"That's one vast valley!" - hard-edged, realistically scaled map

[RockinHarry]

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

 

That sounds weird. Yesterday, it seemed just fine to me. I need to check again tomorrow. (I was using the Pak-bunker versions, that can be purchased as "troops", not as "fortifications")

 

I use these a lot at the border of woods to cut lines of sight into the wood.  Still "heavy wood" creates the most convincing thickets in my opinion (at least in CM:FB). 

That's some advanced stuff right there! I'm not sure I want to use mods though and the heavy wood (=thicket) works nicely. As I've mentioned and as suggested by Bulletpoint, I will also set some crossing points. 

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

The thing that still bugs me out the most is that my pixeltroopers can't make proper use of all the sunken roads and ditches I create so painstakingly. Either they expose themselves on the "embankment", or they position themselves so that they can't see anything. I can either just go with it and create the aesthetically more pleasing (but mechanically dubious) version of the map, or I can make a lot experiments to find out in which way I have to create depressions so that pixeltroopers can use them for cover against direct fire (I've given up on artillery...), even though the result might look as good (for my Gerbini scenario, I was able to find one particular setup for straight - not diagonal - terrain, in which my troops consistently positioned themselves relatively well: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747999).

 

Yeah...now that you say I saw all your varied hedge and bocage combos in some pics already.

With regards to tank ditches I prefer the mod method as one can create  the classical ones this way. No odd & hard to recognize terrain alterations and WYSIWYG.

Regarding sunken roads and ditches, the pixel troopers dislike sloped terrain unless it provides some crested cover. Otherwise the games AI puts them to places where they can spot and shoot at the enemy as required. That´s the way it´s programmed and no way to change that basic behavior. There´s just that little trick by letting them move in column and slow "move" mode and stop/pause the current order. They´ll remain there until unpaused again, but otherwise it´s not really of much use actually.

Another trick of mine is placing crater terrain in an AS where I like the AI to move ptroopers individually. Craters is amongst the game AI´s most prefered cover terrain, even before foxholes sometimes. Seven tiny craters is sufficient most the time, the more if you´d like craters not so visible. One can even predict some the random crater placements if taking into consideration that each crater-click on the map turns them about 15° for the follow up one.

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

That's interesting. I added a couple of MG concrete bunkers to @Kaunitz's map and they seemed to hold up as well as the PaK pillboxes--they took multiple 75mm and 76mm hits without casualties, then at some point after a minute or two of firing they would get a penetrating hit that inflicted casualties. One or two of those would knock them out. That seems like better protection than I'd expect from a building.

think direct firing on them is ok most the time, but from my previous plays they´re heavily bugged vs. indirect fires. Near miss mortar HE shells were already sufficient to produce a KIA/WIA and since there´s no buddy aid in vehicles you´d loose the guys and their equipment entirely. Not so realistic IMO. Another game breaker is/was the AIP´s obsession with engaging pillboxes as priority target all the time. I´d even some AIP Bn HQ blasting away at them although I´d given them a very limited TA (ambush or ambush armor 75m) and hide command. Could only solve that by moving these units out of sight (of pillboxes). This all happened in a scenario of mine. If the patch all solved that in the meantime, please let me know. I´ve not come to it myself yet.

Edited May 28, 2019 by RockinHarry

[General Liederkranz]

I couldn't resist, so I added a battery each of 105mm and 203mm artillery to the US side on Kaunitz's map and let them fire away (Point/Heavy/Maximum) at the two concrete MG bunkers I added earlier. Each one had a 4- or 5-man team from a Heavy Sturm squad inside. The 105s had 105 rounds and the 203s had 60. The aimpoints were set right between the pillboxes.

First time through: one bunker took a direct hit from a 203mm shell and was knocked out with one casualty (the rest "escaped" into the withering hail of artillery outside); the other was fine.

Second time through (picture): This time I fired the 105s first, then the 203s. Both were undamaged after the 105s got done. From the 203s, one took one light wound; the other took two casualties and one light wound. But both pillboxes still ended up active at the end.

This seems ok to me . . . I wonder if the patch has actually improved this? 

[Kaunitz]

Thanks for all your investigations of the "pillbox-issue"! I haven't had the time to conduct my own tests yet. It seems as if there are no clear conclusions yet. By the way are troops inside the pillbox unaffected by the "prefer the cover of a crater over any other cover" issue? 

17 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

I just had some fun with this blowing things up, not really putting any thought into my maneuvers aside from getting units within LOS of each other to see what would happen to the bunkers. (It's a good looking and interesting map! It seems like with the forces currently on it, the long range gun duel will decide things. The little streambed was nice and it provided enough cover for a couple of guys to stage a Panzerfaust ambush (that's what I get for ignoring the US infantry and just drove the tanks toward the bunkers)).

Thank you very much for the feedback! Of course the open space makes large calibre guns very usefull. However, some thoughts come to my mind:

1) Tanks were not everywhere. The available assets might be very limited in the final scenario. Lacking large calibres, artillery and machine guns should dominate the long and medium ranges.  

2) Infantry would still need to advance into the danger zone of enemy machine guns to spot the enemy mg nests in order for them to be taken out by the tanks/larger calibres. As we know, the game has some "issues" in this respect (I have no clue either how one could solve these) in that the player can immediately target any enemy that has been spotted by any of his units. Coordination is too fast/easy. Also, as it is very hard to fortify positions properly (no good trench solutions, troopers don't make optimal use of cover), I'm convinced that positions are taken out way, way too quickly by HE fire.  

3) The scenario might be set at night. As I envision the scenario as a proper attack on a (thinned-out) german defensive line, it would be more plausible to set it at night. 

11 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Yeah...now that you say I saw all your varied hedge and bocage combos in some pics already.

With regards to tank ditches I prefer the mod method as one can create  the classical ones this way. No odd & hard to recognize terrain alterations and WYSIWYG.

Regarding sunken roads and ditches, the pixel troopers dislike sloped terrain unless it provides some crested cover. Otherwise the games AI puts them to places where they can spot and shoot at the enemy as required. That´s the way it´s programmed and no way to change that basic behavior. There´s just that little trick by letting them move in column and slow "move" mode and stop/pause the current order. They´ll remain there until unpaused again, but otherwise it´s not really of much use actually.

Another trick of mine is placing crater terrain in an AS where I like the AI to move ptroopers individually. Craters is amongst the game AI´s most prefered cover terrain, even before foxholes sometimes. Seven tiny craters is sufficient most the time, the more if you´d like craters not so visible. One can even predict some the random crater placements if taking into consideration that each crater-click on the map turns them about 15° for the follow up one.

Haha, you can really control the position of troopers in an action spot by interrupting a "slow" movement order? As you say that's probably not that usefull but it's still hilarious. 

Regarding the craters: That's very interesting!  I just tested it (density: 7 craters) and indeed the troopers in the action spot always positioned themselves on a crater. The light craters only seem to provide space for one trooper each (contains only one "positional slot"). The medium and heavy craters, by contrast, can take 3+ troopers - so, if you only place 1 of these craters on the action spot, chances are high your troopers will all bunch up in the crater. I wasn't aware of this. Its usefullness obviously depends on how much control you can have over the placement of craters within the AS. The "7 craters" (which are "aesthetically tolerable" enough to be placed everywhere) are spread out all over the AS. I don't quite understand the 15° pattern you're describing. Could you elaborate? 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Haha, you can really control the position of troopers in an action spot by interrupting a "slow" movement order?

Yes, it can be very useful. You can use if for ridge lines but also for getting men in place to perform buddy aid for troops in a difficult corner of an AS. If you find that your men will not buddy aid the poor bloke in the back left corner because they want to take cover in the opposite side, you can issue a slow move order to an AS that leaves the move order over the poor bloke. Add a 45s pause. At the end of the next turn your team will be part way through their move right over the poor bloke. Cancel the move order and they will stay there and most likely take care of him.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

What's the most extreme lengths you've gone to get your guys back? 

I had a dude get seriously wounded on an inaccessible action spot between a burning BMP, a hedge or maybe low bocage tile and a house.....Left a driver to guard him and keep his spirits up, then diverted an engineer team half way round the enormous map so that we could blow up the hedge and a wall of the house to get him out! 

Apparently he's recovering nicely and planning to write a book about his ordeal ("My Commander Was A Lunatic")! 

[RockinHarry]

17 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

I couldn't resist, so I added a battery each of 105mm and 203mm artillery to the US side on Kaunitz's map and let them fire away (Point/Heavy/Maximum) at the two concrete MG bunkers I added earlier. Each one had a 4- or 5-man team from a Heavy Sturm squad inside. The 105s had 105 rounds and the 203s had 60. The aimpoints were set right between the pillboxes.

First time through: one bunker took a direct hit from a 203mm shell and was knocked out with one casualty (the rest "escaped" into the withering hail of artillery outside); the other was fine.

Second time through (picture): This time I fired the 105s first, then the 203s. Both were undamaged after the 105s got done. From the 203s, one took one light wound; the other took two casualties and one light wound. But both pillboxes still ended up active at the end.

This seems ok to me . . . I wonder if the patch has actually improved this? 

thanks for taking the time!  Still haven´t come to test again myself. Might have been fixed in the meantime (I really hope). If not, then....I see following likely causes:

1. I´ve a compatibility issue with me still running the game in 32 Bit WinXP

2. The pillboxes I ´d got sunken into the ground in my published mission produce some buggy side effect maybe. It´s the way I dug these down and hard to describe ATM.

You (and anybody) could do me a huge favor by just playing/watching the first 5 minutes of my mission to be found here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cmbn-v4-mg-vp-you-enter-germany-introduction/ Choose germans as human player (only option) locate the german pillboxes on the map and have a watchful eye on these and their occupants. No need to do anything but just watch and observe what happens! All during first 5 minutes of that mission. Then report back here. 8)

[RockinHarry]

9 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Regarding the craters: That's very interesting!  I just tested it (density: 7 craters) and indeed the troopers in the action spot always positioned themselves on a crater. The light craters only seem to provide space for one trooper each (contains only one "positional slot"). The medium and heavy craters, by contrast, can take 3+ troopers - so, if you only place 1 of these craters on the action spot, chances are high your troopers will all bunch up in the crater. I wasn't aware of this. Its usefullness obviously depends on how much control you can have over the placement of craters within the AS. The "7 craters" (which are "aesthetically tolerable" enough to be placed everywhere) are spread out all over the AS. I don't quite understand the 15° pattern you're describing. Could you elaborate? 

let me try. The placement of craters in map editor appears to produce a random result with regard to individual craters placement in/beyond an AS. IMHO it is not so! Each time you map click (2D map editor) onto an indiviual action spot, the follow up crater (pattern) is rotated 15° clockwise. So one crater in one AS and another crater (or pattern) put into another AS then is rotated 15° clockwise. This goes on until you reach the full 360° circle and then beeing reapeated like that again. I´d just meant to tell that crater placement, even if they spill over into adjacent AS, is predictable to some degree. Just in case you really want an individual crater (or pattern) beeing placed with micro precision. I´ve not used that myself in a mission, as I didn´t have a need for it yet.

Edited May 29, 2019 by RockinHarry

[General Liederkranz]

Sure--this is a great-looking scenario and I look forward to playing it for real at some point. What you've done with the fortifications is amazing. And it's cool to see a flail tank in action! I just let the first five minutes run like you suggested. On my system, under CMBN 4.01, I'm not seeing anything that looks like a problem.

• Minute 2 (ending at 58:00): left-most bunker (Rau) takes a direct artillery hit that inflicts at least one light (yellow) wound, and then a hit from an M10 TD that incapacitates (red) the squad leader. 
• Minute 3 (ending at 57:00): massed 75mm tank fire inflicts another serious injury/death (red) on those guys.
• Minute 5 (ending at 55:00): another 75 or 76mm hit inflicts another incapacitation. By now all 5 survivors are lightly wounded (yellow). 

At the end of 5 minutes the other two forward pillboxes, in the center and on the right, are entirely intact, all occupants green. The MG teams in the buildings did not survive quite so well. In short, all but one of the casualties I observed in the pillboxes were from direct tank and TD fire (and that remaining one was a light wound).

Edited May 29, 2019 by General Liederkranz

[Kaunitz]

@RockinHarry Thanks for the explanation. I will see if I can figure it out and perhaps use it in some selected, important locations. 

A short video, showing some scenes of a small american attack. Nothing special really, but everybody likes videos!  It shows my latest "bocage/thicket" solution. The german position was suppressed by a HMG. In the final stages of the attack, the american squad could bring an impressive volume of fire to bear on the german position. I really liked how the troops only caught sight of each other very for very short moments and that many units had a "medium" level of suppression and were pinned every now and then, slowing the action down a bit. 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Kaunitz

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

Sure--this is a great-looking scenario and I look forward to playing it for real at some point. What you've done with the fortifications is amazing. And it's cool to see a flail tank in action! I just let the first five minutes run like you suggested. On my system, under CMBN 4.01, I'm not seeing anything that looks like a problem.

• Minute 2 (ending at 58:00): left-most bunker (Rau) takes a direct artillery hit that inflicts at least one light (yellow) wound, and then a hit from an M10 TD that incapacitates (red) the squad leader. 
• Minute 3 (ending at 57:00): massed 75mm tank fire inflicts another serious injury/death (red) on those guys.
• Minute 5 (ending at 55:00): another 75 or 76mm hit inflicts another incapacitation. By now all 5 survivors are lightly wounded (yellow). 

At the end of 5 minutes the other two forward pillboxes, in the center and on the right, are entirely intact, all occupants green. The MG teams in the buildings did not survive quite so well. In short, all but one of the casualties I observed in the pillboxes were from direct tank and TD fire (and that remaining one was a light wound).

thanks again GL!  Your results are quite opposing to what I experienced numerous times in my latest V4.00 and below mission playthroughs. So I really hope V4.01 does it all solved for me as well. If not....Houston we got a problem. Should find the time to install the CMBN patch the coming days. Have it already on for CMFB but didn´t find time playing yet.

[RockinHarry]

24 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

@RockinHarry Thanks for the explanation. I will see if I can figure it out and perhaps use it in some selected, important locations. 

A short video, showing some scenes of a small american attack. Nothing special really, but everybody likes videos!  It shows my latest "bocage/thicket" solution. The german position was suppressed by a HMG. In the final stages of the attack, the american squad could bring an impressive volume of fire to bear on the german position. I really liked how the troops only caught sight of each other very for very short moments and that many units had a "medium" level of suppression and were pinned every now and then, slowing the action down a bit. 

 

nice and noisy battle. I know it´s just for the fun, but this looks to me like that 1943/44 US training vid situation where the GI´s are beeing told they need not fear the german MG34/42 at all. Just flank it  and kill it.  Guess a many allied soldiers paid that "training" with their precious lifes.

 

Really bad german postion. Crested, no covered retreat ways and no flank protection. So when using bocage I´d use a gapped section for the MG so at least the lMG gunner without tripod can lay down for more precise fires, as well as beeing better protected from any flank (keyholed). If germans in here (though doesn´t matter if german or US) are meant to be played by the AIP, I´d give them any holding hand that can be spared.

Edited May 29, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Kaunitz]

11 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

nice and noisy battle. I know it´s just for the fun, but this looks to me like that 1943/44 US training vid situation where the GI´s are beeing told they need not fear the german MG34/42 at all. Just flank it  and kill it.  Guess a many allied soldiers paid that "training" with their precious lifes.

Really bad german postion. Crested, no covered retreat ways and no flank protection. So when using bocage I´d use a gapped section for the MG so at least the lMG gunner without tripod can lay down for more precise fires, as well as beeing better protected from any flank (keyholed). If germans in here (though doesn´t matter if german or US) are meant to be played by the AIP, I´d give them any holding hand that can be spared.

Fire and manoeuvre. Hehe. Against well supported positions, it must have lead to many ugly surprises.

As you say, the german position was really bad (there was another MG in the background which kept the flanking party's heads down pretty well, and killed 2). It could have been knocked out with mortars or any other form of HE instantly.

I also started to think about the overall layout of the german defence on this map. [SPOILER ALERT!!! ] Obviously the woods on the left flank are important, as they provide enfilade positions against anyone  approaching the farm in the center. However, due to the swampy area in their rear, a retreat from the woods (via the fire break?) back to the "escape road" is only possible for infantry. The "escape road" at the swampy area must be held at all cost to prevent the wooded position from being cut off, but that should be easy, given that the road is a natural key-hole position. The central farm itself is a deathtrap. Only the little ditch, the orchard and the wooded stripe provide some cover. Most importantly, any retreat from the central farm is overwatched by the enemy's starting positions on the hill. So I suppose the german main positions will be on the hill on their side of the map (not sure yet what I will do with it - either also woods or a village) and the woods on the left flank.

While it would be tempting to defend the open ground south of the wooded hill position (--> see video above), it's too exposed to american support fires. So I guess it would make more sense to defend the wood from within the wood. This, however, needs many people (LOS is short, a thinned out position is prone to infiltration). Wire obstacles could help. I guess the germans should also put up wire obstacles and put down mines to slow down any advance along any ditches leading northwards and perhaps south of the farm to slow enemy down in the killing field of the german enfilade-positions. The wooded hill position provides natural cover, but would need to be reinforced against artillery (--> some "dugouts" = wooden bunkers). If hard pressed in the wood, the Germans should be able to do a fighting retreat towards "escape road". Support weapons placed on the southern slope of the wooded hill north of "escape road" could cover their retreat. 

That being said, if the americans manage to reach central farm despite all the fire coming at them from the northern hill and the wooded hill in the east (the embanked road provides some cover...), they probably have an easy time thrusting further northwards, as this movement would be covered by the little wood that borders the main road west of "central farm". If they have tanks, it should still be risky for the americans to advance on central farm. There are many ditches /thickets that are impassable for tanks in the fields. I will only implement some spots where tanks are able to cross them. If I keep these spots hidden/camouflaged enough (so that the player can't plan his tanks movement in a way that leads them straight-on into the "gaps" of the ditches), they should increase the likelihood that the tanks will expose their flanks, which makes them vulnerable to hithereto concealed PaK positions from long range (from the hill on the german side). 

 

(map size = 2100x1000)

-------

The map made some progress yesterday. I've started to implement "micro cover" (many little - 1m - elevations and depressions, bumps in the ground) in the wooded areas. While in this case (as in many others), it might look a bit exagerated from an aesthetical perspective, I think the ingame-effect is fine. In reality, elevations/depressions shallower than 1m would also provide cover, but the smallest intervall at our disposal in the editor is 1m. 

What really helped me in my "bumpy ground" endeavour was my discovery that the "adjust" elevation tool can be used with delta set to "0", in which case it just turns the elevation at the action spot from an "automatically calucalted" one (no background) into a deliberately set on (black/blue background). So you can just paint over an area with delta set to 0, which doesn't change any elevations. Once this is done, you can add the bumps (delta = 1). Why is this important? If you'd just add the bumps into "automatically calculated" terrain, the whole area would start to recaltulate/change.  

While working on the woods, I was also reminded of an important aspect that is (quite understandably so) missing in the game. Real woods in Luxembourg are often very cultivated cornifer woods, whose "borders" feature quite large trees with big gaps in between them. So they don't have that "gently rising canpoy of leafs" (smaller trees and bushes on the outside, rising as you go deeper into the wood) that I'm so fond of and that would block any LOS into the wood for good. However, even these open/gappy cornifer woods would provide some concealment as the trees would still cast shadows. Shadows are an important factor that is not modeled in the game. Obviously, it would also be highly dependent on the overall weather --> more sunshine --> greater contrast between sunny and shadowy areas.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Kaunitz

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Fire and manoeuvre. Hehe. Against well supported positions, it must have lead to many ugly surprises.

As you say, the german position was really bad (there was another MG in the background which kept the flanking party's heads down pretty well, and killed 2). It could have been knocked out with mortars or any other form of HE instantly.

I also started to think about the overall layout of the german defence on this map. [SPOILER ALERT!!! ] Obviously the woods on the left flank are important, as they provide enfilade positions against anyone  approaching the farm in the center. However, due to the swampy area in their rear, a retreat from the woods (via the fire break?) back to the "escape road" is only possible for infantry. The "escape road" at the swampy area must be held at all cost to prevent the wooded position from being cut off, but that should be easy, given that the road is a natural key-hole position. The central farm itself is a deathtrap. Only the little ditch, the orchard and the wooded stripe provide some cover. Most importantly, any retreat from the central farm is overwatched by the enemy's starting positions on the hill. So I suppose the german main positions will be on the hill on their side of the map (not sure yet what I will do with it - either also woods or a village) and the woods on the left flank.

You just named the reason that central farm would never be a real objective for WW2 germans worth to be held. It´s perfect postion for "hold by fire" tactics. Means, any enemy that finds it worth to go there will pay costly by receiving enfilading fires from the flanks. Germans would likely just positioned an outpost there. A lmg team or FO´s maybe and then back off if it really becomes too hot there.

Quote

While it would be tempting to defend the open ground south of the wooded hill position (--> see video above), it's too exposed to american support fires. So I guess it would make more sense to defend the wood from within the wood.

Yep, that would be a valid tactic. Could surprise fire any attackers through the woods at shortest ranges this way. Also the best place to sew a couple of mines there. However, if there´s no safe escape route from the woods then....

Quote

This, however, needs many people (LOS is short, a thinned out position is prone to infiltration). Wire obstacles could help. I guess the germans should also put up wire obstacles and put down mines to slow down any advance along any ditches leading northwards and perhaps south of the farm to slow enemy down in the killing field of the german enfilade-positions. The wooded hill position provides natural cover, but would need to be reinforced against artillery (--> some "dugouts" = wooden bunkers). If hard pressed in the wood, the Germans should be able to do a fighting retreat towards "escape road". Support weapons placed on the southern slope of the wooded hill north of "escape road" could cover their retreat. 

you don´t necessarily need to put troops on top of the hill. If possible place them on rearward slope. If there´s no LOF, then create your own (key holed) fire lanes which always was a valid tactical terrain alteration if available time permitted. However, keep any enemy approach lanes toward that hill under fire from other places and hold a suffciently large counterattack force ready nearby! (Schwerpunkt or Brennpunkt = main point of resistance or effort) 

Quote

That being said, if the americans manage to reach central farm despite all the fire coming at them from the northern hill and the wooded hill in the east (the embanked road provides some cover...), they probably have an easy time thrusting further northwards, as this movement would be covered by the little wood that borders the main road west of "central farm". If they have tanks, it should still be risky for the americans to advance on central farm. There are many ditches /thickets that are impassable for tanks in the fields. I will only implement some spots where tanks are able to cross them. If I keep these spots hidden/camouflaged enough (so that the player can't plan his tanks movement in a way that leads them straight-on into the "gaps" of the ditches), they should increase the likelihood that the tanks will expose their flanks, which makes them vulnerable to hithereto concealed PaK positions from long range (from the hill on the german side). 

yes, any AT assets to cover "best" enemy tank routes and possibly sew some mines there to kill or channel toward other your AT assets. I´d make maximum use of the embanked road, both for retreat and possible combat position.

Quote

 

(map size = 2100x1000)

-------

The map made some progress yesterday. I've started to implement "micro cover" (many little - 1m - elevations and depressions, bumps in the ground) in the wooded areas. While in this case (as in many others), it might look a bit exagerated from an aesthetical perspective, I think the ingame-effect is fine. In reality, elevations/depressions shallower than 1m would also provide cover, but the smallest intervall at our disposal in the editor is 1m. 

nice you discovered ditch locked terrain for various purposes.  In that mentioned mission of mine I made extensive use of these, both for asthetical and tactical purposes. Any ditch locked terrain btw. can still be altered, by either using mud etc on them (makes them shallower and smoother) or using "foot paths" . Just place some foot path along ditches (or elsewhere) and you see the alterations I mean.

Quote

What really helped me in my "bumpy ground" endeavour was my discovery that the "adjust" elevation tool can be used with delta set to "0", in which case it just turns the elevation at the action spot from an "automatically calucalted" one (no background) into a deliberately set on (black/blue background). So you can just paint over an area with delta set to 0, which doesn't change any elevations. Once this is done, you can add the bumps (delta = 1). Why is this important? If you'd just add the bumps into "automatically calculated" terrain, the whole area would start to recaltulate/change .

While working on the woods, I was also reminded of an important aspect that is (quite understandably so) missing in the game. Real woods in Luxembourg are often very cultivated cornifer woods, whose "borders" feature quite large trees with big gaps in between them. So they don't have that "gently rising canpoy of leafs" (smaller trees and bushes on the outside, rising as you go deeper into the wood) that I'm so fond of and that would block any LOS into the wood for good. However, even these open/gappy cornifer woods would provide some concealment as the trees would still cast shadows. Shadows are an important factor that is not modeled in the game. Obviously, it would also be highly dependent on the overall weather --> more sunshine --> greater contrast between sunny and shadowy areas.

Yes, there´s in fact various combos of ditch locking AS´s and their surrounding. Example: Single blue ditch locked 19m AS surrounded by 20m black ones yields a different result than black 19m AS surrounded by 20m blue ones. Just try and see! With same method you can also create different width embankments. (smaller or full 8m width).

Regarding woods, I think the 3 conifer types in CMFB are sufficient for the purposes. If you need canopies extending to the ground, I´d use a modded version bocage (has needles textures not green/brown leafes) and additionally break too perfect LOS through woods also with scattered +1m Black or Blue ditch locked bumps. Yes...too bad there´s no good shadow effects in woods, but they would eat up on FPS enormously.

have fun map editing

Edited May 30, 2019 by RockinHarry
typos

[RockinHarry]

and every friendly position you intend to counterattack in case if lost, have a friendly TRP on there as well. Another RL tactic, to deliver quick response Arty or mortar fire for any pre planned counterattacks. If the AIP should do this, consider about 300m+ security ranges as otherwise the AI won´t shoot for inbuilt fear of hitting friendly troops.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

If the AIP should do this, consider about 300m+ security ranges as otherwise the AI won´t shoot for inbuilt fear of hitting friendly troops.

Interesting.  I knew there was a range for the AI but never tested for what the range was.  

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Interesting.  I knew there was a range for the AI but never tested for what the range was.  

figured that to be safe range from some testing most common Arty and Mrts (60mm to 155mm), but might not apply to all calibers alike. Mortars might take less (very likely, 60mm mortars in particular), bigger berthas some more. I take the 300m as base for own mission designs and intended AIP on call artillery usage.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Man you kids don't know how lucky you are with your new-fangled TRPs & Triggers! 

(Trundles off, muttering to himself in pidgin-Pashtu about young whippersnappers & their reliable mortars.)

Edited May 30, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Kaunitz]

I'm busy trying out stuff, especially RockinHarry's animation tweak/exchanges. I'll answer in more detail after that. 

Current status: You can try out some wood-fighting on the eastern wooded hill if you feel like it https://www.dropbox.com/sh/91wr3f203ub9ash/AABD8cAKYNLStBpusxo1yl_pa?dl=0

 

[Kaunitz]

Here is a little video of an engagement in the woods on my map. Basically, it’s 20 minutes of men crawling around . As you will notice, I didn’t take it too seriously. I had fun doing it and I think the engagement played out interestingly, except for panic-charges and grenade-o-phobia. Creating videos helps me to consider more thoroughly what parts of my maps can be improved.  

 

[Kaunitz]

By the way, regarding fighting in woods, this might be interesting (the channel also features a video on us. rifle squad tactics which is highly recommendable): 

 

[BletchleyGeek]

What  a fantastic video @Kaunitz, thanks for sharing! 

[Kaunitz]

Minor update, mainly some work on the agricultural area: I added a ditches and hedges/windbreakers between the fields (crossing points for tanks not implemented yet). The agricultural area looks much more natural and organic. Should also make spotting much more interesting than the "vast open space" suggests and provides some cover for infantry.

I still don't quite know what to do with the other side of the map. A village might be nice. And I will reconsider my approach to fleshing out woods (how many bumps in the ground? how many trees?) based on some gameplay tests.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ye66l5xgdb3z4x/Vast_Valley_WIP.btt?dl=0

Edited June 18, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

Latest screenies:

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

I also tested whether the map could be converted to CM:RT. Success. Black Sea and Normandy work too but need some minor adjustments. 

If you wonder how: 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Kaunitz