Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

Map Textures Mod

Grognerd

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
189
Points
28
Age
70
Location
Melbourne, USA
Wow, you know I'm not sure why I keep calling you Jim, since I know your John. Old person syndrome I guess. I'm glad you have a good sense of humor. I'm slightly embarrassed (but I'll get over it! HA!) My apologies.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Well, it's true that Jim is always there, Grognerd - like what? - like our 'fairy quartermaster', perhaps...but actually in this case I beat him to it. The relevant sub-folder to swap out the files in, is the Map folder in the graphics folder, by the way.
I'd better get on the ball :) !

My advantage is I get the questions asked later in the evening in Europe or morning in Asia and Australia first thing in my morning.

Fact is, I'm done today and now off to breakfast, today some bangers and fried eggs ;-}
 

compin

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Points
3
Age
58
Location
FRANCE
Hello, I'm new on this forum, "young french military retired" after 37 years and fan of CO2 since the original version "CO battle of bulge". However I did'nt have enough time to play the game since I left the army 2 years ago. Discovering the forum and particularly this topic, I agree with the interest of topo map. Then I tried to change with Mapmaker the look of an original map in a topographical one (2 views attached and the original one ref= map ST avid) . Since there I've been playing with my version (no bug for the moment). I'm open to any remarks and suggestions. Sorry for my poor english.
 

Attachments

  • Map_8perpixel.png
    Map_8perpixel.png
    949.4 KB · Views: 34
  • map_16perpixel.png
    map_16perpixel.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 34
  • originalmap_16perpixel.png
    originalmap_16perpixel.png
    1,008.6 KB · Views: 33

Grognerd

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
189
Points
28
Age
70
Location
Melbourne, USA
Looks pretty good to me, now comes the fun part - creating all the other parts to create a full scenario.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Hello, I'm new on this forum, "young french military retired" after 37 years and fan of CO2 since the original version "CO battle of bulge". However I did'nt have enough time to play the game since I left the army 2 years ago. Discovering the forum and particularly this topic, I agree with the interest of topo map. Then I tried to change with Mapmaker the look of an original map in a topographical one (2 views attached and the original one ref= map ST avid) . Since there I've been playing with my version (no bug for the moment). I'm open to any remarks and suggestions. Sorry for my poor english.
I've always had trouble differentiating land cover colors from the solid land contour colors used in CO2.

So, I find the contour lines for height offering a more intuitive feel for the height differences.

However, CO2 limits the number of contours to 15 steps for all the height variations on the map in mountainous terrain, these generally track standard topographical maps, however on plains (such as the North Africa desert or Belgian Heide scenarios) the CO2 standard allows for subtle variations (2-meters per contour for example) in land contour to serve as tactical defensive or offensive dispositions (armor hull down for instance).

Is there a possibility of mixing and matching contour lines patterns with "standard" intervals (solid line for example) found on topographical maps and CO2 "game" (some form of dotted line for example) intervals?

It's probably not a game breaker in conversion but would allow for easier conversion of standard topographical maps into combat maps.
 

compin

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Points
3
Age
58
Location
FRANCE
Looks pretty good to me, now comes the fun part - creating all the other parts to create a full scenario.
I already created a full scenario including map, estab .... for myself . It's a "modern warfare" one between a western blue force and a red OPFOR (brigade/battalion/ coy level) . Even if it's fun, it lacks main parameters like helicopters and others. Even for airstrikes, I' not entirely satisfied as parameters can't be changed (except numbers) If anybody has suggestions to improve....
To come back to maps, I just wanted in a humble way to propose a "new way" for this game , that I consider the best in its category
The advantage: looks like a topo map
One inconvinient : Size of mapfile more heavy
 

compin

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Points
3
Age
58
Location
FRANCE
I've always had trouble differentiating land cover colors from the solid land contour colors used in CO2.

So, I find the contour lines for height offering a more intuitive feel for the height differences. Fully agree

However, CO2 limits the number of contours to 15 steps for all the height variations on the map in mountainous terrain, these generally track standard topographical maps, however on plains (such as the North Africa desert or Belgian Heide scenarios) the CO2 standard allows for subtle variations (2-meters per contour for example) in land contour to serve as tactical defensive or offensive dispositions (armor hull down for instance).
you're right : I created a complete map in the north of France (60km x 60km), using variations of 30 meters per variation (maxi authorized!).
In fact it depends the scale of the map linked with the scale of units. The main purpose of CO2, if I'm right is the chain of command (I don't find as efficient in other wargames). The commander of a military force (N level) orders to (N-1 ) level and some specific units under direct command . Then to well coordinate all the N-1 level units he needs to know/follow their immediate sub-units (N-2) level : ie a brigade commander orders to Battalion level and specific units sized coy/platoon (RECE, infiltrated units, specific support assets) and needs to know/follow the Coy level (units lines) but ART batteries too to know the areas covered by fire) and of course the specific assets under direct brigade direct command.

Today with computer tools, many wargames mix tactical levels (Battalion /coy /platoon /section) with higher ones (army/division/brigades) in the same play. I think it's a mistake in view of the engagement standards of each level and their specific maneuvers. In my opinion the "tactical frontier" for wargame is Battalion level.
So if we want to play maxi a Battalion commander (that means you need to give orders to Coy/platoon/sections) then we need low map scale (2p/meters 1/125000, see lower?), more precised urban area..... including precised height variations
If the aim of the game is Brigade commander or higher (division army), 1/50 000 maps (16p/meters in CO2) are precised enough to give orders/follow icons level coys and other specific units..... 10m between contour should be sufficient as included in 1/50000 topo maps

Coming back to CO2 , my opinion is that the game is very well fitted for Brigade level (or higher). Maybe I'm wrong. Regarding what I developed above, I only use the more precise map scale (ie 2p/meters 1/12500) to be sure that the Coy will be well positioned to see/fire/Hide/selfprotect. (A well-trained one does it itself) and for airstrikes. Some players developed "platoon scenarios" with CO battle of the bulge. I was not convinced.

Is there a possibility of mixing and matching contour lines patterns with "standard" intervals (solid line for example) found on topographical maps and CO2 "game" (some form of dotted line for example) intervals?
I'm not strong enough in computer data to answer to this. The answer is in "Dave's hands". My opinion is it should be only possible if you create a new game. I only use Map maker tool (ie I use "dig lines" and modifie colour, parameters... in order to draw contour lines)

It's probably not a game breaker in conversion but would allow for easier conversion of standard topographical maps into combat maps.
I dream of a wargame able to include directly maps from geographical software like QGIS.

Apologize for the length of the text.




 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
you're right : I created a complete map in the north of France (60km x 60km), using variations of 30 meters per variation (maxi authorized!).
In fact it depends the scale of the map linked with the scale of units. The main purpose of CO2, if I'm right is the chain of command (I don't find as efficient in other wargames). The commander of a military force (N level) orders to (N-1 ) level and some specific units under direct command . Then to well coordinate all the N-1 level units he needs to know/follow their immediate sub-units (N-2) level : ie a brigade commander orders to Battalion level and specific units sized coy/platoon (RECE, infiltrated units, specific support assets) and needs to know/follow the Coy level (units lines) but ART batteries too to know the areas covered by fire) and of course the specific assets under direct brigade direct command.

Hopefully this isn't redundant with your understanding, but it may help to understand the mechanics of the game.

1. In its broadest terms, the game is designed to be played within the command and control span of the highest level of command on the map (termed "the on map boss"). The span is measured in how many subordinate-formations the "on map boss" can control effectively with the staffing at the command echelon. A division command may have a span of 10, meaning the command staff can directly order 10 subordinate organizations within its chain of command before incurring penalties in responsiveness and time to initiate the ordered mission.

The subordinate units which count are measured from the next lower echelon of command down to the game's standard company level formation.

So, if the division commander orders a brigade to perform a mission, the command staff span of control is burdened with 1 subordinate. It can issue nine more orders without incurring command and control penalties.

If that same division commander chose to individually order 10 separate companies to perform diverse missions before ordering the brigade into action, the response for the brigade will be delayed significantly because the command span was exceeded.

There are other penalties involved dealing with time delays in sending orders through the echelons of command and distance over which the order is transmitted, but in broadest terms the constraining mechanic is the command span for the "on map boss."

2. The game is designed to a couple of standard measurements, area and distance measures and terrain effects are based on 100 meter increments -- the terrain effects other than rivers and routes being the most frequently found terrain feature in a 100 x 100 meter grid (a grid with 60-percent wooded land and 40-percent grass land would be considered a wooded location for sighting and force protection purposes).

This is done for a couple of reasons.

a. The company is the lowest level standard formation on the map. A company is assumed to have a 100-meter facing and direct influence over a 100 x 100 - meter grid when deployed. Something like independent scout platoons, mortar platoons and gun squads / batteries are considered "companies" for game play purposes.

b. Sighting and visibility effects are calculated at 100-meter increments to avoid excessive time delays in altering the dynamic sighting and visibility effects for all the units on the map.

There have been some efforts to design a game for lower tactical levels of command, using platoons as standard unit size and reducing the grid for measurements to smaller than 100-meter increments, but the game seems to bog down as the more refined measurements necessary to make a platoon effective are calculated.

3. Height measurements for terrain affecting visibility and protection are calculated as the standard height of an individual soldier -- roughly 2-meters. Brush anticipated to be 2-meters in height will interfere with a soldier's visibility into an area affecting intel and fire accuracy. Grasslands designed to be no more than 1-meter in height would not interfere with visibility.

These measurements affect the tactics a force can use and intelligence a force can gather on the map.


Today with computer tools, many wargames mix tactical levels (Battalion /coy /platoon /section) with higher ones (army/division/brigades) in the same play. I think it's a mistake in view of the engagement standards of each level and their specific maneuvers. In my opinion the "tactical frontier" for wargame is Battalion level.
So if we want to play maxi a Battalion commander (that means you need to give orders to Coy/platoon/sections) then we need low map scale (2p/meters 1/125000, see lower?), more precised urban area..... including precised height variations

If the aim of the game is Brigade commander or higher (division army), 1/50 000 maps (16p/meters in CO2) are precised enough to give orders/follow icons level coys and other specific units..... 10m between contour should be sufficient as included in 1/50000 topo maps

Coming back to CO2 , my opinion is that the game is very well fitted for Brigade level (or higher). Maybe I'm wrong. Regarding what I developed above, I only use the more precise map scale (ie 2p/meters 1/12500) to be sure that the Coy will be well positioned to see/fire/Hide/selfprotect. (A well-trained one does it itself) and for airstrikes. Some players developed "platoon scenarios" with CO battle of the bulge. I was not convinced.

Most scenarios are designed around the operational level (corps and above), but tend to play best when commanded at the battalion level. Some of this depends on the map size and how many different chains of command report to an "on map boss."


I'm not strong enough in computer data to answer to this. The answer is in "Dave's hands". My opinion is it should be only possible if you create a new game. I only use Map maker tool (ie I use "dig lines" and modifie colour, parameters... in order to draw contour lines)


I dream of a wargame able to include directly maps from geographical software like QGIS.


Apologize for the length of the text.

I don't have access to it at the moment (suffered a computer crash and lost the software), but there was a routine written by Ioncore to begin conversion of standard OGIS information into battle maps.

Right now we're waiting for an update dealing in more intuitive and effective artificial intelligence response from formations when ordered to attack, so the mapmaking improvements remain on the back burner using non-standard (Alpha / Beta) software.


 

compin

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Points
3
Age
58
Location
FRANCE
Hopefully this isn't redundant with your understanding, but it may help to understand the mechanics of the game.

1. In its broadest terms, the game is designed to be played within the command and control span of the highest level of command on the map (termed "the on map boss"). The span is measured in how many subordinate-formations the "on map boss" can control effectively with the staffing at the command echelon. A division command may have a span of 10, meaning the command staff can directly order 10 subordinate organizations within its chain of command before incurring penalties in responsiveness and time to initiate the ordered mission.

The subordinate units which count are measured from the next lower echelon of command down to the game's standard company level formation.

So, if the division commander orders a brigade to perform a mission, the command staff span of control is burdened with 1 subordinate. It can issue nine more orders without incurring command and control penalties.

If that same division commander chose to individually order 10 separate companies to perform diverse missions before ordering the brigade into action, the response for the brigade will be delayed significantly because the command span was exceeded.

There are other penalties involved dealing with time delays in sending orders through the echelons of command and distance over which the order is transmitted, but in broadest terms the constraining mechanic is the command span for the "on map boss."

2. The game is designed to a couple of standard measurements, area and distance measures and terrain effects are based on 100 meter increments -- the terrain effects other than rivers and routes being the most frequently found terrain feature in a 100 x 100 meter grid (a grid with 60-percent wooded land and 40-percent grass land would be considered a wooded location for sighting and force protection purposes).

This is done for a couple of reasons.

a. The company is the lowest level standard formation on the map. A company is assumed to have a 100-meter facing and direct influence over a 100 x 100 - meter grid when deployed. Something like independent scout platoons, mortar platoons and gun squads / batteries are considered "companies" for game play purposes.

b. Sighting and visibility effects are calculated at 100-meter increments to avoid excessive time delays in altering the dynamic sighting and visibility effects for all the units on the map.

There have been some efforts to design a game for lower tactical levels of command, using platoons as standard unit size and reducing the grid for measurements to smaller than 100-meter increments, but the game seems to bog down as the more refined measurements necessary to make a platoon effective are calculated.

3. Height measurements for terrain affecting visibility and protection are calculated as the standard height of an individual soldier -- roughly 2-meters. Brush anticipated to be 2-meters in height will interfere with a soldier's visibility into an area affecting intel and fire accuracy. Grasslands designed to be no more than 1-meter in height would not interfere with visibility.

These measurements affect the tactics a force can use and intelligence a force can gather on the map.




Most scenarios are designed around the operational level (corps and above), but tend to play best when commanded at the battalion level. Some of this depends on the map size and how many different chains of command report to an "on map boss."




I don't have access to it at the moment (suffered a computer crash and lost the software), but there was a routine written by Ioncore to begin conversion of standard OGIS information into battle maps.

Right now we're waiting for an update dealing in more intuitive and effective artificial intelligence response from formations when ordered to attack, so the mapmaking improvements remain on the back burner using non-standard (Alpha / Beta) software.
Many thanks for your answer. I'd perfectly understood the chain of command parameters but your outstanding post completes my knowledge of the game and will greatly help the "novice player" in the future.
Now it's clear for me that the company is the lowest level standard formation on the map (Even you can create create lower units with the estab software). Playing several operational scenarios of the game, I effectively noted they are better played at Battalion level despite the level of the"on map boss" (Army or division one). It's why I wrote in my precedent post that "CO2 seems to be well fitted to Brigade level" because of the need in many cases to "help" the IA to "manage" sub-units, specially coy ones.

One question: do you know if a scenario with Division/ Brigades/Line Battalion icons ( Battalions as the lowest level deployed and if the Icon regroup the whole strength of the battalion) is playable? I guess no because of what you explained to me about visibility, height....

I'm going to look for the routine mentioned in your post
Best regards
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Many thanks for your answer. I'd perfectly understood the chain of command parameters but your outstanding post completes my knowledge of the game and will greatly help the "novice player" in the future.
Now it's clear for me that the company is the lowest level standard formation on the map (Even you can create create lower units with the estab software). Playing several operational scenarios of the game, I effectively noted they are better played at Battalion level despite the level of the"on map boss" (Army or division one). It's why I wrote in my precedent post that "CO2 seems to be well fitted to Brigade level" because of the need in many cases to "help" the IA to "manage" sub-units, specially coy ones.

One question: do you know if a scenario with Division/ Brigades/Line Battalion icons ( Battalions as the lowest level deployed and if the Icon regroup the whole strength of the battalion) is playable? I guess no because of what you explained to me about visibility, height....

I'm going to look for the routine mentioned in your post
Best regards
I'm not aware of any scenarios designed as you describe.

It's possible if one wanted to take the time to aggregate personnel quantities, equipment and weapons allocations normally assigned to companies and squads up to an all inclusive battalion structure.

There's a limiting factor of 2,000 square kilometers (40 x 50 KM) on the map size. That could cause complications on playability if the lowest command structure were battalions. Also, if the map grid is adjusted to the battalion footprint (I'd guess 400 x 400 meters), it would make the map terrain effects even more abstract than a percentage of a 100 x 100-meter grid.
 

compin

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Points
3
Age
58
Location
FRANCE
I'm not aware of any scenarios designed as you describe.

It's possible if one wanted to take the time to aggregate personnel quantities, equipment and weapons allocations normally assigned to companies and squads up to an all inclusive battalion structure.

There's a limiting factor of 2,000 square kilometers (40 x 50 KM) on the map size. That could cause complications on playability if the lowest command structure were battalions. Also, if the map grid is adjusted to the battalion footprint (I'd guess 400 x 400 meters), it would make the map terrain effects even more abstract than a percentage of a 100 x 100-meter grid.
These scenarios are hypothetical. I'was just wondering about it. If I well understood what you explain about parameters in a outstanding way , I gess the game was designed to imperatively deal with coys as the lowest level, so that the play remains realistic.

I began to read the routine written by Ioncore... about QGIS (thanks once again)

Best regards
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
These scenarios are hypothetical. I'was just wondering about it. If I well understood what you explain about parameters in a outstanding way , I gess the game was designed to imperatively deal with coys as the lowest level, so that the play remains realistic.

I began to read the routine written by Ioncore... about QGIS (thanks once again)

Best regards
If you're looking particularly at the terrain in France, Bie posted several scenarios with maps of the terrain around Caen and there are a couple of user-made scenarios with maps of the Normandy beaches where US troops landed.
 

GoodGuy

Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
436
Points
28
Age
52
Location
Cologne
(a grid with 60-percent wooded land and 40-percent grass land would be considered a wooded location for sighting and force protection purposes).
Hm... Say one of your coys has taken position in the woods (camouflaged and protected by trees and foxholes) and an enemy coy on patrol enters the grass land part, then your coy should have full view on the enemy, while the enemy walks by in the open, maybe even without being able to spot your ambush party. The game should hand out a hefty penalty to the enemy unit regarding sighting and set the protection to 0, while your unit should receive various bonuses (sighting, protection, etc.), and only receive hefty penalties if it receives HE/airburst fire, no?

Most scenarios are designed around the operational level (corps and above), but tend to play best when commanded at the battalion level. Some of this depends on the map size and how many different chains of command report to an "on map boss."
The friendly AI used to set up/perform beautiful plans/moves on the regimental level, which - back in the day (HTTR/COTA) - made MarkShot tend to say that the AI performed best when the player issued orders to regimental HQs, instead of divisional or Bn HQs. I used to second that. With all the changes, it may be somewhat different now, but even in CO1 you could see say a Rgt. HQ sending out a Bn as flanking force (often with brilliantly executed wide marches bypassing the enemy main force/defensive line), while the main force, the remaining Bns, would directly approach the enemy. Such moves looked as if they were made for military academy playbooks.... just beautiful.

In turn, attack orders issued to Bn HQs turned out to be really frustrating at times, which dealt with the routing policy of single coys, where 1 routing/retreating friendly coy pretty much compromised the entire operation (say with 3 coys and 1 heavy weapons unit involved, maybe even + 1 small tank element). I suggested to review the routing regime, a while ago, I think it would actually enhance the gameplay experience quite a bit, especially if playing below the regimental level.


There's a limiting factor of 2,000 square kilometers (40 x 50 KM) on the map size. That could cause complications on playability if the lowest command structure were battalions. Also, if the map grid is adjusted to the battalion footprint (I'd guess 400 x 400 meters), it would make the map terrain effects even more abstract than a percentage of a 100 x 100-meter grid.
I'd agree there. Besides the map limits and the possible negative effects on playability, coys are needed to represent/accurately depict the tactical level. You can't just shuffle around "Bn bodies" and not consider flanking manoeuvres, forces trying to hold/stop advancing foes or cutting off enemy supply lines. In reality, such missions are transfered to and performed by the Bns, which then shuffle their coys around, accordingly. In reality, a full Bn would not defend a tiny village, for instance. The Bn HQ would task a single Coy with the defense and then order its coys to rotate say every 24 hrs.

Is there a possibility of mixing and matching contour lines patterns with "standard" intervals (solid line for example) found on topographical maps and CO2 "game" (some form of dotted line for example) intervals?
I tend to think that it should be "easy" to have the map maker (or the game engine on map load?) add an outline (ie. a dark green solid or dottet line) to each terrain layer, automatically. The map would then a) keep the colorful appearance, which is the iconic visual/feature in CO2, but it would b) also receive a look that would resemble contour lines in topo maps. You still won't receive the actual accuracy of highres topo maps, but the readability of the terrain would go way up, imho. Just an idea.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,101
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Hm... Say one of your coys has taken position in the woods (camouflaged and protected by trees and foxholes) and an enemy coy on patrol enters the grass land part, then your coy should have full view on the enemy, while the enemy walks by in the open, maybe even without being able to spot your ambush party. The game should hand out a hefty penalty to the enemy unit regarding sighting and set the protection to 0, while your unit should receive various bonuses (sighting, protection, etc.), and only receive hefty penalties if it receives HE/airburst fire, no?

Yes. That's what happens. Certain terrain types can block sighting parameters but not provide good defensive strength against area burst weapons.


The friendly AI used to set up/perform beautiful plans/moves on the regimental level, which - back in the day (HTTR/COTA) - made MarkShot tend to say that the AI performed best when the player issued orders to regimental HQs, instead of divisional or Bn HQs. I used to second that. With all the changes, it may be somewhat different now, but even in CO1 you could see say a Rgt. HQ sending out a Bn as flanking force (often with brilliantly executed wide marches bypassing the enemy main force/defensive line), while the main force, the remaining Bns, would directly approach the enemy. Such moves looked as if they were made for military academy playbooks.... just beautiful.

In turn, attack orders issued to Bn HQs turned out to be really frustrating at times, which dealt with the routing policy of single coys, where 1 routing/retreating friendly coy pretty much compromised the entire operation (say with 3 coys and 1 heavy weapons unit involved, maybe even + 1 small tank element). I suggested to review the routing regime, a while ago, I think it would actually enhance the gameplay experience quite a bit, especially if playing below the regimental level.

The issue is being addressed in the attack code update. An attack will degrade as individual units drop their aspect of the attack plan, but the effort to attack doesn't halt until, as I recall, more than 50-percent of the force from the original attack plan pull out.
 

Spootnak

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3
Points
3
Age
23
Location
Scotland
Just linking the group to "HPS Point of attack 2" as an example of a CO2 style game using actual maps as its graphics. It looks a bit lo res and needs anti-aliasing(perhaps its better in-game when it's fullscreen idk) I think but it's an interesting demonstration of the type of thing people might be thinking of.

I suppose that is the difficulty, how to take a map like that and vectorize it so that it can be zoomed in without losing detail. I quite like how the second image looks but not the first.
 

Attachments

  • ManeuverGroups.jpg
    ManeuverGroups.jpg
    337 KB · Views: 24
  • poa22.jpg
    poa22.jpg
    308.2 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Top