Twitter:woods, forest... a difference?

[Ostheim]

Take the attitude out of the forums please.

I am sorry, but I'm seeing so many threads and posts lately questioning and complaining about every single little detail of the game to the point that it's almost hysterical. Are you proposing that the addition of woods as a terrain type is a bad idea or that the name should be changed because a dictionary lists forest and woods as synonyms? I'm not getting it, I just don't see the value in this particular discussion dragging on.

 

[unmerged(134661)]

I am sorry, but I'm seeing so many threads and posts lately questioning and complaining about every single little detail of the game to the point that it's almost hysterical. Are you proposing that the addition of woods as a terrain type is a bad idea or that the name should be changed because a dictionary lists forest and woods as synonyms? I'm not getting it, I just don't see the value in this particular discussion dragging on.

Then feel free to not participate. This is a game that is in development and I think most of us are here to try and improve the end product. This is my favorite game by a country mile and I'm just trying to contribute to it's success even if it's in a small and insufficient way.

Here's why the words used do matter. When you see forest and woods as two types of terrain, I'd say that many people won't understand intuitively that forest is more dense than woods (Europeans find it intuitive and it seems North Americans don't). Those who don't know will:

* go on to a forum
* look at at the manual
* make an assumption

That's bad. Intuitive and deep gameplay should be the goal. It's not gamebreaking but it helps to ensure that people can pick up and play the game without having a manual on their desk.

If they do mean that forest is more densely packed with trees compared to woods, then I would suggest a simple renaming or changing the concept to taiga which would feature prominently in WWII combat in Russia, Norway and Finland.

Again, feel free to skip posts that you don't care about rather than ragging on a productive discussion.

 

[Battlecry]

Anger and Rage are synonyms, but are not identical in terms of degree. Forest and Woods are the same - while there may be some confusion among non-native english speakers, among native speakers for the most part there is not. If you wish to have a vote on who thinks woods and forest are identical and who does not, feel free. In Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. at least, I believe virtually everyone will know the difference, with the possible exceptions of those few who don't live within range of any wooded areas.

There will always be such misunderstandings. Are you suggesting that the game be 'purged' of any english terms that might possibly be confused? This doesn't seem possible considering the nature of the language, which has thousands of such synonymous connections.

 

[potski]

Take the attitude out of the forums please. Yes, it is difficult. Because not all cultures use langauge in the same way. In the same way that fags don't mean the same thing to british as they do to North Americans.

I'm still waiting for someone to reference an English dictionary that has two distinct places for Woods and Forest that doesn't refer to the each other. I've already shown two dictionaries that show that the terms are synonomous.

I'm also clearly not the only one who is confused by the terms. Hence, I suggest using a term that is less culturally ambiguous (dense forest versus forest, taiga versus forest, something. This is an international game and I think PI would like to make it intuitive. This ins't intuitive to everyone.

Oh and here's Meriam Webster:

Entry Word: forest
Function: noun
Text: a dense growth of trees and shrubs covering a large area<the endless forest that the first European settlers encountered>
Synonyms timber, timberland, wood(s), woodlandRelated Wordscoppice, copse, grove, scrubland, stand, thicket; greenwood, wildwood; woodlot

Main Entry: wood·land
Pronunciation: \ˈwu̇d-lənd, -ˌland\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: land covered with woody vegetation : timberland , forest — wood·land·er \-lən-dər, -ˌlan-\ noun

Is Webster's an "English" dictionary? American surely?

Fanatical I understand the language difficulties, and you might not find this intuitive if in common useage in Canada no distinction is made between forests and woods. Regardless of what your dictionaries say, there is an ecological difference between woodland/woods and forests. I guess this is much easier for Northern Europeans to understand, since we usually have both types in our countries. While Canada mainly has one ecological type - what I would call "forests", with huge areas densely covered mainly with coniferous trees. I would call the wooded terrain of New England "woods", with their deciduous trees (Maple, Oak, Elm, Aspen, and Birch etc.) interspersed with farmland.

It is not appropriate to use the term "taiga" as this refers specifically to the northern coniferous forests with cold climates. While coniferous forests can occur in cold, temperate and tropical climates. Climate is defined separately from terrain.

Imagine how difficult this all is for players where English is not their first language? Surely forest/woods might be easier for them than including the words coniferous/deciduous that were in EUIII? A quick use of Google Translate shows most European languages have separate words for woods and forests (such as the French "bois et forêts") and I would guess they would make a similar distinction between them as I would.

 

[unmerged(134661)]

OK, so, I still disagree with the words and every time I look to prove myself wrong on the internet, I find myself coming back to the conclusion that their used synomously 90% of the time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_forests,_woodlands,_and_shrub

Now, that said, how are they differently militarily based on the argument that forest = coniferous forests and woodlands = deciduous forests?

I'd argue that both would slow armor down equally but that infantry would be more likely to find cover from shrugs, grasses and other things within a 'woods' area.


Last question, is HoI3 using a % of terrain concept (i.e. Toronto would be 50% forest (or is that woods?), 25% urban and 25% plains)? If so, does that mean that multipliers will be used as a weighted average?

 

[Bullfrog]

It is not appropriate to use the term "taiga" as this refers specifically to the northern coniferous forests with cold climates. While coniferous forests can occur in cold, temperate and tropical climates. Climate is defined separately from terrain.

Imagine how difficult this all is for players where English is not their first language? Surely forest/woods might be easier for them than including the words coniferous/deciduous that were in EUIII? A quick use of Google Translate shows most European languages have separate words for woods and forests (such as the French "bois et forêts") and I would guess they would make a similar distinction between them as I would.

First, climate determines terrain.

Second, the game will be translated with the most accurate term surely.

 

[Battlecry]

OK, so, I still disagree with the words and every time I look to prove myself wrong on the internet, I find myself coming back to the conclusion that their used synomously 90% of the time.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediter...nds,_and_shrub

For one thing, synonymous does not mean identical. Happy, glad and elated are all synonymous, but obviously are not identical in meaning. Also interesting is your choice of link, which clearly lists forests and woodlands as belonging to separate biome groups, and hence quite different - you disproved your own point to some extent.

Last question, is HoI3 using a % of terrain concept (i.e. Toronto would be 50% forest (or is that woods?), 25% urban and 25% plains)? If so, does that mean that multipliers will be used as a weighted average?

We don't know yet. I would have thought so, given that EU3 uses this system, but there have been some good arguments put forward as to why HOI3 might not, due to the nature of the game and the size of the provinces.


1 more point: Dense forests slow armour down far more than woodland - woodland has gaps between trees that allow tanks to travel some distance, with trees having to be removed only so often. In a dense forest the gaps between trees are much smaller, and so many more (perhaps an order of magnitude more) trees have to be removed in order to allow passage. Infantry are encumbered by the vegetation in a dense forest, while this is not (generally) the case in woodlands.

Compare the panzers' traverse of the Ardennes in 1940 (Von Luck's Memoirs, for one point of view) with that of the 6th Panzer through the forests approaching the Luga River on the drive toward Leningrad (Raus' Memoir). The first required only fairly standard use of engineers to carve a path, the second required constant, back-breaking labour (by all personnel, not just the engineers) for virtually every metre of terrain to be crossed.

 

[StarscreamSWE]

This is not a question that is of the utmost importance for the game development, but I still find myself supporting Fanatical cause.

I have, believe it or not, a hard time making the distinction between woods and forest. For me the woods is defined as a smaller area populated with trees, in other words a small forest. I thereby also find that the word woods doesn't work for me describing a larger geographical area, or as in this case a province.

It would be better to simply say Light Forest versus Dense Forest.

In that case, I have to say, shouldn't there be something in between? Regular forest, which in that case adds a third type of terrain. :wacko:

To the woods defence I most say I find woodlands a little bit more pleasing. A little bit...

 

[Hansag]

I'd probably say that Jungle would be Dense+ in that case.
I'd say this is forest: http://www.licencephoto.com/mini_photos/fZXeXWOove/Forets-Forests.jpg
And if it's less, it's probably woods (perhaps a province with some small forestes etc.), I'd agree with Battlecry regarding the armor comparison.

What I wanted to get to was that I was hoping they'd incorporate terrain features and what grows on them, similar to what you have in Victoria, i.e.
Mountain+Forrest
Hills+Woods
Flat+Step/Grassland
etc.

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Hey boys, calm down.
That started as a joke, but now is such a debate.
Ofcourse there is a difference between "forest" and "wood", but it's not so big and they can be used as synonymes.

 

[Battlecry]

This would be close to the maximum density that I would still call "woods" or woodland. (The pic is from Tuscany, I believe) Relatively easy to walk or drive ( a tank) through, whereas forest would be denser, typically with larger/more closely packed trees. As for isolated forest areas, like the small forests you see amid farm fields in many areas, we refer to one of those as a "bush" but that may just be a Canadian/local thing, probably a transmutation of the french 'bois', given our heritage.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Hmmm compared to what I have here its a park
In my area some forests get so dense that you cant just normally get through without problems. You must break through scrub and its sometimes neccessary to change your route. Trees grow on trees pines are one by one and its really hard to get through sometimes especcialy if such forests grow on hills (cant imagine what would it be on mountains).

 

[Battlecry]

Hmmm compared to what I have here its a park
In my area some forests get so dense that you cant just normally get through without problems. You must break through scrub and its sometimes neccessary to change your route.

Agreed, the forests near here (Rockies) are nearly impassable in many places; I was using the pic above as an example of a less-dense wooded area - i.e. "woods".

 

[StarscreamSWE]

Okay, let's turn this into a pissing contest of which country has the densest (is that even a word), most dense forest.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Okay, let's turn this into a pissing contest of which country has the densest (is that even a word), most dense forest.

Someone did argue about that? I didnt noticed.

 

[potski]

First, climate determines terrain.

Second, the game will be translated with the most accurate term surely.

Climate certainly doesn't determine terrain, nor the other way round, either in the game or IRL. You can have hot deserts or cold deserts, mountains covered in ice all year and mountains with warm summers.

In the game, terrain is defined on a bitmap, separate from the provinces, so that you can have more than one terrain in a province. EUIII often had 3 or 4. But climate is defined for each province in a text file, so there is only ever one climate per province. And generally, whole regions of adjacent provinces have the same climate, so there might be farmland, plains, hills, mountains, woods and forests all with the climate "mild_winter", such as in most of Europe.

Perhaps you mean weather is affected by a combination of climate and terrain?

 

[juv95hrn]

It's all good.

Now let us have major and minor cities.