Terrain?

[Vanir Ausf B]

And just to follow up on my post on the numbers, I do agree with Slysniper on one point: you don't need to know the exact numbers and no one should construe these tests to be an argument that you do. The numbers are just there to inform your tactical decisions, or to inform map-makers. Do you need to know that a grass AS with a tree in it provides 20% cover while a light forest AS with no tree provides 10%. No, you do not. But knowing the general relationship can make your decision tree more accurate and showing the numbers is simply a means to that end, and I would argue that this is useful to the extent that some of these relationships are not intuitive.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

I see double and triple tree action spots frequently in Heavy Forest tiles in particular. But from a map-makers perspective I think the take-away from this is that there is a very strong relationship between the number of trees and the quality of the action spot as a fighting position. 

Edited September 19, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[slysniper]

Well, don't take me wrong in that I do not personally understand that it is a numbers game. No matter what it always will be.

I also will say that I do plenty of calculations as to what might happen within the game and with my units. I do think there is a place for it. But in the game now, I see that place with each weapon and how that weapon works. And to me, that is very much how I see what someone does that is leading real troops and is wanting to use the weapons at his disposal to their best effect.

Example, when black sea first came out, The first thing I did was make a bunch of little fire fight scenarios and made determinations as to what effective ranges different rifles were being effective at.

But did I chart it, I guess I could have, and yes many real soldiers have a similar understanding of that with their weapons.So it makes somewhat sense to me that someone would do that.

But It only took only one time sending troops into a barn and seeing them mowed down to understand it is nothing more than concealment and I don't need no chart to tell me that, just like any other terrain on the map. its pretty easy to understand the likely results of the terrain without any numbers to verify it. That is all I am saying. Of course that comes with playing the game and seeing the results of such terrain.

Where as , in cmX1 I will say, terrain was very much more like a mathematical formula. The results were pretty consistent also. Now, I would not say that anymore with the terrain, it can give you surprises.

[MikeyD]

Y'know, when you're in the real world nobody is going to hand you a sheet of paper with hard numbes listing relative levels of concealment for the surrounding terrain. Reality doesn't work like that. The whole point of providing a detailed 3-D environment is the 'willing suspension of disbelief'. You're not juggling numbers and algorithms, you're lying in a muddy field in the middle of the night not 500m from people who want to kill you. As to not being able to tell orchards from tall pines in the game. The presence of tall pines ought to be a giveaway on that score.

[markshot]

Two problems:

(1)  Some of us have no actually training and don't really know what's best in the real world.

(2)  Some who have real world experience still cannot fully recognize its abstraction in software.

This is why there are things like a LOS tool.  In the real world, a shooter should be able to estimate distances by various factors.  This is a simulated world.  Providing aids to be used for quick judgements is not the same thing as trying to turn your game play into an exercise in statistics and probabilities.  BTW, your intuitive knowledge is, in fact, your brain's compilation of empirical knowledge into high speed stereotypical choices.

Lastly, this type of experimentation besides aiding player and designers is good for the devs too.  Many bug and anomalies have been found by players trying to understand the mechanics of the game (former beta tester of 20 years speaking here).

[Bulletpoint]

Also, map makers often over-use heavy forest tiles. It's one of my pet peeves

[womble]

Also, map makers often over-use heavy forest tiles. It's one of my pet peeves

They do? I don't see them very often (mostly in BN) even in woods that look like they maybe ought to be impenetrable to vehicles...

I agree that the representation, good as it is, is not as good as having a Mark 1 eyeball on the same ground IRL, and that's why there are things like the Target tool. But the benefits from the interactions of terrain types are so complex that the limitated degree of wooliness in their representation doesn't make much difference, IMO.

[Bulletpoint]

They do? I don't see them very often (mostly in BN) even in woods that look like they maybe ought to be impenetrable to vehicles...

Just based on my meandering experience, yes. But then again, I only played BN so far.

I cringe a bit every time I see a map that has little patches of forest that are basically solid blocks of heavy forest, especially when each tile has 3 trees. In real life, forests are a mix of heavy and light terrain, bushes (especially a the forest edge) and clearings.

Of course, there are also many map designers who get it right, and the bad maps don't stay long on my harddisk..

Edited September 19, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[ASL Veteran]

My typical forested area will start out with solid light forest tiles in the area that the forest covers.  Once that's done I'll fill it with a dominant tree type - typically either a pine or one of the two taller 'normal' trees depending upon what region the map is in (I think they are A and C).  I will then place at least one and usually two or three other tree types all over the forested area such that the newly placed trees replace the dominant tree type.  All tiles with a tree is a single tree.  After that I'll place two and three bush per tile bushes using one or possibly two types of bush.  These replace the underlying tree tiles of course.  Following that I'll place heavy forest tiles and then at least two and sometimes three types of grass tiles replacing the earlier tile types.  It is a bit of a random process as I'll simply click in various spots in the forested area until I get the right 'look' or density.  I'll then go in and delete all trees that are located on a grass tile to lighten up the forest.  Sometimes I'll delete all bushes on grass tiles too, although sometimes I'll leave bushes on grass.  This gives the player a variable distance in which to spot the enemy because the terrain is so varied and it helps prevent SMGs from being overly dominant although the fights will still be close range.  It just won't typically be point blank range.  It also means that there is a lot of intervening 'stuff' between the firing unit and the target.  It takes a long time to do a forest like this but I think it is a better result visually and also in terms of LOS.  Cover and concealment seems adequate to me.  Solid blocks of heavy or light forest tiles covered in double and triple trees always looks claustrophobic and much too dense relative to the photos I've seen of the forests in western Europe in the 1940s.

[markshot]

Who would have ever thought you need a degree in ecology/botany to design scenarios for CM!  (I thought physics/explosives/kinetics was enough.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Unit experience appears to have only a very small effect on use of cover. I tested Light Forest + 2 trees with elite and conscript targets. The elite targets suffered 5% fewer casualties which is on the margin of statistical significance for the sample size.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[LukeFF]

Some of us have no actually training and don't really know what's best in the real world.

It doesn't exactly take military experience to know what sort of vegetation will provide one with good cover/concealment vs. vegetation that won't.

[Bulletpoint]

One interesting thing about forest is that in reality, the inside of an old forest often has very few bushes, because the trees are big and block the light. So, visibility inside a "heavy forest" is often actually pretty good. It's on the outside of the forest that all the shrubs grow.

In the game though, big forests are usually represented as loads of heavy forest tiles, with light forest towards the edges. One could say it should be the other way round!

[markshot]

Now, but for other things it might.  Like before I started playing this game, I didn't know that an air burst sends a deadly concussion wave rolling along the ground or that when it happens in trees it creates deadly flying debris.

[Warts 'n' all]

Bulletpoint... You have to remember that in Normandy there was very little of what the French would call "Foret". i.e. hunting grounds which been cleared to a certain extent so that the upper classes could ride around at high speed in pursuit of their prey. What is called "forest" in the game is really dense unmanaged woodland full of fallen branches, bracken and even dead trees. Very unlike your picture. 

[Bulletpoint]

Bulletpoint... You have to remember that in Normandy there was very little of what the French would call "Foret". i.e. hunting grounds which been cleared to a certain extent so that the upper classes could ride around at high speed in pursuit of their prey. What is called "forest" in the game is really dense unmanaged woodland full of fallen branches, bracken and even dead trees. Very unlike your picture. 

Even with dead trees still lying about, wouldn't it still be true that the outside of the forest would have more shrubs and foliage at ground level, because of the light?

[markshot]

No one has mentioned ground conditions.  But now that you guys are talking ecology and not war games ...

Well, CM I believe allows just one ground condition per map (other than tile properties).  But wouldn't an open field tend to dry out much more quickly than a forest floor?

Relevant when considering bogging, I think.

[Warts 'n' all]

Even with dead trees still lying about, wouldn't it still be true that the outside of the forest would have more shrubs and foliage at ground level, because of the light?

You have a valid point about shrubs and other foliage. But, the "Heavy Forest" tile is really a representation of all the various things that block, or hinder movement in a dense woodland.

[RockinHarry]

Personally I do not really take care about certain possible protection and cover modifiers inherent to terrain tiles and trees, when it comes to create different styles of woods in CM. You can by use of mods and varying ditch locked tiles, as well as putting secondary terrain types into an AS, create any concealment/cover type forest to your liking. For i.e my pine forests look completely different from cultivated, or not so cultivated deciduous tree forests, just by varying anything available from the toolbox. That works well for most kinds of direct LOS and fire, while tree bursts always remain a matter of concern.

[JonS]

no, not really relevant, because which dries faster depends on a *lot* more factors than which is under the forest canopy.

 

fun fact: during the Somme campaign in WWI, it wasn't unusual for the *tops* of the low ridges there to be boggier than the valley bottoms due to the nature of the underlying geological strata.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

We farm some ground where the top and bottom of the hill is dry but it is the side hills where it is wet,  The water seems to leak out the sides and if you are not careful it is very easy to get stuck in an otherwise dry field.

[RockinHarry]

What I´d wish for future CM is sort of scaling factor for trees, either at some random base or to be manually set by the map maker. We currently lack the really big old deciduous trees, as well as the kind of pines that made ardennes and hurtgen forest pine woods so partly impenetrable at ground level. We can place LOS/LOF breaking terrain (bocage, brush...) within forests, but final looks are anything but convincing.

I´m already curious at what will be new tree and vegetation stuff in CM Bulge. Beside snow covered vegetation, we should see some autumn colored variations as well I`d presume.