Photography Mission: Urban Terrain In CM

[David Aitken]

Lock up your Heidmans! David is about to suggest some ways in which CM could be improved!

Some here have lamented the weaknesses of CM in modelling convincing urban landscapes. I have made a couple of attempts to approximate a realistic European town with the CM map editor, and the resulting scenarios are available from my CM webpage. However, there are fundamental ways in which CM maps are much more suited to rural landscapes than cityscapes. I can't see these issues being easily remedied, so I'm not sure if we'll see any fundamental improvements until CM II (the projected rewrite of the engine). But considering that CM 2 will be set on the Eastern Front, and many here are looking forward to the urban scenarios such as Stalingrad, maybe some of these issues could be addressed in some way.

First of all, I hail from Scotland, and the Germans didn't get quite this far (with the exclusion of Rudolf Hess), so my personal experience is not directly applicable to CM. However, I am speaking in general terms, and architectural principles tend to be similar across Europe and Russia. Specifics of course are variable, due mainly to differences in available materials and climate, so there is a much larger contrast between, say, Britain and Italy than France and Germany.

I was out today taking advantage of the sunshine and snow, getting a bit of fresh air and exercise and taking photographs with my ZoOpR 3l33t digital camera. I took a stroll up the hill from my town (Linlithgow, a Royal Burgh since 1389 and birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots, for those interested), along a road which has been in my mind in relation to CM and I've been meaning to get a picture of. This is one of my 'good' pictures, the rest I took just to post here.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/road1.jpg

I would classify this issue in the broad grouping of 'barriers'. Currently CM offers three kinds of barrier; low wall, hedge and bocage. They must occupy a whole tile – they cannot border a tile, and I'd say that is the main problem. In the above picture, the only modern thing is the paving. The road is somewhat sunken, and is immediately bordered by stone walls, an effect impossible to achieve in CM. The reason it caught my imagination is because it would apparently offer excellent small-arms protection for infantry.

I have a couple of suggestions for additions to the 'barriers' department.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/railings1.jpg

Firstly, railings! Iron railings are to be found all over any self-respecting European town or city, usually supported by stone. I think they would make an unusual addition to CM, in that they provide negligible cover or concealment, but present a major physical barrier. Try crossing one of those things under fire!

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/wall1.jpg

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/wall2.jpg

Secondly, tall walls. The first picture shows large stone walls separating people's gardens from the road, with doorways going through. The second picture is of shoulder-high walls with gateways. These are as ubiquitious as railings, and would be very different from the walls currently in CM, in that opposing forces could be on opposite sides without knowing it, and the obstacle could only be negotiated very slowly and vulnerably (ie. it's advisable to find a gateway or, indeed, create one).

Part 2 should be up by the time you've read this...

[David Aitken]

I will call my second grouping 'slopes', which accounts for all of the other issues. I think this is the biggest problem CM has when it comes to urban scenarios. The engine is currently only capable of smooth slopes, more suited to rural scenarios. Europe is a pretty hilly place, and many towns and cities are built partly or wholly on steep hills. The hills themselves practically disappear, because they are covered with buildings, roads and other structures which adapt to the terrain. CM is incapable of reproducing this effect – put two buildings next to each other on a slope, and the engine can't display both at once.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/bridge1.jpg

This picture illustrates two examples of terracing. In the foreground, a simple wall where the ground is level to it on the other side. In the background, a road loop leading up to a canal bridge, separated from the main road by a large wall (topped by railings). In other words, instead of the ground being sloped, it is simply divided into different levels by a vertical drop. This would be a very useful feature to have in CM.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/terrace1.jpg

More terracing – the main road in the middle, the bridge loop above and a side road below.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/road2.jpg

Looking down the side road – it is a couple of metres below the gardens on either side. The horizontal bands at the bottom are part of a railway station platform – the road cuts off to the right and then passes under the railway.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter/terrace3.jpg

A combination of terracing and a high wall.

To sum up; as you probably gather, it is not ideal to use a 3D engine like CM's, which works from what is essentially a contoured 'board', and is restricted by its grid/tile system, to replicate urban landscapes – particularly from ancient countries like France or Russia, where the buildings and roads have propagated over hundreds of years and are usually very dense, varied and intricate. That said, the question is whether a totally realistic European town would actually make any difference to gameplay. I think we could do with a bit more variation just now, but greater complexity and accuracy will really come into its own if and when BTS achieve 1:1 squad representation. Under those circumstances it really will matter whether you have a 1-metre terrace to fight from or you're assaulting a building surrounded by high railings. =)

David

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/images/button.gif (http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/)

[Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
The road is somewhat sunken, and is immediately bordered by stone walls, an effect impossible to achieve in CM. The reason it caught my imagination is because it would apparently offer excellent small-arms protection for infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would also tend to trap any vehicles traveling between the walls. Even a heavy tank could not cross them without risking damage to its running gear, I should think. That would make them sitting ducks in an ambush.

Nice pics, BTW. You have a good eye. Do this sort of thing professionally?

Michael

[Jock Abroad]

Outstanding David!

[Maximus]

Yeah man, those are some really cool, no pun intended, pics. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Reminds me of what it looks like around here. We've had snow on the ground since Dec. 13th. We haven't had snow on the ground this long for a long time. We've had pretty mild winters for the last several years. I think the last time it was like this was Jan '94. About everytime time it starts to clear up it snows again. About every 5 days or so.

[Michael emrys]

Just out of curiosity, Max, where y'at?

Michael

[Capt Canuck]

Those are beautiful pics, that's quite a picturesque town, and I like your ideas too
Dave

[Chupacabra]

I had the same thoughts when I was down around Hastings a few months ago. I think the issue is the 20x20 tile size, which simply doesn't offer enough variation per tile to display realistic cities.

I think CM2 will either have to go tile-crazy and have a tile for every circumstance (ie- building + wall, wall + wall, wall + road + trees) or decrease the tile size. Stalingrad was such a muddle that 20x20 tiles as they're currently implemented will only portray a very watered-down version of it.

------------------
Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[David Aitken]

Michael emrys wrote:
> Do this sort of thing professionally?

Nope. =) I've thought about it, but so has everyone else. I don't really think photography is a big deal – you just need a good subject with good lighting, and a good camera. That said, you've only seen one of the pictures I took for artistic purposes –*the rest weren't supposed to be pretty. =)

Chupacabra wrote:
> I think the issue is the 20x20 tile size, which simply doesn't offer enough variation

Making the tiles smaller is probably the main enhancement which BTS could make in the short term. They're already coming up with a greater variety of buildings for CM 2, so hopefully we'll see different kinds of walls/railings too. In other words, we're looking at greater variety, and possibly greater density, depending on whether reducing the tile size is feasible. That would be a big improvement, more than adequate for a sequel. More fundamental enhancements to what the engine is capable of will probably have to wait until CM II.

David

[DraGoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
Firstly, railings! Iron railings are to be found all over any self-respecting European town or city, usually supported by stone. I think they would make an unusual addition to CM, in that they provide negligible cover or concealment, but present a major physical barrier. Try crossing one of those things under fire!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although railings abound now, during the war, throughout Europe, most were removed and the iron smelted 'for the war effort'. In many towns and villages you can still see the stubs of the original railings poking out from the stonework.

Happy Hogmany. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[David Aitken]

DraGoon wrote:
> most were removed and the iron smelted 'for the war effort'.

Hmm, good point. I know the British government made appeals for pots and pans during the war, on the pretence of using them to build Spitfires, which was nonsense. I think it was mainly for morale purposes, so people would feel they're helping the war effort. Considering that railings tend to serve an important purpose (security, which is a big problem in wartime), do you have any evidence that intact railings really were a rare sight in Europe or Russia?

David

[TownsendVol]

THanks for the Pics and the post David. That is one pretty and old looking town. I would love to see Europe but unfortunatly Uncle Sam sent me to South Korea instead. YUCK.

That is a great post with some rather beautiful examples.


"Play for and make the breaks, when one comes your way Score"

[DraGoon]

Hi David

No published evidence. I first came across this at My Grandparent's house, all the railings in the town (Motherwell) had been cut down and taken by the WD. I have seen the same cut down railing stubs and had a similar explanation while stationed in Germany (at Osnabruck, Paderborn, Sennelager, Fallingbostel.)

In the Channel Islands the German occupiers took much of the locally available resources to help build their defences.

I have however seen pictures of mansion houses (schloss etc.) in the ETO that still had their railings intact. I suppose it had to do with the relative importance of the building and its surrounds.

I don't know about Russia.


[This message has been edited by DraGoon (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Los]

Nice work David, particularly your point about smoothing elevation changes and how that effects map design with roads and what not is well taken.

Los

[David Aitken]

DraGoon wrote:
> I have however seen pictures of mansion houses (schloss etc.) in the ETO that still had their railings intact. I suppose it had to do with the relative importance of the building and its surrounds.

Aye, that's what I would have thought. I still think railings would be an interesting addition to the game. They can't be any scarcer than Jagdtigers. =D

David

[DraGoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
.....They can't be any scarcer than Jagdtigers. =D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HeHe http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

I forgot to mention in my first reply, excellent photos, especially the first one, that's Post Card or competition quality, depends on whether you want cash or kudos.

Have a great New Year.

[David Aitken]

Thanks, you too!

I'll have to take bad photos next time to avoid distracting people. =)

[Forever Babra]

I believe much of what you suggest can be accomplished with tiles which cover a smaller area. Maybe 1m x 1m? Hopefully we'll see this eventually.

[David Aitken]

Forever Babra wrote:
> Maybe 1m x 1m?

That's a bit drastic... even 10m or 5m would be a big improvement. I'm not sure what issues govern tile size, though. There may be a big processor hit involved, in which case even this may be unfeasible in the short term. Maybe I should call upon my good friend the Search Engine, as I'm sure it's been discussed before. =)

[David Aitken]

Okay, I've dug up a thread from Steve from more than a year ago which gives an excellent description of how the tile system works. I'm not sure whether increasing the resolution is any more feasible now than it was then, but I suppose it's just another CPU demand, and we can't have everything.

Explanation of CM's Tile System (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000223.html)

[dNorwood]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Aitken:

I will add that, if anything, the issues are tougher in Germany (at least the part of Franconia I just came from) than what you indicate. I took a handful of picture's of the town my Mom's family lives in, and I intend to try and construct it as a map in CM (mostly as a learning experience), and everything I've read here ("here" meaning the forum, not just this thread) indicates I am probably doomed to failure.

[*Captain Foobar*]

I would like to see this discussed further.

One other issue that has to be addressed is the way that units interact with the terrain.

My point is that a squad of infantry is spread out over a certain area, in the abstraction. It might play out differently with smaller terrain tiles. Hell I dunno, thats just the first thing that came to mind...

[David Aitken]

dNorwood wrote:
> if anything, the issues are tougher in Germany (at least the part of Franconia I just came from) than what you indicate.

Don't worry, I could come up with some much more complicated examples if I put my mind to it. =) I took the pictures I've posted here on my way home – I didn't even take a detour. Linlithgow is just a town, whereas I'm near the city of Edinburgh which is a goldmine of complex terrain. I'm planning to give it the digital camera treatment when I get the chance, and I'll post the results here. =)

If you have any specific issues in mind, do throw them into the ring – if you had a way of getting some of your photos up too, that would be great!

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

If you have any specific issues in mind, do throw them into the ring – if you had a way of getting some of your photos up too, that would be great!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll scan the pictures and try to get them up somewhere to post here - I'm not sure I'll have issues to raise as much as I'd be interested in getting experienced input about how to do certain things.

[retarded_keydet]

I am fairly ignorant when it comes to coding a game engine but I agree that the lack of diversity in urban terrain makes most maps feel unrealistic. I doubt this is the fault of BTS because they probably don't have the production team to create various buildings or other urban structures yet.

------------------
There was a long silence of rememberance for the dead, to which I added these names:
Ernst Neubach, Lensen, Wiener, Wesreidau, Prinz, Solma, Hoth, Olensheim, Sperlovski, Smellens, Dunde, Kellerman, Freivitch, Ballers, Frosch, Woortenbeck, Siemenlies...
I refuse to add Paula to that list, and I shall never forget the names of Hals, or Lindberg, or Pferham, or Wollers. Their memory lves within me.
There is another man, whom I must forget. He was called Guy Sajer.

[Germanboy]

David, and excellent post and very nice pictures. I also think you raise a lot of good points on how the scenario editor can be improved (some of them may not be too difficult, e.g. adding tiles with walls at the edge). Look forward to your Edinburgh pictures - get some of the Grassmarket in here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

That said, you've only seen one of the pictures I took for artistic purposes

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a fine picture of a PATROL sign it was, David! An excellent example of the beauty to be found in everyday life, and in road signs everywhere! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
*Sniff...I'm touched...really, I am...Sniff*

-Jim

[Lawyer]

Nice pictures and nice ideas. I can see where living there makes a difference in your view of CM battlefield presentation.

Thanks


------------------
Only the Lawyer knows what Evil lurks in the minds of men....

[David Aitken]

Germanboy wrote:
> Look forward to your Edinburgh pictures - get some of the Grassmarket in here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Ah, good idea. There's a brilliant road at the northeast corner that's stuck in my mind. A nice nightmare for BTS – narrow, curving, sloping road hemmed in by tall buildings – pretty much sums up everything the engine can't handle. =)

Basebal351 wrote:
> And a fine picture of a PATROL sign it was, David! An excellent example of the beauty to be found in everyday life, and in road signs everywhere! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Yes, and I expect to see them in CM2! =D

[Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
Germanboy wrote:
> Look forward to your Edinburgh pictures - get some of the Grassmarket in here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Ah, good idea. There's a brilliant road at the northeast corner that's stuck in my mind. A nice nightmare for BTS – narrow, curving, sloping road hemmed in by tall buildings – pretty much sums up everything the engine can't handle. =)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the one I mean, I remember walking that one up during New Year's three years ago. And have a tea at Kinnel's while there!



------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Splinty]

Great pics David. I think one thing CM needs to add is terraced terrain and high stone walls, both of which were in great abundance in central Germany (Aschaffenburg)where I was stationed.

------------------
Nicht Schiessen!!

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

A nice nightmare for BTS – narrow, curving, sloping road hemmed in by tall buildings – pretty much sums up everything the engine can't handle. =)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I finally got my pictures in position - I think they pretty much boil down to your comment above.

Below is one road out of town (toward the A3, if you care). You can see a twisty road leading uphill with two roads turning left (foreground and one barely visible about middle of the picture) and one right. The two to the left slope down and the one on the right slopes up. In both cases, hemmed in by buildings.
Main point - buildings on slopes REAL close to road.
http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/dnorwood/ruden_to_a3_2.jpg

More extreme example of the above. Just behind the brewery (where I have NOT spend many long weekend evenings with my uncle at the Stammtisch only to stagger home, trying to uproot street signs to take home to my aunt) you see a building with a steep road (near side) and a steep walkway(far side). In the background, you can see a building clearly embedded in the slope.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/dnorwood/ruden_wolf_2.jpg

Last example of the above. It's not as obvious how steep this alley is, but it is a more extreme example of "buildings on slopes". And it's VERY narrow. Also, you can see on the right foreground the beginning of a "bocage" extending behind the photographer directly adjacent to the road. (I thought I had a better shot of this, but I can't find it). So if anybody tells you that you can't put bocage in Germany, I'll send you the picture!

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/dnorwood/ruden_alley_2.jpg

This shot really doesn't address any real mapping issues, but it shows the iron fencing that's been discussed. I have no way of knowing if it is original equipment, but as this is the home of the Count (and this village did not lack for "true believers" in the 30's aond early 40's) I imagine if anybody's iron fencing was going to be "appropriated", they might give this one a miss.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/dnorwood/ruden_count_2.jpg

(Now the moment of truth when I find out if this image embedding worked..It didn't - let's try again ... Jeez! Who do you have to know!! Once more with feeling ... )



[This message has been edited by dNorwood (edited 01-02-2001).]

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood:
I finally got my pictures in position - I think they pretty much boil down to your comment above.

(Now the moment of truth when I find out if this image embedding worked..It didn't - let's try again ... Jeez! Who do you have to know!! Once more with feeling ... )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I give. I stored the pictures at
//communities.msn.com/Rudenhausen/files.dca
and referenced them with the standard
" [ img ][ /img ] "
(w/o the spaces) with no luck - little help?

[Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood:
OK, I give. I stored the pictures at
//communities.msn.com/Rudenhausen/files.dca
and referenced them with the standard
" [ img ][ /img ] "
(w/o the spaces) with no luck - little help?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.msnusers.com/Rudenhausen/files/rudenWolf.jpg that is the link I have for one of the pictures - mefinks it is either the capitalisation, or maybe a missing "/"? Can't access it b/c I have no passport.



------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[David Aitken]

I would suggest that the "passport" (whatever it is) is the reason why the pictures aren't working. If you can't access the pictures on the pages, I don't see how you could link to them. Is this service not meant for storing files, rather than posting images?

If you want to e-mail me the pictures, I can host them for you.

[Chupacabra]

Er, I can see the pictures just fine.

------------------
Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[David Aitken]

Do you have a "passport" Jon? (I'm damned if I'm signing up to any Microsoft scam just to access their web pages.)

Edit: My browser is trying to connect to login.passport.com for every image, which suggests you need to be signed up to view them. Goody, I can have Microsoft watching me wherever I go.

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
Do you have a "passport" Jon? (I'm damned if I'm signing up to any Microsoft scam just to access their web pages.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, yeah, guess I do. Hrm, I'm actually fairly surprised that even Microsoft would restrict access to material like that.

Chalk another one up for the Great Satan, I guess.



------------------
Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[David Aitken]

They're just trying to push their new "online wallet" rubbish by forcing you to sign up to see stuff other people post. Don't fall for it, people! They just want to know exactly where you go and what you buy on the internet!

dNorwood, feel free to e-mail me the pictures at david@reckoning.demon.co.uk and I'll post them Big Brother-free. =)

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
Don't fall for it, people! They just want to know exactly where you go and what you buy on the internet!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Microsoft wants to know how much amputee Goth porn I buy? Dang, I could've just told them.


------------------
Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:
Microsoft wants to know how much amputee Goth porn I buy? Dang, I could've just told them.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You pay?

Anyway, sorry for the rigamarole [sp?] I've emailed the pictures to David (the other David) and when he gets back to me I'll edit the message and you'll all see clearly that it wasn't worth it.

[David Aitken]

Back to the top, so everyone can see dNorwood's piccies. =)

[David Aitken]

Back by popular demand, welcome to the second edition of European Architecture To Make Game Programmers Weep! Our intrepid correspondent, armed with a Nikon Coolpix 990, on Friday ventured into the heart of the ancient city of Edinburgh with the sole objective of revealing just how poorly suited Combat Mission's engine is to simulating the kind of urban terrain common to Europe and Russia. BTS, please fix or do somefink!!

The first thing I did was to borrow a Fiesler Storch from the Luftwaffe and effect a daring reconnaissance mission in the skies over peacetime Edinburgh. This is what my target area looks like from above:

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/edinburgh_map.jpg

I wouldn't have posted this, as I don't want to turn the thread into a guided tour of Edinburgh, but for the fact that it's a very good example of what I'm getting at. This is the city centre. Princes Street Gardens is a large depression which used to be a loch (lake), and it forms a barrier between the New Town and the Old Town. Compare the street layout to the north, which was constructed in Victorian times, with that to the south, which is many hundreds of years old.

The New Town is a rigid grid layout not unlike that common to the USA. It should be noted, however, that it is actually built on a slope – George Street marks the top of a ridge line, and the ground drops south to Princes Street, and north, over a longer distance, all the way down to the Firth of Forth (River Forth). Even this situation is a bit beyond what CM is capable of, with buildings side by side going down a slope.

The Old Town is fascinating. It is a miscellany of narrow streets, twisting over and under each other, all hemmed in by tall buildings which very often front onto different streets at different levels. I have concentrated my study in this area, as it brilliantly exemplifies everything CM cannot do.

Before I get into my main sections, there is quite an appropriate issue to deal with. Many of the oldest towns and cities in this part of the world propagated around a port or a castle, centres of Roman or medieval activity. Edinburgh is an example of the latter case. Where do you build a castle? In an easily defensible location with good visibility (remember we're thinking in terms of swords and horses, not the SAS and ballistic missiles). Edinburgh Castle is built on top of a volcanic plug.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/johnston_terrace_castle_2.jpg

It is surrounded by near-vertical cliffs on three sides. If you wanted big cliffs, you wouldn't think to look in the middle of a city, but that's what Europe is like. Currently there is no 'cliff' terrain in CM, although this can be approximated with steep ground and the 'rough' tile.

In the lee of the volcanic plug (ie. the ground which was shielded from the glaciers which shaped the terrain) is the castle esplanade. This is essentially a forecourt and the entrance to the castle. The main compound has a drawbridge, but the esplanade is also protected, by a high wall.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/johnston_terrace_castle_1.jpg

Notice how the wall forms the crest of a steep ridge line. (The curved structure in front of the main living quarters is a gun platform with cannon ports.)

On the opposite side of the city centre is Calton Hill, with some more nice examples of buildings right on the edge of cliffs.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/calton_hill_cliff.jpg

Notice on the very right, the cliff has been complemented by a large wall. This kind of feature is alien to CM.

(1 of 12)

[David Aitken]

1. STREETS

The New Town was planned and executed in a modern fashion. The Old Town, like all ancient settlements, developed over hundreds of years. Modern roads mark thoroughfares which were not devised by city planners, but were simply the most logical routes over the terrain taken by the eariest inhabitants of the area. Buildings are not distinct and uniform – they follow the winding roads, adapt to the shape of the terrain, and are so dense that they practically merge into each other. Narrow closes (alleys) disappear into the edifice with little indication of where they lead.

The Lawnmarket forms the top end of the Old Town's main street, otherwise known as the Royal Mile, with the castle at the top and Holyrood Palace at the bottom.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/lawnmarket.jpg

This is 'wide' by Old Town standards. The street is sloped all the way, and does not form a straight line. (Tactical note: the winding street allows occupants of certain buildings a clear LOS of large stretches without having to lean out of their window.) Notice that adjacent buildings have floors on different levels (eg. on the right, above the shop with the dark green façade, the lower floors of the building do not align with those on either side). This clearly suggests that we have a tall, thin, five or six storey building which forms part of a row, but which is not connected with adjacent buildings. Consider the difficulties this would present in trying to move up the street during combat, even when 'mouseholing'. The sloping ground also necessitates the continual realignment of 'ground floor' without breaking the continuity, a technique impossible to achieve in CM.

The Cowgate runs parallel to the Royal Mile, but at a lower level. There are several tiny closes piercing through the buildings to link the Cowgate with the streets on either side.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/south_grays_close.jpg

This is a more dramatic example of street sloping. Compare the cobbled road with the windows on the adjacent buildings – there is a whole floor's difference from one end to the other. The close actually enters the street above through an archway in the buildings.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/old_fishmarket_close.jpg

An even narrower close, squeezing through some very imposing buildings. Again, access to the street above is through an archway. The combination of tall, thin buildings and steep, narrow pathways is alien to CM.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/rober_close.jpg

Another narrow close hemmed in by very tall buildings. (An item of tactical interest here: a kink in the façade creates a column of windows set at an angle, with perfect LOS down the street.)

(2 of 12)

[David Aitken]

This is a very interesting picture.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/greyfriars.jpg

This is the junction between Candlemaker Row and George IV Bridge. Referring to the map (bottom middle), you will see that the bridge in question passes over the Cowgate, while Candlemaker Row takes you down to the lower level. The main issue here is the block of buildings between the three streets – they form a triangle, with the roads sloping up on one side, down on the other, and level at the back, and the up-sloping road passing over the level one. Very complex, and totally beyond the capabilities of CM.

I will come to the bridge later, but just now, look up the road on the right – from this angle you would never guess it actually passes over a bridge. This is an important issue – very often two roads can cross over each other, but each road is a world of its own, and you're not aware of what's going on on the other road. This is very different from a simple bridge of the CM variety, where it might as well be a large plank of wood.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/cockburn_street.jpg

Cockburn Street (pronounced without the 'ck'), an S-shaped road leading down from the north side of the Royal Mile. It slopes and curves, and the buildings follow suit. Think about the shape of the buildings as seen from above – the map will give you some ideas. They aren't definite, self-contained buildings – they're all kinds of different shapes and merge in with each other, following the roads and filling out the available space.

This is also similar to the Candlemaker Row example; behind the rearmost buildings you see here is North Bridge (pictures later), which passes over Market Street on the left – so this block of buildings fronts onto a straight, level street on one side, a sloping, curving street on the other, and backs onto a third street at a lower level. (Tactical note: notice the building on the right with a turret on the corner. This is a more recent design, but is based on medieval castles, which were built this way for military purposes – providing a lookout post to cover potential blind spots, a purpose which they would still serve in modern times, although being much more susceptible to modern weapons.)

(3 of 12)

[David Aitken]

And now, by special request of Andreas: Victoria Street! On investigation I found this to be far more interesting than I had previously realised. I shall start with a rather nice model provided by the cooncil (to be found on The Mound).

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/edinburgh_model.jpg

On the left, Johnston Terrace, from where I took my pictures of the castle. On the very right, George IV Bridge passing over the Cowgate (and disappearing into oblivion, according to the model). The spiral street in the middle is Victoria Street, and it's even better than it looks here.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/victoria_street_1.jpg

Here we are at the bottom. How does it strike you? The tenements up above look a bit out of place – where are they, on the roof? Notice how the curving, sloping street affects the buildings – five storeys at the bottom quickly condenses into three storeys further up. Also notice on the very right, a building with four storeys which actually has more space than the adjacent building with six storeys. The former obviously has high ceilings.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/victoria_street_2.jpg

Moving around the corner, the mystery deepens – more buildings built on the rooves of others? Notice how the storey condensation leaves the shops at the top of the hill with only a single storey to play with, and the very curved façade of the building on the right.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/victoria_street_3.jpg

Up on the rooftops, we find there is actually a walkway between the two levels of buildings. But what the heck are they doing on the roof?

(4 of 12)

[David Aitken]

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/upper_bow_1.jpg

This picture was taken at the top of Johnston Terrace. The church is in between this street and Victoria Street. The grey building on the left is on the other side of Victoria Street. Starting to make sense? Look closely at the model posted earlier. The ground slopes sharply away from Johnston Terrace, so buildings fronting onto the road are practically falling down the hill. The buildings lining Victoria Street below are at the bottom of the hill. Taking this into account, the builders have seemingly wedged Victoria Street's buildings underneath Johnston Terrace's buildings.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/upper_bow_3.jpg

This is the view from Upper Bow (the upper level of Victoria Street) looking back up. The 'side entrance' to the church is a floor down from the front entrance.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/upper_bow_2.jpg

These steps take you down to Victoria Street. They are built into the row of buildings. The situation is very strange – what looks like the ground from one side, you realise is actually rooftops from another. Understandably, this kind of sculpting is far beyond what CM is capable of – but at the same time, it is essential to the kind of scenarios that CM seeks to portray. (Notice the railings – being necessary to stop people from falling off buildings, I suspect these are originals.)

(5 of 12)

[David Aitken]

2. BRIDGES

As they are currently implemented in CM, bridges are very limited. They must be one of two specific heights, and most importantly, a tile must be reserved at each end for the bridge to run into. This picture nicely illustrates why that is a problem:

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/waterloo_place_bridge.jpg

This is Waterloo Place (an extension of Princes Street, Edinburgh's main commercial street) crossing over Calton Road. I love it because it is so freakin' huge, and is surrounded by some extremely tall buildings. Again, the buildings' main entrances are on Waterloo Place, but this is actually halfway up. In CM terms, the bridge occupies a single tile, and the four diagonally adjacent tiles are occupied by tall buildings. CM cannot handle bridges in this way, nor does it have such tall, thin buildings. (Notice the ornate structure on top of the bridge instead of a simple railing.)

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/north_bridge_1.jpg

North Bridge, which crosses over Waverley Station. Not sure why I cut off the north end of the bridge. How this differs from the CM concept of a 'bridge' is obvious. Whereas the arches in a CM bridge are arbitrary, and they don't really matter because the only thing you can put under a bridge is a perpendicular road or river, here the positioning of the piers is crucial.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/north_bridge_2.jpg

The spans are much longer than a CM bridge, and there are two or three piers at specific locations in or next to the railway station below. The bridge essentially 'floats', and is largely independent of the station. It does not hug the ground CM-style to the exclusion of all else.

(6 of 12)

[David Aitken]

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/waverley_station.jpg

The station is rather interesting in itself. This is the east end, which illustrates how it is not a building, but rather just a large shelter. At either side is a tall wall, and the roof is perspex I think – I suspect it would have been wood or corrugated metal when it was first built. It is held up at regular intervals by iron columns.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/waverley_bridge.jpg

This is the west end. Waverley Bridge actually forms part of the roof of the station. It looks relatively modern, but the whole structure dates back to Victorian times and the construction of the New Town. Two large ramps provide vehicular access to the station, to either side of the purple building in the picture. These ramps form yet more of the station roof. Again we have a construction which is different things depending on where you see it from. A roof from below is a bridge or a ramp from above, and again these roadways hover above the ground without affecting what is beneath them.

You might be wondering where I took that picture from. Floating above the railway line? Here is the view in the opposite direction:

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/mound.jpg

This is The Mound. Remember that the railway runs along the bottom of a dry loch; when the New Town was built, debris from the excavations was dumped into the loch, and this 'mound' became a roadway and home to a couple of large buildings. This picture features in my 'bridges' section due to the railway tunnels. Terracing (which I discussed at the beginning of the thread) sets the railway at a lower level from the Gardens on either side, and the tunnel in question is quite short. In tactical terms it would present quite an interesting obstacle. Tunnels, of course, do not feature in CM.

(7 of 12)

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 02-18-2001).]

[David Aitken]

Back to the Cowgate. This is what George IV Bridge, pictured earlier from above, looks like from below:

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/george_iv_bridge.jpg

It's not the kind of obvious bridge found in CM – it merges in with the surrounding buildings to carry one road over another. It would be normal for a minor road to pass over a major road, but in this case it's the other way round – everything is focused on the higher level, and it's not too difficult to overlook the bridge altogether when you're crossing.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/kings_bridge_1.jpg

Here is another good example of that. King's Bridge, directly below the castle. What bridge?

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/kings_bridge_2.jpg

This one. Rather big, rather wide, and not apparently a bridge when seen from above. Tactically, negotiating such an obstacle would be a different issue from a plain bridge.

(8 of 12)

[David Aitken]

A feature of King's Bridge takes me on to my next section:

3. STEPS

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/kings_bridge_steps.jpg

I think urban scenarios are much poorer for the lack of steps. Currently in CM, when a squad traverses a slope they will slow down, and a cliff is completely out of bounds. In a rural scenario this makes sense. In the city, however, there are many situations where a slope or a cliff is easily traversible thanks to a flight of steps. Moreover, when a city is constructed, constant, rolling terrain is terraced to allow for buildings and roads, creating dramatic elevation differences where steps are a necessity. CM cannot yet handle terracing, and as such, steps are not so much of a necessity. They would definitely make a difference just now, but they will really come into their own as the CM engine develops to allow for more dense and varied terrain.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/north_bank_street_steps.jpg

Steps are very often to be found sandwiched between buildings. As with the closes featured earlier, in this case the steps pass underneath a tall building via an archway. Consider the "A Walk In Paris" scenario included with CM. Restricted to the tile system, a city becomes a grid where each large square is either a building, a road or a garden. A narrow 'alley' can be approximated by interspersing the 'heavy' tall buildings with 'light' tall buildings, which are slightly narrower with space on either side. This creates a means of passing through the row of buildings without having to enter them. This 'alley', of course, can only be flat and grassy – it cannot take you up to a higher level, and if it were sloped, it would slow infantry down, when in reality a flight of steps would allow them to move nearly as quickly as a level road. Of course, whether it would be advisable for infantry to rush around in confined spaces between buildings is another matter.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/high_school_yards_steps.jpg

This is a nice example of terracing. Here we have two parallel roads with a row of buildings in between, but they are at different levels. I didn't check, but if the buildings have an entrance at the back, it will be a floor higher than the front entrance. A flight of steps (essentially a helical staircase) facilitates a vertical ascent to the higher level. This also illustrates how steps are not always just a ground-hugging feature, but are very often almost a building in themselves. (The blue kiosk is either Dr Who's Tardis or a Victorian police box, depending on who you ask.)

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/castle_wynd_south_steps.jpg

A wider, more open flight. Notice how, rather than each step being longer to follow the slope, they are of set dimensions and there are landings at regular intervals to spread them out. In tactical terms, this would provide infantry with some cover if fired upon from the top or bottom of the steps. An uninterrupted flight would offer no more cover than a road.

(9 of 12)

[David Aitken]

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/gardens_steps.jpg

An even shorter, wider flight. This seems to serve little purpose; such a feature would only be found in a location of particular value, such as leading up to an important building, or in this case, leading down from a main street (Princes Street) to adjacent Gardens. The main point of interest here is the thick stone barriers at either side. These are carved and are not solid, but are rather sturdy and would serve the same purpose as the battlements of a castle. Infantry could use the gaps as firing ports, and would be afforded considerable small-arms and shrapnel protection by the stonework. This serves as an example of how certain architectural features often carry embellishments which alter their tactical value.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/gardens_ramp.jpg

This is a slightly different concept. Very steep hills might seem unsuitable even for a flight of steps. Set at an angle, in this case even a simple ramp is sufficient. Even a near-vertical cliff can be made traversible in this way. On CM's scale this would maybe be too subtle a feature; such ramps tend to be very long and thin, and cover a large area without occupying much space. This would not just apply to urban scenarios, however – a mountain trail would be done in the same way. Consider how the apparent insignificance of a mountain trail belies its importance – it may just be a little ramp cut into the side of a hill, but without it there's no way to get up unless you're a trained mountaineer, and even then it'll take you a long time.

(10 of 12)

[David Aitken]

Lastly, some more examples of a feature which I mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

4. RAILINGS

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/jeffrey_street_railings.jpg

This is actually a combination of railings and terracing, but I neglected to emphasise the latter. You can see the street below – the wall drops vertically down to the lower level. The railings here are important – from a civilian perspective, at least – and again, as such, are probably originals. From a tactical perspective the terrace would present more of an obstacle than the railings. I'm not sure how often infantry would be inclined to climb or abseil a terrace rather than going around it; the railings would provide a useful anchor for these purposes.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/johnston_terrace_railings.jpg

Here is an example of railings having been removed. In this case they were obviously unnecessary, and have not even been replaced in the post-war period. There are many examples of replacements around town, which are obvious as they do not align with the original stubs. (Tactical note: In some cases the stone base would be high enough to provide cover for infantry.)

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/blair_street_railings.jpg

This is a poor example of a very interesting issue. There are many buildings around town, especially in the New Town, which are set some way back from the street. The ground in between is terraced so that the base of the building is actually a floor below street level, and the front door is accessed via a bridge. I could, and should, have provided some much better examples of this, but you get the idea. From a tactical perspective, this creates something of a modern-day moat, preventing infantry from entering the building directly via the windows.

5. 'Over-the-Shoulder' Effect

This is not a section in its own right, but rather a culmination of various of the issues discussed above.

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/urb_ter2/cowgate_church.jpg

A combination of tall buildings and sharp elevation changes gives occupants of the top levels of some buildings LOS over the rooves of other buildings. This illustrates how urban battlefields must always be thought of in three dimensions, and how two-dimensional games such as Close Combat cannot hope to realistically simulate the nature of urban combat. On a two-dimensional map, you would never guess that I have LOS from this sloped close, over the rooves of four-storey buildings to the top floors of those beyond.

(11 of 12)

[David Aitken]

CONCLUSION

The nature of urban terrain is extremely complex and unpredictable, and would be very difficult even to approximate in a computer game, especially where the terrain is only supposed to provide a backdrop for the action. Moreover, the impact of the surroundings only really hits you when you are in amongst them, rather than hovering above the rooftops. As I have mentioned previously, maybe accurately simulating ancient cities in CM would not actually have a significant effect on the gameplay. If it were a first-person or a squad-orientated game, this would be far more important than in the platoon- or company-orientated game that CM is. But in a situation where people on this forum are inclined to very closely analyse the actions of their digital infantry, it is important to consider the circumstances their soldiers might, in reality, be facing; and each enhancement BTS programs will bring greater understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, more imaginative tactics to account for this, and a more realistic and absorbing experience.

I have no intention of telling BTS how to code their games, but I have a few ideas about how CM's modelling of the features I have discussed might be enhanced.

• Earlier in the thread, we came to the conclusion that making the tiles smaller would be the best thing to do. On further thought, I see the main problem being that everything is tied to tiles. Roads, buildings, even walls must occupy a single tile each, and all are restricted to four axes. I think the biggest single enhancement would be to divorce objects from tiles, and allow them to be placed independently. Buildings could be arranged in a more irregular and realistic pattern. Roads and walls could be plotted as lines rather than objects; this way they need not occupy an entire tile, and could trace a curving path to follow the terrain.

• Steps or ramps could be treated as something between roads and walls – a narrow band which would allow infantry to traverse even the steepest cliffs.

• You could specify the elevation of a building, allowing it to be set into the ground so that the terrain need not be level all around. The accessible sides could also be specified, and infantry would enter on the floor closest to their access point.

• The elevation of a road could also be specified at intervals; for example, you could place a 'pier' which would hold the road a specific distance above the ground (the road would be straight in between piers). This would replace bridges, as the current system is very limited.

• In the editor, locations could be specified where infantry are able to leave bridges to access adjacent buildings. The buildings would be right next to the road anyway, but the engine obviously could not be expected to recognise this, so I imagine a line would be drawn from the edge of the bridge into the building to indicate that there is an entrance. This would allow for buildings fronting onto different streets at different levels.

• Terracing is probably one of the most fundamental improvements which could be made to the engine, but I have left it until last because I can't immediately think of a way to implement it. In the context of the CM editor, it would be a matter of a line where the ground was level at either end, but on one side it rises while on the other it falls, creating a vertical drop in the middle. The least difficult solution would maybe be reducing the tile size, allowing for sharper elevation changes; this would not create true terracing, but I don't know whether that is feasible.

Thanks for reading – let me know what you think, or of any other ideas you might have. =)

Next up: European Weather Patterns To Make Game Programmers Weep!

David

http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/images/button.gif (http://www.reckoning.demon.co.uk/cm/)

(12 of 12)

[Steve P]

David,
Nice pics and an interesting read, How did you manage to get Rab C Nesbit to appear in one of the photo's on page 2 :.}

[M. Bates]

It would be a good idea to have buildings only entered from certain sides. Dunno how that would "look" in 3D in CM2 tho.

[Michael emrys]

Originally posted by David Aitken:
This is a slightly different concept. Very steep hills might seem unsuitable even for a flight of steps. Set at an angle, in this case even a simple ramp is sufficient. Even a near-vertical cliff can be made traversible in this way. On CM's scale this would maybe be too subtle a feature; such ramps tend to be very long and thin, and cover a large area without occupying much space. This would not just apply to urban scenarios, however – a mountain trail would be done in the same way. Consider how the apparent insignificance of a mountain trail belies its importance – it may just be a little ramp cut into the side of a hill, but without it there's no way to get up unless you're a trained mountaineer, and even then it'll take you a long time.

As someone who spent several years walking the hills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, I can attest to this. The majority of trails were created by the meanderings of livestock who invariably chose the line of least resistance. This might take a much longer path, but the effort at each point was less.

On the subject of terrain, I am still in the dark as to whether the CM engine accounts for military crests and whether units moving on a skyline are particularly vulnerable to spotting and fire.

Michael

[David Aitken]

Michael emrys wrote:
> On the subject of terrain, I am still in the dark as to whether the CM engine accounts for military crests and whether units moving on a skyline are particularly vulnerable to spotting and fire.

I believe the conclusion was 'no' in both cases. You've seen the threads I have in mind, but I reckoned they were pretty conclusive.

BTS PLEASE COMMENT ON TOPIC "ARE HILL CREASTS COVER" (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010351.html)

Simon's site (http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/) (scroll to bottom for LOS issues)

Does your background 'hide' you? (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015565.html)

David

[Black Five]

Stop posting pretty pictures. I'm stuck at 29 Palms and these pictures are killing me. In case your wondering, 29 Palms is in the middle of the Southern Cali desert. I'm from the East Coast and aside from great sunsets the desert is rather blah.

[David Aitken]

Black Five wrote:
> I'm from the East Coast and aside from great sunsets the desert is rather blah.

You've got a company of tanks, don't you? You can do us an illustrated dissertation on armour tactics and the way the command structure in CM can be improved. =D

[Michael emrys]

Originally posted by David Aitken:
Michael emrys wrote:
> On the subject of terrain, I am still in the dark as to whether the CM engine accounts for military crests and whether units moving on a skyline are particularly vulnerable to spotting and fire.

I believe the conclusion was 'no' in both cases. You've seen the threads I have in mind, but I reckoned they were pretty conclusive.

BTS PLEASE COMMENT ON TOPIC "ARE HILL CREASTS COVER" (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010351.html)

Simon's site (http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/) (scroll to bottom for LOS issues)

Does your background 'hide' you? (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015565.html)

David

This is a classic example of why I hate having people refer me to other threads. Half an hour of reading and the only post that came remotely close to the questions I was raising was Iggi's:

"Are units moving along hill crests easier to spot because of thier outline with the sky?"

and it never got replied to. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif

Michael

[Simon Fox]

All good stuff and grist for the CM2 mill. As Andreas pointed out earlier many of these issues could be improved with a greater variety of tiles. Which brings me to: However, there are fundamental ways in which CM maps are much more suited to rural landscapes than cityscapes. With the exception of bocage. I have yet to see a bocage map which evokes the claustrophobia and isolation of the real thing. The main reason is the absence of tiles in which the bocage runs along the edge of the tile and road tiles with bocage close on either side of the road. The same applies to hedges and walls. More tiles are needed I fink.

BTW looks cold. The closest we have to that white stuff is beach sand hehe.

------------------
"Stand to your glasses steady,
This world is a world of lies,
Here's a toast to the dead already,
And here's to the next man to die."
-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[David Aitken]

Michael emrys wrote:
> This is a classic example of why I hate having people refer me to other threads.

Sorry, you've posted in both the threads I linked to so I assumed you'd remember them. Your quote from iggi was in the first thread, which I believed was relevant to your comment about military crests. iggi was a main contributor to the second thread, which was all about whether a unit's background affects its visibility. Skylining obviously fits into this category, doesn't it? In other words, his question was answered, but not in the first thread.

Would you prefer just being told to "do a search"? =)

David

[crepitis]

David you dont by any chance work for the Scottish Tourist Board,do you?You've somehow managed to make the east coast look attractive,some lovely pics of Scotlands "other" city!.Seriously though I have been very impressed by your posts in this thread,with excellent accompanying pictures,presented in a thought-provoking and articulate way.Keep up the good work.(As a by-product i'm sure you've got a lot of people looking out their passports and heading for Scotland!)Cheers,Bob.

[ropey]

I'd go for divorcing objects from the tiles. Wouldn't it be nice to pick a Bocage 'pen' and draw the line of bocage exactly where we wanted it? Or barbed wire, or high walls, or even building walls.

First place your underlying terrain and elevations, then draw away.

Aah, but dreams are free. Only 100 more barbed wires to place in my Cassino map...

------------------
Never leave your mind so open your brains fall out.

[David Aitken]

crepitis wrote:
> You've somehow managed to make the east coast look attractive,some lovely pics of Scotlands "other" city!

I might actually be moving west depending on how my career works out. I haven't seen enough of Glasgow, and there's plenty of it to see!

ropey wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice to pick a Bocage 'pen' and draw the line of bocage exactly where we wanted it?

The way I see it, Charles has effectively created ready-made tiles with a building or a wall already placed onto them. Presumably the modelling of these features cannot be done on-the-fly within the game engine – it has to be hard-coded, and as such Charles is forced to provide a limited number of ready-made examples. I've no idea what it would take to allow object placement to be done on-the-fly, but this is what I am suggesting, if it were ever likely to be possible. =)

David

[Germanboy]

Excellent stuff David. I think you have a really good eye for this kind of stuff. Thanks for the pitures of the model of Victoria Street. I really hope BTS manages to do more tiles for CM2.

And also thanks for the great cartoon of our trip to Hastings. Excellent work! I am still chuckling when I look at it.

------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.derkessel.com)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[David Aitken]

Germanboy wrote:
> And also thanks for the great cartoon of our trip to Hastings.

Glad you like it, Peter had to sell most of his sheep to pay me. =)

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Black Five:
Stop posting pretty pictures. I'm stuck at 29 Palms and these pictures are killing me. In case your wondering, 29 Palms is in the middle of the Southern Cali desert. I'm from the East Coast and aside from great sunsets the desert is rather blah.

The desert is awesome. I'm from the midwest, and (now that I live in CA) I love going out there. You just have to look around more-- especially down at the ground, where there's all sorts of stuff going on. The rock formations are really cool too.

------------------
"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Cos]

Originally posted by David Aitken:


Aye, that's what I would have thought. I still think railings would be an interesting addition to the game. They can't be any scarcer than Jagdtigers. =D

David

Make an interting barrier, infantry can fire through them fairly easy, but when that Jagdtiger takes a shot and the round hits the railing and sends the round flying who knows where (if it doesn't just blow up on contact).

[David Aitken]

Cos wrote:
> but when that Jagdtiger takes a shot and the round hits the railing and sends the round flying who knows where (if it doesn't just blow up on contact).

I suspect an explosive round would usually detonate, although if it were far enough off centre it might just bounce slightly off course. Small-arms fire is where you'd get all the ricochets. It would be interesting to hear from a veteran on whether railings present a severe health hazard under fire.

David

[Michael emrys]

Originally posted by David Aitken:
Michael emrys wrote:
> This is a classic example of why I hate having people refer me to other threads.

Sorry, you've posted in both the threads I linked to so I assumed you'd remember them. Your quote from iggi was in the first thread, which I believed was relevant to your comment about military crests. iggi was a main contributor to the second thread, which was all about whether a unit's background affects its visibility. Skylining obviously fits into this category, doesn't it? In other words, his question was answered, but not in the first thread.

Would you prefer just being told to "do a search"?

Nooooo!!! [shrieks; recoils in horror] How can you even speak of such a thing?

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

And I don't mean to sound disagreeable either. Most of the missed communication was my own fault.

What I am trying to say is that the military crest of a hill or ridge is not necessarily its highest point but the point at which the curve of the hill/ridge becomes silhouetted against the sky when viewed from below. An illustration would be far simpler than trying to explain it in words, but alas I have no way to provide one here.

The point being that savvy troops would try to avoid crests like the plague, especially moving along or even across one, because it would greatly multiply your likelihood of being spotted. On the face of it, this is a significant enough feature to warrant inclusion in the game...BUT...I expect that it would be a real ball-buster for the computer to have to calculate the LOS to determine whether any specific unit is silhouetted from the point of view of any other specific unit.

Just thinking out loud...

Michael

[David Aitken]

I think things were going pretty quickly over the holiday weekend, so I'll knock this back to the top for the benefit of those who read the forum from work. =)

[Sig]

Originally posted by David Aitken:

(snip) I think the biggest single enhancement would be to divorce objects from tiles, and allow them to be placed independently. (snip)



Agree *entirely* with this one. It would be a major improvement and help to create realistic (as close as possible) urbanised (incl. villages) European areas. Just to add to the topic of European villages: farms are often not isolated in the middle of the countryside, but integrated close to each other in a village. They can even be tightly linked together: in the village where I lived, the main road was limited on one side by "solid" row of 7 linked farms. We just hoped no fire would start when the north wind was blowing...the row was oriented N-S... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif .

Complex and "anarchic" village structures are quite difficult to properly model with the 20m-tile system.

BTW, very nice pictures David. Visited Scotland (and Edinburgh) few years ago. Aaah..souvenirs. Mmh, were did I put my passport again?

Sig

[David Aitken]

Sig wrote:
> farms are often not isolated in the middle of the countryside, but integrated close to each other in a village.

Good point. In America farmsteads have always been out in the middle of nowhere, and I think that's the norm here nowadays, but in Britain at least farming used to take place in the fields surrounding small villages. By the old system (before it was overhauled, I think, in the 19th Century), rather than having large areas to themselves, farmers were allocated strips of land spread out over the good and bad areas. This was fair, but it was also inefficient. The point is that a group of farmers worked and lived in close proximity, rather than having their own discrete farms. While this of course predated the Second World War, the villages and farms in question would continue to be used.

David

[Michael emrys]

BTW, great pics, David. It hadn't really struck home what good work can be done with digital cameras now. What I had read in the magazines sounded pretty discouraging. Yours seems to have good resolution, nice range of color and contrast, etc. Did you do any work on them (as in Photoshop) before posting, or are they pretty straight? You are using a Nikon, you say?

Michael

[David Aitken]

If I'd thought too much about what professional photographers say, I would never have bought a digital camera. You can still get low-resolution cameras, but mine does 2048x1536, which is acceptable for professional purposes, and as far as I'm concerned it's brilliant. And of course, being a Nikon, the pictures are very sharp and look great.

Aside from resizing, and brightening one or two where I'd messed up the exposure, the pictures are unchanged (if I'd posted them full-size you'd be downloading for a week and scrolling for another one).

In terms of composition, I wasn't trying to take nice photos, I was only concerned with capturing the subjects which were relevant to my study. It's actually a good way to take photographs, because you just see something and take a snap, instead of spending ages looking for a nice composition and then either deciding against it or being disappointed with the results. I think cameras are best used for a purpose like this – artistic shots are nice, but what can you use them for?

I've been thinking about taking a few shots of churches. I've hesitated a bit, as I've been unsure whether British churches bear any resemblance to continental churches – but aside from the suggestion of Norman churches being similar to those in CM (square rather than cross-shaped), and thus different from the type I'm used to, I think they're relatively interchangeable. European churches are certainly very different from the type Americans are used to.

We have an ancient church here in Linlithgow next to the Palace (which the English made a good effort to burn down a few hundred years ago), and both are fascinating and very impressive. Of course, I don't want to get into too much detail, as I doubt BTS are going to spend much time modelling super-accurate buildings for us to blow up. =)

David