Scourge of War Boards

True Ground Maps - Gettysburg - The Big Picture
Update version 3.8 (August 8, 2021) - Details

Unzip and copy to the Mods folder (Unzips with 7zip, free download...)
True Ground Maps - Gettysburg - The Big Picture

'True Ground Maps' revisits the 'Devil's Den' and 'GB Turning Point' (GB 9 Mile) maps, now scaled for realistic distances and real time play. Included are 22 scenarios designated for the 'Devil's Den' map, and 2 scenarios designated for the 'GB Turning Point' map. All 24 scenarios are prefixed (renamed) with 'TG'. Scenarios prefixed by 'TG_B&F_' must be played with the Bugles & Flags (B&F) mod activated, prioritize True Ground below B&F. Both mods should be prioritized lower than all other mods unless otherwise noted.

To eliminate all dependence of having B&F activated rename 'STOCKgfx.csv' to 'gfx.csv' in the Logistics folder--Rename or delete the original 'gfx.csv' file. Once this is done the scenarios that begin with 'TG_B&F_' can be played without B&F activated.

Sandbox play is available by selecting the 'Devils Den - True Ground' map, or the 'Gettysburg 9 Mile - True Ground' map. All Sandbox OOBs that include "SR1" in their name must have the mod 'True Ground SR1' enabled. Otherwise, officer portraits will display incorrectly. Prioritize 'True Ground SR1' below this map mod in Modifications.

Deactivate this mod when not used as it will shrink sprites among other extreme deviations.


More Info and Update Archives

"Reb" - Downloading Now!

I probably will not get a chance to view it until the weekend.

I'll also take a look at the "Devil's Den" boulders for you.

davinci

"Reb" - I looked at your Map and the (Boulders) situation is Not an easy fix, check the Picture below. The PR Engine allows for multiple settings for the boulders, such as the height, and bottom level, and the radius of said boulder.

If, I am remembering this correctly the "OnTopOf" was put in by "Norb" and not by the PR Engine.

SO, some of those boulders cannot have an "OnTopOf" setting applied to them since it was probably impossible to even climb on them in real life.

Another problem is that if the settings are not 100% it will create a sort of units standing in the air due to the radius of that boulder, like in the picture posted above.

Years ago when experimenting with a similar problem the only way that i was able to work around this problem was to place each boulder one at a time and start the game to test it. Then go back into the PR Program and add another boulder to create a sort of staircase system. Extremely Slow Process.

The "Rock-Wall" problem is caused by the "MapName.bmp" file that does not have a constant "GrayScale Color 80" applied to it. To correct that you would have to edit the MapName.bmp file.

I forgot to look at why the tree density is causing a problem, I'll Edit this post if I find out a solution to that issue.

Also - the creek level is also going to have to be lowered, since the units now walk under the water level.

Good Luck with this Project, but I feel that it is going to be a long process working around all of the Problems that this conversion is going too change.

EDIT Post: Reb - The Trees are using a Density of (240 and 120) change that to (30) for the tree settings.
A lower Number means a higher concentration of trees, so that is an easy fix.

davinci

If troops only fought around the lower edges of Devil’s Den an easier fix would be to remove the on top of values/add greyscale 25 so troops skirt the edges. I’ve always found guns and troops sitting directly on top of it a bit odd.

However, if historically they did, then you’re back to the drawing board. I’ll try and have a look when I have a spare moment.

If troops only fought around the lower edges of Devil’s Den an easier fix would be to remove the on top of values/add greyscale 25 so troops skirt the edges. I’ve always found guns and troops sitting directly on top of it a bit odd.

"Crikey" - How is everything going!

Not really disagreeing with you but I would go about this another way.

A GrayScale Color 25 - is basically a road \ path - which probably shouldn't be applied to that particular area around the boulders.

If the "Radius" is applied correctly the units will move around the boulders on their own without a road path directing them.

If some of the boulders were placed without the "OnTopOf" setting, that would \ should prevent them from climbing on top of the higher boulders. Which should solve the problem of the units standing in the air.

The lower boulders can and should have the "OnTopOf" setting applied to them which would allow the units to stand and fight without breaking into different squads.

It is just going to take quite a bit of time to get all of the boulders a "Correct Setting" which is extremely time consuming.

Strictly Guessing Here - but I would say that the only way to do it correctly would be to remove all of the boulders and to start placing them back down one at a time, while testing the results.

davinci

Hey D

Am ok. Hope all well with you too.

Greyscale 25 is a fall back option. B)

The collision radius issue with 3d objects is an ongoing challenge, which appears to be a side effect of Norb's tweaks to the PR prog and related 3D object Is files.

The use of the "on top of" interger in the Is file appears to allow the AI to recognise a collision radius, and sit on top of it. There seem to be variants of this that do not, meaning the AI merely skirts around the exact edges of the 3d object, rather than abide by the collision radius you give it.

I may be wrong, of course, but perhaps try a test - place a rock with no "on top of" interger - on a blank area of a map.

Then march your troops towards the object and watch what they do. If they skirt around it smoothly, without acting oddly, you could give the upper Devil's Den rocks those properties.

Davinci, thanks for the help answers on Post #3, I'll be checking them out soon.

Thanks for weighing in Crikey, lots of issues to be addressed.

Following this discussion, I think road pathing around the Devil's Den boulder wall is the best solution. The collision idea whereas units go around the object won't work because it splits units up. Just like the pond problem in the QB map, the 'boulder wall' is too large leaving split units vulnerable all along the long route while moving to reunite at their destination point on the other side.

If we go the road pathing route around the obstacle, my first question is...Do the boulders that make up the present 'boulder wall' need to have their properties changed, and if so, how can the "on top of" integer be reconfigured to just a normal collision condition (like houses)?

So far I haven't found any rocks that don't have the "on top of" property setting. Surely there's a way to turn off this setting for individual rocks or their duplicates.

Reb

I’ll experiment with some options tomorrow and report back. You can then decide what suits best.

I’ll describe the process then.

B)

Reb

I've done some initial testing of the rocks and different intergers mentioned in the ls files. In addition to "ontopof" integer there appear to be 2 other choices in terms of collisions which could be applied -

No collisions - where troops walk straight through the object and disappear (see screen)
Collisions switched on - where troops move erratically around the edge of the 3d object, rather than the collission radius set. That causes AI problems.
Neither are much help for your purposes.

Options

There are numerous 3D rocks scattered across the map which I'd be tempted to thin out/delete, as they have little use, and focus on the rock formations at Devil's Den and the opposing Round Tops.

For the former, you could manually adjust the "ontopof" collision values to be more compact in the PR prog. This would dilute some of the hovering in thin air issues. Alternatively I could try a greyscale 25 barrier to see if that stops troops moving onto the main rock formation.

Other things to consider

Height - More generally, the height of the map seems far too exagerated with the smaller sprites. You could probably halve the value used in PR to deliver a more accurate look, but this would mean resetting the 3D houses at the new height. You wouldn't need to do the fences as these align automatically with the new terrain height.

If you're doing that then I'd be tempted to swap in reshaded and retextured models to bring the 3D objects up to more modern standards, like I did in Chickamauga. I can provide those for you.

Walls - the value is at 1 which is as dense as it can currently go. One option would be to replace the current 2048 map.bmp with a 4096 by 4096 version. This would mean redoing it as the greyscale values would be corrupted by the resizing, I suspect. This can be done but it's yet more work.

Alternatively, you might place a dense line of bushes directly alongside, which might obscure some of the gaps. Not great but replacing the sprites with 3D walls would test anyone's patience.

In short, things can be done but it's a lot of work.

A shame the engine wasn't designed with more accurate ranges in mind, initially.

Other things to consider

Height - More generally, the height of the map seems far too exagerated with the smaller sprites. You could probably halve the value used in PR to deliver a more accurate look, but this would mean resetting the 3D houses at the new height. You wouldn't need to do the fences as these align automatically with the new terrain height.

If you're doing that then I'd be tempted to swap in reshaded and retextured models to bring the 3D objects up to more modern standards, like I did in Chickamauga. I can provide those for you.

Yeah, this was the next eyesore to get to, the exaggerated landscape, especially the sunken roads. Guide me through the process of getting this done and I will be most grateful. Your upgraded objects offer would be an added plus for this mod, of course I'll need guidance here also with replacing and positioning them. I'm still very early into the map learning phase, and haven't even edited a map.bmp file yet. This has got to be next.

Other things still to discuss in your last message Crikey, hopefully we'll get around to them...Thanks for this valuable feedback!