Situational Awareness Maps

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Kip,

If you are an officer out in the field and only have one coloured pen with which to draw then you need something other than colour to differentiate the friend from the foe.

 

[Iconoclast]

why not just use different colours even in the military. Maybe something to do with risk of colour blindness.. no idea.. .

I challange you to draw coloured graphics with a lead pen. Or to try and draw something with a felt pen when it is raining like hell.

A

Edit: Sorry, Dave ninjad me.....

 

[kipanderson]

Dave, Iconoclast,
Yup... you guys clearly know the reasons I was just taking a punt.
Thanks..
Makes sense to have different symbols in the real, post WWII world.
Still think it looks more WWII to use traditional symbols for both sides as others have suggested in Command Ops.
But not important.
Very much looking forward to release..
All the best,
Kip.

 

[Iconoclast]

Still think it looks more WWII to use traditional symbols for both sides as others have suggested in Command Ops.

By traditional, do you mean "no diamonds for enemies", or do you mean actual WWII symbols? WWII symbols are very difficult to decypher....at least for me.

A

 

[The Plodder]

I'm pretty sure he means no diamonds for enemies. My view is that when you're viewing the Sit aware map in the scenario viewer, you're viewing it from a neutral position as you haven't chosen your side yet; so having diamonds for "enemy" doesn't really make sense and it feels too "modern". German and Russian map symbols are pretty hard to decipher but American WWII map symbols were the basis for modern NATO ones and why not just use the symbols with the colours that are in the game anyway?

 

[Iconoclast]

German and Russian map symbols are pretty hard to decipher but American WWII map symbols were the basis for modern NATO ones and why not just use the symbols with the colours that are in the game anyway?

True. my answer is based on the German symbols, totally forgot about the others. Just to toss my coin into the bag: I like the maps the way they are now, and I think the net gain of changing the symbols is not worth it.

A

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I'm pretty sure he means no diamonds for enemies. My view is that when you're viewing the Sit aware map in the scenario viewer, you're viewing it from a neutral position as you haven't chosen your side yet; so having diamonds for "enemy" doesn't really make sense and it feels too "modern". German and Russian map symbols are pretty hard to decipher but American WWII map symbols were the basis for modern NATO ones and why not just use the symbols with the colours that are in the game anyway?

Good point about the need for it to be from a neutral perspective.

Daz,

Would you be able to change the maps provided so far so that we use the standard horizontal rectangle icons for both sides as in the game. When could you get these to me? We can run with what we've got for now - ie I won't hold up the release for these.

 

[Iconoclast]

I would just like to mention that that the removal of the diamonds will not solve the neutrality issue. You would need to get rid of the red colour too to achive true neutrality.

A

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Fair enough. We should use the national colours in the game.

 

[Daz]

Its not much work to change the symbols, but my opinion is they should stay the as they are.

• One of the reasons is any serving member of the armed forces can pick up the game and instantly recognise the symbology, and its also a good learning aid for any younger players that may be thinking of a career in the armed forces in the future.
• It helps to differentiate between the opposing sides, when the symbols are close together, or intertwined, say when a pocket is cut off behind the enemy front line.
• What colour is the FLOT, axis of advance, and other action symbols to be represented in when there is a multi nation side, for example the Brits, and the Americans, or the Germans, and the Italians for example? I think these lines and symbols will look strange in a colour other than blue and red.
• Its not just the outline shape that has changed in a lot of the modern symbols, its content has changed since the old NATO symbols also. The downward vertical line to represent motorized units is an example that springs immediately to mind, but there are plenty of others. So do we stick to the old NATO symbols or go with the modern ones? I don't think they should me mixed, it should be one or the other.
• I don't have a problem representing Nazi Germany, and its allies as enemy force., There is a huge difference between modern Germany, Italy, and Japan, and that of the 1940's, and I think most people would understand why they are represented as enemy forces, for purpose of clarity in the Situational Awareness maps.
• I don't understand why there is a need to change the existing maps to emphasise that the opposing sides can both be played. I think it will be perfectly clear that the player can play as the Allies (blue friendly forces) or be play as Axis (red enemy forces).

You of course have the final say in the matter Dave, I just thought I would put my points forward before you go firm on a decision.

 

[SSG D]

I agree with Daz

 

[john connor]

But what about when the Soviet troops appear, half way through the year, Daz? When it's Axis v Soviets, I mean? I think it would be best to be neutral, BUT, I have never thought that either the shape of certain symbols, not their colour meant that they were 'the baddies'. I think you have to have a military background to realise that. That said, I think people new to the game will want, pretty quickly, regardless of the history and their nationality, to play the Axis in many scenarios (including both the two give-aways) because they have the most interesting attacking challenges, and then it would be best if they didn't have to think of those forces as 'Opfor' in some way, though surely that wouldn't in any case bother any with military backgrounds, as they must be used to 'wargaming/ excercises' where they have to 'play' the 'opfor' side, no? So maybe it doesn't really matter.

 

[kipanderson]

Hi,
Well... we are into each to their own... .
I would say that the modern OPFOR symbols make the game look too “modern... too Cold War/NATO...”
If ever there is a Cold War or contemporary setting for the engine then let’s go for it.. but overall “atmospherics.. “ look and feel... should be WWII for WWII settings. . i.e. the now conventional “western..” type symbols for all sides.
All the best,
Kip.

 

[The Plodder]

I'd keep to the symbols and national colours that are used in the game engine to keep consistency and to help new players better understand what is going on.Keep the blue / red lines and arrows. My thought is something similar to the US Army Green Books:

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

In terms of in game iconography we have experimented with having different sets of icons that the player can choose. In fact Miquel did a NATO 2525C set. It draws fine while the game is paused but needs more work to optimise the drawing while the game is running. Eventually we will get there. Then players can choose to their hearts content. Right now I am going to come down in favour of the historical icons. It's more in keeping with the games historical scenarios. And I think I'll also opt to use national colours instead of the friendly blue and hostile red colouring. I know that this colour scheme was used in WW2 but the overriding principle I am using now is that the SAM should be neutral.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

BTW thanks for the well argued positions here. It certainly helped me to come to grips with the main factors to consider. Well done.

 

[Daz]

Ok so what are the national colours to be?

White = British
Grey = German
Green = Italy
Blue = USA
Red = USSR
? = Greece

What colour should the FLOT, and other task symbols be when the forces are mixed for example in From the Meuse to the Rhine, when we have American AB, and British?

Some of these colours might not stand out well against the background map, but I can probably find some way around the problem, by giving them drop shadows or different colour strokes.

 

[The Plodder]

IMHO, I'd get the colours from the respective estabs. That way, the sit map and game map would look more connected. Other map symbol colours like arrows and front lines could be anything as long as they are a consistent colour for each side. You could even change them for each map if you have to depending on the map's contrast and shade. Whatever works for a particular map really.

 

[Iconoclast]

Daz,

As for the merging lines of different nationality: Boundaries and other lines are usually black anyway. Enemy boundaries can be marked with a "ENY" without using colour. You can also mark nationality boundaries in a similar way. E.g. 1 (GRE) on the left and 2 (UK) on the right of a boundary. If this would be a Div Boundary, you would say that the first Division on the left is greek, and the second Division on the right is british. Then you draw the Divisions (or Bns, etc.) in their respective locations.

I honestly don't know what to do with the FLOT, since this is by definition biased. As long as we have a FLOT, we won't get to the desired neutrality. Then again, you don't need a FLOT in many situations. How about using an Line of Contact (LC) instead, or a FEBA? FLOTs are used to discribe a situation where the LC/LD or FEBA/PLs are not the same as the FLOT. e.g. when you want to show where your Security Zone ends. But i don't recall many scenarios where you would have units at scenario start lurking outside of your MBA (which is limited by the FEBA). battle handovers are another situation where you usually have a FLOT to indicate the forwardmost elements of the moving force, that are disengaging.

the point is: FLOTS are used when things are already moving. If not, they are usually the same as LC/LD or the FEBA. So the usage oft he FLOT should probably be limited to Screens, Guards etc. operationg forward of the FEBA or if you have to discribe a situation that has already transitioned into the "ongoing" operation, e.g. because scenario start is after the LD/LC has been crossed and your units have already pushed beyond....hence the FLOT.

Another thing about battlefield graphics: Only use as many as you need to, to discribe a given situation. If you don't need a symbol, something is too much and you would confuse others with that, or overload your map....shred it.

Regards,

A

 

[The Plodder]

Dave has asked me to step in to do the SAMs as Daz has now got other commitments.Here's a first draft/look at the SAM for Race to Bastogne. The scenario briefing for this scenario reads:

Race for Bastogne

December 16th 1944, 05:30 hours, Luxembourg

Historical scenario. 5. Pz. Armee: XLVII Pz Korps sector.
The main effort for Manteuffel's 5. Panzer Armee was given to the XLVII (47th) Panzerkorps commanded by General der Panzertruppen Heinrich von Lüttwitz. For the initial assault, the Panzerkorps consisted of the veteran 2nd Panzer Division and 26th Volksgrenadier Division, with the Panzer Lehr Division held in reserve behind the front.

While the motorized elements of the Panzerkorps assembled along the Our River near Dasburg and Gemünd, reinforced shock troops began infiltrating toward the American positions along the "skyline boulevard" several hours before the heavy guns opened up to herald the beginning of Germany's last great offensive in the West.

The foot troops had orders to bypass the fortified towns along the American front line and capture the bridges over the Clerf River by the end of the first day. At the same time, German engineer's were to build heavy tank bridges over the Our near Dasburg and north of Gemünd to unleash Manteuffel's armoured schwerepunkt and drive for the Meuse crossings between Givet and Andenne.

On the American side of the Our in this sector, the 110th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division was resting and absorbing replacements after suffering staggering losses in the Hurtgen Forest battles. With over 15km of front to cover, the 110th could not maintain a continuous line along the Our River, and instead took up fortified positions at key towns and road junctions along the ridge overlooking the Our River valley.

And here's the map.As you can see I'm using quite a different style to Daz's maps, I'm keeping to the scenario briefing on what I show, but I'm open to suggestions for any improvements.