Forum > Theater of Operations: World at War
Maps and Terrain
Christian Knudsen:
Choppinit's recent topic regarding DLC mentions focus on "playable map area". This makes me wonder about the way in which units will interact with the map. In the example pictures, the map appears essentially as a standard military map, implying that neither a hex nor "area" system will be used. This has advantages and disadvantages. Obviously the following questions imply that neither system will be present. Also, I am limiting my queries to the "auto resolve" system - the issues involved in porting a map to another battle resolution method ie a miniatures wargame, or Combat Mission, will present other challenges.
There has been some discussion of unit footprint, and how that will vary based on unit size. Will it also vary based on the type of terrain occupied? How much ability will the player have to "force" a given unit to occupy a given terrain feature and not spill out of it? Once in a given terrain "type", how will the unit's ability to spot and fire be affected? How will intervisibility be handled? This is critical, especially when considering artillery usage. How will units "bump" up against one another, and how will the terrain affect this? As importantly, how much "fidelity" ie effective terrain resolution will the map have? How will this fidelity level affect movement and all the above issues?
Now I am no programmer - I have no idea how easy it would be to create a system that "draws" LOS from every prospective map point to every other. I know that such a system has been done before - Command Ops springs to mind immediately, although it could be argued that this system lacks the fidelity level that the map examples seem to imply.
All of these questions(and discussion of DLCs), make me wonder about community involvement in creation of maps/scenarios/campaigns. Command Ops has a mod community that has done work in map design, but the way that Choppinit describes DLCs leads me to think that the ability to create maps (and therefore totally new campaigns) will be somewhat limited. Or will we see more of the model that Panther games is now following, where a core game will include an editor, but the designer releases campaign packs (DLC in this case) that hopefully compliment and are a touch more polished that community efforts - not to put down the often awesome stuff that modding communities put out!
Anyways, just some stuff that I have been pondering...
76mm:
--- Quote from: Christian Knudsen on September 19, 2015, 03:56:57 AM ---There has been some discussion of unit footprint, and how that will vary based on unit size. Will it also vary based on the type of terrain occupied? How much ability will the player have to "force" a given unit to occupy a given terrain feature and not spill out of it? Once in a given terrain "type", how will the unit's ability to spot and fire be affected? How will intervisibility be handled? This is critical, especially when considering artillery usage. How will units "bump" up against one another, and how will the terrain affect this?
--- End quote ---
These are all good points--for instance, will a unit in a city or forest have the same footprint as in open fields? And how will stacking work? And ZoCs?
From Matt's other posts, it sounds like the map will have "fidelity" of 200 meters.
choppinlt:
Yes there will be blocks of territory used, and I am calling them "tiles". Most likely they will be hex shaped but do not have to be reflected on the map as such. For instance, CM is actually played on a hex map! Each tile will represent a 200mx200m area as 76mm states. The unit footprint represents the area occupied by most of the unit, particularly when it is deployed for combat.
The footprint only changes when they are moving, OR if a unit is "split" up. March moves will be in a single tile wide column, Approach moves will be the "normal" footprint of that type of unit, and Infiltrate will be a hard-to-describe combination of the previous 2. When a unit is stationary, it has the same footprint as an Approach move. For instance an infantry battalion has a footprint of 600m diameter. That does NOT automatically mean the entire battalion is in that area...If you wish to reduce a footprint, you can split up the unit. The advantage of deploying as a battalion is that it fights as an entire cohesive unit regardless of the circumstances. If you "split" a unit up, depending on how you deploy them and the distances between subordinate units, there are ways a unit could end up fighting piecemeal...
To answer your questions directly, yes the footprint remains the same based on terrain, and is more impacted by movement of the unit. And units will have the ability adjusted to a reasonable degree. For instance an armor battalion is spilling out of a 200m wide hamlet..., but will be contained in a 1km sized village. Even it there were a small unit section "exposed" that is more of a technicality... Perhaps the best way to describe the game is "effects" based vs a literal interpretation of what you see on the map. In other words the terrain in the footprint and all surrounding terrain will be analyzed to create an overall effect.
Terrain can greatly impact vision, and once I get to play test more, it will likely limit zone of control (ZOC). The basic concept of ZOC is that when a unit ZOC touches an enemy footprint, an engagement occurs....it becomes far more complex after that, but that is the basic concept.
Visibility will be part of the game as well. But a unit will be able to see beyond a mere footprint. 2 guys with a radio in a tree 1 km away from the main body can give reliable info to the unit...but it goes deeper than that. In short it is abstracted to account for lots of different circumstances.
Stacking can occur to a limited degree, but you are not going to see more than 2 infantry co's occupying the same tile.
Last thing, I am leaning towards fully capable scenario and map editors. I am wanting to make this a mod friendly game...I believe it only helps bring more of a feeling of ownership and loyalty to a game. besides, I am excited to see what ideas people come up with too!
Did I answer everything?
Christian Knudsen:
Great response, Choppinit, thanks!
As for answering everything, almost, although while I still have some questions, your answer shows me that you and your team have really thought about this. Not that I doubted it, of course, but reassuring and invigorating still.
First question is what will the map look like? A lot of my pondering was started by trying to think through systematic problems that would arise from the maps you have been using throughout the public process. If the actual maps are going to be designed (in terms of a hex underlay, or whatever) significantly differently, then it would be nice to see that. I'm sure it's coming, however, and am more than willing to wait.
ZOC is an enormously complicated concept that needs to be handled with some care, as you know. Terrain, visibility, unit posture and especially quality, the air superiority situation, to name just a few off the top of my head, all have a massive impact. And I get that it needs to be abstracted, or else you will end up with a rulebook the size of ASL. But at a 200m scale, it is less easy to abstract than at a 10km hex scale. I would guess the easiest way to do it might be to assign a ZOC range for each unit based on its type (weapons and mobility systems, organization) and quality, and then modify it by its posture (orders?), surrounding terrain and visibility, time of day, air situation, fatigue, casualty level, etc.
Which leads me to a whole other ball of wax, fog of war and intel gathering, which has the potential to add a whole new layer onto the ZOC issue. But that can wait for another time.
PS - please excuse my meandering - when I'm excited I have a tendency to problem-solve by verbally throwing potential obstacles at the wall to see what sticks, and then dealing with those. I know you are way ahead of me.
choppinlt:
Thanks, and yes there has been lots of thought on all of this.
Maps: we will probably allow for the authentic map to view used, and an augmented map. Clearly there are going to be those areas that straddle tiles, and it will be adjusted to represent the computer map data. I want to try to keep it close to an authentic topo map appearance. Showing the tiles is something I anticipate being on a toggle.
I am sticking with a fairly standard set of different ZOC's based on movement rate and unit size. For instance a battalion will have an 800m ZOC. This will be something that will be analyzed further with playtesting, but that is where I am at right now.
Please, feel free to meander! ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page