Terrain types & objects

Submitted by Erik on

Hey all,

As you might have noticed we added the like-functionality and some other stuff to the website yesterday. Hope you 'like' it.

Now please allow me to continue about more important matters. One of the things we are currently working on is a inventarisation of WW2 terrain types and objects. For this we would love your input! Please check out what we currently came up with (click on the image to enlarge it):

Before you make any suggestions, please mind the following:

1. Concerning all objects: a variety of object states is possible. For example: 'cars' being listed means that the implementation of both visually broken down and functional cars will be considered. And no, this does not mean that you will be able to drive a car in CoCv2 :P
2. Objects have to be realistic/put into action during WW2.
3. We realise that the implementation of certain objects depends on which nationalitities will be implemented. Therefore please stick to broad terminology.

Many thanks!!

Regards,

Erik

Comments

cireofmi's picture

Submitted by cireofmi on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 08:04.

Under terrain you could add desert and mountain. Since you have different water bodies listed you could add boats to transportation. Not sure if this would be under transportation or miscellaneous, but since you have horses you could add horse drawn carts. Also, under miscellaneous you could add rocks. Another building that could be considered would be factories.
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 08:13.

Hey cire :) I actually thought of mountains and rocks in the mean time as well. Haven't yet thought of horse drawn carts, factories and boats though, thanks for that! Desert however: was there desert fighting in WW2?
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:41.

I think this is an area to tread carefuly or maybe even aviod.


also on a similar subject remember the laws vary across europe for certain wwii topics/content. Im pretty sure you know all that much better than me as you are close neighbours.
cireofmi's picture

Submitted by cireofmi on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 09:01.

There was fighting in Africa.
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 09:10.

Ah yes, very true. Bare with me, my WW2 studies have yet to begin.

Desert: added to the inventarisation.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:05.

Thats where my grandad was in the desert with the tanks and stuff

Florian3's picture

Submitted by Florian3 on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 09:00.

Good stuff. Just to be clear, as Erik rightly mentions this is an overview of possible terrain types and objects. From this we will be selecting models to implement for inclusion in the actual game. What is important is that we have a wide range of different objects and that an object has either (1) added value with regard to game-play or (2) helps improve the overall atmosphere, but preferably both!
Menelyagor's picture

Submitted by Menelyagor on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 12:37.

I think that there weren't any helicopters involved in WW2, so I think you can scratch that of toyr list if you wan't it to be 'realistic'
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 12:55.

heres a pic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/R-4_AC_HNS1_3_300.jpg/756px-R-4_AC_HNS1_3_300.jpg

and a list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_helicopters_used_in_World_War_II
Menelyagor's picture

Submitted by Menelyagor on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:30.

Never knew that there were actual helicopters involved in the WW2 warfare.
Thought it started with the americans in Vietnam.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:47.

I expect they were initialy used more for reconasance. And there are some wierd half plane half helis as well.

Also from those lists looks like germany was ahead with the number of people working on helicopters. Considering they were also mastering missiles and long range stuff seems they were realy trying to win the technology battle.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 12:44.

Some destroyable stuff would be good, doesnt have to be everything. eg your barbed wire perhapse could be destroyed with a nade or something.

Or perhapse certain wall types, maybe even adding a different type of explosive for this job, like c4

if things like barbed wire slowed you down to crawling only, then destroying a path through it or maintaining stealth but being exposed longer could be a good tactical decision.
Pai-ku-han's picture

Submitted by Pai-ku-han on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:25.

Destroyable stuff could be an interesting addition.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:22.

in sand and dirt terrain could the soldiers fill some snadbags to make a cover?

or perhapse they could be able to dig in (dig a hole to get in when they need some cover)?

Both options could have a time element so as to make it a tactical decision, also stress if it is used as a function could slow the digging when under fire
Pai-ku-han's picture

Submitted by Pai-ku-han on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:27.

dig your own cover, sounds great!
Florian's picture

Submitted by Florian on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 13:57.

We have to be careful with some of these ideas, as their feasibility will obviously depend on some of the technical choices we make. After all, the game engine we will use for this will have to support destructible or dynamic terrain.

The question also should be what kind of firepower you would need to actually destroy something. A rifle or even machine gun will not do much damage to stuff like walls or haystacks. For that you would need high explosives and probably more than simple grenades. But I am reluctant about adding heavy high explosives (e.g. artillery, mortars) to the game, as that might detract from the fundamental squad-based tactical game play.

Oh, and I think helicopters as terrain objects should be out. They were not yet in use during WW2. As far as terrain is concerned I think you can also have a lot of fun with bocage, static trenches and streams.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:07.

I do agree this has to be tempered but destroying some barbed wire or adding some or even both maybe. Its not full on shoot the buildings and destroy all the walls and send all changes to all clients.

and something destroyable may mean you could add mission type of destroy the "x" which may or may not be useful depending on your brainstorming sessions. I think it could add variety.

Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:44.

Yeah, destroyable cover is something which we came up with during our game mechanics brainstorm as well. It is a very interesting feature. But as Florian pointed out: we'll need to investigate whether its technically feasible.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:30.

"As far as terrain is concerned I think you can also have a lot of fun with bocage, static trenches and streams."

Like
BSF2000's picture

Submitted by BSF2000 on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 18:33.

Have you decided on the programming language you'll be using? I was curious if you plan to stick with Java? Is this something you're still exploring?
US_Army_Infantry's picture

Submitted by US_Army_Infantry on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 04:11.

ok i see what you are getting at but artillary can take a building down kind of over powered and mortars could take a small building down still kind of over powered just saying haha
Ryan's picture

Submitted by Ryan on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:08.

I imagine these would be purely atmospheric, but nonetheless:

Military Airfields? Runways, Towers, Hangers etc.
Mortar emplacements (e.g. Flak 40)?
Recognisable landmarks (e.g. Arc de Triomphe)?

That's all I've got off the top of my head I'm afraid.
Phil's picture

Submitted by Phil on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:11.

recognisable landmarks is interesting, only if it was low enough effort because its just a nice to have than a functional must
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 14:41.

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. They are noted and will be added to the inventarisation.
Delta2k17's picture

Submitted by Delta2k17 on Tue, 12/04/2012 - 21:32.

We should maybe have some cover that moves :)
Delta2k17's picture

Submitted by Delta2k17 on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 00:33.

Im surprised bushes aren't in the terrain, maybe I'm stupid and it's there but I didn't see it. I think bushes would be a good feature and would add to the traditional CoC gameplay if once behind the bush you are invisible and to add onto destroying things topic, you can destroy the bush which could be done with a rifle/machine gun.

Just a thought :)
US_Army_Infantry's picture

Submitted by US_Army_Infantry on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 01:43.

last time i checked though rifles dont really blow up bushes to good take like 50 shots till you actully can see mutch on the other side just saying lol
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 08:46.

Bushes will be added, thanks.
US_Army_Infantry's picture

Submitted by US_Army_Infantry on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 01:46.

personally i feel like you all are getting a little object happy i thought the idea was to keep the basis of the game? destroyable terrain would be stupid for one throw 5 gernades at a wall just to tag a vp last minute... and why would you make stuff in the middle of a battle when you are getting shot at and could get sniped sorry but no thanks last time i checked lots of snipers used to play call. i like the idea of hills and water type stuff but dont get to object happy and make it pointless to play.
KillerZC's picture

Submitted by KillerZC on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 02:04.

Why are there buildings on that list? Shouldn't those be made by the map maker?
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 09:08.

Don't worry guys, the lists are nothing more than an inventarisation ;)

As Florian pointed out: in principle we dont intend to add features which endanger the fundamental squad-based tactical game play. We're just as addicted to the concept as you are. Therefore we intend to keep the fundamentals the same.

This does however not mean that we shouldnt consider all optons within the boundaries of what would be realistic.

And on top of that objects and terrain types can be used as scenery/decoration. They don't necesarilly need to play a role in the gameplay.
Cossack's picture

Submitted by Cossack on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 16:55.

I know we all have had the old school lag-tapping (debated ) and just people with flat out bad connections. I wouldn't know how to do it, but some way for the game to detect these people. Some counter-lag, something. I know that seems obvious and what-not. I however, am tired of using 5 grenades to out nade a lag-tapping... people. (For lag of a nice word). lol
Glacier's picture

Submitted by Glacier on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 17:05.

There were ways of detecting them types of people, it showed up on the Cheat Report, however, a better system would be nice.
One Last Shot's picture

Submitted by One Last Shot on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 19:09.

If there are going to be new terrains etc. The possibility of leaving footprints could lead to new strategies and tactics being developed. For example: Leave a path in the snow with one squad, and face behind ready for an enemy to follow. Once in sight a 2nd squad could hit from behind.
Glacier's picture

Submitted by Glacier on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 21:40.

Erik or Kading, do you have an e-mail address I can send you something? it's probably worthless but it's worth a try.
Costas's picture

Submitted by Costas on Wed, 12/05/2012 - 22:22.

I love the idea of different terrain types and objects, however what concerns me is that too much attention put into designing too many terrain types and objects can slow the development a lot. However a happy median where a healthy amount of those new features is implemented can leave room from improvement in the feature with more updates and addons. Regarding a dynamic destructable environment, I believe you have to implement DirectX 11.0 technology and that would make it more difficult as well as it also excludes players with no supporting OS/video cards.
One thing I think could be implemented and obviously doesn't have to do with terrains, is the ability to either lay down a small mine field or booby traps. A mine filed to cover flank or booby traps to protect a building entrance (or back door) would enhance strategies and give the CO more ways to plan the defensive/offensive strategy. I believe this would be closer to the gameplay basics CoC was based upon rather than implementing mortars and tanks.
Pai-ku-han's picture

Submitted by Pai-ku-han on Thu, 12/06/2012 - 02:21.

hey man, ur fat! haha

I dont like the idea of mines and traps if theres no way to detect them.

Submitted by Odineye on Thu, 12/06/2012 - 01:20.

I think you are making a long road, hard. What do these things do? Grass is green, snow is white but they are the same thing right? I would rather not see a large pallet of same-old-same-old. I would like to see the game run smoothly. Like combat in slow-mo instead of slow combat. I think the old CoC is great, and I want to see it improved, not replaced. i think it's biggest flaw is that it relies too heavily on tight corner's, good nades and luck.

I always imagined the next incarnation of CoC would focus more on the squad. I loved that you can rescue the wounded Chain. Let's bring that back. Give us medics, give us a large enough area to have a war in. Maybe some buildings or a town in it but don't make that the mainstay. Give us a real HQ. Give us a real reason to capture the vps. How about a map that the CO can make a plan on. I don't really care if said object looks like a truck or car or tank if it isn't doing anything.
InValid's picture

Submitted by InValid on Thu, 12/06/2012 - 02:44.

Better CO options like a tactical map for planning, perhaps the ability to pin soliders you can see for your teamates with less eyes, the pin would vanish after the man moved outa your sight.


Moving cover? cows ? which can be shot and then used as cover?

barbedwire seems like a good one. what about watchtowers?

will there be multiple levels? for trenches and buildings?

Solider classes perhaps? medic ? support? assualt? with differnt weapons and speeds?

for the terrain perhaps have seasons for the maps? winter the trees are bare autum there are leaves on the grass? ect.

or maybe instead of seasons have time? morning day afternoon night?

just spitballing i dont know what is possible to use.
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Thu, 12/06/2012 - 15:42.

Again thanks for all the suggestions guys. They will be added to our long list of elements which require careful weighing and decision-making ;)

We understand that are questions about what we are doing, how we are doing it and last but not least what kind of end-product we have in mind. For these questions please refer to Florian's 'Killing your darlings' blog post. That should give you some more insight.
Crom's picture

Submitted by Crom on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 01:51.

Things that would be useful

Hedges and pill boxes.

For the Co the ability when planning to have a arrow show on the map where the co wants each player to go..

And to add to pther posts, to much visuals and not enough game play wouldnt be fun...A happy medium is whats always needed.
Costas's picture

Submitted by Costas on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 05:24.

"For the Co the ability when planning to have a arrow show on the map where the co wants each player to go.."

I can just picture it where you place beacons of some sort in DZ time for your squads.
Crom's picture

Submitted by Crom on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 16:20.

When AGing could it be possible to have all fractions from both sides?

Example: the USA side has a choice of being USA/BRITS/ or which ever allies
The Axis side has a choice of being any of the Axis nations

still only two Fractions at a time yet the choice is up to each AG co which one at which time they want to be.
dont know how hard this could be or easy but a idea none the less
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 17:37.

Hey fellas,

An extended planning feature as well as more than just two nationalities are definetely very interesting additions. We have thought of these as well and between you and me we like these additions a lot ;) We'll still need to look at the technical side of things but it does not seem impossible. We'll let you know more ASAP. This could take some time though. Early next week we'll post a status report so that you guys have a clearer idea about where we are now and what lies ahead of us.
roaddog's picture

Submitted by roaddog on Wed, 12/12/2012 - 15:53.

well, a lot of great ideas. I have been playing COC since the late 90's and i still suck but anyway I hope the game stays as addicting and fun. I think this is really great news guys! can't wait!
Locust's picture

Submitted by Locust on Mon, 12/17/2012 - 10:09.

I don't think we'd be too upset if cars and such couldn't move, I'm just curious, will weapon emplacements exist, and could they be manned?
Erik's picture

Submitted by Erik on Mon, 12/17/2012 - 13:54.

Yep, if we do implement cars they will be purely decorative or for cover-purposes. Weapon emplacement is something we are currently discussing. All I can tell you is this: if we do implement it, it is likely to be on a very small scale. We do like the motto 'less is more' :)

Pages