PC: Ostfront Vs CM: Normandy

[thewood1]

I think the issue a lot of people overlook is that newer 3D systems make it very difficult to generate random maps.  The level of detail is much greater in CM2 and PCO.  CM1 had 20m tiles for terrain.  SP was 50m hexes.  Dropping that to 1m tiles makes it much harder to generate reasonable maps.  I don't have much of an issue with no random maps, if the map builder is easy to use.  So far, CM2 and PCO are not as easy to learn as CM1 was.  But both are a lot more powerful than CM1.
 
btw, I always thought the CM1 map generator was pretty good.  I rarely scrapped a map.  TYhe only thing I have always wanted was a map preview.

[dieseltaylor]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Combat Mission has them, Steel Panthers has them, the Total War series has them and I just don't see any unbelievable maps generated in any of them. Even so if it generated just 10 bad ones in a hundred it only takes seconds for the computer to generate one. I've seen 1000's of random generated battle maps and they look quite believeable to me and quite plausible.

Diablo1

Balls.

As someone who has travelled the world for some decades and studied geography to an advanced level I can very confidently say that computers  generate very unlikely maps. The CM series map generator could only be reliable in rural landscapes. Anything requiring the addition of man-made structures began to increase the unlikely level. Basically the more "cluttered" the scenery the more likely that it would become a reject map to the extent that the CM village maps could bat an implausability rate nearing 100%.

[Arctic Blast]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

Want random maps? Pick what other element of the game you don't want. And yes, that is what it comes down to, because development resources are finite.

Ok I will the "waste of time creating grasses for the game". This whole patch/update has been delayed because of "grass" which is really ridicuous and unwarranted. Grass could be modded in by the players if any were so inclined or cared. So, I'll take my random battle maps created by the computer any day over silly grass modifications.

So, a change that alters the way cover will work, line of site will work and spotting will work is nothing to you? A change that will actually help allow infantry squads to sneak through grassland and the like...that's totally nothingness? I think it's fairly safe to say that you're the outlier here when it comes to which feature most people looking forward to this game would prioritize.

Aside from that, even if it was 'just grass', there is no way in Hell that you could program an actually workable random map generator in the same amount of time it takes to put the 'just grass' in the game. A workable random map generator for a game in a fully 3D environment is not some simple little project that can be thrown together in a couple of weeks.

[diablo1]

A workable random map generator for a game in a fully 3D environment is not some simple little project that can be thrown together in a couple of weeks.

They've had 3 years so they've had plenty of time to put in a workable random map generator instead of silly grass which can be set on fire to take care of any line of sight bs. Some things are just silly to waste resources on and that in this particular case is "grass". i'm sure you will turn this statement around and call a random map generator silly but no matter it's just going to cost them sales is all. I don't know of ANYONE who's ever said. "I'm not buying that game because it doesn't have "grass". [:)]

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: diablo1
All I really see for not having them is lazy programmers who just don't want to write the code to implement them.

Those lazy programmers.

Day-O. Work all night an drink a rum. Daylight come they wan' go home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfxX1GjI ... re=related

[dieseltaylor]

Diablo is a troll.

He has been over at BF saying the same things about random maps lacking in CM:BN. And having pretty much the same answers as here. So it would seem he is just having "fun" rattling cages.
 

[Mad Russian]

Or random maps really are important to him and other features are less important. I have no problem with his wanting random maps in the game. Where we part directions is that they aren't in the game. When he asked me why not and I gave him the answer that's not what he wanted to hear.

I can't change what's in the game. At this time nobody is going to. Will there be a random map generator in the next game of series. Probably not because of the resources it would take to make that happen. BUT never underestimate the skill of those gamers that are playing. Stridor for one may do one as a mod. I've seen him do amazing things before. He may not either. It depends on his time and what he wants to do with it.

A feature that single gamer wants to have may not ever get done. But if others joined in asking for it you never know. The Beta team was surprised at how many of their comments became features.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

I'm not too enthused about random imaginary maps. That is old legacy gaming. I think at some point in the future there could be random maps made of actual battlefields. Maybe it could start small. A data base of a 30 x 30 km area where every house, woods, road and stream is catalogued. This is placed on the actual contours. Then the map generator randomly selects a 2 x 2 area and makes a map from it.

[Yoozername]

I agree with Mobius.  I was an army cartographer and the lay of the land is not random.  I suppose if one HAS to have 'unique' terrain to fight on, then the computer program would select elevation and hills, etc followed by still/meandering water features and then woods and other vegetation based on the previous two features and then roads/buildings etc. based on some sensible layout. 
 
If one looks at real maps and real terrain, you see why trees/vegetation grow in a wild state as they do.   They avoid wind, they like some sun and water.  Its not rocket science.

[Mad Russian]

I agree with that as well. IMO, that's what has made random maps in the past unbelievable. The terrain is for the most part, random.

Roads also have a reason why they are laid out the way they are. A bend in the road is there for a reason. It may be long gone now or the reason may still be there. 300 years ago there could have been a huge tree there and the road went around it. Today that tree is no longer there.

Good Hunting.

MR

[gijas17]

I dont understand who wouldn't want a accurate map to fight on especially if it's based on real earth topography? I mean I much rather play on a map that has the same layout in the land as the real battle location did some 70 years ago than a random fantasy map would? And with the map editor thingy using google earth you could create any map on the earth to your hearts content I assume? That would be considered random as you could name it map 1 or map x and create a dozen or so maps like that. By the time you get around to playing then you most likely have forgotten what each one looks like especially with generic names.

[Yoozername]

The holy grail would be to get the overlapping flight photos that were used to make the orig. maps.  With today's technology, they could be scanned and superior game maps could be made.
 
 

[Mad Russian]

You can use any kind of map. A topo map or a recon map. Where the MM using GE really comes in handy is making the height map. The height of the terrain should be relatively unchanged for the most part.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

I take it then, that you can generate a game map from a topo map and get the elevations from using colours on the elevation lines from the topo.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I take it then, that you can generate a game map from a topo map and get the elevations from using colours on the elevation lines from the topo.

You should certainly be able to do that. MM actually uses DEMs to create the heightmaps, but you can create your your own heightmap and inport it in. It also has heightmap sculpting tools for fine tuning it.

Thanks
Rick

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
I take it then, that you can generate a game map from a topo map and get the elevations from using colours on the elevation lines from the topo.

No not lines, but shades of gray. Digital height data is translated to make a grayscale bmp. That is used for input for the map.

[dieseltaylor]

I do have concerns that in a drive for really accurate maps the limitations of the game system become more obvious. Absolute accuracy really must be secondary to player enjoyment.

Lets say I can now do different graded slopes so well that the generic game engine for vehicles climbing slopes comes into question. How many WW2 games actually model for this. Possibly by type - its a lorry it cannot do it etc. But what about tanks. The Churchill was famous for its ability to go where other tanks could not. A very useful tactical advantage used in North Africa and in Italy.

We might all agree that having it included would be accurate and desirable but at some stage we the size of the game and the computational power required might need to be considered - and not forgetting it needs commercial appeal to novice new gamers.

[Mad Russian]

The physics of vehicle performance has been included. A vehicle's power to weight ratio is a part of the basic information gathered for each vehicle.

I think what you will begin to find as more accurate maps are made is why some places are fought over and others are not. Take an attack on a village for instance it has soft ground on one side, with a steep slope hill behind it. On the other side is a road. The original attack took place down the road. You may begin to see why.

Just as roads are laid out in a path for a reason, battles are fought in places for a reason and terrain is a major reason.


Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

We have a physics engine that takes into account the horsepower rating in the unit xml. Some units climb slopes better than others.

Edit: MR beat me by that much lol

[dieseltaylor]

Tsk tsk lads. As though I am not familiar with power to weight! I feel insulted : )

Power to weight is way too simplistic to reflect terrain performance. Track pressure - that is psi. is also highly important. But not totally as most of us will know the MkIV lang was terribly nose heavy. Its average weight was irrelevant as was BHP given the very high ground pressure at the nose. Incidentally the cannon length is also a problem though I doubt that has been yet modelled for any game!.

The Churchill was good because it was as long as a Tiger and the tracks were equally long as the tank. Designed for crossing trenches and going over embankments. I cannot recall another tank with those attributes. Also it had a very large number of rollers to keep the tracks to the ground - which did also mean it could have several shot away and still be mobile.