What about MAP TEXT?!

[RockinHarry]

Hello

I download a lot of the scenarios from the known sources and unfortunately realize each time playing them, that just a FEW of the designers use the "map text" function to FULL ADVANTAGE, to HELP the player keep track of his objectives etc.

I imagine some kind of "boundaries" and "Angriffsziel" for the attacking/defending human player units, drawn on the map with the "map text" function.

The "suspected enemy activity" marking in the tutorial scen of SPWAW is another good example for how to use it, too.
More of that!!!

I remember a huge scenario, downloaded recently, with no further descriptions,
but obviously eastfront, with "rostov" marking, know which I mean?
cannot investigate further, cause of problems with the db.

A huge map and countless units, i think more than 350! just on the german side and my computer slowing down considerably
( old P200, 64MB ram ).

How can you keep track to push all the grunts over that huge map to the objectives and coordinate things!? I stopped playing it after 2 turns, although I still have the impression of a very challenging scenario.
/

I mean I wouldnt send my Bttl./Rgmt. leaders into the fight without some kinda map,with the boundaries/objectives for the subunits drawn on it and at least SOME known/suspected enemy positions.
Kind of intelligence if AVAILABLE!!!

If it looks UGLY on the map, then theres need for a toggle "map text" off.

What about the ability of placing "map text" during game play and not just doing that in the editor (G key )??? Something for 4.7 ?
Im notta programmer, but i imagine this not a too tough one.
This would make all those good ( huge )scenarios even better, although I still have alot of fun without this.
( with the smaller ones )

OK...
...hope this topic hasnt already been posted before, this way boring you again!
Then sorry

"Mapmaker" RockinHarry

[This message has been edited by RockinHarry (edited January 25, 2001).]

[Wild Bill]

ACtually, that is a very good suggestion, Harry. Marking your map would be the sign of a good commander. I don't know if we can get it. It would require not only some recoding but new graphic interfaces, etc.

I'll mention it to David Heath. You have had some great ideas my friend!

Wild Bill

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[troopie]

Aanother thing to do, if your map is not intended to be best used by one side only, is include many terrain descriptions, such as Hill 208, Castello di Saan Giorgio, stone bridge, and so on. They you can refer mentally to those locations as objectives. For me, it's easier, and more realistic, to say the Webb platoon will follow Gazelle Nullah and veer left to Hill 308, attacking it from the south and west, than to say follow that line to Hex 53,38 and attack from below and the left.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

[Supervisor]

I don't know about the rwest of those guys , but I usually put the names of towns, rivers and landmarks on my maps. I will not put anything like "suspected enemy activity" because that detracts from the fog of war and that is why there are scouts in the OOB's.



------------------
Grenadier
Matrix Games Technical Writer

[RockinHarry]

Hello again

Im glad about some other people interested in this matter.

Troopie said it all. Couldnt have said it any better. It draws you much more into the game, this way.

Also, combined with the "boundary" thing, thats exactly what I mean.

Its not just theory, I ( and a lot of other people of cause) already tested that in the editor and if you fill the map with all that characters it quickly looks very ugly. And during gameplay it would be much too awkward to draw the "boundary lines", the editor way.

So why not doing the obvious? Who for example, needs as the human player the waypoints? I guess that 99% of all gamers,
push the pieces themselves anyway and the waypoints can be used for something else... draw the boundary lines.

WB did something like that in the "Huerting in the huertgen 44" scenario.
Its probably a leftover from scenario testing, I guess. But a picture says more
than a thousand words.
http://members.surfeu.de/ug2010/huertgen_wbw.jpg

leading "platoon C" to its target.

Using the "waypoint vectors" as boundary lines, it would look like this.
http://members.surfeu.de/ug2010/huertgen_wbw2.jpg

Each platoon has its own b-lines shown on
the map, indicating its sector for advance, combat etc.
This, spiced up with appropriate terrain descriptions is what I imagine, accessible with one keystroke.
The lines (or vectors) are drawn in just a few seconds, imagine doing this with "text"!

Maybe the "waypoint module" or the code can somehow be used, to layer this "tac screen" on the map if needed.

Ok... thats a lot off stuff.

Re: Brent
Youre absolutely right with your scenarios and one of those few I meant!
A Scenario like "Thunder on the vistula" for example, I think wouldnt profit much by more text or b-lines cause it is quite clearly arranged and the task for the russians is "storm straight to the left".

I meant the ones with a lot of terrain features and different axes off attack / defense. And of cause many, many units to push!
....Anybody know this "rostov" scenario?

Apropos "suspected enemy activity". At least in "assault scenarios" I would expect some kind of "reconaissance", by air or foot patrols etc. BEFORE the attack.
This would include SOME known enemy positions, minefields and a little bit "fog of war"..... "someone heard the rumble of tanks last night in Tankovo....."
Therefore..."suspected enemy activity".
But this kind "fog of war" can also be used as kind of deception by the scenario designer. ...."The mg nest discovered last day has changed its position during the night". Trouble!?
You will still need all scouts available.

I imagine some designers already have done something like that, but I still have not played all scens, to find the ones. Right?
...No, I dont want to know , until I ve discovered them playing.

In Meeting Eng. and Advance/Delay scenarios
the "fog of war" naturally plays a much bigger role.
Yeah, all know that.

Ok, enough now.

By the way.... thanx for the GREAT game.

-------------
RockinHarry

[Don]

"So why not doing the obvious? Who for example, needs as the human player the waypoints? I guess that 99% of all gamers,
push the pieces themselves anyway and the waypoints can be used for something else... draw the boundary lines.

WB did something like that in the "Huerting in the huertgen 44" scenario.
Its probably a leftover from scenario testing, I guess. But a picture says more
than a thousand words. http://members.surfeu.de/ug2010/huertgen_wbw.jpg "

OK - you lost me there! Some designers use waypoints for both sides so the scenario can be played from either side. Personally, I don't do it, but that doesn't mean that I can use the waypoints I didn't use as some kind of boundary markers.

The only way a player can see waypoints is to go into the editor, as you did, then deploy, then HQ, then waypoints. This is asking far too much of the average player, who just wants to play the scenario.

I agree with Brent that while roads, rivers and landmarks should be named, that's about as far as I'll go. Whereever you are not is "suspected enemy activity", and it's recon's job to find them.

You've got some interesting ideas, Harry, but with the editor the way it is now I don't think I'll be adding much more than we have now.

Don

[Drake]

I agree with Wild Bill, it would be nice but it would be hard to implament into the game.

When do maps I try and include as much into as I can into the map, like the D-day maps I did for Wild Bill, I include the beach bounderies and town names and stuff like that. But you dont want to over do it to becouse like breat was saying it would just give things away.

[RockinHarry]

Hello Don

I have the slight impression you feel a little bit offended?

Hmmm...

< The only way a player can see waypoints is to go into the editor, as you did, then deploy, then HQ, then waypoints. This is asking far too much of the average player, who just wants to play the scenario. >

Maybe I have a corruppted version of SPWAW or something really strange happened with my graphics card....???
What I meant, I am (still) doing in the ORDERS (or deployment)PHASE not in the EDITOR!

Not to understand something wrong...
You meant: starting the scneario, then if i choose to check the boundary thing, save game, swap files, start editor, then HQ, draw boundary (waypoints)...
then all in reverse order....???
I must be wrong.
.......

Just left to say: This game is a "bomb" cause one can play (or design) it in many
ways. No matter what you do with the editor or else.

Also hope for 4.6 soon to come...

_________________
RockinHarry

[Don]

No offense here, Harry! I am rushed and having a crappy day, but definitely not offended.

Keep the ideas coming - this is new stuff and fun to think about.

I see what you are talking about now - I think about everything from the design side and didn't think about the HQ button that you are talking about.

If a designer DID use the side 1 waypoints for the purpose of making boundaries, then he would have to specify that the game only be played from the one side. Many players like to play multiple times from both sides.

Other than that, I would have to play around with it to see if it could work or not. If we could do it without using waypoints it would be much better, as WB says.

Don

[RockinHarry]

Hello once again

I see now, where the misunderstanding came from, I mixed two different things in one topic.

1. "Map text" in the editor, "used by the designer" ( and just a "maybe" in the game phase by the player )

2. "Boundary-lines" during game play used by the player, "not the designer".

I just use the "waypoints" as boundary lines "during gameplay". It would be the task of the Bttl./Brig. Commander (The human player) to plan and to do this for his troops, anyway. Using them this way, wouldnt change anything intended by the "designer" for the "AI".
Hope I have cleared this now.

BTW, Im using ("as player") the "waypoints" as "b-lines" in all kind of scenarios / campaigns for some time and theyre very useful "for me" to plan / coordinate things in dense terrain and with many many troops.

( I just would like to "see" the "b-lines" layered on the map as an option, "while moving the pieces". As you know, theyre accsessible just via HQ menu, so its a little bit awkward to go there, just "to see" them. "Editing" them in the HQ menu is still Ok, maybe... )

---------------------------------------------

OK, another one

MAP TEXT

1. Placing "Map Text" in the Editor, is a matter of what the designer intends with his "scenario design". ...GOOD!

2. There is also the danger, to place too much of it, cause for one reason it covers too much of the "beautiful" terrain, ...NOT SO GOOD!

Allright, the "designer" places just the most important "Map Text" on the map.
So theres need(?) for hiding the (optional) extra ones somewhere.

I dont know if its possible to hide some extra information, in the "hex info"
pop-out box itself. So hovering the mouse over the hex could show for example like
"Hex 58,22, Heigth 12, stone building, Castello di San Giorgio",
with "Castello di San Giorgio" in orange or blue or......

Maybe hexes with this "extra info" could show with an orange blinking cross on the map.
( the ones the vehicles, AT guns etc. use ) This wouldnt cover too much of the terrain.

Also it would be nice, "the player" could "name" any these hexes during gameplay,
not just in the "editor". ...
___________________________________


"Rockin"Harry