Terrain?

[zinzan]

 

I am a systems designer by profession.  But I don't want to see CM's code or any games code.  That is like seeing your spouse and your love as hormones and neurons firing in various lobes on PET scans.  Some things should just be enjoyed for what they are; and not analyzed any further. 

This has just become my sig quote of choice on a few other gaming message boards, thank you.  It's also a very apt comment explaining why I enjoy PC wargaming so much more than board wargaming - hidden calculations.

Apologies for the OT comment

[markshot]

Ha ha ha ...

[womble]

While I like the way you express your love of wargames, and feel some of the same myself, it's always going to be difficult to exactly determine what "real world behaviour" ought to be. Spotting is a prime example: how long should it take Observer O to spot Subject S at range R in concealment C and weather W and under lighting L? Judgements have to be made, which is why "games about wizards" are more likely to behave logically and model the closed set of rules, because all of that has been arbitrarily assigned by the designer... That the closed set of rules might not be intuitive because it's beyond the player's experience and they've no references from real life doesn't mean that the rules cannot be elucidated to the player. That they are not, in so many fantastical settings, is a fault of game design, not the step away from reality.

The great thing about games set in reality, though is that so many aspects can be made to be intuitive and match the real world, and all we have to elucidate with any precision are the exceptions. It's just hard work to get the simulation right enough to satisfy our intuitive expectations, as BFC prove by being the only wargame at this scale that even comes close.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Finished testing on heavy forest, marsh, rocky and heavy rocks

Combining them with my earlier results:

Exposure

Pavement: 100%

Grass: 95%

Light Forest: 90%

Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60%

Marsh: 100%

Rocky: 100%

Heavy Forest (no trees): 80%

Heavy Rocks: 75%

 

Some mild surprises there, at least to me. Marshes and rocky terrain provide no more cover than pavement. Heavy rocks turned out to offer less cover than I recall from my old test, but that was a smaller sample size.

 

What does not surprise me is that most terrain types offer little cover unless there is some type of 3D terrain with it such as trees or walls. You see that most clearly with the forest terrain where most of the cover is from the trees themselves rather than the underlying terrain. Given this I don't think I will be testing any more terrain. I may test some buildings at some point.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[markshot]

Womble,

 

If you really want to get into it:  The mathematician, Kurt Friedrich Gödel, proved that in any closed system that there are true statements which cannot be proven within the closed system.  If one takes a mechanistic view of the universe/existence, it has profound implications for our lives.

 

Fortunately, I think the designers of CM had more mundane things on their mind. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel

[Heirloom_Tomato]

markshot I made this file a while ago and believe I have shared it here before but will again.  This is a terrain tile indicator "scenario"  You need to put it into your scenario folder and load it up as the allies.  It has a square block of each type of terrain in the game and a label for each terrain type.  There are three different vehicles that you can drive around the map and see how each vehicle interacts with the terrain.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vo58wsuxxhbfpyg/Terrain Tile Type Test Damp.btt?dl=0

 

I hope this helps you to identify terrain in game.

[markshot]

Very interesting.  Thank you very much!

 

I really do think that terrain is far less distinct in this game both tool wise and graphically.  It is a lot harder to know which way the infantry should go.

 

Now, I can see from aesthetic point of view the terrain shouldn't look so discontinuous.  But I believe some accommodations need to be made to players.  Like I used grided terrain.  (Personally, I think think there should simply be a grid/mesh on off hot key for gamers.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

The only complaint I have about the less distinct terrain is that if an object is on the border of two action spots it can be very difficult to tell which one it is in. You'll notice this mainly with trees you want to take cover behind and casualties you are looking to buddy aid.

(Personally, I think think there should simply be a grid/mesh on off hot key for gamers.)

According to BFC they did in fact take a stab at implementing a toggleable grid but it turned out to be a performance killer.

[Bulletpoint]

Finished testing on heavy forest, marsh, rocky and heavy rocks

Combining them with my earlier results:

Exposure

Pavement: 100%

Grass: 95%

Light Forest: 90%

Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60%

Marsh: 100%

Rocky: 100%

Heavy Forest (no trees): 80%

Heavy Rocks: 75%

 

Some mild surprises there, at least to me. Marshes and rocky terrain provide no more cover than pavement. Heavy rocks turned out to offer less cover than I recall from my old test, but that was a smaller sample size.

 

What does not surprise me is that most terrain types offer little cover unless there is some type of 3D terrain with it such as trees or walls. You see that most clearly with the forest terrain where most of the cover is from the trees themselves rather than the underlying terrain. Given this I don't think I will be testing any more terrain. I may test some buildings at some point.

Brilliant Vanir, thanks!

[ASL Veteran]

Finished testing on heavy forest, marsh, rocky and heavy rocks

Combining them with my earlier results:

Exposure

Pavement: 100%

Grass: 95%

Light Forest: 90%

Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60%

Marsh: 100%

Rocky: 100%

Heavy Forest (no trees): 80%

Heavy Rocks: 75%

 

Some mild surprises there, at least to me. Marshes and rocky terrain provide no more cover than pavement. Heavy rocks turned out to offer less cover than I recall from my old test, but that was a smaller sample size.

 

What does not surprise me is that most terrain types offer little cover unless there is some type of 3D terrain with it such as trees or walls. You see that most clearly with the forest terrain where most of the cover is from the trees themselves rather than the underlying terrain. Given this I don't think I will be testing any more terrain. I may test some buildings at some point.

I believe that it is a combination of tree and forest tile that gives the most cover.  I doubt if you get much, if any, cover benefit from a tree sitting in a grass tile.  similarly a light forest tile without any tree on it doesn't give as much cover as one with a tree on it.  I'm curious if a bush gives any cover benefit when combined with a forest tile.  The type of tree does seem to make a difference too - the pine especially seems to give less cover than other tree types.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I may do a test to find out, but it is my suspicion that trees provide the same amount of cover regardless of the terrain type they are in.

Some tree types have noticeably thicker trunks than others so it stands to reason that makes some difference.

[womble]

Trees is trees. They stop what hits them, so if a "Tree A" in an AS of one terrain type reduces exposure by 30 points, I'd expect the same tree to do exactly the same in a different terrain type.

[A Canadian Cat]

I believe that it is a combination of tree and forest tile that gives the most cover. 

I believe that is correct indeed - except perhaps being behind a tall wall when the opposition is an MG.

I may do a test to find out, but it is my suspicion that trees provide the same amount of cover regardless of the terrain type they are in.

I bet the do.  But they add cover so trees on heavy forest will likely provide the best cover.  I highly doubt that trees in the open will provide the same cover as trees on heavy forest. 

In fact I would log that as a defect if I saw that (which I do not have any indication of from experience). 

[Muzzleflash1990]

I always thought it was the ground tile that mostly determined cover when speaking about nature. In a forest it would be easier to find some dirt to hide behind, than in the open. But do trees actually provide cover of significance? I thought rifle ammo like 7mm+ went through most "ordinary" trees, and still had enough power left to hurt. Though I seem to recall bushes occasionally absorbing bullets in CM.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Muzzleflash1990

[ASL Veteran]

I may do a test to find out, but it is my suspicion that trees provide the same amount of cover regardless of the terrain type they are in.

Some tree types have noticeably thicker trunks than others so it stands to reason that makes some difference.

I sincerely doubt it.  I've made a lot of orchards in my time and they are almost always nearly worthless as cover where no forest tile is present.  Different trees also affect LOS differently because it seems as though you can see for miles through Pine trees on light forest.

[slysniper]

Personally, anyone playing the game with charts have issues as far as I am concerned.

Winning the game is more important than playing the game for what its enjoyment factor should be.

Now, do solders in real combat  use charts and data, Actually they do. There is always a study as to best engagement distances with the enemy and what weapon match ups do and to try to engage at ranges that best suites what you have to fight with.

But there is no terrain charts, soldiers cannot measure wall thickness and know for sure what building gives the best cover. But players in the game sure will go to any length to know that and other similar stuff.

What is better, that group of woods or the building for cover, in real life is there a answer for that. Not really. But here you are wanting it in the game.

Play the game enough and you know what the terrain does as to protecting you, stop making it a math test. that is not the point of the game anymore.

Terrain cannot move with you on the battlefield, your units have to deal with what terrain options there are with where they are going, their choice should not be a percentage number. but should be for the logical sense of what they likely will be engaged by from the enemy with.

I love buildings if the enemy is throwing light mortars and small arms fire at me. I hate them is there is a big gun that has direct fire on them.

I would prefer a wheat field vs a large gun just for the fact it has a terrible time getting a bead on anything lying in the grass.

One of the good things about the game now is just that, terrain choices can now be made for the sake of terrain. Its not a numbers game any more and its time to stop trying to make it one again.

 

 

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

What is better, that group of woods or the building for cover, in real life is there a answer for that. Not really. But here you are wanting it in the game.

Well, what kind of building is it? And exactly what kind of forest? In real life, each square metre is unique. You can evaluate things instinctively and it's probably going to be a pretty good guess.

But in the game, a forest tile is just a forest tile. Building cover depends on how big the houses are and if they are joined to another building, for some reason. As far as I've seen, a 50 metre long building will protect you better behind your single window than a 30 metre building.

And when I started playing, I had no idea those little tiny bushes in the forest tile would provide so much concealment. But that's pretty important info I think  

[Baneman]

Yeah, you can get all specific about it, but I find ( in general ), the game works best if you don't overthink it.

 

I too, come from a tabletop wargaming background and CMx1 only reinforced that, but over time, I've come to the following approach with CMx2 - Do what you think is right. Most of the time it works more or less as expected. ( the trees added cover, the bushes added concealment etc. ).

Also, I try not to stay static for too long with my troops. Thus, unlike CM1 where you might hog a piece of fine cover terrain for a long period ( the benefit was specific and unchanging ), in CM2, I find that sitting too long in one place is asking to get blasted by "something bigger" your opponent brought up to eliminate the hard-cases. So you've moving from cover to cover, it's constantly changing, you'll go mad trying to evaluate every little piece.

Bottom line - if it looks like a viable spot for your purposes, it probably is ... for a while anyway. This game rewards dynamic play

Edited September 18, 2015 by Baneman

[ASL Veteran]

Well barns, in particular, seem to be made out of cardboard and I'll never put a pixeltruppen in a barn if I can help it.  Modular buildings generally protect better than other types of buildings.

[Bulletpoint]

 Modular buildings generally protect better than other types of buildings.

yes, and this is pretty odd I think...

[A Canadian Cat]

 

One of the good things about the game now is just that, terrain choices can now be made for the sake of terrain. Its not a numbers game any more and its time to stop trying to make it one again.

Spot on - to bad I cannot hammer on the + button a bunch of times.  Throw away the tables, throw away your dice.  For get looking up data just think would would you do?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I sincerely doubt it.  I've made a lot of orchards in my time and they are almost always nearly worthless as cover where no forest tile is present.  Different trees also affect LOS differently because it seems as though you can see for miles through Pine trees on light forest.

I went ahead and tested it since this is an important point.

Grass + 2 trees (Tree A in editor): 68%

Grass alone was 95% and Light Forest alone was 90% so this result is slightly less than I was expecting by a few percentage points (65% would have been my prediction), but given that the exact placement of trees in an action spot is random it stands to reason that we would see a little more random variation in results.

But the larger picture remains the same. The significant cover is provided by the physical trees themselves. Although I did not do a single tree test my results suggest that even a single tree in a grass action spot will provide at least as much cover as a light forest action spot with no trees*, and two or three trees will have more cover than any terrain type alone in the game.

*However, the forest tiles do offer much better concealment so it's not a cut and dried decision.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[womble]

Well barns, in particular, seem to be made out of cardboard and I'll never put a pixeltruppen in a barn if I can help it.

Tru dat. Listen to the man. Barns are sight blocks for troops behind them, and death traps for troops inside them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

One of the good things about the game now is just that, terrain choices can now be made for the sake of terrain. Its not a numbers game any more and its time to stop trying to make it one again.

What is terrain in the game? It's a set of numbers. It is always a numbers game. To what extent anyone chooses to care about the numbers is irrelevant to their significance.

This is akin to how some people don't care about the armor and gunnery ballistics. To them it doesn't make sense to worry about if your 75mm APCBC can penetrate the Tiger's side hull at 30 degrees angle at 500 meters. They know it's better to engage enemy armor from the side than the front and that's all they need to know, and that is a perfectly fine and legitimate way to look at it. But at some point down the line your pixeltruppen will care even if you don't because these are the rules they live and die by.

Ironically, what this testing has shone is that charting the cover values of base terrain tiles in CMx2 really is a waste of time since the differences are too small to be of much tactical significance. Concealment would probably be a different story.

[ASL Veteran]

Well I never use double or triple trees in a tile.  I always use single trees ... almost exclusively.  I may put a double tree down in a relatively open area on occasion, but double trees increase the processor hit on computers too much and my maps are normally pretty big.  Double trees also look odd to me when placed on the map because it really makes tiles look more dense than what a normal area with trees in it looks like.  I don't know what others do so maybe double and triple tree tiles are common, but I never use them.  With orchards I'll typically put a space tile between single trees so it is pretty sparse tree cover.