Jump to content

How to recognise terrain?


Recommended Posts

I think a few things have become clear, and hard to argue with:

- It's pointless to try to supply to the gamers an indication of what might

happen in given terrain (% to bog or whatever). It's complicated, suck it and

see, it should be reasonably realistic.

- Major terrain features are modelled, so if you see the guy not behind something,

then he's not behind it. The cover you get in woods is due to the actual

tree trunks getting in the way, not an abstraction of them for the tile.

- It would be helpful to tell the gamer what the basic tile type is. There are enough

of them and they are visually beautiful and therefore not especially distinct from

one another. Whether/when BFC get around to it is of course up to them. It just

would be helpful, that's all.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Yes, but up only up to a point. Remember that a significant proportion of the tankers in the invasion force had very little experience, and those that had already seen the elephant had done so in North Africa or perhaps Italy, which are two very different theatres to Normandy.

And even if you had seen a bit of action, it doesn't necessarily indicate that you won't be unlucky on your choice of route. I used to think that trackled vehicles could go anywhere - however in the last couple of years of my TA life I was in an MLRS battery. We thought we could go anywhere - we soon lost that quaint notion. Tracked vehicles ARE better than wheeled vehicles, but they can't walk on water and it's so easy to throw a track.

Heres a quote from Mailed Fist - an account from a Churchill tank troop leader.

"We had expected the start to be slow for us, because we were scheduled to wait around quite bit whie the funnies cleared lanes through the minefield. But bit by bit reports came back over the radio indicating that it wasn't the mines which were causing the delay, but mud.

The smooth green turf quickly churned up into black, track-clinging mud. One by one the Churchills sank on their bellies, their tracks spinning uselessly around in the bog.

So the 'green grass' tile has actually turned into mud and bogged half the squdron - at least BF haven't done that to us have they?:D

What I hope to get across is that there is nothing certain in life, and that applies to getting a troop of tanks across a field. The extract is from near the end of the book and they are breaking into the Reichswald, so by this time they are quite experienced.

So if the real tankies in WW2 had to get on with the limited information they had why should we expect anything more in a WW2 game for PC's?

And I do appreciate that AFV's are very precious resources, but sometimes you've just got to go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

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

So let's please, please, please take any notion of numbers being a) possible or B) 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

No quibble with regards to request for such numbers being provided; however, I'm not sure that most the folks in this thread were asking for precise quantification of concealment/cover factors for every pixel on the map I took it that the main thrust was for some very basic information such as: is this low bocage, mud, open terrain, light trees, etc., that would be reflected by the targeting cursor. It may be that such a feature isn't deemed worth the effort, but it is not the same thing as a bunch of number crunchers demanding exact quantification on every input in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's worked for me so far as simply been using common sense when looking at terrain and what I am trying to accomplish tbh. If there is anything imo that could use some help it's some sort of contour map for the deployment phase. I find it a pita to find good ground on maps with bocage in them. Channeling is one thing but even those fields with bocage around them have slight elevations and so forth in them which makes it hard to find good defensive positions etc. The rest of the terrain I have found to be pretty self explanatory. Tall fields make great concealment but don't stop much in the way of anything higher in caliber than spitballs. Trees stop tank rounds but houses made out of wood don't and so forth. Common sense to me and when I am not 100% sure it's called playing the odds. Even the best generals had to do it sometimes as there is no such thing as a perfect plan based on perfect intel. In other words I think the game provides plenty of feedback regarding terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the mouse cursor give some sort of terrain feedback is a bit tricky too. Not impossible, as is with a numerical approach, but still difficult. The reason is that terrain types can be combined within one Action Spot. For example:

Tall Grass

Tall Bocage

3x Trees

Or:

Dirt

Bocage

Fence Opening

2x Trees

This is a little unwieldy from a UI point of view in some ways. An artistic approach, such as CMBB/AK, is out as it's too much for us to cope with graphically. Having text associated with the mouse would probably be pretty distracting. About the only idea I can come up with is having it be an optional display similar to what Soldier's actions look like.

I'll float this by Charles and see what he thinks. I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. I do know, however, that we have a lot of things on our ToDo List and I don't expect this will be put right up at the top. At least not right away.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for considering it Steve!

FWIW, for me, the only thing that I think is not completely obvious from the wonderful artwork is "what is the underlying terrain tile".

So the only thing I'd like to see at the end of my pointer is "Tall Grass" or "Dirt" in the two examples you gave.

(In fact, is tall grass a basic tile, or is it "on top of" the underlying thing? IE can you have tall grass on mud? If you can, then the thing to tell us would be "mud". We can see the grass :) )

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for considering it Steve!

FWIW, for me, the only thing that I think is not completely obvious from the wonderful artwork is "what is the underlying terrain tile".

So the only thing I'd like to see at the end of my pointer is "Tall Grass" or "Dirt" in the two examples you gave.

(In fact, is tall grass a basic tile, or is it "on top of" the underlying thing? IE can you have tall grass on mud? If you can, then the thing to tell us would be "mud". We can see the grass :) )

GaJ

They actually all, aren't they? You can create the bocage tile then the tall grass and then 3x trees. Or you can start with the 3x tress etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would work for me. Been doing some testing and now have fair idea of the chance to bog based on ground condition, weather and most importantly terrain type (mud, grass, plowed field…).

Thanks for considering it Steve!

FWIW, for me, the only thing that I think is not completely obvious from the wonderful artwork is "what is the underlying terrain tile".

So the only thing I'd like to see at the end of my pointer is "Tall Grass" or "Dirt" in the two examples you gave.

(In fact, is tall grass a basic tile, or is it "on top of" the underlying thing? IE can you have tall grass on mud? If you can, then the thing to tell us would be "mud". We can see the grass :) )

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, for me, the only thing that I think is not completely obvious from the wonderful artwork is "what is the underlying terrain tile".

I personally don't think that's useful enough to implement. Knowing what the underlying terrain types is can be quite easily figured out by looking in the Editor and getting to know the basic ones by sight, then realizing that some are just artistic variations. For example, Tall Yellow Grass and Tall Grass are functionally the same. The Crops are functionally the same.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the mouse cursor give some sort of terrain feedback is a bit tricky too. Not impossible, as is with a numerical approach, but still difficult. The reason is that terrain types can be combined within one Action Spot. For example:

Tall Grass

Tall Bocage

3x Trees

Or:

Dirt

Bocage

Fence Opening

2x Trees

This is a little unwieldy from a UI point of view in some ways. An artistic approach, such as CMBB/AK, is out as it's too much for us to cope with graphically. Having text associated with the mouse would probably be pretty distracting. About the only idea I can come up with is having it be an optional display similar to what Soldier's actions look like.

I'll float this by Charles and see what he thinks. I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. I do know, however, that we have a lot of things on our ToDo List and I don't expect this will be put right up at the top. At least not right away.

Steve

Steve, thanks for clarifying things by giving more “under the hood explanation of the engine” so that we may better understand it more from viewing just its face.

When I was talking about combining the terrain into values I was just thinking of the terrain tile itself, not the action spot of the units as with the 2 men behind a bush, or 8 men behind a bush. I'm just talking about a value say like on a scale.

Realizing that having the cursor tied with a bunch of text will clutter the cursor. A numerical value is more concise in aesthetics.

Here is further thought on how I was thinking a number value system might work looking at it in its most simple form which is layer by layer staring with the base tile. Of course this system may not be right on the money but could give a general value scale comparison.

On a scale to 0 to 100 lets say a base terrain tile is given a cover rating. For arguments sake lets say rocky is a 50 cover and 50 concealment as compared to some open dirt which would be 0/0. So move the cursor over the tile rocky it says 50/50,. Move the cursor over the dirt it says 0/0. Now lets add some bushes, and lets say bushes are a value of 5/30. Add them to the rocky and now the cursor shows 55/80 showing that rocky with bushes is better than just rocky alone. Add the bushes to the open dirt, and it would read 5/30. Now lets add a 1xtree which will give 40/60 on its own. Add to the rocky with the bush now the cursor reads 95/100 with 100 being a max. All this to show that rocky + bushes is better than just rocky and so forth. May not be these exact numbers I’m throwing out but you get the point.

Like you said the number of men and the action spot space may not jive perfectly and fit into a neat box, but perhaps terrain alone can using some similar method of simple scale of what you think that base terrain would give in cover compared to another, and add the layers up that way to land at a complete sum. Again i am cool with my navigation of the terrain as is, but just brainstorming in how to please everyone, and in this case it is the new player to CM or new to CMx2 in assurance that there is cover and concealment in the terrain even though currently there nothing telling you that. Just seeing a number association makes them feel more assured the troops are getting cover, and concealment.

Here is spreadsheet i kept from Cmx1 that someone put together. If a simple value is given then the layers can be added up, or averaged in comparison to other terrains. This grass is 5/5, that grass is bit higher 5/10 to just look at it as simply as possible. Again this is only in terms of what terrain is on that tile meaning the 2 guys are going to be better concealed than 8 behind the bush, but that doesn’t' change the rating in the terrain itself. Like I said it may not give the complete story of what is going on under the hood, but could give a general idea of what the layers offer in comparison to each other. Just ideas to throw out there.

exposure.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . .

I'll float this by Charles and see what he thinks. I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. I do know, however, that we have a lot of things on our ToDo List and I don't expect this will be put right up at the top. At least not right away.

Steve

Thanks for considering guys. I suppose with time and studying the editor one will eventually reach a point of familiarity where reading the terrain types may be second nature, but it would be nice to get this type of feedback upfront, if it's not too difficult/time consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With what I porposed above I would fit it in to show only in the LOS tool at the very bottom. It already has other stuff there like hull down. Another line of type isn't really going to make much difference in clutter. Since C&C only apply to infantry then I would just show if mud is there in a layer under the hull down info. This is the only terrain that caution is needed for vehicles as far as I see. I wouldn't mind the LOS cursor telling me that info so less accidents happen when plotting fast vehicle moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a scale to 0 to 100 lets say a base terrain tile is given a cover rating. For arguments sake lets say rocky is a 50 cover and 50 concealment as compared to some open dirt which would be 0/0. So move the cursor over the tile rocky it says 50/50,. Move the cursor over the dirt it says 0/0. Now lets add some bushes, and lets say bushes are a value of 5/30. Add them to the rocky and now the cursor shows 55/80 showing that rocky with bushes is better than just rocky alone. Add the bushes to the open dirt, and it would read 5/30. Now lets add a 1xtree which will give 40/60 on its own. Add to the rocky with the bush now the cursor reads 95/100 with 100 being a max. All this to show that rocky + bushes is better than just rocky and so forth. May not be these exact numbers I’m throwing out but you get the point.

I wish you would stop asking for this, at least in this thread.

It's already been explained that the way cover works is too complex to be meaningfully represented by a number.

This thread isn't even _about_ an indication for what kind of cover, or even what kind of movement risk a piece of terrain presents.

It is just about the much more simple what _is_ the underlying piece of terrain.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gaj, I am not asking for, or requesting any of this to be in the game as I have adapted to cmx2 terrain. I am fine with the way it is now, and I would consider this low on the to do list in regard to other feature additions that are more important IMO. If all your requesting is the base tile I don't think that info will really be much help to the player beyond pointing out mud, which one can miss and bog down in if they go too fast in their camera recon work. Other than that the tiles are obvious to me in the C&C they offer by just looking at the terrain IMO. There is no real difference, from open field, patch of dirt and many other base terrains regarding C&C. The only significance in a cover boost is rocky from my experience with CMSF, and of course other obvious layer additions that make terrains better I.E trees, wall, and those type of things.

These are simply brainstorming concepts. As complex as the system is what I describe breaks it down to its simplest form as I described in dealing with the LAYERS, which is what makes more of a difference than base alone. Knowing it is open patch of dirt is not significant. Knowing there are bushes , and a more denser grass than others there in that spot can. Knowing this type of tree vs another type a tree does. Not all trees give the same concealment, and so we can compare, and say this is better than that to convert to an arbitrary scale based on comparison alone.

You see in this way, as there is no difference between open field, and dirt in that they function basically the same way saying “open field”, or “dirt” in the cursor is the same as saying 0/0, and 0/0 in a numerical way since their qualities are basically the same. In this way it is possible to break down the terrain to simple arbitrary number scale based on best estimates on how one thing compares to another in function. These #’s would not be exact to the game, but give a ballpark. I liken this to the hit/armor mod that Marco made for CMBN. The color scale may not be totally accurate as it is more complex than breaking it down to simple color/numbers, but it gives a ballpark comparison to go by which can be more helpful than nothing at all. Often times there is a simple under the complex. Every 3d object you see in the world no matter how complex it may seem can be broken down to simple forms such as cubes, and cylinders. If one can see the simple under the complex one can draw anything. This is my approach to the concept idea I put out there.

I say again I think this is low on the list of to do's and is of no importance to me , but is to give the new player the assurance that the terrain works even though currently one gets no info on the terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinnart, the problem with your approach is that, in the CMx2 engine, units benefit from all the cover that its between them and the units which are trying to see them/fire at them - so a cover/ concealment value based only on the layers present in their action spot is quit meaningless. For instance, a unit which sits at the edge of a field wouldn't get a lot of cover from enemies which are on the same side of the field, but would have a lot more cover from enemies sitting across the field.

Another issue I can think of, is that things like trees can apparently block or deflect bullets depending on their actual position on the map, and not just on which action spots they are in - so even the trees which are in your unit's action spot would give a different cover depending on which direction you are firing from...

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...