Possible bug

[wodin]

I notice this awhile ago and have just remembered. A stream gives 1% motorized where as a minor river gives 10%..surely this is the wrong way around?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I notice this awhile ago and have just remembered. A stream gives 1% motorized where as a minor river gives 10%..surely this is the wrong way around?

The amount of movement a unit is allowed across a watercourse is set by the person who designed the map inside the MapMaker program.

The CO engine uses the MapMaker's data to calculate movement.

[Fred Sanford]

Default for a minor river is 0% for motorized IIR. Can't cross except at bridges- this includes motorized supply BTW.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Fred Sanford

Default for a minor river is 0% for motorized IIR. Can't cross except at bridges- this includes motorized supply BTW.

What you're looking at is what MapMaker recognizes as data from the last map designed using the MapMaker before you opened it (my guess is some BftB design).

Classifying the movement effects for "streams," "minor rivers," and "major rivers" is still the purview of the map designer rather than the CO game engine.

Double click on a terrain type within MapMaker, and you see "map data" which can be altered by whomever decides to design a map for the game.

[navwarcol]

That is true, I have altered the movement on several maps, usually to experiment. It is really nothing to do with the game, itself.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I notice this awhile ago and have just remembered. A stream gives 1% motorized where as a minor river gives 10%..surely this is the wrong way around?

These settings do not appear on any of the stock maps that I have seen. Which map are you referring to?

[wodin]

Was the East Front maps I think.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Was the East Front maps I think.

We haven't checked those in close detail - this is clearly an oversight Let's see if I can find some time, review those maps and get back in touch with Chris regarding them.

EDIT: Or rather than further straining my limited time, could you navwarcol (or someone else) take a look at the maps with MapMaker and see what's going on? It would be greatly appreciated. I see that Chris is taking a break for a while on Command Ops, which is all natural with all those games out there (or close to be released!).

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: wodin

Was the East Front maps I think.

We haven't checked those in close detail - this is clearly an oversight Let's see if I can find some time, review those maps and get back in touch with Chris regarding them.

EDIT: Or rather than further straining my limited time, could you navwarcol (or someone else) take a look at the maps with MapMaker and see what's going on? It would be greatly appreciated. I see that Chris is taking a break for a while on Command Ops, which is all natural with all those games out there (or close to be released!).

The Stalingrad maps show motorized movement across streams as "5" and across minor rivers at "10".

If there are other CapHillRat East Front maps, I haven't downloaded the scenarios.

It would help narrow the issue that had to be corrected in the problem report if Wodin could identify the scenarios where he saw the disconnect.

Movement effects aren't simply by the terrain feature, but the condition of the climate when the terrain feature is encountered. There are some instances during the year on the east front where a heavily frozen minor river would be less an impediment to movement than a stream that routed through a narrow deep gully even if frozen.

I specifically recall that Lake Lagoda, which in normal command ops designs would be impassible, served as a Russian supply route to Leningrad during the winter because the freezing allowed a significantly heavy amount of road transport across the barrier from late fall to early spring.

Regardless, it isn't a "bug" but a decision by a map designer crafted from terrain, and climate which might modify how the terrain affects movement.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: wodin

Was the East Front maps I think.

We haven't checked those in close detail - this is clearly an oversight Let's see if I can find some time, review those maps and get back in touch with Chris regarding them.

EDIT: Or rather than further straining my limited time, could you navwarcol (or someone else) take a look at the maps with MapMaker and see what's going on? It would be greatly appreciated. I see that Chris is taking a break for a while on Command Ops, which is all natural with all those games out there (or close to be released!).

The Stalingrad maps show motorized movement across streams as "5" and across minor rivers at "10".

If there are other CapHillRat East Front maps, I haven't downloaded the scenarios.

It would help narrow the issue that had to be corrected in the problem report if Wodin could identify the scenarios where he saw the disconnect.

Movement effects aren't simply by the terrain feature, but the condition of the climate when the terrain feature is encountered. There are some instances during the year on the east front where a heavily frozen minor river would be less an impediment to movement than a stream that routed through a narrow deep gully even if frozen.

That's a very good point, Jim, dudn't think about that.

While doing our maps for Stalingrad I found that with our current resolution, with detailed enough source maps and some care tracing contours, one can capture balkas and (mapped) gullies quite well, that is, one gets slopes which are impassable for motorised forces. Both sides used those very peculiar terrain features as a covered approach of sorts, and some of them are big enough to accommodate forces as big as a regiment (notably between Spartanovka and the Dzerzhinsky Tractor Factory).

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

. . .


The Stalingrad maps show motorized movement across streams as "5" and across minor rivers at "10".

If there are other CapHillRat East Front maps, I haven't downloaded the scenarios.

It would help narrow the issue that had to be corrected in the problem report if Wodin could identify the scenarios where he saw the disconnect.

Movement effects aren't simply by the terrain feature, but the condition of the climate when the terrain feature is encountered. There are some instances during the year on the east front where a heavily frozen minor river would be less an impediment to movement than a stream that routed through a narrow deep gully even if frozen.

That's a very good point, Jim, dudn't think about that.

While doing our maps for Stalingrad I found that with our current resolution, with detailed enough source maps and some care tracing contours, one can capture balkas and (mapped) gullies quite well, that is, one gets slopes which are impassable for motorised forces. Both sides used those very peculiar terrain features as a covered approach of sorts, and some of them are big enough to accommodate forces as big as a regiment (notably between Spartanovka and the Dzerzhinsky Tractor Factory).

Though not necessarily affected by freezing, there were some streams in the Saipan map which had extremely steep banks but a map which reached heights requiring a rather large step between the allowable quantity of MapMaker contours (compared to US topographical map 10-foot ~3-meter) to reach the heights while still portraying a sea level baseline). A shorthand to portray that situation would be to make streamlines impassible even if the map contours implied a more gentle slope.

Didn't use it, but there are circumstances where it might be used by a map designer.

The deeper one goes into designing a scenario using the available tools the greater the admiration of the richness of the overall game package in reflecting reality (though at the moment creating Japanese force structures in Estabs and making manpower numbers balance has me wishing there isn't quite so much "richness" available to a designer [:D]).