Improvement suggestions

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

As I'm currently working on my first scenario (CM:BS), here are some reflexions, primarily touching on aspects of positioning and defence and the editor.

Excellent. More scenario designers is a good thing (tm). I added my, hopefully helpful, comments below...

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

DEFENSIVE POSITIONING

Mind you, I think I've stumbled over these "issues" because I am going for a realistic map-scale. It seems to me that most (not all) scenarios for CM games use very condensed (unrealistically crowded, narrow) maps.

Issues with a realistic map? I'm confused the scenario designers I know typically create their map from real life locations. It seems to me that is as realistic a map-scale as you can get. Am I missing something? Are you talking about too many forces for a given size of map? Or are you really saying the maps are not realistic in your opinion.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10a mortars’ hangtime:  I really don’t know and I couldn’t find any info on mortar hangtime on the internet. So I wanted to ask: are mortar-hangtimes realistic? I’ve made a test with the Ukrainian mortars on a testing range. The heavy mortar’s hangtime was ca. 30 seconds (at all ranges between 600 and 1000m), the medium mortar’s hangtime was ca. 40 seconds (at all ranges between 200 and 1000m). Needless to say it’s pretty tough to target an attack that is conduceted at vehicle-speed with such a great hangtime - unless of course you put obstacles in their way, hehe!

I admit I have never looked into it but I have no reason to doubt that it is not correct - see below.

As for hitting an attacking force with mortar fire - or any artillery - yes, you are correct, you need to slow them down with an obstacle, your defence. Normally you do not use artillery to directly target some enemy force on the move; instead you use a defensive kill zone to hold the attackers up and then you drop the hammer (artillery) on them. It is satisfying to pull off.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10b bullet/shell velocity: Also, as my map leads to engagements at greater ranges, I noticed that many weapons’ bullet/shell-velocities are “unaesthetically” slow. MG-bullets have a very arched/round trajectory if fired at 1000m. Bullet drop seems a bit too exaggerated imho. This is an aethestical aspect on the one hand, but on the other hand it does affect gameplay (see 10c/grazing).

Ah, ?? the missile, bullet and shell travel is supposed to be accurate. Either you have found a bug or your expectations are not in line with real life. While BFC is open to the possibility that you have found and instance of option a ). Quite frankly, option b ) is quite a bit more likely

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10c grazing/reverse slope: Obviously, one of the best positions for a MG is a position in which it can deliver grazing fire, i.e. where the bullets travel at a low height (lower than a man) for long distances. So basically, you should be trying to position your MGs on the same level as a flat plateau. The game’s target-command gives you a good idea: where it says “reverse slope, no aim point”, you’re in grazing mode (your unit cannot see the ground, but anything standing up from it). The bad thing is, however, that you cannot order area fire on grazing spots (“no aim point”), as your troops need to actually see the ground (not “over” the ground) to be allowed to area-fire. Only if you’re lucky, you find a low point somewhere behind the “grazing zone” so that you can still deliver grazing fire (scenario-designers need to keep this in mind!). It would be nice though if we were allowed to area-target “reverse slope no aim point” locations.

Yes totally agree - it would be nice to actually target grazing fire. Sometimes in game you can nearly get it - target some location closer to the MG and let the bullets spill over further away. Or target something further away so that bullets have to travel over your target area to get there. Clearly you cannot always do one or either of these so, yes it would be nice to get a feature to do this some day.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10d deployed MG swiveling speed (related to 10e): A problem with MGs in grazing positions: Since their LOS is slightly obscured (overwatching a flat plateau with lots high grass), enemy contacts popped up rather sporadically. Now, the MG had to swivel around to aim at the targets a lot (even if they popped up at only very slight new angles and the distance was excellent at ca. 500m).The problem is that a deployed MG (in prone position) is extremely slow to swivel around because the gunner always crawls to his new position/alignment. So, the MGs ended up with lots of swiveling, but hardly any shooting. I think that this was a bit flawed. MGs needs to swivel around faster and/or get a broader angle at which they’re allowed to fire without the gunner’s repositioning.

Hummm interesting effect. Could be worth a look.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10e lack of MG fire platforms (deploy kneeling): A MG cannot be “deployed” in a foxhole or trench or on low walls. ‘Nough said.

Yes they can. If that is not working for you then its a bug (or some kind of user error).

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

#10f overall lack of defensive power (fortifications, shoot & scoop):

I have to stress this as it is so high on my wish-list. I applaud the very fact that the CM series actually offers fortifications. Yet I still think we need a much greater choice of (effective!) fortifications. Foxholes and trenches that actually offer good protection, overhead protection, proper concealment (fortifications should be part of relative spotting), battle positions for tanks, concertina wire and other road blocks as well as hesco walls (for CM:BS).

Yes, it would be nice to get more fortifications. Agreed.

Since you are building a defensive position with the editor you can create your own tank positions. I'll hunt for the thread(s) about that.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I also think that shoot-and-scoop (see the big thread) would help the defender a lot. Many times, the problem is that without a shoot-and-scoop command and 1-minute-turn-intervalls, the defender simply cannot escape/prevent return-fire. This is true for vehicles as well as for infantry.

(I don’t care if the AI can’t cope with fortifications or shoot & scoop it. Let’s go H2H! :D)

I suppose I could be wrong but I believe it is "shoot and scoot" not scoop.

 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

EDITOR

#11a no acquire command: Contrary to what the manual says, there is no "acquire"-command available in the editor.

#11b one ammo crate: You can place only one ammo-crate (dismounted truck) per side. Also, the ammo-crate is not providing AT-equipment (like RPG-rockets in CM:BS)?

You should be able to get as many ammo dumps as you want. Just add more trucks. I never looked at the contents of the ammo dump in CMBS. It would be nice to have some RPGs and grenades included. I agree.

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

11c: Centered craters: I'm not quite sure yet about the ingame implications of craters, but they might have a place in my improvised defensive-positions (in absence of proper foxholes). The problem is that all large craters stick randomly to some corner of a square and you can't change their alignment by deleting/replacing them. So there is no way to place craters as precisely as it is neccessary to use them as foxholes. 

Right craters simulate well craters and you do not get to control exactly where they go. If you want foxholes I recommend you use foxholes. The foxholes we have are a compromise it is true. However the protective effect is supposed to be as good as if they really altered the terrain mesh.

[A Canadian Cat]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is interesting. Never thought of it before. Does that mean that MG fire from a second or third floor of a building will be less effective against targets on a reasonable flat area than if I set up my MG on the ground floor?

It depends on what you mean by effective. The MG team with the better view will likely do better directly targeting a spotted enemy just because they are more likely to spot said enemy.

 

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And are we talking effects that are happening in reality, or do these things affect this game too?

Yes, the game reflects the same effects as reality. The exception being that you cannot, easily, order area fire in the grazing case. So, the low level MG will need actual targets to shoot at.

 

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I usually always set up MGs as high as possible, to give them a bigger field of fire, but maybe I am missing out on this grazing fire thing...

I have to admit I do as well. If there was an ability to area fire to create grazing fire then I might reconsider.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

A couple of threads on tank / AFV fighting positions:

 

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe I should ask what the point of grazing fire really is? The wikipedia article is not very helpful. Is the point to make lots of bullets pass over a lot of ground, so that every potential prone enemy along the firing path will be suppressed? Or is it to defeat WW1-style of massed infantry charges because each bullet can go through several people?

[A Canadian Cat]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Maybe I should ask what the point of grazing fire really is? The wikipedia article is not very helpful. Is the point to make lots of bullets pass over a lot of ground, so that every potential prone enemy along the firing path will be suppressed?

Yes.

 

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Or is it to defeat WW1-style of massed infantry charges because each bullet can go through several people?

When necessary - if the above fails.

[Kaunitz]

Just a quick showcase as I'm too busy with my fieldcraft - will appreciate all the answers tomorrow :).

In defence of my attempt to create defensive works via elevation rather than via pre-designed foxholes: doesn't this look nice? 

The MG team is over-watching the "rampart" of the neighbouring battle position (read my explanation below). On the horizon, you can see the gently rising ground, protecting the neighbouring position from long-range direct fire from the front.

This is the concept of the MG-position to be manned by 2 MG teams (one right, one left). The spots are designed so that an MG team can go prone/deploy their weapon here (the random positioning of individual soldiers in the action square doesn't matter) with a good field of view. Towards the enemy, i.e. to the south (1km open field), the position is protected by an earthen rampart/hill. This acts as a protection against heavier weapons (mgs on vehicles, tank guns, autocannons, etc.). In a defence such as in this scenario (lacking long range power yourself), you want to 1. neutralize the enemy tanks' long-range power, and 2. make them come close to kill them off with RPGs. Without such a rampart, any position would get wrecked from 1km distance. The hill forces any vehicle that wants a clear LOS on the position to approach into RPG range. Naturally, the hill comes at the cost of dead ground in front (south) of it. This is where the system comes in: the dead ground is covered by neighbouring fighting positions (and can get additional protection: mines and wire). It's an old but timeless concept.

The problem with this approach, and especially on a modern Black-Sea battlefield, is artillery. Basically, artillery can be  defeated by "uneven" terrain. So, ideally, my battle position-square is (immediately - flat spaces are dangerous!) surrounded by squares with a higher altitude. Any shells that hit those slightly elevated squares have no effect (shrapnel is flying over my battle position). Initially, I had both positions linked together, but then I opted for two separate positions in order to make direct hits in the flat center less dangerous. I still need to conduct more tests, but the position proved to be okay at first glance [6 minutes of heavy mortar-area-fire (2 tubes): 2 casualties, 6 minutes of medium mortar fire (2 tubes): 2 casualties]. Also, I've put some sandbags into the position to act as an obstacle for shrapnel (no clue if it works lol). Airburst arty, however, immediatly kills everyone in the position. Unfortunately, a 8x8m depression (action square) is not a 2m slit-trench, and also, we have no overhead-protection at all in CM:BS (why did they leave out the pillbox and the bunker?!). I have to keep airburst arty out of the scenario, I'm afraid.

The drawback of "uneven", arty-unfriendly terrain is that it opens up new opportunities for direct HE fire. If a HE shell hits the wall behind you (which stands there in order to make arty-shells explode above you), it still explodes into your back. So, in this modern warfare setting with lots of direct HE flying around, it's hard to find the sweetspot between uneven terrain (to offer protection against arty) and being flat (in order not to offer any "hit-explode"-walls to direct HE weapons, and also, to deny any aiming spots to the enemy, lol - this actually is a thing!).

Granted, this defensive network looks quite massive. But I guess that's more of an aesthetical issue. If you imagine that these trenches were not 8meters large but 2, it would look less WWI-esque. I think that the concept of this defensive network is pretty valid though. I can't see why it wouldn't work on a modern battlefield (if narrower trenches and overhead protection would provide better cover from (airburst) arty shells). Sure, aircraft is poses a great threat (but then we have no camouflage nets etc either). Also, I suppose that modern equipment is readily available in the current war in the Ukraine. Yet it seems as if trenches are still very much en vogue (judging from youtube videos, of course, and also admitting that the Russian army has not made a concentrated, official effort - but the separatists/freedom fighters certainly have modern equipment).

This was a funny incident. In a test, I area-targeted the MG-position-square with the the mg of a BTR. The mg-crew clutched the log I had placed for them and survived the first burst. Funny thing though: their MG got hit and destroyed. I wasn't aware that this was even possible! This game is really astonishing.  

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Kaunitz

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Maybe I should ask what the point of grazing fire really is?...Is the point to make lots of bullets pass over a lot of ground, so that every potential prone enemy along the firing path will be suppressed? Or is it to defeat WW1-style of massed infantry charges because each bullet can go through several people?

Originally it was intended to either discourage any attempt to cross a piece of terrain or if the enemy persisted, to cause a maximum of casualties. It's not that each bullet would pass through several bodies (physically near impossible) but that more bullets would hit more people.

The disadvantage of siting an MG to take advantage of grazing fire, in addition to what Ian posted, is that small irregularities of the ground will offer more cover whereas an MG located in an upper story will not be so impeded.

All this is in real life; I don't know to what extent this is modeled in the game, but I always play as if it is. So then, the bottom line is what effect is more important to you in whatever situation you presently find yourself. If there is an open space through which you think the enemy might want to cross and wish to deter him from doing, grazing fire is your friend. But if the ground is uneven or with lots of shrubbery, you might want to place your MG up high where he is more likely to have a clear LOS.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, IanL said:

I suppose I could be wrong but I believe it is "shoot and scoot" not scoop.

You are 100% not wrong. To use the word 'scoop' here suggests that the crew fires a round and then digs into a carton of ice cream!  'Scoot' is the correct term, although it might not be familiar to non-native English speakers. I suspect it is American in origin, but as I no longer have a copy of the OED I can't check on that. The New OED has this to say about it:

• scoot |sko͞ot| verb [ no obj. ] informal, go or leave somewhere quickly: I'd better scoot | they scooted off on their bikes. ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: of unknown origin.

Michael

[Kaunitz]

@IanL

Thanks for your comprehensive reply!

Just to adress the most important points:

@10e: mg-deployment in foxholes & trenches, also on foxholes in general

Silly me. I discovered that MGs (or any crew-handled infantry weapon) can be deployed in foxholes. So of course you're right.

There is still a problem though: the MG is placed randomly in one of the four foxholes in the action square. So, in a setting with delicate trenching, this might lead to problems, as I want the MG to be positioned on one side of the action square (e.g. to be able to look just over that parapet). Note that you can achieve this effect (with MG teams) by proper terrain design (and unit-facing) if there are no foxholes on the square. On the plus side, however, even though the positioning of the weapon in the action-square is random, it seems to be consistent (i.e. I can exit and reload the map and still the weapon is on the spot where it has been last time). So, as a scenario-designer, I can make sure the weapon is at the spot I want it to be at the beginning of the battle. During the game, however, the player needs to roll the dice where the weapon is placed.  

MGs can be deployed in trenches too. Here, however, the gunner will go prone, which means that he is looking straight at the sandbag-wall. A MG that is deployed in a trench (on flat terrain) loses it's LOS and cannot fire to the front. So you need to undeploy/semi-deploy if you want to use your MG in the trench.

Another big drawback of foxholes is that you can't conceal troops in them (i.e. put a hedge in front of them). I'm trying to use hedges (can be seen through if troops are adjacent) as a means of camouflage - but I've not got it perfect yet (hedges conflict with "reliable" weapon-positioning in the very same action-square). 

@11b:only one ammo dump

I can only place one. If I buy other dismounted trucks, they simply don't appear on the map when I want to deploy them.

 

--------------

Thanks for the links on tank-battle-positions! I didn't know about "jockeying". Interesting! 

shoot and scoot .... hehe

Edited May 27, 2017 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

If anyone is interested, here is a map (for CM:BS) showing how terrain behaves in CM in regards to small depressions (1m and 2m). It should be quite self-explicatory (blue = ditch-lock elevation, black = ordinary elevation).

It seems that the best way to produce sharp edges is to use blue (=depression) in black (=highground). The "problem" (if you're a maniac trying to create trenches ^^) is that the edges are located within the depressed action-square. So, actually, there is a bit of highground on a depressed square neighbouring highground-squares. Unfortunately, soldiers might position themselves on that very highground within a depressed square. I guess that this also explains why units don't stick to the depression even if you've ordered them to move along depressed squares, but rather run along the edges of highground. 

CM TRENCHES.btt

Edited May 27, 2017 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

Another small discovery I was not really aware of: any wall/fence tile actually divides a square into parts or sub-squares. You can even tell as the movement order-cursor lights up only part of the action square if you hover over it. Soldiers that are ordered into such a sub-square will only position themselves randomly within that highlighted part (it also works with wire and sandbag-walls, but less reliably). The cool thing is that there is a nice variety of different shapes for fence-tiles (corner, diagonal, arrowhead) available, so there is a good choice of layouts for positional slots.

Naturally, this made me think that placing wall-tiles seems to be a way to allow for more precise positioning of soldiers within the 8x8m square. It would be cool if we had "invisible" fences  so that scenario-designers could fine-tune/give the map a finer grid at selected locations (such as a defensive position where the exact location of special weapons really matters)?

Another positive side-effect is that wall-tiles reduce stance uncertainty. Afaik, idle soldiers that are positioned at wall-tiles are always kneeling (unless hiding or with a deployed MG), but never standing. This is a positive effect for scenario design (you can design positions with a kneeling occupant in mind - or a prone one for MG-positions). In particular, it is handy for FO-teams - you don't want to lose that LOS (and delay an arty-strike for two minutes) just because your FO-team randomly decided to go prone!

Edited May 27, 2017 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

@IanL 

There is still a problem though: the MG is placed randomly in one of the four foxholes in the action square. So, in a setting with delicate trenching, this might lead to problems, as I want the MG to be positioned on one side of the action square (e.g. to be able to look just over that parapet). 

Facing should change the team's positioning in the fox holes.

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

MGs can be deployed in trenches too. Here, however, the gunner will go prone, which means that he is looking straight at the sandbag-wall. A MG that is deployed in a trench (on flat terrain) loses it's LOS and cannot fire to the front. So you need to undeploy/semi-deploy if you want to use your MG in the trench.

That sounds wrong.

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

@11b:only one ammo dump

I can only place one. If I buy other dismounted trucks, they simply don't appear on the map when I want to deploy them.

That also sounds wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

--------------

Thanks for the links on tank-battle-positions! I didn't know about "jockeying". Interesting! 

shoot and scoot .... hehe

Have fun with it. Shoot and scoop always made me think of poop and scoop

[Kaunitz]

10 minutes ago, IanL said:

Facing should change the team's positioning in the fox holes.

If you change the facing of a deployed MG in a foxhole, it will just swivel around to point in the new direction. It does not change it's position within the square. The only means to order the MG to a new spot/foxhole in the square during a running game (i.e. not deployment phase) is to move the unit out of the square and into it again. Then you need to keep your fingers crossed that your MG picks your prefered foxhole. If not, rinse and repeat. In other words: there is no reliable way to reposition a MG within a foxhole-square during battle.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

Try this. If position in fox hole is not what you want move team out. Set a different facing. Move team back into fox hole. Repeat. 

Does that give you better than random results?

[Kaunitz]

@ IanL

Well that's the problem. If - during the game (setup is no problem) - I have to move a unit around in order to get into proper position, it's very cumbersome and upsetting. 

Here is an example of what I've been talking about in my last posts:

The black line is the outline of the action-square (you can tell where the "low bocage" ends). The square is depressed in relation to it's neighbouring squares by 2m (blue in black-method, which gives nice sharp edges). As you can see, the edges of the depression are clearly located within the square: the depression is narrower than the square, leaving highground to the right and left. This is potentially dangerous as soldiers will randomly pick a position anywhere within the square. So, when ordering troops to this square, you might very well end up with soldiers exposing themselves to direct and arty fire on the highground, instead of seeking cover in the depression. [PS: However, I have to admit that small teams such as this MG team seem to stick to the depression quite well. It gets messy with larger teams.]

To prevent this, I've made use of a wall-tile. A wall-tile splits up a square into sub-sections. In this case, I've chosen a "low bocage" layout to block off the highground in the left part of the square. I can now specifically target the right part of the square with a movement order (only the right part will be highlited if you hover a movement-cursor over it) which makes my soldiers reliably (!) stick to the depression, just like the MG team that you can see here. I have to admit though, that there is still a bit of randomness, as the MG team can still shift forward and backwards on the right side.

In this case, note that I can also choose to position the MG team specifically on the left part of the square, which offers a nice firing position into the other direction.

I think it would be great if we had invisible wall-tiles (with no additional gameplay-effects other than splitting up a 8x8m square) in order to allow that kind of detailed positioning within a square (not everywhere, of course - primarily for MG/special weapon positions).

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

I see, got it. Just for clarification when you are referring to trenches are you talking about the in game fortification or this terrain creation?

[MOS:96B2P]

On 5/26/2017 at 2:40 PM, Bulletpoint said:

This is interesting. Never thought of it before. Does that mean that MG fire from a second or third floor of a building will be less effective against targets on a reasonable flat area than if I set up my MG on the ground floor?

And are we talking effects that are happening in reality, or do these things affect this game too?

I usually always set up MGs as high as possible, to give them a bigger field of fire, but maybe I am missing out on this grazing fire thing...

This is interesting and could be a topic thread all it's own.  I think the choice is between plunging fire (usually from an upper floor of a building) and grazing fire (at ground level) where, in theory. the bullets travel much farther.  The game mechanics are bit different from RL.   The effects of suppression along the line of grazing fire in the game are very low.  I think @ASL Veteran did some tests on this a year or two ago where he ran some Italian infantry through HMG fire with only a slight tick on their suppression meter.  

However the area behind where the bullets impact does cause noticeable suppression up to approximately 10 Action Spots depending on terrain.  (It is better to shoot in front of OpFor infantry instead of behind them.)  I don't use it all that often but I think grazing fire can work in the game if you area Target just short of the area you want the grazing fire to interdict.      

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎26‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 9:23 PM, IanL said:

A couple of threads on tank / AFV fighting positions:

Very useful. 

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

However the area behind where the bullets impact does cause noticeable suppression up to approximately 10 Action Spots depending on terrain.  (It is better to shoot in front of OpFor infantry instead of behind them.)

Isn't that just because some of the bullets overshoot the target point and hit further back?

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Isn't that just because some of the bullets overshoot the target point and hit further back?

Yes, a lot of the bullets overshoot the area targeted action spot and continue to travel on.  

[Thewood1]

I thought grazing fire mechanics were changed a because of some of that testing.  Now, MGs with enough ammo can stop an entire company, if given enough LOS.  At least that is what my testing has shown.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Thewood1

[Kaunitz]

I want to share what might be an interesting idea for fellow scenario-designers. I've been thinking about woods and thickets for my scenario lately. Looking at the maps featured in CM, planting trees on top of forest-ground seems to be the most common method. But then I asked the internet. And the internet gave me the idea that there might be a better way to give woods a bit more love, both in terms of gameplay-mechanics and aesthetics.  

The problem I found with most woods on CM-maps is that they lack a proper woodland-edge (http://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/geographie/waldmantel/8789) - a rim of ca. 10-20 meters (1-2 squares) of very thick bushes and small trees. Basically, you want to create a rising, unbroken forest canopy, with bushes on the outside, followed by trees growing in size as you go deeper, first leaf trees, then conifers. A proper woodland-edge should block any LOS into the wood and provide excellent concealment. Once you're "inside" the wood, you'd get larger trees, i.e. no more treetops blocking your LOS. 

Right now, mapmakers seem to rely on an increased density of trunks in order to block LOS into woods. This looks and feels wrong and severely restricts the ability to fire "out of the wood". Also, as long as concealment in woods comes from tree-trunks, moving to the edge (from inside) is very dangerous as the number of trunks between you and the enemy decreases. Breaking up forests into an edge-zone and an "interior"-zone is the way to go! With those dense hedges at the edge, you can quick-move units to the edge and only let them crawl the very last square safely. With treetrunks only, quick-moving towards a forest-edge was a game of roulette.

After quite a lot of testing and fiddling around, I'm quite happy with my result (see screenshots). The most important finding was that - in CM:BS - you must not use "bushes" (foliage terrain) but bocage (fence-terrain) to represent thickets in the woodland-edge (or thickets in general!). What I've done is to simply place hedges in totally random patterns to create thickets. In my playtesting, the results were superb. Not only does the "low bocage" that I used provide excellent concealment (and still let's you see out), but also, a 2-3 square-wood-land-edge gives the enemy a much harder time when it comes to selecting suspected targets for area fire.

Also, I placed smaller random patches of bocage/hedges "inside" the wood. This was a real relevation. The combination of readily available lines of sight (because there are only high trees "inside" the wood, so LOS is only obstructed by spaced-out tree trunks) and drastically increased concealment potential (hedges everywhere) led to very satisfying engagements in which firing almost never gave away the position of a unit to the enemy. Of course, in such a setting, you simply need to area-fire, and the AI cannot make use of it in a way an actual player could. But I'm really looking forward to testing my "wood" in a H2H game!  

 

Some screenshots of the map for the scenario:

 

(woodland-edge with gapless canopy of leaves)

(inside the wood - relatively good lines of sight, but there could be an enemy hiding behind every single one of the little bushes. Most of them are not "bushes" (foliage-tile) but rather proper "hedges" (wall/fence-tiles). I had instances here in which the unit that was getting shot at did not even get a suspected (!) contact-marker. Total ambush!)

(the forest-edge is missing for obvious reasons here)

 

(thicket on the right side of the path)

(another dense thicket)

(note that one can barely see the hedge/bocage-tiles at the woodland-edge because of the tree-symbols on top of them)

 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Kaunitz

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

I thought grazing fire mechanics were changed a because of some of that testing.  Now, MGs with enough ammo can stop an entire company, if given enough LOS.  At least that is what my testing has shown.

You might be right.  I just did a quick experiment in CMFB where I had a US HMG area Target out to 900 meters.  I then had a German infantry squad enter the path of the bullets around 700 meters.  The infantry took heavy suppression and at one point were pinned.  So grazing fire works in the game better than I thought.  I may have to start using grazing fire more often.       

[Thewood1]

Yeah, there was an update 1-2 years ago that really had a very big impact on MGs, especially the suppression effect of grazing fire.  I used to be able to run a couple squads up to an MG42 and get close enough to start suppressing the MG crew.  Since those changes, its not impossible to run a full platoon at the MG, but it is very unlikely.  

I remember right after that change, the squad's habit of running in a long single file line really tipped the balance back to potentially making the MG too powerful.  But one of the recent BFC updates fixed some of that.  Its pretty balanced compared to what I have read about in RL.  I would say its the best representation of MG-based squad combat on the PC today.  The only unbalanced thing right now is the close spacing of the soldiers in the squads.  The main issue is it has taken 3-4 years to get where we are now.