Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Marcello · #1 November 6th, 2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Marek_Tucan said:
Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?

I don't get what you mean by "secondary". Personally I think that the current "dirt road" is fine: when I see it I think about unpaved but prepared roads, like gravel roads. For something even more basic, like simple vehicle trails, you can use bare earth; I have used this tecnique in one of my maps I posted here. The only objectionable thing is the wooden bridge, for the reasons already discussed. The pontoon bridge would be one solution, as it could also be useful to represent military bridges. Although thinkng about it it would have to be drawn is such a way that at least for single hex crossings it could pass itself off for a conventional bridge. This to represent all those small bridges crossing irrigation ditches on agricultural roads for which pontoon bridges would be inappropriate.

Marek_Tucan · #2 November 7th, 2007, 01:44 AM

I mean "secondary" as "not main" - IE say local roads etc. At least here many paved roads don't deserve to have "paved" status in SP as well

Large holes etc.

PlasmaKrab · #3 November 7th, 2007, 05:08 AM

What would have been interesting (but for this one I'm pretty sure it's a pipe dream) is an inputable value of, say, "road width".
After all a hex is still around 50m, so there's no way of telling if that road that runs in the middle of it is 5 or 30m wide. I think I'm not the only one to have run into the problem of stacking several "paved roads" to figure highways, while a real highway is generally under 50m wide.
IMHO the ideal solution would have been to set a "lane number" value or something similar when laying down a road, which in turn changes the number of vehicles that can be stacked in one road hex, the max load the road can take, and how fast damage hampers circulation.
Not sure there's any interest in it, but pretty sure it isn't doable.

DRG · #4 November 7th, 2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Marcello said:

Quote:

Marek_Tucan said:
Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?

I don't get what you mean by "secondary". Personally I think that the current "dirt road" is fine:

Neither of you two guys have been paying attention to the game. There hasn't been a "dirt" road in WinSPMBT since it was released. It's been "secondary" road for years and that covers any non paved road. It's still shows the "dirt" road graphic for ease of showing the difference between them and paved roads.

Don

Marek_Tucan · #5 November 7th, 2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

DRG said:
Neither of you two guys have been paying attention to the game. There hasn't been a "dirt" road in WinSPMBT since it was released. It's been "secondary" road for years and that covers any non paved road. It's still shows the "dirt" road graphic for ease of showing the difference between them and paved roads.

Don

I admit I didn't care for the official game designation for some time as I used these structures in this sense from the beginning of my SP mapping (that is since old SP2)

Marcello · #6 November 8th, 2007, 04:47 PM

The debate was about the graphics, not game mechanics.
Therefore "dirt road" was between quotation marks, because it looks like a dirt road even if does not perform that purpose. Speaking of which as I said I think that the current one is fine.
I suppose that you could change it to something more greyish, to represent the most common gravel roads and the very run down "paved" roads Plasmakrab was speaking about. But that would not be my first concern.

Marcello · #7 November 8th, 2007, 05:06 PM

Personally if there is a terrain that I missed that was some sort of sand berms that could be laid like bocage hedgerows. That would be very useful for iraqi maps.
Next a SPWAW style wall.
I also used to miss some sort of concrete like terrain that could be used as pavement above the zero level, as well as for structures like dams and such. However I found out that grey sand was a decent enough surrogate.

RecruitMonty · #8 November 8th, 2007, 09:03 PM

Walls, I really miss walls. It's murder trying to find a decent surrogate for them. So I concur. Sand berms would be a neat addition too. Not too difficult to simulate though, are they?

Marcello · #9 November 9th, 2007, 05:39 AM

"Sand berms would be a neat addition too. Not too difficult to simulate though, are they?"

You can simulate them by using elevation of course. Thing is, most engineering berms aren't 50 meters wide. Plus some properties would be lacking.

Think to things like these.

http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/wp-c...ads/feat07.jpe

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/26864...30FDCFC4C15FBB