Maps

Maps (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany

Message

DavidW75 -> Maps (2/4/2003 8:39:46 AM)
Here are a couple of maps. This first one is from the area often called the Cheb Gap.

DavidW75 -> (2/4/2003 8:42:09 AM)
This one is south of the city of Salzgitter in what would have been the area defended by the BAOR.

IChristie -> New Map Preview (2/12/2003 9:37:48 AM)
Here is a preview of the next Flashpoint Germany Map: "The Borde" which depicts an area around the city of Springe near Hameln in Northern Germany. -------------------------------- NOTE: these are jpg images from screen captures of the map in photoshop, not screenshots from the game. There are some aliasing effects particularly in the lower resolutions. The in-game images will be bmp's and will not have these effects. ------------------------------- Here's the overview (this is a half game scale) [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/closecombatian/Springe0029.jpg[/IMG] Here's a couple of close ups at the zoomed in game resolution: The city of Springe [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/closecombatian/Springe0025.jpg[/IMG] The Towns on the SW slopes [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/closecombatian/Springe0026.jpg[/IMG] And here's a look at the Southern ridge at the zoomed out game resolution [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/closecombatian/Springe0027.jpg[/IMG]

Rune Iversen -> (2/12/2003 10:16:20 AM)
Mmmmmmmm....... Sweet........ Me want:D Will a map editor be included with the game so you can make/edit your own maps. That could be the thing that pushes this game from "Great" to "Immortal"

DavidW75 -> (2/12/2003 11:31:47 AM)
:eek: :D :cool: Outstanding work Iain. Words fail to do it justice.....so more smilies :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: I've attached the topo 1:200,000 for those interested

Rune Iversen -> (2/12/2003 11:33:48 AM)
I can´t wait to blow up, destroy and C-contaminate those maps:cool:

Mac_MatrixForum -> (2/12/2003 8:05:21 PM)
Great job :). A question. How do the looks compare to the representation in the game. I mean there are nice roads in the forests and all but at what level are we supposed to be concerned about the terrain? Does the movement take these roads into account or do you have some sort of tiles and movement costs in those? And what would be the effect of those nice hills and valleys in the game?

DavidW75 -> (2/13/2003 1:18:13 AM)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28174 This thread is from a couple of months ago, and has some good info on how terrain is handled.

Mac_MatrixForum -> (2/13/2003 2:14:26 AM)
Hey thanks. I had missed that thread :). Ok so the square size is 500 meters. Approximately how large are these maps? I remember something like 20x20km from a long while ago. How many squares do troops usually move per turn? Do you do some path finding or does the player move square to square? In one screenshot there is an option of selecting the turn length. Does this still apply?

byron13 -> (2/13/2003 2:56:35 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mac [B]Ok so the square size is 500 meters. Approximately how large are these maps? I remember something like 20x20km from a long while ago.[/B][/QUOTE] The maps are large and may be 20x20km or maybe not. [QUOTE][B]How many squares do troops usually move per turn? Do you do some path finding or does the player move square to square? In one screenshot there is an option of selecting the turn length. Does this still apply? [/B][/QUOTE] Troops may move one or more squares per turn, depending on certain factors. The game will probably either have path finding or require the player to move square to square, though there are other possibilities. In the one screenshot to which you refer, the option of selecting the turn length still applies. If you look at the screenshot, you will see that the option is still there. Hope that answers all of your questions. I must be in an evil mood today. What a snotty response! Sorry, I just couldn't help it. :( In truth, I don't know the answers - obviously. Mac, on one of the forum screens you will see the option to increase the scope of your thread search. I think the default is to look for threads active in the past sixty or ninety days. If you expand it to six months or a year, you'll find additional threads that talk more about the basics and the scope of the game.

DavidW75 -> (2/13/2003 3:14:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mac [B] How many squares do troops usually move per turn? Do you do some path finding or does the player move square to square? In one screenshot there is an option of selecting the turn length. Does this still apply? [/B][/QUOTE] That's one of the $64,000 questions. I think only one man can really answer them correctly at this point. And I think we still have Robert chained up in a room to his computer working away :D

IChristie -> Actually... (2/13/2003 3:35:06 AM)
I can answer some of the questions based on the alpha version of the game. As a player you give your units (normally company sized) orders including up to three movement waypoints. The units do their best to fulfill the orders at whatever rate they can based on their posture, perceived threat etc. Although you have a chance to update your orders periodically (say every 30 minutes) the concept of a "turn" does not really apply as the orders persist in time if you do not issue new ones. Additionally since you are a brigade commander giving orders by radio there is a delay in the response of units based on their morale, fatigue, situation etc. Just because you issue a move order at 0630 does not mean the unit begins to move at 0631! Overall, I think it provides a pretty realistic interface. It feels more like giving orders to real troops and less like "playing" a game.

Mac_MatrixForum -> (2/13/2003 4:18:21 AM)
Well byron I went out to search for some time and some three months ago there was [URL=http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27396]this detailed thread[/URL]. So yes, some things can be found by searching. Then again since the game is going through active development and the shots are mostly prototypes I think I'm entitled to sometimes ask how much is still true ;). I do follow this particular forum often and I thought I had most of the details but I'm not perfect so sometimes I miss some. About the system. Sounds like Combat Mission (obviously different scale though). I mean there you plot your orders and they persist until they are completed. Also the troops do not react instantaneously. I very much like that aspect ... very often in our exercises the troops did not get moving as quickly as they should've ... well downing few 24m masts intact, gathering all the kilometers of wirework, dismantling various radio antennas etc. takes time and if you haven't been sleeping much for a week and it's night it's going to go slow ;). I gather this game is more interested in the frontline maneuverable combat units though. I think none of the screenshots show the squares so are they largely unimportant for the gameplay (which would be nice since they are gamey vs exist in real life)? Like playing Steel Panthers without hexes visible. In Steel Panthers it still is often important to detect the hexes because of the mechanics. I think these nice maps might make it harder to detect the squares ;). Then again squares are easier than hexes.

DavidW75 -> (2/13/2003 4:54:17 AM)
You know every time I look at these maps I try to piture what it'll look like with say my battered British Armoured Brigade trying to hold, against a fresh Soviet division :eek:

IronManBeta -> (2/14/2003 4:10:22 AM)
Sorry guys that I was off the radar again - stupid day job!!!!! The maps are all going to be a standard 20 km wide by 15 km high for the first series. That works out to 40 locations wide by 30 high so there is a reasonable amount of room to maneuver a strong battalion or weak regiment around on. These maps that you are seeing are hand drawn in their entirety by the magnificant Iain C and unless you are his calibre with Photoshop you may not be able to get his results. The good news is that you won't need to. You can create a simple 16 colour schematic in MS Paint that will do the job just as well. It will be possible (notice I didn't say "easy", not yet anyway) for you to create complete original maps. I have documented this for Iain and he is presently struggling with it - although very politely. Doubtless I will rewrite it and simplify it all in due course. We are still experimenting right now. The point to take away is that they are not "tiled" the way so many other game maps are and therefore there is no simple editor to create them. Lines delineating the locations (aka "squares"). I always play with the lines turned on but I guess Iain doesn't. He may not even have drawn them on yet to the maps he just released here. Maps both with and without lines are included and you can toggle between them to your heart's content with the a specific menu item. Working out the terrain effects can be tough even with these beautiful maps. To make it really clear who can see what from where, you just need to control-left click on the map locations and everything visible to it will be highlighted (control-L also works). Makes it a snap to find dead ground for that yummy ambush. Similarly there is a control-M key that tells you about how far a selected unit can move in the next half hour. It isn't perfect but it is pretty comparable to what you would estimate in real life which, of course, is the whole idea. If you want to know a move exactly in advance then play chess! Iain described the order phase / execution phase situation with respect to unit movement beautifully and I can't add anything to it. Game turn length is still 30 minutes and is still adjustable. I had forgotten all about it! Expect to see it during playtesting so we can experiment with it but then quietly disappear at some point. Or maybe not, it all depends on the testers. Pathfinding. As per the original games, you (as commander) give your units 1 to 3 movement waypoints to use to navigate to their destination. Your company and platoon commanders work out the "best" way from there. Depending on the context it may be the fastest way, the most covered way (great for assaults), the most defensible way (if you come under fire), the way least used by other friendly units, etc. Right now it is always the fastest way (I like instant gratification) but the others will be set up soon as this is part of what I am working on right now. If you don't trust the pathfinder too much you just need to set your waypoints close together (1 or 2 locations apart) and accept that the unit may reach the end at an awkward time and hang about waiting for the turn to end and fresh orders. If you are not that fussy then you can set the waypoints a little further apart and let it have more initiative. All of the terrain rules that were described in that earlier thread are still more or less the same. I upped the 'closeness' of the terrain to reduce the average LOS a tad but all the general relationships still apply. Back to they day job! Cheers, Rob.

DavidW75 -> (2/14/2003 10:28:01 AM)
Hey Rob. So are you saying we will be able to input the data for the points , thus basically being able to do our own maps. If so what data can we input, elevation, cover, etc?

IChristie -> Map With Grid Lines (2/14/2003 11:43:46 AM)
Robert, Robert, Robert, I am stunned by your lack of faith ;). Of course I have versions of the maps with grid lines on them (made 'em up as soon as I read your post, in fact). Here's a look at a section of the "The Borde" in game resolution with the grid lines enabled. [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/closecombatian/Springe0030.jpg[/IMG] I haven't decided yet whether I like playing with the grid on or off. The game does play well with the grid turned off.

IChristie -> Map Coding (2/14/2003 11:58:37 AM)
NOTE - this description is based on an alpha version of the game and may bear little resemblence to where the game actually ends up. Maps need to be coded for: - Elevation - Terrain type (forest, open farmland, close farmland, rural, suburban, urban, etc. - I think Robert posted a full list of terrain types at one point. - River Network - Road Network - Bridges - Minefields - Fortifications etc. Currently, the system is quite transparent map code files can be edited as ASCII text. The challenge (if Matrix decides to go that way) will be building an application that makes the a map editor user friendly and graphics based - which is probably a necessity if the average user is going to be able to use it. I do not know how much map editing functionality will be built into the final game. Because it will require hand drawn maps I suspect that it will be of more interest to serious "modders" as opposed to the average user (much like Close Combat which the current system resembles in some ways). It is interesting to note that there has been a significant paradigm shift from the original game to this incarnation. In the original game the maps were drawn to conform to the grid system and to make the underlying terrain in each grid location easy for the player to interpret. This is obvious when you look at the original graphics. Even without the grid lines you can see where they should go by looking at the graphics. In the current game the maps are drawn to represent realistic terrain and the grid structure is laid on top as a means of allowing the software to keep track of things. This will mean that locations are much more ambiguous in terms of what type of terrain they contain, where the road net actually goes, etc. This is one of the things that, IMHO, makes the game "play" much more like the real thing. The grid locations become more of a way of keeping track of where things are as opposed to elements of the game. In as sense the grid now functions more like the grid on a map instead of the squares on a chess board. As Robert indicated this leaves a bit more work for the player in terms of trying to understand what is represented in each location and may lead to "unexpected" results. I suspect that finding a balance in this system will be one of the issues that is discussed at length during testing.

IronManBeta -> (2/14/2003 9:27:18 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidW75 [B]Hey Rob. So are you saying we will be able to input the data for the points , thus basically being able to do our own maps. If so what data can we input, elevation, cover, etc? [/B][/QUOTE] I think Iain's answer boils down to "yes". This is definitely a feature that David Heath has always wanted and something that is pretty much mandatory in this day and age. To start with it will be crude but a lot of other game editors are too, and in time it should get pretty spiffy. Will it be "easy" for the casually interested? Probably not, but like Iain says, it will be doable for the more serious modeller. Gee, now I'm all inspired to work on it some more today! Cheers, Rob.

DavidW75 -> (2/16/2003 6:22:03 AM)
Glad to be part of your inspiration. That's great to hear about the maps. Now if Iain could give us some expert lessons on doing the wonderful artwork, we can all be Picaso cartogrophers;)

IChristie -> (2/16/2003 12:11:55 PM)
[QUOTE] Now if Iain could give us some expert lessons on doing the wonderful artwork, we can all be Picaso cartogrophers[/QUOTE] A couple of years ago I put together this page about making close combat maps - much of it is still applicable - although I've learned an awful lot since then myself. http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/toppage11.htm (OK, so even even if you were only half serious - file that under careful what you wish for , you might get it! ;)) Seriously folks - about the only other advice I would have would be to grab a copy of photoshop and start teaching yourself. That's what worked for me. My RL job has nothing at all to do with graphics or art - this stuff is really just a hobby that has gotten out of control. ;)

IronManBeta -> (2/16/2003 9:10:53 PM)
Hey, I saw that article when it first came out! I never dreamed that I would some day work with the author. It is bitterly cold and snowing heavily outside right now. Gee, do I go out and shovel or do I work on Flashpoint documentation. Hmmmmm. Tough choice. Make another coffee and do more documentation I think. Warm is good too! Cheers, Rob.

IronManBeta -> Re: Map Coding (2/16/2003 9:42:10 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IChristie [B]It is interesting to note that there has been a significant paradigm shift from the original game to this incarnation. In the original game the maps were drawn to conform to the grid system and to make the underlying terrain in each grid location easy for the player to interpret. This is obvious when you look at the original graphics. Even without the grid lines you can see where they should go by looking at the graphics. In the current game the maps are drawn to represent realistic terrain and the grid structure is laid on top as a means of allowing the software to keep track of things. This will mean that locations are much more ambiguous in terms of what type of terrain they contain, where the road net actually goes, etc. [/B][/QUOTE] Further to this observationn, here is a comparison of the two map styles. The original SimCan BMT Central Germany map quadrants 11 & 12, and then the same area from the Flashpoint map:

IronManBeta -> (2/16/2003 9:42:52 PM)
The new map:

IronManBeta -> (2/16/2003 9:43:49 PM)
Try again! The new map:

jrcar -> (2/17/2003 4:53:48 AM)
The new map is very pretty, but will there be a code overlay that can be bought up so as to help work out what is what? It is hard to tell in the new map elevation and terrain type. Cheers Rob

IChristie -> I Believe so... (2/17/2003 6:04:38 AM)
Robert already has a mode that does that. I assume that something like it will sppear in the final version.

IronManBeta -> (2/17/2003 6:39:44 AM)
Yup, in the bottom right corner of the game display (down in the status bar) the terrain that is currently under the mouse is described in the format "Location col, row: Elevation (m), Terrain (eg. forest, open, mixed, closed, dense urban, etc)." You can see this in the screen shots. This ought to be good enough for playing the game when used in conjunction with the LOS tester (control-L or shift-left click) on specific locations. This little display will also tell you what kind of road and what kind of river bank is present, but the maps are so good that this is really unneccesary and I might take it out because it crowds the space a little. In terms of seeing all the codes at once for the entire map, there are a series of debug routines that Iain is probably referring to that clear the map and then print the codes directly to each location. It is not very elegant, but nothing beats it for verifying that the maps have been coded correctly. I was planning to hide them in the release version for normal play but reenable them when you are some sort of map-maker mode. In this, as in other matters, the play test gods will decide. Cheers, Rob.

jrcar -> (2/17/2003 7:44:24 AM)
H'mm thanks. Unsolicited comments follow :) (I was an Army survey officer in a previous life where I was responsible for a range of mapping products). The current maps are very pretty. The old ones bad :) BUT the essence of any graphical representation of the earths surface is to enable someone to quickly and easily understand the terrain, and the likely effect it will have on a units manouvre. For me the map fails at first inspection. Now I am basing this on the comparison between the old map and the new one. For example where the road comes up from the bottom heading towards the city is a village? On the origional map that appears as two coloured in yellow squares, on the new map that same area looks like it covers four or more squares of built up area. The loop road just north west of that is coded as open, BUA or what? From the new map I would expect it to be BUA, on the old one its clear. The city has similar problems. Also while the fields look very nice, they clutter the map and make the interpretation difficult. Now its very hard to tell from this point, and when playing the game it may be easier. I would like to see some hillier terrain to see how it works in being able to judge the height difference. Now if you can bring up an overlay that helps in the interpretation I suspect that will help, but I grant you its also a bit unrealistic. So in short, the maps are nice, but don't throw out the overlay tool yet :) Cheers Rob

jrcar -> (2/19/2003 5:17:41 AM)
What did I do?!? I thought this would generate some constructive comment... cheers Rob

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.814453