Potential Map Improvements

[eggert]

Topography: Contour Lines (#3), failing that, then #2.

Tiles: #2, the more historically accurate, the better

Misc.

#1: I have no complaints about the forests.

#2: Making them less accurate would probably be a bit confusing, especially for people trying to mark contacts.

#3: Probably, but I can't think of what they are. Markers indicating AI placements would be nice, I guess.

#4: I'm not familiar with Xiper's tool.

[eggert]

Also, having proper icons for brigade/division HQ's would be helpful (I'm not quite sure how'd you'd overlay them on the map without obscuring things, though). The flags that you have to mouse-over in order to get brigade information are neither historically accurate nor convenient.

[somo]

Front lines... yes BEGM Style is cool

Topography is not eye candy, it is vital. I prefer #3 but anything would help.

I don't need a grainy map

Forest placement matters!

The map should be accurate for river placement

The Air town circles are vital

When will dual crews be allowed to switch to any open position? This is getting more critical as infantry cover and capabilities increase!

[thm000]

I would like to see the little unit symbols posted by town with the Brigade and unit number over top . For an armored unit you would see the box with a circle inside with 4.3 on top of the box for the 4th Brigade 3rd Armored

For forest I would like to see the correct topgraphic shading pattern and the hill contours if its possible

My biggest gripe with Forest is not easily fixed. I grew up in a Forest area. The outer edge of a forest is covered with heavy mixed vegetation while the inside is open. In Open areas where the light gets in there is always heavy brush. Anyplace the sun can get to is thick vegetation.

I would say Accuracy first with Historical a close second.

[fade]

Topography Layer 3. Contour Lines

Map Tiles 1. Make the tiles much nicer-looking

Miscellaneous 1. Low

2. Accurately portray this on the map for Christ Sakes

3. AI , linked supply routes marked

4. Marked

Edited March 22, 2011 by fade

[Vampress]

I'm MOST concerned that the map remain 100% accurate...

fancy it up all you want...but if the map scale and objects shown on map don't corelate the map be useless.

as it is now the map is used for accurate mortar fire...but eventually it will be used for 'artillery' IF/WHEN it is ever introduced in game.

[haughtkarl]

Pick any you like, doesn't matter to me. What I do care about though is having the ability to write/draw/use symbols on the map. Yeah you'll get lots of penises but that will die down once players get acclimated to having such a useful tool.

[alarik]

I vote for a more ww2 looking map.

[bar]

LET ME BEG

LESS OF A FPS DROP WHEN MAP IS OPENED OR MINIMAP IS ON SCREEN

other than that go crazy

[yavolle]

TRY WWW.GEOTRUC.NET FOR GOOD TERRAIN MODELS>>>>>VR: YAVOLLE

[SHEF]

Question: Are you making changes to...

a) in-game maps?

out-of-game maps?

c) moving trees/bushes/towns/terrain objects with the terrain editor?

d) Drawing a new map by hand and scanning it in?

I would be making changes to the in-game maps. I will not be altering the terrain in any way - that's Doc's baby.

[SHEF]

Thank you all for your input so far! I need you to keep it up - ask your squaddies to come in and leave their two cents!

There is something I wanted everyone to understand concerning contour lines, however. By and large, it is the most-requested map feature, but having it "look cool" and having it be "so useful" are mutually exclusive. This is because the minimum terrain resolution is 400m. Here are some pictures:

Terrain is made up of SUPERCELLS, which contain 64 OCTETS. An OCTET is a square made of eight triangles. The edge of these triangles is 400m. On each OCTECT, we have five points where we have the altitude information (one in the center and one on each of the four corners).

If you want it to be useful, then it will have to be accurate. The most accurate it can be would have straight lines connecting to points every 400m. This looks awful, and so will not fly.

Now, we can make it pretty, but it will absolutely not be all the useful. Note the "Pretty" image, where you'll see an example of what I'm talking about: The distance between the center of the octet and the side is 400m, which means we have that bulging region there that, for 400m in any direction, could be lower or higher than the contour line makes it appear! Yes, you'd know that in that general area there's a hill and a valley, but you wouldn't be able to look at the map and direct mortar fire - you'd still need eyes on the ground.

Having said that, I'd like to thank everyone again for all the great feedback. Keep it up!

[krazydog]

My thoughts:

(1). Topography: I prefer option No. 2 (shaded hills), but No. 3 (contour lines) would be ok too. Adding elevations to map is by far the most important feature that is badly needed in the game.

Other suggestions:

(2). Change the color of roads on the map to show supply links between towns. Currently, not all adjacent towns with roads connections between them are connected in the supply chain. Currently, the only way to tell the supply connections is to analyze the town depots. A better way to see the supply grid at a glance from a zooned out view would be to repaint the road colors to show the supply grid.

(3). On the zoomed in town views - adding AI towers and pits showing fire facings would be a nice feature too.

[Sudden]

Thanks for the diagram SHEF.

Have you tested it somewhere between accurate and pretty?

Maybe all we should expect is 1000 meter spacing whether we use contour lines or colors for elevation.

What happens when you vary the distance for your averaging?

[uberian]

I would be making changes to the in-game maps. I will not be altering the terrain in any way - that's Doc's baby.

does that include markable map icons? could use about.. 30 more of those lol

[SHEF]

Thanks for the diagram SHEF.

Have you tested it somewhere between accurate and pretty?

Maybe all we should expect is 1000 meter spacing whether we use contour lines or colors for elevation.

What happens when you vary the distance for your averaging?

I don't have a working demo yet, but I can still tell you what will happen: The wider the radius, the more realistic the lines will look, but the less accurate they will become. And we are already starting from inaccuracy, even at the 400m spacing. So yes, it will give players a general idea of hills and valleys, but not enough of an idea to be tactically useful.

does that include markable map icons? could use about.. 30 more of those lol

One thought I've had on this is that instead of adding a bunch of new icons, what about just one custom icon? It would be a unique symbol, such as a diamond or a star, with a small text description under it. When you add the custom symbol, you fill in your custom text (ie, "Enemy FRU" or "Sniper"). What do y'all think of that?

[Sparre]

Thank you all for your input so far! I need you to keep it up - ask your squaddies to come in and leave their two cents!

There is something I wanted everyone to understand concerning contour lines, however. By and large, it is the most-requested map feature, but having it "look cool" and having it be "so useful" are mutually exclusive. This is because the minimum terrain resolution is 400m. Here are some pictures:

Terrain is made up of SUPERCELLS, which contain 64 OCTETS. An OCTET is a square made of eight triangles. The edge of these triangles is 400m. On each OCTECT, we have five points where we have the altitude information (one in the center and one on each of the four corners).

If you want it to be useful, then it will have to be accurate. The most accurate it can be would have straight lines connecting to points every 400m. This looks awful, and so will not fly.

Now, we can make it pretty, but it will absolutely not be all the useful. Note the "Pretty" image, where you'll see an example of what I'm talking about: The distance between the center of the octet and the side is 400m, which means we have that bulging region there that, for 400m in any direction, could be lower or higher than the contour line makes it appear! Yes, you'd know that in that general area there's a hill and a valley, but you wouldn't be able to look at the map and direct mortar fire - you'd still need eyes on the ground.

Having said that, I'd like to thank everyone again for all the great feedback. Keep it up!

Thanks for sharing Shef!

I still thinks contour Lines is the way to go. It is straight forward and easy to learn if you aren't experienced reading maps. Not to say it is historical correct.

I also think you should go for the less accurate option (the "pretty" one as you called it). It still gives a good picture of how the terrain lays. I don't think it is critical data to have the lines 100% accurate as long as we can read out from the map where the increases and depressions is located in general terms. When we are at the location will we anyway see how it looks in "reality".

Option two with colours defining the height is problematic since a big group is colour blind and can't see the difference between different colours, like red-green (a very common issue).

Secondly isn't it straight forward, looking more like a LSD-painting, not to mention it is a high tech very modern way to depict the terrain. In other words, it is so far from WWII feeling you can get.

On miscellaneous topic!

If it isn't too much work to add would I like to read from the map in what direction the AI MG's is pointing (it is possible to read this out from the new ATG pits).

Finally! Thanks for your initiative Shef.

[AHWULF]

To be accurate there are 16x16 octets in a supercell (256) which is 12,800 meters per side.

Without rewriting the whole map code you might be able to add markers to it for peaks or valleys but adding more lines and stuff is probably unusable.

To do it more real ww2 looking you probably have to rewrite it anyway. It's seriously fugly code. What we have now is a flat projection of the game terrain, not really a map. I rather see something like 3 maps: local, regional, and global instead of this zoomable scrollable worldview. it could still scroll and zoom but on zooming move from one map to another and on scrolling move the map area at the same level.

Maybe local is around town, regional is around two towns or so, global could be the whole game world. Or make it 4 or whatever works for game usage. Maybe someone could comment on how you use the map scales currently for different uses. We could even have an HC flavored map I guess.

My 2¢

[rubbish]

So the map needs some love, and I've taken it upon myself to give it a facelift! There are a variety of features I'm looking at, but I want to be sure to a) Appeal to a majority of the players and Include some functional benefit along with any aesthetic benefits. Here are some features I'm exploring, along with questions I need answered.

Front Lines

Everyone loves Xiper's BEGM tool, and the way he does frontlines are very slick. If he won't let us use his techniques directly, I could come up with my own using my college book learnin's. (Dear God, math? IN REAL LIFE?!)

What, if any, modifications would players want to see as far as the depiction of frontlines go?

Topography Layer

There are three basic options here to show topography, each one more difficult than the next:

1. Hill Markers: A symbol on the map for each hill/mountain.

2. Color-scale Height Map:Full color map, where each height is represented by a color
3. Contour Lines

Hill markers please, it'll be miles better than what we've got, and minimal time vs. result

is always good. Accurate & ugly vs pretty and inaccurate doesn't sound like a choice to me.

Map Tiles

Two options:

1. Make the tiles much nicer-looking, a la Xiper's BEGM tool. His terrain tiles are very nice and blend smoothly.

2. A more WWII-style map: False color, as if drawn by a WWII-era cartographer.:Awesome feature? Grainy, black and white layer (like photos taken from a spy plane!) when a player zooms in close enough.

false colour please.

Do the players simply want a little facelift to the map tiles' date=' or do they want a drastic change to the way the map is presented? What's on the map now that nobody cares about? What's missing from the map now that players want?[/quote']

My main gripe is that the map uses the exact same tiles as the ground - this makes it simple for me to put inch-perfect contacts on the map of enemies sometimes kilometres away when really it shouldn't be that easy. We could all do with a little more fuzziness

Miscellaneous

1. There have been complaints regarding the map's placement of forests. How critical would it be to fix this?

2. There have been complaints regarding the straight-line rivers. Do players want to accurately portray this on the map (as it is now), or fudge it by making the rivers appear to be more serpentine (and less accurate) on the map?

3. Are there any useful icons/symbols that should be displayed on the map?

4. In Xiper's BEGM tool, there are dashed circles around airfields. Is there any similar feature players want?

No problems with forests for me :???:

Accurate (i.e. straight) rivers for me please.

Sheep!

As long as it's clear they are airfields I don't care.

[smythes]

SHEF - 100000000% behind you on this idea and thank you for going for it!

My thoughts:

Contours if not too ugly.

If too ugly a hill marker "Hill 62" at the highest point will suffice to give me a rough idea of where to use as cover!

Coloured contours - no, too much.

Rivers? Straight as they are now.

WWII maps? Perhaps...but colours must be agreeable and not too OTT. The idea of getting various data off the map at various levels would be great...

GL!

[oddyss]

Front lines: BEGM visual style is OK.

Topography: Number 3.

Tiles: probably 1, but no big deal (=I dont care)

Misc: I cant imagine the technical aspects, but my opinion is that changes to the graphical aspect of map should be precedet by MAJOR change to the in-game map itself: I would like to see less open space, more dense alleys of bushes, heavy redesign of towns, more steep hilss, and rivers (opinion: OK to move the rivers a bit for practical reasons). Also, there are beautiful landscapes on your current map which are completely useless, because there is nothing around to capture - so I was thinking to introduce capture points in the open fields (simple cottages, or just places with tactical value like hills, etc), or maybe to create a lot of capture points, which would be the front line itself. Again, more hedgerows - when you look at photographs from France in WW2, you see a lot of green foliage, so you cant see further than a few hundred meters (I think this type of countryside has got a name but cant remember - countryside with a lot of hedgerows, windbreakers,etc).

But, at the same time, I think the in-game interface needs a big change as well, with one possibility being creating the menu around a dominating map (map pops-up right after logon) and with beatiful arrows representing troops movement like you see in documentaries...

Hope this is not too much off-topic. I just realised that you are talking only about the represenation of the rivers on the map, not the rivers themselves, in that case i vote for accuracy.

Edited March 22, 2011 by oddyss

[oyaji]

...

Contour lines - please don't "artify" them too much, either.

Thanks.

...

[AHWULF]

"My main gripe is that the map uses the exact same tiles as the ground"

Yeah I think these are going the way of the dodo.

[mdundee]

Front Lines:

borrow Xiper's code and/or copy his look

Topography:

2. Colour-scale height map. Not 100% realistic, but then neither is player radar and contact marks. Although fighting for Hill 546 could be a very interesting challenge around commonly-fought-for cities, so +1 for ugly but accurate hill-top markings. Perhaps a line for a valley (a valley being a section of land a certain height below the average terrain around it).

Map Tiles:

1. But that's only because I can't see how a false colour one would look once implemented.

Misc:

1. What's wrong with the placement, is it inaccurate?

2. Nah, fix the map when the rivers themselves change.

3. A new icon for marking FRU locations? AI placement I'm not worried about, that's an interesting challenge when assaulting a town. Whole of Brigade Rally, Attack and Mortar points would be Very nice, perhaps only placeable by someone who has taken OIC of the brigde? Don't like the capture bar under the town, that's what flag marks are for.

4. +1 for circles around AFs

[aceman8]

Save the satellite image maps for Middle East War Online. Hell, most maps used early in the war were from gas stations...