Idea for terrain Fog of War?

[Steiner14]

In the thread about "Impenetrable Bocage" i stumbled across this post of Vark:

...

Would it ever be possible to have a future CM where attacker and defender are given different maps, especially if the defender has had time to recce and enhance the natural defences? the true nature of the terrain would then be revealed, rather like spotting an enemy unit. There was a thread about a Panther hitting an ATG through a forest, defenders often remove blocking vegitation, small trees etc to create just these lines of sight, which to an attacker looked blocked, it would be nice if this could be simulated.

Could that be a possible solution for T-FOW: each side has it's own map; scenario designers specify the areas or elements for each side on the map, that can be seen at the beginning?

[RockinHarry]

I like any such ideas that improve realism. +1

COBFTB (..well, Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge) at least allows manual setting of "known" or spotted enemy units before battles. Nonetheless, so far I find the random pre battle intel option in CMN quite a big improvement. Random stuff improves replayability, although as scenario designer one wishes to set certain details manually and have it "fixed" for a given battle.

Terrain, that I´d like to see applied FOW, would be fords, bridges (impassable, damaged, ok) and "soft", bad going terrain. Generally things you need to get a foot on, or have very close ground observation on.

While it seems almost impossible to code for the strat and also tac AI to deal with, why not implement any such stuff for non-AI play?

With BFC current focus on RT and play vs. AI, I generally see bad times for real WEGO/H2H improvements in the near future though.

[dakuth]

Ultimately I think H2H will be the driving focus for the future of the game. It always will be - both in this game and others. Playing the AI is fun and all, but the guys that hang around for months and years playing the same game are nearly always the guys playing Multiplayer.

This game is a little unique in that the TacAI needs tweaking along the way to make for a solid MP game, but you know what I mean.

[sonar]

Can't known positins just be dealt with in the briefing, ie " we think the enemy have set up an mg in the barn to cover the crossroads and there is an AT position just left of the bridge on the opposite bank" This would be much more realistic and gives more of a back story to the mission. It is also something I would like to see scenario builders use more, rather than the usual, which is to give you a rundown on the enemy forces then leave it at they are "somewhere " to your front.

[womble]

Can't known positins just be dealt with in the briefing, ie " we think the enemy have set up an mg in the barn to cover the crossroads and there is an AT position just left of the bridge on the opposite bank" This would be much more realistic and gives more of a back story to the mission. It is also something I would like to see scenario builders use more, rather than the usual, which is to give you a rundown on the enemy forces then leave it at they are "somewhere " to your front.

If there's a known position, it'd be likely they'd give it a reference "The Old Barn", "The west bridge" which could be marked on the map as a landmark, to avoid too much flannelling in the actual briefing test.

[Vark]

Sonar, it not really dispositions on the map, it's the map itself; boggy ground, not marked on the map, the undergrowth/small trees cleared by the defenders to make lanes of fire, but that look like LOS blockers to attackers, small undulations in the ground, BUA etc. The map view could have different modes, like the game, basic, would allow both players the same map, Iron would show only detailed terrain to the defender, for example. I'm always struck, when reading accounts, of how knowledge (local or recce aquired) of the terrain is a force multiplier, which in extremes allows peasants with flintlocks to dispatch elite paratroops in Crete.

[RockinHarry]

As for unmarked "boggy ground", a map maker could paint any terrain type with an invisble bog layer, adding certain % of bogginess to the terrain. Thus you can paint obvious areas (riversides, wet pastures, fields ect.) independently from general ground condition settings. Using the ugly mud tile for such cases obviously is no option (no FOW, ugly mud tile replaces what rather should look like simple grass, field, muddy road...).

Think most coding efforts would go into the editors interface and having the bog chances applied and set to single action spots less so.

CMN already works with various layers (setup zones, terrain objectives, order zones), so implementing different, simple purpose layers shouldn´t be that difficult.

In another thread I also mentioned "sound FX" layers, that enables certain sound zone layers painted on the map and when the game camera moves close, or into them, certain sounds could be triggered (see Men of War & ARMA) or altered (reverb sound for inhouse or city fights, ect.).

[Noltyboy]

How about the areas that are not "spotted" by a unit are represented by a "map" style terrain. I.E. it shows the basic 3D terrain (as map contours would give this away anyway) with period map markings for woods, marshes, buildings, and so forth.

This coupled with sensible scenario design, such as basic premises that soft ground will be in low lieing areas and so on, would mean that we could give good guesses which is the best routes to go but still with the odd "surprise" terrain. Terrain could also be switched between "known on map" and "unknown on map" for surprises and enemy created changes to the landscape. or switched between map and normal 3D for pre scouted land.

"intel" spotted units can be marked on the "map" also with period map markers instead of the usual "!" marker.

[Cymru]

Overall, it would seem to me that the Germans would know more about the local terrain, at least in the first few weeks. Most of them have been there for some time and have had plenty of opportunity to scout it out in detail. The Allies have to depend on various forms of reconnaissance, with the occasional friendly local helping out.

[slysniper]

Ultimately I think H2H will be the driving focus for the future of the game. It always will be - both in this game and others. Playing the AI is fun and all, but the guys that hang around for months and years playing the same game are nearly always the guys playing Multiplayer.

This game is a little unique in that the TacAI needs tweaking along the way to make for a solid MP game, but you know what I mean.

this is true, but the company makes most of its money on all them players that buy it, play the AI and then move onto something else. I am sure that Steve pointed out at one time how small of the percentage is of players that will play Multi player.

[Sarge]

i don't recall the game, but i always liked it that the 'map' was not revealed until you had units entering it. so on setup, about 90% was just blank. then, as you 'moved' the next square - say about on a 100 squares map, the next 1 square would be defined.