Map Height Levels

[Dave The Gun]

When looking on the battlefield one sees, that the topology is represented by discrete height levels. It is quite obvious for map “cote 112”. I was wondering what would be the cause for this. I have two ideas:

1. It is a game decision to make line of sight more clear to the player.
2. It is a restriction to the engine and has also something to do with the line of sight. But in this case required to calculate line of sight for units.

In this context I have to compliment the brilliant line of sight tool. Never saw something like this in another game and it is astonishing fast.

 

[dmdelor]

No idea- either theory seems plausible- but it'd be interesting to know. I'd guess #1, since Red Dragon had really gentle hills and that could be super frustrating. On some maps you'd have what looked like an open field but then if you broke out fire-as-location as an ersatz LOS tool you'd discover it had invisible walls splitting it into effectively sub-autocannon range LOS. My experiences with that are part of the reason I avoid maps with elevation changes entirely in SD, although if it's only big discrete chunks it's probably a lot less bad.

The LOS tool is great, but I still wish there was proper fog of war. The presence of variable stealth makes this a bit less clear-cut than it is in most RTS games*, but just seeing what places anyone has possible LOS to would be a huge help for letting me know when hedgerows and buildings are blocking key fields of view. It'd also be useful for teaching the players mechanics, since how foliage interferes with LOS isn't clear and then there's that whole "church towers let you see more" mechanic that I only learned thanks to tool tips.

*Although even in most RTSes fog of war isn't perfect since usually there's still stealth vs detector units so you can't see everything that's not fogged up.

 

[PanzerMan7]

I really despite that height differences don't show up on LOS. Kind of breaks the game for newer players

 

[Hidden Gunman]

No idea- either theory seems plausible- but it'd be interesting to know. I'd guess #1, since Red Dragon had really gentle hills and that could be super frustrating. On some maps you'd have what looked like an open field but then if you broke out fire-as-location as an ersatz LOS tool you'd discover it had invisible walls splitting it into effectively sub-autocannon range LOS. My experiences with that are part of the reason I avoid maps with elevation changes entirely in SD, although if it's only big discrete chunks it's probably a lot less bad.

The LOS tool is great, but I still wish there was proper fog of war. The presence of variable stealth makes this a bit less clear-cut than it is in most RTS games*, but just seeing what places anyone has possible LOS to would be a huge help for letting me know when hedgerows and buildings are blocking key fields of view. It'd also be useful for teaching the players mechanics, since how foliage interferes with LOS isn't clear and then there's that whole "church towers let you see more" mechanic that I only learned thanks to tool tips.

*Although even in most RTSes fog of war isn't perfect since usually there's still stealth vs detector units so you can't see everything that's not fogged up.

Use the line of sight tool across your front, or where you want to check. If you can see somewhere, that somewhere can see where the tool is centred.

The other aspect is to go down to ground level with the camera, and actually have a look...sure, that can be argued as not workable in a competitive game, but a 'what can my opponent see' mechanic in a competitive game basically turns that game into chequers or chess. Much of this game is about how you use the ground...making that easier takes away from the theme and style of the game in my view.

Personally, I'd prefer a more detailed and improved topography for the game, but I think that is too big an ask.

 

[dmdelor]

Those are both vastly inferior solutions to a proper fog-of-war visualization in terms of giving the player an accessible and comprehensive view of where their units collectively have line-of-sight to.

The chess comment makes so little sense as to make it difficult to critique at all.

 

[Protosszocker]

Those are both vastly inferior solutions to a proper fog-of-war visualization in terms of giving the player an accessible and comprehensive view of where their units collectively have line-of-sight to.

The chess comment makes so little sense as to make it difficult to critique at all.

I think this would be just even more confusing, but yeah letting the line of side working better with hills would be a big step forward. I was never a big fog of war fan, I liked to see the map bright and clear. Also how should fog of war work as different opponent units will be discovered on different ranges, also fog of war would maybe fck up performances (as scrolling out with huge changing fog of war fields could make some low end pcs going on the knees).

 

[Karlburg]

Use the line of sight tool across your front, or where you want to check. If you can see somewhere, that somewhere can see where the tool is centred.

The other aspect is to go down to ground level with the camera, and actually have a look...sure, that can be argued as not workable in a competitive game, but a 'what can my opponent see' mechanic in a competitive game basically turns that game into chequers or chess. Much of this game is about how you use the ground...making that easier takes away from the theme and style of the game in my view.

Personally, I'd prefer a more detailed and improved topography for the game, but I think that is too big an ask.

I played the red dragon maps with detailed topography and it was an absolute mess, not really readable at the zoom level you can play the game at.

Also I think a FOW display would be somewhat inaccurate anyway because stealth in this game is a fairly complicated thing.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Those are both vastly inferior solutions to a proper fog-of-war visualization in terms of giving the player an accessible and comprehensive view of where their units collectively have line-of-sight to.

The chess comment makes so little sense as to make it difficult to critique at all.

Okay, to be clear:

If you make it easier for a player to see his mistakes from his opponent's point of view, you may as well go play chess, where everything is out in the open and balanced.

As a further point of debate, a personal view of mine is that only units that have LOS to a unit, and have detected it, should be able to fire on it, or react to it, rather than the current 'one see's, all see's' situation, and 'recce' units extending all units visibility range and detection.

Let's be clear about the game, at the period it's set in small units largely lacked broad communications capability - tanks had a 'unit' or 'sub-unit' channel, most infantry communication was by voice/runner/waving hands; and the available radio usage was strictly controlled, and wasn't all that effective to begin with...comparing even Vietnam era infantry radio comms to current era is poles apart. During Goodwood in Normandy one of the leading armoured brigade commanders only found that his command had been wiped out when he stood on the back of his tank and looked through his binoculars...not one message had got through to him, yet the distance was only a couple of miles.


I didn't particularly have much time for the Red Dragon topo system...it was too simplistic. But again, that's just a personal taste thing.


I'm not defending the current situation though, nor am I criticising it...what is, is. I would suggest though that a really good workable alternative is probably beyond the scope of the game, while still maintaining some form of thematic realism.

 

[Gilmund]

As a further point of debate, a personal view of mine is that only units that have LOS to a unit, and have detected it, should be able to fire on it, or react to it, rather than the current 'one see's, all see's' situation, and 'recce' units extending all units visibility range and detection.

It canno't be done in game, you would have to see what each unit is able to see before every move, in other words create own blur line of sights for each unit on the field you're only able to know once you click on each unit. Madness to play. It would turn the game into some sort of turn per turn.
The game let you think recon or others units use theirs radios to communicate, of course it's instant and innacurate here but whatever it's a game not a perfect simulator. i don't remember but i don't think games like Combat Mission Normandy did simulate it back in time.

 

[dmdelor]

You already need to have local LOS to fire on a unit except for indirect fire. Requiring local detection to fire would make the game a confusing mess and micro nightmare.