Trees. I hate them.

[Attilaforfun]

So, I am trying to perfect urban combined arms operations via QB on the rough water city map in RT. There is a copse of trees right in front of two massive industrial buildings which must be cleared. The trees make perfect cover for assaulting infantry. Well perhaps not perfect but SOME cover at least from the hordes of SMG gunners. Too bad you can't use it as a jump off position because the friendly tanks supporting the infantry are apparently amused by blasting trees instead of the buildings behind them and having the HE rounds go off in friendly infantry. Grr. Round after round. 

Let's take a moment to discuss main gun (or coax) optics. The primary sight is along the gun. If there is something blocking the round from hitting the intended target then it will be noted in the sight. In other words if my main gun round hits a tree it is because I aimed at the tree and decided to fire at it. A tank can fire through a forested area. There is either a clear line of sight to the intended target or there is not. If there is a clear line of sight the round will hit the target (or at least get close to it...these are primitive fire control systems after all) if there is not a clear line of sight the gunner will not take the shot. Possible exceptions to hitting trees would be firing from the move or damaged optics. However if damage caused the miss the tank will fire once before recognizing the issue not round after round. 

I like the way trees break up LOS irregularly. I don't like firing main gun rounds at unintended targets. That is all.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

You will feel more at peace with the trees if you (smoke a joint and) consider that their effect on gameplay is not represented 1:1 by their visuals. I find that their leaves conceal less than one would expect, but their trunks more so. 

[Erwin]

LOS issues like this are old bugbears that regularly create complaints.  Ideally, the AI would have a routine that after it hits a tree once, it automatically adjusts for following rounds. 

A related issue is when the third ammo carrier can see a target but the main gun/gunner cannot.  Ideally, the HMG or gun should be able to move (or simulate moving) a few inches so that the gun can get LOS and fire at the target.  

Since this has never been addressed with CM2 updates presumably it's a big programming problem.  Hopefully in CM3...

[Bud Backer]

Reminds me of when a tree took all the punishment instead of my T90...

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, this is another venerable pain issue where your actual ability to see/shoot/be shot doesn't match the visual feedback or the LOS tool. Modeling real woodlands filled with many young trees and undergrowth would really tax graphics cards.

I made my peace with it once I understood the 1/2/3 trunk visuals are mere abstractions of the actual trunk density in that forest tile. 'Old growth' trees, with the kind of trunk thickness shown would actually be quite rare anywhere near human settlement.  But because I'm an infantry player, the 'steel trunk' phenomenon doesn't bug me so much.

Absence of woods edge thickets -- new growth that (seasonally) restricts LOS but not fire (think double height grain) -- is what bothers me more as a designer. But I simulate that on my maps by varying tree types, using gapped bocage/hedge and/or varying local terrain height.

Edited May 11, 2020 by LongLeftFlank

[MikeyD]

I recall many decades ago, just as the new M1 Abrams was being fielded, there was a commentary on '60 Minutes' by D-Day landing veteran Andy Rooney. Looking at the action-packed promo video for the Abrams he pointed out "Do you notice those trees in the background? Tanks can't go into there".

[Kaunitz]

Last game a trooper of mine  fired 4 RPG7-shots into a tree right in front of him. The tank was 20-25m away...

I'm also a bit disappointed about how easily tanks seem to be allowed to manoeuver (and turn their turret/gun) in woods. It would be great if more map designers made use of small patches of heavy wood (impassable to tanks, afaik?) to make tank movement more complicated and less predictable in woods. Tank manoeuverablity in dense forest is one of my main gripes.

As LongLeftFlank also mentioned, very few CM map feature the thickets at the edges of woods (a gently rising canopy, so to speak), which would cut LOS into the wood. Of course this would also depend on the type of wood - there are many woods without that typical thicket.

Most woods on quick battle maps are way too small. As a result, these woods can be traversed very fast, they can be easily saturated by artillery fire, and defending them doesn't take a lot of troops.

[LongLeftFlank]

Agreed. Rural areas are also extensively cut up with small stream beds, rivulets, drainage ditches, and large boggy patches, in all seasons. Most of these won't entirely stop tracked vehicles -- tracks are designed for cross country after all -- but they do make movement slower and more chancy... and bottlenecked. 

These features, which also tend to be lined with trees and vegetation, also provide natural covered routes for infantry (although the TacAI won't put the guys into them unless one puts in a fence along the trace). That said, they were also some of the first things skilled minelayers like the Germans would mine.

These important features are insufficiently employed by CM mapmakers, IMHO, in spite of the handy ditch lock feature.

Edited May 11, 2020 by LongLeftFlank

[MikeyD]

I second the request for 'interesting' rural terrain. I'm a big fan of 'heavy rocks' to impede tanks, often tagged as [rubble] for blocked city streets. I also liberally use 'heavy woods' terrain tiles to create no-go areas for tanks. Lately, for CMRT scenarios, I've gotten into mixing up hedges, bocage, light woods tiles and trees to make strips of dense roadside foliage. And yeh, either slightly raised or depressed roads. You really do need to build in the 'mircoterrain'.

[SimpleSimon]

I agree with Mikey and would like to add a corollary to it, I seriously dislike it when scenario designers make terrain restrictive or unpassable to infantry when really infantry did almost all of their fighting in the places where vehicles couldn't follow them. If im designing a map, I liberally feature foot bridges, terrain folds, unguarded hamlets, and forests going up to the edges of local high ground or the objective area etc to facilitate infantry's maneuver. Tiny impassable streams never make sense to me, it's one thing if it's the Rhine but lots of times I see what are basically creeks in the game give infantry a No-Movement and if I see that im cracking open the editor...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Have to agree with the general premise of the OP's post.

It's even worse when BMPs (or similar) try to support their infantry with auto-cannons firing HE.....They can take out their own squads in no time! 

Also agree with the comments about terrain in the posts above.....Making passable impassible terrain is quite a skill. 

[Erwin]

Yeah, I try to NEVER use heavy fire (50 cal and bigger)  in the direction of friendlies (unless it's very obvious that the gun is firing well above their heads and there is no obstructing terrain like trees).   Keep the friendlies away from that TARGET line at all costs or you will suffer friendly fire!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think you are OK with .50cal, just don't use anything bigger, especially if it's firing HE.