Matrix Games Forums

I seem to remember a thread about terrain tiles which stated that terrain tile names are hard coded. Anyone know if that’s correct? If terrain tile names can be changed, which file is edited?

Regards

Here is where you look on my machine. Yours may differ:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\The Operational Art of War IV\EnglishGameText.xml

<s_30 v="open" t="OPEN_STRING"/>

<s_31 v="sand" t="SAND_STRING"/>

<s_32 v="hills" t="HILLS_STRING"/>

<s_33 v="mountains" t="MOUNTAINS_STRING"/>

<s_34 v="alpine" t="ALPINE_STRING"/>

<s_35 v="marsh" t="MARSH_STRING"/>

<s_36 v="flooded marsh" t="FLOODED_MARSH_STRING"/>

<s_37 v="shallow water" t="SHALLOW_WATER_STRING"/>

<s_38 v="deep water" t="DEEP_WATER_STRING"/>

<s_39 v="cropland" t="CROPLAND_STRING"/>

<s_40 v="bocage/hedgerow" t="DENSE_CROPLAND_STRING"/>

<s_41 v="urban" t="URBAN_STRING"/>

<s_42 v="dense urban" t="DENSE_URBAN_STRING"/>

<s_43 v="urban ruin" t="URBAN_RUIN_STRING"/>

<s_44 v="dense urban ruin" t="DENSE_URBAN_RUIN_STRING"/>

<s_45 v="river" t="RIVER_STRING"/>

<s_46 v="super river" t="MAJOR_RIVER_STRING"/>

<s_47 v="evergreen forest" t="CONIFEROUS_FOREST_STRING"/>

<s_48 v="forest" t="DECIDUOUS_FOREST_STRING"/>

<s_49 v="light woods" t="MIXED_FOREST_STRING"/>

<s_50 v="jungle" t="TROPICAL_FOREST_STRING"/>

<s_51 v="road" t="ROAD_STRING"/>

<s_52 v="improved road" t="IMPROVED_ROAD_STRING"/>

<s_53 v="rail" t="RAILROAD_STRING"/>

<s_54 v="broken rail" t="DAMAGED_RAILROAD_STRING"/>

<s_55 v="anchorage" t="PORT_STRING"/>

<s_56 v="airfield" t="AIRFIELD_STRING"/>

<s_57 v="peak" t="PEAK_STRING"/>

<s_58 v="non playable" t="NON_PLAYABLE_STRING"/>

<s_59 v="escarpment" t="ESCARPMENT_STRING"/>

<s_60 v="major escarpment" t="MAJOR_ESCARPMENT_STRING"/>

<s_61 v="badlands" t="BADLANDS_STRING"/>

<s_62 v="wadi" t="WADI_STRING"/>

<s_63 v="canal" t="CANAL_STRING"/>

<s_64 v="Suez canal" t="MAJOR_CANAL_STRING"/>

<s_65 v="dunes" t="DUNES_STRING"/>

<s_66 v="arid" t="ARID_STRING"/>

<s_67 v="rocky" t="ROCKY_STRING"/>

Lobster wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:03 am Here is where you look on my machine. Yours may differ:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\The Operational Art of War IV\EnglishGameText.xml

That did the trick. Learned something new today, much appreciated.

Best Regards, RhinoBones

I notice that the terrain codes run from s_30 to s_67. What do the ones below s_30 do? Is there any reason that more terrain codes beyond s_67 can't be added?

Simon Edmonds wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:33 am I notice that the terrain codes run from s_30 to s_67. What do the ones below s_30 do? Is there any reason that more terrain codes beyond s_67 can't be added?

Hi Simon

If you look at one of the "gametext" files, you'll see what the codes are used for. Below 30 and above 67 are used for other game purposes. See excerpt below--

<s_23 t="PASSWORD_STRING" v="password?"/>
<s_24 t="CANCEL_STRING" v="Cancel"/>
<s_25 t="YES_STRING" v="Yes"/>
<s_26 t="NO_STRING" v="No"/>
<s_27 t="CONTINUE_STRING" v="Continue"/>
<s_28 t="DONE_STRING" v="Done"/>
<s_29 t="NOTICE_STRING" v="Notice"/>
<s_30 t="OPEN_STRING" v="open"/>
<s_31 t="SAND_STRING" v="sand"/>

Cheers

Hey. Sorry about the delay in answering. So the other half of my question was why can't they add more numbered terrain types after the highest used number?

Simon Edmonds wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:06 am Hey. Sorry about the delay in answering. So the other half of my question was why can't they add more numbered terrain types after the highest used number?

These are hard coded. In other words there is nothing you can do to add any without modifying the code.

I was thinking: maybe I could change 'escarpment' and 'major escarpment' into river and stream to create Hexside rivers and streams.
Major Escarpment can only be crosses by road anyway. They have the same kind of characteristics. Even for movement.
Not perfect, but it could do without fording and broken bridges.
I really miss hexside rivers. I dont like the 5,10, 15, 20, 25, or 50 kilometers wide super rivers.
Hex games have hexside rivers.

+1

William the Silent wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:27 pm I was thinking: maybe I could change 'escarpment' and 'major escarpment' into river and stream to create Hexside rivers and streams.
Major Escarpment can only be crosses by road anyway. They have the same kind of characteristics. Even for movement.
Not perfect, but it could do without fording and broken bridges.
I really miss hexside rivers. I dont like the 5,10, 15, 20, 25, or 50 kilometers wide super rivers.
Hex games have hexside rivers.

This has been going on forever. Rivers in hexes cause so many problems.
You can't move up or down river hexes unless you cross the river every...bloody...hex. You are forever crossing the river. Some people coughBobcough says the river meanders so your guys are too stupid to stay on one side or the other and constantly cross the river.
When you enter the hex you have to pay movement points to cross. But if you attack from the river you just paid movement points to cross you have to pay a penalty for attacking across the river you just paid to cross. So you crossed the river but you didn't cross the river.
Cities that are on one side of the river or the other are on both sides of the river. Same with fortifications. So those hexes are attacked without anyone having to attack across a river unless you displace the cities or fortifications kilometers away from thier true location.
There are other things that are so wrong but that's enough.

Lobster wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:19 pm You can't move up or down river hexes unless you cross the river every...bloody...hex. You are forever crossing the river. Some people coughBobcough says the river meanders so your guys are too stupid to stay on one side or the other and constantly cross the river.
When you enter the hex you have to pay movement points to cross. But if you attack from the river you just paid movement points to cross you have to pay a penalty for attacking across the river you just paid to cross. So you crossed the river but you didn't cross the river.
Cities that are on one side of the river or the other are on both sides of the river. Same with fortifications. So those hexes are attacked without anyone having to attack across a river unless you displace the cities or fortifications kilometers away from thier true location.
There are other things that are so wrong but that's enough.

Combat is not done in single file. Combat is on a frontage. If that combat frontage is along a river then, yes, it will require going over the river in many different places. Are you saying that it should be treated as clear terrain? That the defense would derive no benefit from the river? That's how hexside rivers function - no transverse defensive benefit at all. It's not as simple an issue as you claim. Rivers don't neatly follow a hexgrid, and abstracting them as if they do is a hit to realism.

I was thinking: maybe I could change 'escarpment' and 'major escarpment' into river and stream to create Hexside rivers and streams.

Some scenarios have done it. It's not really a great solution, but it has possibilities within it's limitations.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:55 pm
Combat is not done in single file. Combat is on a frontage. If that combat frontage is along a river then, yes, it will require going over the river in many different places. Are you saying that it should be treated as clear terrain? That the defense would derive no benefit from the river? That's how hexside rivers function - no transverse defensive benefit at all. It's not as simple an issue as you claim. Rivers don't neatly follow a hexgrid, and abstracting them as if they do is a hit to realism.

Are you saying that once you have paid movement points to cross a river you have not crossed the river?

I take umbrage with the comment "Rivers don't neatly follow a hexgrid, and abstracting them as if they do is a hit to realism."
It also follows that rivers don't neatly run up the center of every hex either. It follows that the game should allow either type to be used. Where a river meanders or is in a narrow valley it should run up the middle. Where it runs in a well defined line then use a hexside.

Lobster wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:54 pm
Are you saying that once you have paid movement points to cross a river you have not crossed the river?

I'm saying that the frontal offensive will have to cross the river over and over as that river will not conform with the offensive direction in the neat fashion you imagine. The defenders will exploit its wandering and meandering. Do you really think that an offensive up a river is the same as an offensive up clear terrain? The river will be effectively invisible?

Simon Edmonds wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:57 pm I take umbrage with the comment "Rivers don't neatly follow a hexgrid, and abstracting them as if they do is a hit to realism."

Taking umbrage with the truth!

It also follows that rivers don't neatly run up the center of every hex either.

Exactly! It's actual position in the hex is undetermined. It will not align with the hex grid or go straight down the center. It will fall all over the place - to be exploited by the defenders.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:26 am

Lobster wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:54 pm
Are you saying that once you have paid movement points to cross a river you have not crossed the river?

I'm saying that the frontal offensive will have to cross the river over and over as that river will not conform with the offensive direction in the neat fashion you imagine. The defenders will exploit its wandering and meandering. Do you really think that an offensive up a river is the same as an offensive up clear terrain? The river will be effectively invisible?

So if my unit pays to cross a river and then ten turns later attacks they go back and forth across the river? They crossed the river already. That's why they paid a movement cost to cross it. Does it matter when they attack a unit on the other side? A day. A month. A year. They already crossed the river. That's why they pay a movement cost to cross the river.

So if my unit pays to cross a river and then ten turns later attacks they go back and forth across the river? So I'm eager to see how you spin this.

William the Silent wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:27 pm I was thinking: maybe I could change 'escarpment' and 'major escarpment' into river and stream to create Hexside rivers and streams.

TOAW III scenario Frozen Steppes 1942-1943 originated re-painted escarpment tiles as minor and major rivers. Unlike the example shown above, this mod was used to painted both sides of the hex-side so that both attackers and defenders felt the effects of the river/escarpment. Worked reasonably well as I recall but it was a pain in the ass to draw a map. I used it on a small TOAW III scenario called Cheese Wars.

AFAIK Jarek Flis was the originator of river/escarpment tiles and deserves full credit for his effort.

If you have TOAW III installed, or just want to see the bmp files, I can post them on request. Unfortunately, my TOAW III is currently out of commission, otherwise I would post some better pictures.

As for hex-side vs hex-in rivers, the arguments have been around for a long time. Both sides have merits and failings, but as a whole, my opinion is that hex-side is superior to hex-in. There’s good reason why virtually every hex-based game uses the hex-side solution. Too bad Norm isn’t here to provide the explanation. What I really find baffling is that the defending unit is not physically located in the hex containing the river to be defended. How in the world does a force defend a Mississippi River crossing from Peoria, Illinois?

Regards, RhinoBones

Lobster wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:01 am So if my unit pays to cross a river and then ten turns later attacks they go back and forth across the river? They crossed the river already. That's why they paid a movement cost to cross it. Does it matter when they attack a unit on the other side? A day. A month. A year. They already crossed the river. That's why they pay a movement cost to cross the river.

So if my unit pays to cross a river and then ten turns later attacks they go back and forth across the river? So I'm eager to see how you spin this.

I can't tell what you're describing. You pay a MP price to enter a river hex. If you later attack out of that hex into a clear hex, there is no further price in MPs to do so. But, if you attack into another river hex - even if connected to the one you're in - there is that same MP cost, due to the meandering/wandering of the river within its hex - requiring further crossings of the river tactically.

rhinobones wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:23 am There’s good reason why virtually every hex-based game uses the hex-side solution.

And there it is. The only real basis for this whole argument: "This is how board wargames have always done it." How could any wargame designer buck that group-think?

It's not based upon reality. Reality is far messier.