Matrix Games Forums

Hello fellow wargamers. I have put together a small teaser screen for you guys to look at. This gives you an idea of what HnM3 will look like graphically, there is only minor terrain features in this screen. However I have a list here for you what it is in this screenshot.

Does it look better than HnM2 so far?

What you see in this screen is:

Top: Rough Ground

Middle: Shrubs

Lower Left: Three trees that represents Medium Hardwood in the editor.

Lower Right: Soft Ground

and last the cliff edges that borders to the next hex level of height in the upper right corner

Hi Magnus,
 
This looks really good.  Do you have any estimate as to when the new game will be released?  Also, I know there was a list of likely new terrain features, etc that was published here some time ago.  Do you have a good idea of how many of those features will actually be incorporated into the game?  Will dragoons be able to fight dismounted?  Any plans for more varied artillery?
 
Thanks,
Sumter

I have plans for more varied artillery, though not for the first two rereleases. Dragoons fighting dismounted I will include that if Tim allows it for Warriors of Russia. There are many new terrain features for the game. No estimate so far sorry Sumter.

Looks excellent!

The new terrains that were listed previously are all in the new games. No dismounted formation however.

Almost all variables are also ediable...even the threshhold to auto-activate and the # of turns between command phases.

Tim

looks nice, however I'm thinking there could from a game play standpoint, be a higher level of contrast, between the different terrain types. What I'm seeing is men, a house(and a very nice house at that) what could be a countour edge or a road or a ditch. then subtly different patches of green. Realisim from a game play stand point is not always the best target;^)

Looks excellent [:D]

No worries Lance, the terrain isn't final. However this small pic doesn't show much, when you see the whole battlefield it will look even better. I might cut down on the contrast a bit though. We'll see, glad you like it by the way

I might cut down on the contrast a bit though.

Actually I would like greater contrast. It all looks reall nice I'm just thinking it blends together a tad too much. Maybe the diferent types are more easy to tell apart when seen in larger areas.

Regarding the "cliff edges" that border the next level of terrain... is that intended for every contour level, or just where there are, in fact, cliffs?  I personally don't like the cliff look for all elevation changes and would prefer a bevelled edge of the same "grass" color instead.  A cliff edge would distort the look of gentle slopes on the battlefield, IMO, which is what the majority of elevations would seem to be.
 
The house, the unit, trees and normal ground all look very nice.  The shrubs look somewhat problematic -- perhaps their size, density and patterned look -- and the rough depicting large stones is also questionable to me.  What is "rough" actually supposed to represent?  I don't usually envision big stones, but realize the need to stylize it somewhat.

Capitaine the cliff edges aren't final. I have though about having them in the actual color of the elevation instead of having them look the same and like real cliffs like they do now.
 
Also the shrubbery is perhaps a little too dense, I actually even put flowers in the shubbery, I think if I remove the flowers it won't look as dense as it does now.
 
I will make the cliff edges look more like slopes instead of cliffs. By the way any suggestions of how rough ground should look like? What I have now is large rocks for that. I can of course add more detail to it.

Giid stuff!  That should shut up the eye-candy addicts.

Lance that is also correct that all parts will be easier to tell apart when you see the whole picture. This screen was maybe too small to show off. However it was just to give you an idea of how it will look like.

"By the way any suggestions of how rough ground should look like?"
 
That's why I asked above what rough terrain in the game is intended to represent.  In most wargames, "rough" seems to represent some kind of rugged or undulating terrain.  I suppose it could represent anything from rocky to uneven (not flat).  In operational level games, it's often used to represent foothills before mountain terrain begins.  This terrain class doesn't seem to be used as much in tactical level games.  Sometimes it can represent, I think, terrain with a lot of undergrowth or "shrubs", like your shrub hex.
 
If rough is supposed to be rocky (like Little Round Top or the Devil's Den), then your rough looks good.  If it's merely undulating, then maybe not.

The "rough" terrain type is a catch all for any ground that would hinder movement...rocks, thick undergrowth, snow drifts....

The scenarios can now use a specific terrain pallete, so the designer could make 6 types of "rough" ground and then paint them on the map.


Tim

You guys actually gave me an great idea now, how about if I add shrubs to the rocky rough terrain I have now? And maybe other large rocks, how would that look like? I can put up an example tonight and post it here to hear  your opinions on it.

I would agree with Tim that it's better to go with specific types of rough terrain than attempting to use the generic "rough".  If it's rocky, use rocky terrain.  If undergrowth, use shrubs, etc.  Rough, being a catch-all as Tim said, isn't really specific enough for a tactical representation, in my opn. [:)]

Just clarifying my comment above...the game will treat the terrain type as "Rough"...what the scenario designer uses that terrain type for can vary.

In a winter battle, it could be deep snow...in hill country, it could be rocky ground.

The difference will be the graphical representation that can now be set per scenario.

That's just as good.  Nice to have accurate graphic representation.

Which reminds me Tim, give me an email regarding more "rough" terrain types that I could do.