Terrain

[Warmonger]

How many feet does each height level represent?

Also, what is the presumed height of trees, buildings, bunkers?

Finally, are multi-hex buildings possible? And if so, are they considered higher than single hex buildings?

[DRG]

Think of terrain height in meters you'll be close enough but in all the years we've been doing this it's never been a real issue so we've never bothered to try to figure it out exactly. Level two is higher than level 1 and level three is higher than 2.

Set up a test map using the in game editor and place a level one hill on it then scatter a few buildings around then buy any unit and deploy it to the top of the hill and look around.

When you've done that go back to the map editor and add level two hill to the hex the observation hex the unit is standing on then go back to the deploy menu and look around and observe how that has changed what you see.

As you go higher you will see more visible hexes behind buildings and YES "multi-hex buildings" are not only possible but have been in the game since day 1 and they block more LOS longer than small buildings.

If you are 300 or so meters from a single hex house you need to be about level 4 before there is only one hex behind the building you cannot fire into.

Once you have a feel for how it works for buildings scatter some trees around and do the same test, etc etc etc. Remember that trees block LOS variably at ground level and at elevation

Don

[Imp]

Suffice to say LOS from a level 1 hill places you just below single story building roof height, You cant see over it even to another level 1 hill.
Level 1.5 (slope) you can just see over it if its reasonably close.
The higher you are & or the closer the obstacle the better view & as these increase your angle of view down hence reducing the number of blind hexes produced, the converse is also true.
Luckily the game does all the maths for you working out the viewing angle & hence blind hexes produced.
Its not hard & you know the hex size so could do it yourself but it would be very time consuming.
The easist way to see how it works is find a wall in RL to look over & change your height & distance from it.

[gila]

I always accept the fact the computer does all the math and LOS calculations way better than I could,and that's a good thing,,,
b/c there too many other varibles to think about,to waste time worrying about such trivial matters that are learned by comman sense and trail and error.

[void1984]

A tool for checking Line of Sight between two points would be useful.

Point of Attack 2 gives the player tools to check the LoS between a point and a point, and highlight the visible area from a point.

As WinSP* games are played in 2D it's tedious to check 2km if there's a small hill between my potential position and a target.

[Cross]

A tool for checking Line of Sight between two points would be useful.

Point of Attack 2 gives the player tools to check the LoS between a point and a point, and highlight the visible area from a point.

As WinSP* games are played in 2D it's tedious to check 2km if there's a small hill between my potential position and a target.

In the interest of realism I'd prefer such a tool didn't exist.

We already have far more accurate maps and info than most WW2 commanders could dream of. If I want to know if a hill has good LOS I should study the map or send a scout.

I appreciate the depth of a game where I've wasted time scouting out hills, or have had to shift guns because the position didn't work out because I misread the map.

Cross

[void1984]

You are right - tools shouldn't give us unnatural advantage.

What about terrain display mode with colours, showing the high, then?
I was few times in trouble because I have missed that a building in town is four times higher then the surrounding.
In real life potting a tower in the town is easy in the game it takes much effort.

[Cross]

I highly recommend turning off the hex grid to better read hill heights.

I have the hex grid OFF about 97% of the time. It took a battle or two to get used to, but I'm able to move accurately and recognise terrain more easily, I'll never go back. I only turn on the hex grid (hot key: .(dot)) a couple of times per battle to briefly check the range to suspected enemy positions.

As for buildings, I'm not sure. IRL maps don't reveal building height, and if you have LOS to the building you can at least right click and get an idea of what it obscures. I'm fine with the current situation where buildings/visibilty is a bit foggy. The more of your units that can see a building (from different vantage points) the better picture you build up of the lay of the land.

How about maps that are mostly obscured (blacked out) until you get units with los into those hexes? Now that would be an excellent Realism Button in the Preference Screen. :D Scouting will become even more important.

Cross

[gila]

i've played this game and it's precursers for quite a awhile, frequently,almost several times a week, for years,,still there are many aspects i have not fully learned,it's ongoing learning process.

Hints and tips are fine,but if you are looking for a fast shortcut to beat the game to make it easier, then thats not going to happen here.

SP is a tough game to master,but if it was easy then no one would want to play it.

Learn the game! as we all have,you will be a better player for it,and have some fun while expermenting and failing every once and awhile:)

[DRG]

<snip>

I appreciate the depth of a game where I've wasted time scouting out hills, or have had to shift guns because the position didn't work out because I misread the map.

Cross

This is why, if you inadvertently move a unit incorrectly we still allow you to take it back but not if you "look around" while you are there.

Don

[DRG]

How about maps that are mostly obscured (blacked out) until you get units with los into those hexes? Now that would be an excellent Realism Button in the Preference Screen. :D Scouting will become even more important.

Cross

I floated that idea over a decade ago. It wouldn't be easy to code at all, it would look very strange and it ignores the fact that commanders carry maps that may not be perfect but at least give him an idea of what the area looks like that does not contain huge areas of nothingness. In other words, a lot of work for a very questionable return of " realism"

Don

[Cross]

How about maps that are mostly obscured (blacked out) until you get units with los into those hexes? Now that would be an excellent Realism Button in the Preference Screen. :D Scouting will become even more important.

Cross

I floated that idea over a decade ago. It wouldn't be easy to code at all, it would look very strange and it ignores the fact that commanders carry maps that may not be perfect but at least give him an idea of what the area looks like that does not contain huge areas of nothingness. In other words, a lot of work for a very questionable return of " realism"

Don


I hear you. I did think about the fact that most commanders would expect to know what was ahead to some degree.
Perhaps the unseen portion of the map could have some sort of semi-translucent overlay, so you could make out the main features, but there'd be additional clarity - and satisfaction - from getting getting LoS and removing the grayed out area.
Or, only showing say one in three hexes for the unseen portion, which would give clues about the location of roads, rivers, forests, villages etc.

But as you indicated, coding verses payoff is the issue.


Cross