We need maps like this....

[HercMighty]

We need maps like this. So much easier to see the lay of the land without trying to make sense of contour lines. Movement of pieces would not change, but you get a better picture of the terrain this way.

[Mehring]

I have to say, I can't see any improvement here over the existing maps. What might improve maps IMO, is replacing the plateau depictions with colour graduated elevation depictions. That might clearly depict both elevation, gradient and direction of slope. I'm not sure if there are enough shades of colours to make this work, but it might be worth investigating.

[JudgeDredd]

No...no...no...that map has it's roots in hex based systems.

I will agree, HercMighty, that the maps need clarifying...they are very beautiful, but not very easy to "read the lay of the land"...but the map you showed seems to be from a hex based system, and that clearly doesn't suite this game engine.

If your intention was to highlight the fact that the game maps need clarifying, then I would agree...the user needs an easier way of looking and seeing the lay of the land...but if you were suggesting the map you presented should be used as a basis for this then I think, with this game engine, it would not work.

But you're main point is accepted....more could be done to allow the user a quick assessment of the lay of the land.

[HercMighty]

Yes, these are from a hex based game. But what I like what they have done is raised each elevation to give it a 3D look. Now you can see with a glance that hill, or valley. No more trying to discern elevation changes by the color of the ground, you can see the 3D effect of the ground being raised instead.

Its more of the idea of the 3D elevation depiction than the actual map depicted above that I am trying to show.

[Abalieno]

Imho there's nothing wrong with the maps. Elevation is actually easy to understand, and for slopes you use the LOS tool.

What the game needs is status icons for the units to see at a glance what is going on (bonuses and maluses due to terrain and so on), and a campaign mode to connect the battles like the Close Combat series.

[Mehring]

I don't think elevation is easy to understand at all. There is, from memory, 100m difference between contours (maybe it varies from map to map) but that gives no indication as to the real nature of the terrain between those contours. It would be foolish to assume that all terrain rose between, say, the 100m and 200m contour lines. If it does, it's very unrealistic. Real terrain often undulates and a rise of even 50m, which would only be partly revealed by right clicking the map, creates both a LOS advantage and obstacle, also a significant movement obstacle to plan for. Because blind areas are created by sharp depression as well by elevations, it leaves really too much for a player to try to interpret.
 
The orders a player issues are fashioned by his conception of the land his forces move and fight over. You might argue that a colour graduated scheme would give a player too much understanding of the land, removing the "fog of terrain" which would realistically hinder a commander. If it were possible, and I'm in no way sure that it is, I'd favour a colour graduated scheme in areas where, say, HQ or  recce tasked units have LOS, filled in by the existing map scheme where they do not. This would be dynamic and such tasked units could "fill in" the detail of the map as they moved around.

[Johnus]

I cringe looking at the map provided by HercMighty. But I must admit that I can understand the elevations with such a map. I am really lost with elevations on the exiting COTA maps, LOS tool notwithstanding.

[FredSanford3]

Why not just go 3D? I believe that's the direction that graphics have decidely moved towards. If not, one feature I'd like is the ability to toggle hard, bold contour lines. I think much of the percieved problem is a matter of being able to see the sometimes subtle change in color between contours. This is especially true when broken or wooded terrain is superimposed. Interpreting contour information to visualize what the 'lay of the land' is, based upon the contour shapes and presence of streams, etc., is a learned skill.

I don't see how a "layer cake" elevation map will create more realistic LOS interactions. Just the opposite IMO.

I also believe the game engine calulates spot elevations based upon non-linear numerical interpolation between the [100m e.g.] established contour lines. LOS checks are spot shot interference checks made along the LOS vector at specific intervals from the observer unit to the target. Obstacle heights at these spots is also taken into account in the interference calculation. Since all of that is predicated on the contour line 'height' and geometry, there is no way to derive undulations that are within the specified contour elevation interval [again, say a 100m interval]. The data doesn't exist to tell the engine 'hey there's a 53m (or any sub-100m) lump in the ground between this guy and that guy. The only way to do that would be to decrease the contour interval and that would dramatically increase the processor load.

For practical game checking besides the LOS tools, you can check in on unit logs to see if they report "engaging" recently.

[Arjuna]

Actually, just as in real life terrain maps, the contour intervals are approximations of the lay of the land. When a map is created and the CalTerrainMap function run over it, it runs an algorythm that turns the contour layer into a series of spot heights - one per 100m grid. Eg if you have three contour layers, lets say at 80, 60 and 40m, then you will find that the spot hights will vary somehwere between 40 and 80 depending on the slope of the land at that point. So while the current location may look to be smack in the middle of the 60m layer, the spot hight may be 73m for instance.
 
The above map, by the way, has only two contour intervals and so its relatively easy to draw a 3D looking shadow. But you couldn't do this where you have many contour intervals in close proximity such as in the Tempe gorge scenario where the river cuts through the mountains.
 
I agree that it would be nice to make the differentation between layers better. If we were drawing the map in DX rather than MFC we could do a few more things to improve this. But ultimately I would like to have a 3D option. I would like to support more altitude layers too. The current restriction is due to the earlier requirement to save RAM and hence we crammed the data into bits and restricted the total data size. That's not so important nowdays. I would like to use use standard GIS data formats that can support virtually an unlimited number of contours and it would enable us to export and import GIS terrain data.

[06 Maestro]

The current maps provided are very close to real military style maps. When I'm playing super commander, that is what I want in my CP. If I'm playing a game of an aviator on green windowpane (a type of acid), I would welcome the 3d map suggestion. This is the only operational game that I know of with real maps-no need to downgrade this system.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

The current maps provided are very close to real military style maps. When I'm playing super commander, that is what I want in my CP. If I'm playing a game of an aviator on green windowpane (a type of acid), I would welcome the 3d map suggestion. This is the only operational game that I know of with real maps-no need to downgrade this system.

Ai,Ai.

Besides, adding 3d maps would only add further PC requirements, would not enhance at all the wargaming experience, and would turn this engine into some sort of miniatures game... (1 less costumer here)

[captskillet]

green windowpane (a type of acid),

COTA while tripping..............I bet you'd come up with some interesting plans !!!!!!![;)] [:D]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

green windowpane (a type of acid),

COTA while tripping..............I bet you'd come up with some interesting plans !!!!!!![;)] [:D]

Whoa, I did not even consider that possibility. I can picture someone morphing into Gollum; "my precious"-it could be scary.

HercMighty, the map is not a bad looking map, I just don't think it is for CotA.

[Pergite!]

A TacOps map eh?
 
I really like the COTA maps, the game has the best looking maps for any wargame I know, not to mention variety of map mods out there.

[Abalieno]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

If it does, it's very unrealistic. Real terrain often undulates and a rise of even 50m, which would only be partly revealed by right clicking the map, creates both a LOS advantage and obstacle, also a significant movement obstacle to plan for. Because blind areas are created by sharp depression as well by elevations, it leaves really too much for a player to try to interpret.

But you don't go complaining about elevation realism in TOAW, for example. Because that game doesn't even use elevation.

At the end a game is an abstraction, and I think the abstraction COTA offers is enough and doesn't need any more tiny detail added. The map in the example shows TWO binary elevations, the maps used in COTA show a whole lot more once you know how to read them. The approximation *between* contour lines isn't a relevant detail from my point of view and shouldn't affect the gameplay because, again, we play with an approximation. What matters is the system, the rules and so on. You could add more and more detail, but would it really make a better game or one that is just more confused?

COTA's main "flaws" are elsewhere, especially to new players. For example the lack of "feedback" on what is going on and how/why things happen in certain ways. That's why I suggested to add status icons that at a glance and with a tooltip would deliver more promptly the information to a player and understand better the effects of the terrain and other things on the concrete performance in a battle.

Add icons that show the effects of the terrain, like EXPLICIT active cover bonuses, movement handicaps, time of the day effects and so on. THAT would help a lot making things more readable.

I don't think it should be hard to display on the sidebar an icon that says what your bonuses are if your division is dig in a town. If I'm a new player I can GUESS that it has a positive effect, but an icon that shows the exact value would help a lot understanding the rules of the game, and so learning to play it better.

[Abalieno]

P.S.
And if you really wanted an useful tool I also don't think it would be hard to feed the real map data to a very simple wireframe tool that would give the physical representation of a zone. You would keep the current map style and simply pop-up the wireframe window if you were confused.

That would display the EXACT way the terrain is seen by the system. Whatever isn't displayed would be part of the approximation and so not considered by the rules.

[Arjuna]

Great discussion/feedback guys. Much appreciated.

HRose,

I'm struggling to understand exactly what you mean by displaying icons in the sidebar to show the effects of terrain. I realise a picture's worth a thousand words. Could you mock something up to give me a better idea.

BTW we already provide a terrain popup tool when you right click on the map. This shows the effects of the current location on movement, and on direct and area fire. See screen dump below. So what more details do you want to see? ANd when do you want them displayed - ie what triggers their display?

[nicdain]

Personally I find COTA maps OK. Maybe because I work with maps and I am used to this layout.

Anyway, if I could improve their look, I could suggest a "hillshade" effect (like the one in the attached figure) which enhance the appearance of landscape, with the elevation ranges colors superimposed.

An additional helpful feature (with the ability to turn it on or off) could be contour lines with an variable interval depending on the scale of visualization.

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: HRose
Add icons that show the effects of the terrain, like EXPLICIT active cover bonuses, movement handicaps, time of the day effects and so on. THAT would help a lot making things more readable.

I don't think it should be hard to display on the sidebar an icon that says what your bonuses are if your division is dig in a town. If I'm a new player I can GUESS that it has a positive effect, but an icon that shows the exact value would help a lot understanding the rules of the game, and so learning to play it better.

Not sure.
A commander IRL does not have a table of ground effects. He DOES guess that dug-in in town has a positive effect. His knowledge of that comes from his training. You may be correct in that new players need more/better training.
CRTs/TMCs would take this game from being the closest to reality you can get, to something as ordinary as most hex based offerings.
A compromise between our two positions may be to have a training mode which does in fact provide ALL possible data.

[chrisol]

I agree with RayWolfe here (very much as a newbie speaking)... when I wonder what might happen in COTA I think "what does this look like on the ground" - eg some buildings for protection, a slope down over broken ground which might give an approaching enemy a little cover from fire, and a dip into the valley (on the LOS tool) which means not much will be seen over the brow of the hill.

I think that this is a triumph of wargaming !

The last thing I want (unless I get really desperate) is to know about the "rules" and "hexes" - that "this terrain marking gives a 20% reduction in a mathematical calculation of indirect fire" or that "the reason that wood's a funny shape is because hexagons are the highest sided regular figure that will tessellate so I better just live with it" etc.

Just let me think about how it was for the people there...

Thanks for all your work

Chris