Rough Terrain

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
From MajorH's TacOps Gazzette:

Rough1 - 50% of cross country, clear terrain speed
Rough2 - 25% of cross country, clear terrain speed
Rough3 - 12.5% of cross country, clear terrain speed
Rough4 - 6% of cross country, clear terrain speed

The level of 'roughness' affects both speed of transit and visibility. You can mark an area as 'rough' either because it is (a) actually slow to cross due to poor trafficability or due to a vehicle not being able to drive very far in a straight line [i.e. move around boulders, bogs, vegetation] or (b) you can call an area rough because it has a lot of local minor elevations changes or vegetation clumps that tend to cause vehicles to disappear from LOS as they move around or (c) because the area has a lot of local folds that make it easy for a vehicle to choose to hide itself momentarily. 'Rough' works OK for any of those conceptual abstractions. Rough terrain does not block line of sight (unless combined with woods, town, or a misc LOS block) but it will cause spotted enemy units to randomly disappear from the map display. The rougher the terrain, the more often that happens. This is more of a distraction to the human watching the screen than it is to his units on the map. In June of 2002 I added three levels of "impassible" to the terrain types. Unless a road is present, Level 1 can not be entered by wheeled vehicles. Level 2 can not be entered by wheeled vehicles or tracked vehicles. Level 3 can not be entered by wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles, or dismounted infantry. The presence of road terrain negates any level of impassable terrain."

Given all that, I am trying to do something to a relatively open map as not to have it digress into an ATGM Death Ray contest. I suppose coding all of my "clear" with Rough1, while decreasing speed by 50%, would allow for some temporary "disappearing" but if I'm reading the above correct, there would be no effect in spotting and firing since it does not effect LOS.

Any ideas to cut down of such open fields of fire without over-cluttering the map? I do not think an LOS block is appropriate here but I am willing to listen. I am already going to remove AT-11's from the T-72BMS's, change Javelins to Dragons and maybe even BMP-2's with AT-5i's with AT-3 Sagger armed BMP-1's. This is all ok as the MBT's already in the game are M60A1's T-72's and Leopard 1A5's.

Any comments/ideas appreciated.
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Hi Pete,
See this thread
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19185
for a similar discussion of sorts.

As I understand it the LOS block is up into outer space so it blocks LOS for airborne units as well, a bad thing IMHO. I've coded streams and rivers on the Guadalcanal map I'm working on as rough 3 and 4 in lots of areas in addition to the water in other areas. Interspersing the higher rough levels to give units places to sprint to and have a chance to hide with some sporadic buildings (farms) and small stands of trees (1-3 squares or so) will also provide a minimum of LOS blocking.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
dhuffjr said:
Hi Pete,
See this thread
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19185
for a similar discussion of sorts.
Hi Dennis, that is where I clipped my quote from. ;)

dhuffjr said:
As I understand it the LOS block is up into outer space so it blocks LOS for airborne units as well, a bad thing IMHO. I've coded streams and rivers on the Guadalcanal map I'm working on as rough 3 and 4 in lots of areas in addition to the water in other areas. Interspersing the higher rough levels to give units places to sprint to and have a chance to hide with some sporadic buildings (farms) and small stands of trees (1-3 squares or so) will also provide a minimum of LOS blocking.
The map that I am using is my interpretation of what came with TDG 99-4 in the April 1999 Marine Corps Gazette. It calls for rolling terrain, but on their map, as in TacOps the terrain is either level or one contour interval higher. There are routine, clear fields of fire out to max range of top of the line ATGM's. As I noted, I'll scale back the quality of these without much problem. I'm not a big fan of an invisible LOS Block floating around in the center of the map. I am all for its use close to map edges and along prominent terrain, but this map is open.

Just wondering about any work around that I'm not aware of. May add a few small towns and wooded areas.

Thanks though.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
pmaidhof said:
The map that I am using is my interpretation of what came with TDG 99-4 in the April 1999 Marine Corps Gazette.
Here is a mock up of the map, mock up because the location names are hardcoded in, the actual map does not have that.
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Very cool doing one of those as a TacOps scenerio. There are a quite a few of those I've seen over the years that could make a good scenerio.

Sounds like your on track with map. Beyond my interspersing some rough for concealment and farms/stands of trees for LOS block ideas I'm at a loss for better ideas. Rolling terrain is one landscape where just one more terrain level would be a huge difference.:OHNO:

What do you think of the latest MCGazette format? I like the format of a year or two ago better.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
dhuffjr said:
What do you think of the latest MCGazette format? I like the format of a year or two ago better.
Me too. I must say that I actually enjoy Proceedings right now. They pay quite a bit of attention to the green side. I do however attempt to read the Gazette from cover to cover each month.

As for TDG's, I feel that they will whither away being web only. It was intended to provoke thought and open dialogue but now tucked away on the website limits their exposure to only those who seek them out and are inclined to submit or respond.
 
Last edited:

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the new link Peter.

Another thought occurred to me while reviewing one of my own incomplete map projects. Most of the places you see a stream or river in temperate climates, you'll see a fair amount of trees and brush along the banks. IMO you can justify adding woods R1 or R2 to most river/stream features. That may help with some of the over-long LOS areas.

I also learned that the map tool allows you to code a cell as both woods and water creating a swamp/marsh feature. That allows you to create very small [one cell] swamp features that breaks up both movement and LOS.

I'm going to try this technique in my next redo of my southern Eritrea map.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Another thought occurred to me while reviewing one of my own incomplete map projects. Most of the places you see a stream or river in temperate climates, you'll see a fair amount of trees and brush along the banks. IMO you can justify adding woods R1 or R2 to most river/stream features. That may help with some of the over-long LOS areas.

I also learned that the map tool allows you to code a cell as both woods and water creating a swamp/marsh feature. That allows you to create very small [one cell] swamp features that breaks up both movement and LOS.
Gary, I too have recently coded the river line with rough. My latest version of the map has all Clear as R2, woods as R3, and a one cell band on each side of the river as R4. I also reduced visability in the preferences as not too many 4000m shots should be available in a temporate zone either. :)

I'm not certain how much the new roughness has effected spotting and combat as I have only had a chance for run a small engagement on the map since I last posted.

I did overlook the ability to code as swampy-marsh. Thanks for pointing that out again.

Pete
 
Top