Battleaxe/Brevity Map

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Well, the altitude layers appear to be done (see below). I'm not completely sure how the edges will turn out, but I used corner points on all of them, and pushed the layer as close to the edge(s) as possible. The seams appear to be gone, which is a very good thing.

I learned a lot doing this part of the project. By sticking to contouring only the altitude side of the polygon, I basically cut the work involved in doing a layer in half. The non-altitude half of the layer was drawn with simple corner points set far enough to the rear that it couldn't possibly conflict with adjacent layers.

I'd also note (for posterity), that I've actually gotten better at this as I've gone along, the altitude layers I mean. I've been hacking away at this for a week now, and was becoming frustrated with the whole deal. Tonight, however, I started over from scratch and got more done than in all the other sittings combined.

Next up is the terrain objects!

[Arjuna]

Looking good. I would recommend using some control ( bezier ) points especially where the contours snake around a lot, just so it looks nice. You can select a number of points and change them from corner to control by selecteng a menu item. Try it.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Looking good. I would recommend using some control ( bezier ) points especially where the contours snake around a lot, just so it looks nice. You can select a number of points and change them from corner to control by selecteng a menu item. Try it.

Below, you should see the map with some large, irregular landforms that have white boxes drawn around them. Are those the sort of forms that would benefit from some massaging?

Second question...

Do odd shapes like those that I've denoted have an adverse effect on game performance? BTW, the new map probably has about half of the number of corner/control points that its half-finished, discontinued sibling had.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I am looking to create a minefield graphic pattern for a terrain object.

Its going to be very simple, offset, lower-case m's:

m m m m
_m m m
m m m m

Questions:

Is MapPatA simply MatPat with the colors inverted to black and white?

Should I replace an existing graphic, beach for instance, or add an extra category?

[Arjuna]

There is no way to add layer types in the MapMaker. You can only replace the ones that are there. So you cannot add categories to the map pattern graphics, only replace.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Below, you should see the map with some large, irregular landforms that have white boxes drawn around them. Are those the sort of forms that would benefit from some massaging?

Not necesarily. It's very subjective as to what looks right. Ground usually is curved rather than angular. So I like to use the control/bezier points where the contour lines get intricate and snake about a lot.

Second question...

Do odd shapes like those that I've denoted have an adverse effect on game performance?

Not really. Don't worry about that.

BTW, the new map probably has about half of the number of corner/control points that its half-finished, discontinued sibling had.

Yes, sounds like you are getting the hang of it. BTW sometimes, in certain locations, three or four control points can be used where you would otherwise have to use a dozen or more corner points. A control point is about twice the data size of a corner point and that's why we caution against using them everywhere. However, judicious use of them can in fact be more economical.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Well, my map is completed.

The terrain and movement calculations have all been done, and the cache created. Neither of them took more than ten minutes, btw, so performance was no real bar to my effort.

I actually did two maps. One of them including what my underlay map depicted as brush country, the other without. I've seen pictures of vegetation on that plateau, and it doesn't much resemble what we call "scrub brush" in Texas.

I'd post a jpg of the finished product, but it'd be barely discernible from what I posted above because of the extent to which I'd have to resort to file compression to get it uploaded.

I'm nonetheless proud of my work, however, so here's a zoom/detail:

[Jeffrey H.]

Looks really good POE.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Looks really good POE.

Thanks Jeff,

I opened the map in the scenario maker utility, whereupon you can actually see the "high-points" in a JPG that I can post here:



I did this map as a sort of proof of concept project. I got the sense from a lot of folks that the DYI tools that come with CotA are (perhaps) too difficult to use, so I decided to see for myself. On some level, I think that my exposition of its challenges undermines that notion.

And while I freely admit that I struggled with the mapmaker at first, some decisions that I made were responsible for it being harder than need be. For one, I started out big. By AA standards, my Battleaxe/Brevity maps are QUITE large. Add that together with a really intricate land-form, the coastal escarpment, and I had my hands full.

With help from Arjuna, however, and SEVERAL hours of trial and error, I became much more proficient in manipulating the GUI. I mentioned above that at one point I decided to simply start over. From that point, forward, it took somewhere between five and six hours to generate two versions of the map depicted above.

The bottom line? The mapmaker is a powerful tool for creating maps for COTA, and I hope that Panther continues to support it. The utility isn't as easy to use as that which came with the old Combat Mission games, for instance, but its output appears to be far more sophisticated. In that sense, it provides a user with an opportunity to generate maps which are proportionately equal in quality and usefullness to his willigness to engage in the effort.

No grief, no gravy! [;)]

[Vance]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I am looking to create a minefield graphic pattern for a terrain object.

As a result of you post I have been toying around to create a minefield pattern. Currently in the highest zoom level it looks like this.



Probably I could make you a complete map graphic. PM me if you are still interrested.

Should I replace an existing graphic, beach for instance, or add an extra category?

As Arjuna said you should replace an existing layer. But not the beach one, because the masking (MapPatA) doesn't work for that layer. At least not for me in the MapMaker.

[Arjuna]

Vance, your minefield layer looks great for the size of the area displayed. Without a grid it's hard to estimate the distances there. Just remember this that minefields were usually laid in strips of around 100 to 200m depth. They could often stretch out width wise for miles. So they resemble more of a snake than a box. Your graphic should work with that.

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Re minefields. Warning. We do not have any mine clearing capabilities in the engine yet. However, feel free to create a minefield layer and make its movement effect pretty low but not impassable, to reflect the time that would be spent clearing lanes to get through. Refer to other terrain like swamps for an example - though don't make it impassable to motorised.

I had a thought on minefields: What if you used a major water obstacle and crossing points represented 'lanes' to be cleared with engineers using mine clearing equipment (simulated on an abstract basis as bridges). Can't the map file color for major river be edited to some sort of minefield pattern? The downside is that the crossing points are seen to all.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I've discovered something of a problem with my map, and I don't have a clue as to what might be wrong.

When I started, I renamed (edited) lake terrain to be ocean terrain.

Now, if I right-click on an ocean area when in the scenario editor, the GUI indicates that it's in fact major river terrain.

When I go back to the map editor and check on the terrain type, it indicates that it's ocean.

In the map editor, if I select ocean, and then click-select that big, blue ocean-area, the points display and I can edit what is ostensibly ocean terrain as necessary, and save.

Ideas?

[Vance]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Vance, your minefield layer looks great for the size of the area displayed. Without a grid it's hard to estimate the distances there. Just remember this that minefields were usually laid in strips of around 100 to 200m depth. They could often stretch out width wise for miles. So they resemble more of a snake than a box. Your graphic should work with that.

I added graphics for two more zoom levels. I think a 200m wide strip looks reasonably. The third level is hardly visible, at higher zoom levels the minefield is not visible at all. That means that you have to inspect the map carefully to prevent surprises.

Franklin Nimitz idea of creating crossing points through minefields as lanes will work. It doesn't matter whether the crossing is over water or any other layer. Once the engineers have cleared a lane (build a bridge) passage through the minefield is unimpeded.

[Arjuna]

Personally I would prefer if the minefield graphic was more visible at the higher zoom levels. This is an operational game not a tactical. In any event a real commander would have his opMap clearly marked with minefields, regardless of scale.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I've discovered something of a problem with my map, and I don't have a clue as to what might be wrong.

When I started, I renamed (edited) lake terrain to be ocean terrain.

Now, if I right-click on an ocean area when in the scenario editor, the GUI indicates that it's in fact major river terrain.

When I go back to the map editor and check on the terrain type, it indicates that it's ocean.

In the map editor, if I select ocean, and then click-select that big, blue ocean-area, the points display and I can edit what is ostensibly ocean terrain as necessary, and save.

Ideas?

I think that's an old anomoly from pre-HTTR days. Best not to worry and move on, knowing your are in fact quite sane.[:)]

[simovitch]

It doesn't matter whether the crossing is over water or any other layer.

not exactly...

The nice thing about "water" or "Major River" area entities is that it won't leave little diagonal gaps in the movement tables for units to sneak through like other layers will if the area swath is too thin. Minor River has the same attribute, but it is a line, not an area entity. The thing to watch out for is these 3 terrain types have a tendency to "wipe out" other terrain (like roads) that get's to close.

The bad thing about water and major river is it will suck down your elevations to "0" creating a huge depression in your map.

[simovitch]

Here's what I mean by wipeouts next to water/rivers.

You map makers out there have to watch out for this. take a good close look at those movement tables when they are generated. I Used a magnifier program on the big Bulge maps.

[Zorchi]

@Prince

Is this map finished...?

I'd like to give it a spin this weekend.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Zorchi

@Prince

Is this map finished...?

I'd like to give it a spin this weekend.

I've passed the map and scenario files on to Arjuna for review and criticism by his playtesters. I want to get some feedback from them, modify the map and scenario as suggested, and then unleash it on the world. [;)]

Thanks for asking!