|
Phoenix100 -> RE: Red Storm would sell better if OTS... (7/21/2014 8:40:01 AM)
|
quote:
I don't think you understand the difference between graphics that aren't as pretty as people would like and terrain accuracy. I took screen shots from Google Earth and corresponding maps from Google Maps, then imported those into HexDraw. What you are playing on in the game are actual terrain maps.
Well, I do understand that difference, of course, MR. The maps are neither as 'pretty' nor as accurate as I would like. As I said in the original post it's easy enough to see where the maps depart from accuracy using the google earth overlays. If you in fact used google earth to make the maps then it follows that the squeezing them into a hex grid resulted in inaccuracy. As someone said above, it's a serious game, so make it look serious, and for me that could mostly be achieved by getting rid of the hexes (or the appearance of hexes), as has also been said above. I look forward to the changes Capn Darwin mentions in this respect, and meanwhile I agree that The PLodder's and William's maps are a huge improvement. The PLodders are easy to read in terms of terrain, but they retain the hex base and angularity - William's are harder to read, but look more natural - the hexes are much less apparent.
For me, realism in the map would be a pretty stark thing, actually. 1. The map would match up in terms of rivers, roads, towns, elevations etc with the real world maps I can easily access (google etc), 2. the map would only contain graphics that were functional, at the scale we use. So no need to colour in open or field hexes with any kind of graphic at all - just leave it blank - if those little field pictures or building thingies don't actually make any change to the cover or concealment in the game - just leave those spaces blank and when I roll over I can see from the writing that they're clear or field or whatever. Forests make a difference to concealment I assume, so we need to know where they are, but not with little tree pictures - just a block of forest colour that doesn't interfere, as much as possible, with the elevation info. 3. No hexes. I know they're there, beneath, but I don't need to see them.
Perhaps, absurdly, to some extent I want to be able to imagine I'm actually commanding these forces and fighting WW3, and so I want the map I plan on to look something like the map a military planner might use. Normally, the RL maps I've seen that are used in military planning at this scale (operational) are pretty blank. After all, it's not as if I can actually position my little unit of 2 tanks behind a wall or anything. All I do is say to them - 'go to that 500 by 500 area and set yourself up using the cover available and Hold' or whatever. To do that I only need to know roughly what is in that 500 by 500 area, so I know, for example, that I'm not sending them into a 200 metre depression with no LOS (elevation) or open space with no cover etc. The present game maps do achieve this, but the style chosen makes them look like game board maps, and I would just like that to be different. But given the game is very playable, and given that THE most important thing for me is that there is some kind of AI that functions (and there is!) then it's not super-important. Thanks are due to you for actually putting the time into a proper AI, which so rarely happens these days.
|
|
|
|
