I think the problem is not new... but I have a very big issue with LOS. On gently sloping terrain where NOTHING prevents to see, the slope line prevents to see at 300 m ! Look the Novi map ! It would probably be better not to put the slope lines when the inclination of the ground is very low.
As a result, the slope line becomes a big stake of the battle, whereas historically (on the ground) there is nothing like that.
Could not we imagine two types of lines of slope ? One that cuts the LOS (steep slope) and another that does not interfere with anything ?
(07-06-2018, 05:13 AM)LFDLM Wrote: [ -> ]About this issue in wargaming : http://www.simmonsgames.com/design/LineOfSight.html
It is not really the graphic that I think is the problem, but more of the map-making philosophy about how to apply elevations.
I don't mean to say that this is not a valid issue (technically I am not commenting on that as a specific, but as a general issue). Interesting point though ... definitely something to consider.
Not much we can do about it. Wherever you put a contour break its going to affect the way that the LOS works.
There is no such thing in the JTS games as a "continuous slope" as I call them.
Map-making philosophy has nothing to do with it. I put the contour lines on the map where the contour maps indicate they are located. I am not going to "eyeball" each slope on a map to figure out where best to draw the line.
There is, and it is called elevation level. These vary by title (and within titles in some cases) - the limitation is how much elevation change that is needed in a scenario -as there are only so many levels that the graphics support.
It is clearly a design philosophy issue to decide what those elevation changes are going to be within a scenario, the same as it is where to place a road network, or how a watercourse fits on a hexagonal map.
From a technical standpoint, there are things that can be done if it is decided that it works in the context of a title.
I don't know the answer from a philosophy standpoint (if it is worth doing, or not), because for me, in project coordination, it is a scenario designers' prerogative as to how to best utilize the engine to their project, and then up to the testers to provide feedback as to how that performs.
Not here to argue, Steve. I disagree with the term philosophy and that's it from me. I just go with what the topo map says and I have been using 10 or 20 meter contour differences for years. It's always been about being able to fit in the mapped area by taking into account that we have a maximum of 27 contour levels.
I don't start a map project by saying to myself, "I will push the contour lines back so far so as to take into account the lack of a continuous slope in the LOS routine in the code."
Maybe others do that but not me. I just create the map overlays, open up the map editor and go to work.
You make this out to be a huge decision making process and it isn't.
I like to use 10 meter contour differences for most maps but have had to use 30 meters on occasion for the maps that have a great difference in elevations.
In the CEF game the maps that were produced by an earlier team use 5 meter elevation differences. This has led to problems in joining the Eylau and Friesland maps together so I have had to update a larger map that includes Heilsberg, Eylau, Friesland and Bartenstein. It's not a very accurate map so a lot of work is ongoing to correct that map.
Simply put I have found 10 meters to work for most of the maps I have created since Austerlitz with 20 or 30 only being used if the map editor 27 contour level limit was exceeded.
It's not a philosophy. Its similar to you deciding what height of step to use for a stairwell. It's a matter of practicality.
Maps are not the problem per se (RBR or Marengo maps are beautiful works of art), but with this system of LOS the result is logically and historically absurd. I admit that I find it really annoying and I can not stop thinking about it now.
In fact, the old SPI system without level but with only significant slopes or ridges on hexide worked better even if it was semi-abstract (cf. Napoleon's Last Battles (which I played a lot) for example). This solved the problem of the lack of "continuous slope" and this made possible the existence of "military crest".
Maybe the LOS should be always open unless an higher obstacle cut it ?
(07-07-2018, 07:47 PM)LFDLM Wrote: [ -> ]Maps are not the problem per se (RBR or Marengo maps are beautiful works of art), but with this system of LOS the result is logically and historically absurd. I admit that I find it really annoying and I can not stop thinking about it now.
In fact, the old SPI system without level but with only significant slopes or ridges on hexide worked better even if it was semi-abstract (cf. Napoleon's Last Battles (which I played a lot) for example). This solved the problem of the lack of "continuous slope" and this made possible the existence of "military crest".
Maybe the LOS should be always open unless an higher obstacle cut it ?
They are the problem in that it is the elevations that are causing the effect. Or rather how crests are used. Otoh, the SPI system that you are describing is also what was used in the original version of Terrible Swift Sword, which series (GBACW) only had ridge hexsides, and no elevations. It was soon changed afterwards. (A few times - but the series began using elevations -is more to the point).
What you are talking about is the crest effect. And in using NLB as an example is an exercise in scale; a more comparable example would be Wellington's Victory or the La Bataille series.
Can you do that in the op series'? There is such a thing as an embankment hexside ... so maybe. The series can also be set for a different scale so the fact that NLB (or any from that series) -just the fact that it is brigade level isn't necessarily something that couldn't be done ... not sure about the embankment hexsides... hrmmm -ok, well it is an interesting thought.
I think what you were saying might be able to be done in the engines that are related ... interesting comment.
That said, it does not prevent me from playing and I will happily buy with the next JTS Napoléon game :)