Then i do have to check every turn, when the condition jumps to WET. And when it changes to WET, for high pressure vehicles, that could already be way too late.

I'm reminded of a John Maynard Keynes quote:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

If it's raining, the ground is going to get softer. Both in real life and in the game. This much is known. Therefore, if it's raining ... what do you do, sir?

[Steiner14]

If it's raining, the ground is going to get softer. Both in real life and in the game. This much is known. Therefore, if it's raining ... what do you do, sir?

For example i would feel how strong the rain is. After some time, if i would become unsure about ground conditions, i would check the ground before i use it. No need to play lottery but also no need, to lose a battle because of wrong assumptions about the ground. I would ask the ground and the ground would tell me not only DRY or WET or MUDDY, but much finer nuances between. Then i would ask the heaven and it would give me a hint, how long it could rain. Then I could weigh all the Pros and Cons and based on these facts, my experience and the situation, i could make a decision.

So let me ask you:

How do you do that in the game now, sir?

[JonS]

And at the end of the day, you'd still have to suck it up, grab your balls in one hand, and take a chance.

Just like the game.

PROTIP: when your vehicles start bogging, it's probably time to stop hoping the ground is firm enough to support them.

[Steiner14]

And at the end of the day, you'd still have to suck it up, grab your balls in one hand, and take a chance.

Just like the game.

PROTIP: when your vehicles start bogging, it's probably time to stop hoping the ground is firm enough to support them.

Wow, what a great tip!

[sburke]

For example i would feel how strong the rain is. After some time, if i would become unsure about ground conditions, i would check the ground before i use it. No need to play lottery but also no need, to lose a battle because of wrong assumptions about the ground. I would ask the ground and the ground would tell me not only DRY or WET or MUDDY, but much finer nuances between. Then i would ask the heaven and it would give me a hint, how long it could rain. Then I could weigh all the Pros and Cons and based on these facts, my experience and the situation, i could make a decision.

So let me ask you:

How do you do that in the game now, sir?

So you have a guy walking the terrain at all times in front of your tank feeling the ground? Or do you assume that it is raining odds are ground conditions aren't great. Suppose the spot you are at is low or high ground and throws off your perception. I think the point folks have made is you would in RL as well as in the game work off the general, not the specific.

Last time I tried, neither the ground nor the heavens would answer me. Heck even my weather man is wrong most of the time (Anyone here remember Cindy the weather dog of Wash DC from back in the 90's) At least in the game if it is raining, I know it isn't going to stop so I better take the umbrella...

[JonS]

Wow, what a great tip!

I know.

I don't expect - or even try - to get through a battle with no casualties. If I try moving a tank cross-country and it bogs? *shrug* Time to try something else. If there's no other choice *shrug* push the rest into the field anyway and hope for the best.

Tanks bog. Men die. Vehicles turn into flaming wrecks. These things happen, more often than you'd like, but probably not as often as your opponent would wish. Embrace the chaos and figure out a way to make it work for you.

Yeesh. Some of you guys come across as girly-men. You talk a big game about auftragstaktik and schwerpunkt and blitzkrieg like you know what it all means, but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road the bottom lip starts quivering because you can't figure exactly how something works.

[akd]

Spreadsheet Mission: Pedology of Normandy

[Steiner14]

No, didn't you read the PROTIP?

Don't use your brain, when it's not necessary. Drive until you bog, and then, when you're far away from all streets, you can dare to switch on your brain and think hard, how you could get back to a street while ground conditions become worse and worse. That's how the PROS with balls do it!

[FFE]

Spreadsheet Mission: Pedology of Normandy

Lol, quite the comical statement. I suggest a new app: Google Earth for Normandy, circa 1944

[GreenAsJade]

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.

This is a perfectly fair answer.

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.

And this is also a perfectly helpfjul indication that you think more help would be good in due course.

Note that, in starting the thread, I didn't say "BFC, do somefink now". I simply asked a question "how do you tell?".

To those making a comparison with how real commanders tell what the risks of the terrain in front of them are: to me this argument is completely meaningless.

Real commanders aren't looking at a rendering of texture on a screen and wondering if it is significant. Real commanders have a lifetime of experience to tell them what matters.

I'm playing a game. It would be more fun if I could easily tell whether this mottled brown texture is significant or not, instead of having to pull out a manual or chart. I'm not even asking for the game to tell me what risks the terrain present. I'm only asking "is this texture significant? What does it represent?.

GaJ

[kgsan]

A simple request to be able to mouse over terrain and have the terrain type disclosed, seems pretty straight forward. To a non-programer it seems like this would probably not take too much effort to add to the target tool, but maybe not. Even if it's not too difficult, BFC may feel that it's not worth the effort. Fair enough. But why some feel the need to lecture those who might find such a tool useful is a bit hard to fathom.

[GreenAsJade]

An updated: I followed Steve's advice and had a close look at the terrain I was wondering about, allowing myself to use the "it's going to be what it looks like" method. I'm finding it helpful: mud does look shiny-sticky enough to be able to go "OK, this looks like mud".

However, I have one counterexample. There is an area of terrain that looks like mud, but from higher levels of elevation it is clearly lighter coloured. I have no idea what this is. I'm treating it like mud for now, but I may be denying myself access to an area of the map that I should be able to enter more easily...

GaJ

[Vinnart]

Here is a good tip for the newbies to Cmx2 type terrain. Be confident that there still is abstraction within the terrains. Even though the terrain with rocks appears faux textured, but is flat it is simulating that the rocks are there. The same goes with trees. Even though the squad may not look graphically correct that he is right behind the tree he is still getting cover because he is on a tree tile. I know where you are coming from with the Cmx1 mindset. But the key for me in accepting was realizing this part of the game has kept abstraction, which is a good thing.

Here are some good ground for cover that if your keep your troops in they will do better: Rocky (even though it is faux), Trees (some are better than others) and such. Just follow the "well if it looks like cover, then it is with abstraction” in mind, and you will more than likely adapt.

If a simple percent type system were added to the cursor to help the novice adapt it would not bother me. Say something like 35/70 is under cursor with the first # representing sum cover rating, and the second # being concealment. As far as I see if the terrains are abstracted then the computer is already using percent algorithms in providing abstract cover such as on the rocky terrain. So it is already there, but now the player gets it in a number they can follow. If many Cmx1 mindset players are having a hard time adapting then I think this would end any confusion they are having. If it were not there It doesn’t bother me either. Like I said I adapted, and learned more about the terrain, and got a mud tile that was more distinctive. This is the only terrain I have encountered unexpected problems at time before I changed the tile to something that stood out more so I could tell it was mud when viewing the terrain from further camera angles which is usually where I am in the game. I am more of an overhead player.

If you are having problems try some of these tips and I think you will feel more relaxed after some adjusting time.

[The Coil]

Full Disclosure: I'm a CMx1 player who gave CMSF a pass. In the bit I've played around with CMx2 I've struggled with this issue, hopefully with a (somewhat) open mind.

That said, I suspect the issue is a bit subtler than just the relative complexity of CMx2's terrain or intuitive vs. non-intuitive styles of players.

Say me and a buddy were looking at a muddy field. I say "Dude, no way you can make it across that in your pickup truck." He says, "I can make it no problem." So he jumps in his truck and drives across the field. The final arbiter is reality - he either makes it or gets stuck.

Now picture trying to code that same situation into a game - call it CMTS (C My Truck's Stuck) - and say the game designer's intention is to make it as realistic as possible. I say, "No way your truck makes it across that muddy terrain tile." He says "I can make it no problem." He drives his truck across the field. The final arbiter of what happens is no longer reality - it's an approximation of reality based on a third person - the game designer's assumptions about reality.

A muddy terrain tile still has a lot of uncertainties about it - does "muddy" imply damp dirt or 12 inches of thick mud? If me and the game designer were looking at the real life situation, is he more likely to be the guy saying "you'll never make it" or "I'll make it easily"? And so on. Any attempt to encode reality into a game is going to necessarily involve a hundred little assumptions like this, that everyone will have a different opinion on. When me and the game designer look at the same muddy terrain tile, we're going to almost certainly have two different judgments about the exact effect "muddy terrain" would have on a vehicle in reality. This is not a good or a bad thing, it's just the way it is.

So the user interface in all its particulars is really just a way for the game designer to clue the game player in about the judgments he made in designing the "under the hood" game. There are a variety of ways to do this, some of them more objective, some of them more subjective.

1) One of the more objective ways is give numbers:

This terrain provides 50% concealment.

You might think that clump of bushes would hide you 90% of the time. Someone else might think that clump of bushes is too small to hide you more than 30% of the time. It's probably impossible to tell what the correct value REALLY is in real life. By saying it provides 50% concealment, the game designer is, in effect saying: in my judgement, a clump of bushes represented like this in the game is a clump of bushes that will hide a person 50% of the time.

2) A step less objectively, the game designer can give you a description:

This terrain type provides "Good" concealment. Or "Poor" or whatever. Penetration chances in CMx1 worked like that. A little less precise, but it gives you a clue to how the designer is choosing to represent reality.

3) A big step further in the subjective direction is to let the graphics stand for themselves. It's muddy - treat it like you'd treat mud in real life. This introduces an uncertainty surrounding the limitations on graphically representing reality in a game. You don't know if 'muddy' is a little muddy or really muddy or somewhere in between. In the real world, you have a bunch of visual and other cues to determine how muddy 'muddy' is. In a game, you have to guess what the designer had in mind for muddy. The closer the graphical representation is, and the more subtle the gradations in terrain in-game are, the better this works. If you have terrain tiles for "light mud" vs. "moderate mud" vs. "heavy mud" that helps the player guess (and is really no different in effect than #2 above - saying you have a Good v. Moderate v. Low chance of bogging, or whatever). Of course, the more terrain types you have to distinguish grades of terrain, the greater the complexity for the player and the steeper the learning curve.

Even if you could, for instance, faithfully render graphically a field down to a photographic level of detail in game, so that you literally saw an exact visual representation, there would still be the issue of my interpretation of that field vs. the game designers.

Again, picture me and a buddy having the "can your truck get across that muddy field" argument. Represent it absolutely photographically faithfully in game form. Whether the truck gets across the field in game has nothing to do with whether it would get across the field in reality or how well I'm able to judge whether the truck would make it across the field in reality - it has everything to do with whether the game designer thinks it should make it across the field in reality.

In short (I know, too late for that) the issue is that in reality, there is one source of error - my judgment (based on the previous experience and knowledge I bring to the situation). In a game there are two sources of error - my judgment, and the game designer's judgment (really three - there's also the game designer's ability to make the game conform to his judgment).

I think what GAJ is really asking for is "1) Help me understand the reality you are trying to represent by giving graphics in the UI and 2) Help me eliminate the error associated with differences between the game designer's judgments about reality and my own."

The person who says "I have no idea how much woods terrain protects my men unless I'm given a number" underestimates how much the graphics can do to answer this question.

The person who says "Just look at the game and do what you would in reality" overestimates the power of the graphics to answer this question.

The reality is somewhere in the middle and exactly where it should be is really a matter of taste. It's worth noting that the more the game is set up for a player to intuit the game designer's decisions, the steeper the learning curve is going to be, as the player needs to gain enough experience in the "reality" of the game world in order to learn the game designer's underlying assumptions about reality. Whereas the more the game gives players objective style information about these assumptions, the easier it is for new players to break into the game. In the more intuitive style, new players are more apt to become frustrated and give up the game as they come across situations where their assumptions about reality diverge from the game designers.

My sense is from playing the game and from the discussions about it is that CMx2 is pretty far down the "intuitive" scale. This is neither good or bad in an objective sense. It does come with the reality that it places a high bar for entry into the game for new players.

[C'Rogers]

It's a good thing we all agreed bogging worked perfectly in CMx1.

Oh wait, we disagreed then too.

A lot of this thread is about things that were just as problematic as in CMx1. What was the concealment in scattered trees? What was coverage in a wheat field? How many meters can a unit see into a forest before line of sight is stopped?

Most of the issues brought up here were issues in CMx1, except people got use to them. The terrain is now more detailed and can't really be broken down into a simple 'what tile am I in'. Though you can just look at the map to give you a rough idea. Perfect, no, but I'd certainly say my 'educated guesses' about what the terrain does are a lot better than when I started CMx1.

[GreenAsJade]

I do agree that many of the things in this thread were problematic in CMx1 also.

And I agree with the people who are saying that many of these problems should not be solved by a tool. "What is the chance the truck will bog?" It's mud: you figure out it.

The question that CMBN presents is different. Its not "what will happen if I drive over this tile?"

The much simpler question is "what is this tile a picture of?".

If we take the truck example, we have to give the guys frosted glasses first. Now they are looking at a field but they can't really make out what is in it. For all its wonderful artwork, that's still what looking at a terrain tile is like. You know that some things that are pictured are bad news, but you don't know if you are looking at one of them. And, because you won't bog every time and you might bog even if it wasn't a nasty tile, it will take you a long time to work out which is which.

It is true that the artwork is good, and with a bit of determination and trust in the artist you can make many things out. That's good.

It's still the case that it would be darn handy to have a simple conformation somehow of what you are looking at on the base tile

I guess a mod could help: "distinctive terrain mod".

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Here is a good tip for the newbies to Cmx2 type terrain. Be confident that there still is abstraction within the terrains. Even though the terrain with rocks appears faux textured, but is flat it is simulating that the rocks are there. The same goes with trees. Even though the squad may not look graphically correct that he is right behind the tree he is still getting cover because he is on a tree tile.

Are you serious!?

I thought I'd read pages and pages of people saying that every bullet is tracked and if it intersects with a polygon it's blocked and if it doesn't then it isn't.

You are claiming the opposite: that somehow magically a bullet might not hit my guy on a treed tile even if I can't see a tree between him and the shooter. That is completely at odds with what lots of people have been saying.

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

I think what GAJ is really asking for is "1) Help me understand the reality you are trying to represent by giving graphics in the UI and 2) Help me eliminate the error associated with differences between the game designer's judgments about reality and my own."

The person who says "I have no idea how much woods terrain protects my men unless I'm given a number" underestimates how much the graphics can do to answer this question.

The person who says "Just look at the game and do what you would in reality" overestimates the power of the graphics to answer this question.

I only just absorbed this bit properly. This is spot on.

GaJ

[Battlefront.com]

Are you serious!?

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's entirely correct

I thought I'd read pages and pages of people saying that every bullet is tracked and if it intersects with a polygon it's blocked and if it doesn't then it isn't.

Yes, but it's also been pointed out that "micro terrain" is still an abstraction. Think about it... do you really think your computer has the horsepower to simulate every single leaf and twig in the real world? Every little tuft of grass, every rock? Of course not. Probably in 10 years this won't be the case. So to some extent terrain must be abstracted when compared to the real world. There's just absolutely no possibility of it being any other way.

Where the flexibility, from a sim standpoint, comes in is with larger, well defined pieces of terrain. Trees, for example, are explicitly simulated. If a guy is behind a tree visually, he's behind a tree visually. A bush is also explicitly simulated. If he's behind a bush visually, he's behind a bush. But if he's 95% behind a branch of a tree... does the game consider him 5% exposed? No, there's some degree of abstraction here.

What this means is what you see is almost nearly what you get. However, there is still a small amount of abstraction for what you can't see simply because no computer is capable of showing that level of detail. Which means CMx2 is vastly more literal than CMx1 (vastly), but not completely and utterly literal.

You are claiming the opposite: that somehow magically a bullet might not hit my guy on a treed tile even if I can't see a tree between him and the shooter. That is completely at odds with what lots of people have been saying.

That's because it's at odds with the way the game works And that's why this won't work...

Vinnart,

If a simple percent type system were added to the cursor to help the novice adapt it would not bother me. Say something like 35/70 is under cursor with the first # representing sum cover rating, and the second # being concealment. As far as I see if the terrains are abstracted then the computer is already using percent algorithms in providing abstract cover such as on the rocky terrain.

This isn't what the game does so it can't show the information like this. While it's true that a Tile does offer certain abstracted concepts of cover/concealment in some cases, the terrain within can vary radically. A Tall Grass Tile with no Trees, for example, is the same as a Tall Grass Tile with 3 Trees. Except if you've got a guy behind a Tree or a tank is trying to move through it.

A better example of why a simplistic % system won't work is a Dirt Action Spot with a single Bush. Try and put a 2 man Sniper Team in there and the guys MIGHT go behind the Bush. Or they might not because maybe there's a ridge and they need to be "in front" of the Bush to actually see enemy targets. Now put a 7 man Weapons Team in there. What should the Cover/Concealment rating be for that Action Spot? There's no one right answer. ESPECIALLY when you consider that some terrain provides decent all round cover and concealment, such as Tall Grass, while others provide only limited angle cover and concealment, such as a Tree or a Wall.

Even in CMx1 this sort of overly simplistic presentation to a user wasn't useful. In CMx2 it goes from not useful to probably very misleading.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The person who says "I have no idea how much woods terrain protects my men unless I'm given a number" underestimates how much the graphics can do to answer this question.

The person who says "Just look at the game and do what you would in reality" overestimates the power of the graphics to answer this question.

Indeed. To continue with your phrasing:

The person who says "it is possible for the game to give me meaningful numbers which I can practically apply to my tactics" overestimates his ability to comprehend dozens of situationally specific variables required to have finite control of a microscopic decision.

My sense is from playing the game and from the discussions about it is that CMx2 is pretty far down the "intuitive" scale. This is neither good or bad in an objective sense. It does come with the reality that it places a high bar for entry into the game for new players.

Yes, that is true. Real life is complex, therefore the more realistic a game is the less capable it is of being simplified in a meaningful way.

I've not said this in a long time, but the #1 philosophy that makes a simulation work well is to keep the game elements balanced with each other. CMx1 had very abstracted terrain, units, fire effects, etc. CMx2 has less abstraction across the board, which makes it more realistic across the board. Mixing and matching elements doesn't work. Unfortunately for some, this means gaining desirable behavior in some places and less desirable behavior in others because one can't exist without the other.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and to add to my post above my previous one...

Remember that unlike CMx1, which had all units simulated to be at a specific height 100% of the time (with modifiers for stance), in CMx2 we have 5 or 6 heights (depending on how you count) for a specific unit. Think about an Action Spot of Tall Grass. How much is a soldier is concealed when he's prone... 100% Concealment. Great, but what if he's kneeling? Maybe it's 50%. What if the guy's standing? 0% because effectively having shins covered up doesn't do squat. So what does the mouse cursor show when you put it over that Action Spot? 100%, 50%, or 0%? Take an average and go with 50%? Well, that doesn't seem to be useful because a Heavy Forest Action Spot might provide 50% cover to even standing soldiers, so now you're confusing the player into thinking the two are roughly equal when they aren't.

Take this and add it to the factors I mentioned above. Also add to this the fact that unit type is very important. A 3 Man Scout Team can get a lot more cover out of a little patch of terrain than an AT Gun with a 5 man crew, not to mention a big tank. So there's that to consider on top of everything else. Along with the fact that if you put a 7 man Team into an Action Spot it's pretty much a bet that some will be Prone, some Kneeling, and perhaps even one or two occasionally standing. So how is that conveyed to the player.

Then there's the question about what Cover means. What does Cover mean against a 9mm pistol? What does cover mean against a .50 cal round? What does cover mean against a Variable Timed 155mm round? What about a direct fired 37mm cannon round? And what does range and other conditions do to influence this notion?

How about what Concealment means? In foggy conditions at night pretty easy to be concealed for pretty much anything. What if the enemy is using night vision (not so much an issue for WW2, of course!)? What if the enemy is using binoculars during the day? What if the enemy saw you move into that Action Spot vs. you walking up blindly to an enemy pre-positioned and previously unobserved?

And add to that... probably another half dozen things I haven't even thought of!

If someone thinks this can be presented in a useable numerical format... they're nuts

So let's please, please, please take any notion of numbers being a) possible or practical or even c) useful right off the table. It's simply not possible. Period. Wasn't even possible for CMx1, and that was a vastly more simplistic.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Steve,

great explanations, very insightful, thanks. Especially the last example demonstrates the huge leap forward the CM2 engine is.

But how about helping the user to focus on ground conditions, if they change? For example the player can't see by the graphics alone, when the parameters of the ground conditions for the engine are changing, do we?

There are so many different possibilities: If ground has dryed for months a rain that just started could mean nothing. If it had rained for weeks and the sun comes out for three days, everything can look dry, but ground still is soft. Or it could already be hard but a rain again, could change that within minutes.

Even in reality with the unlimited range of textures, this can't be seen just by visuals. And even less in any game, with textures being a costly resource.

Could you please shed some light on this topic, how this could be handled from the player and/or from the game?