Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems

[birdstrike]

While I agree that it is highly desirable to have LOS restrictions applied to terrain effects, too, it sure doesn't make the game "unplayable".

If there are only few trenches and the attacker has enough artillery to cover them all - yes it makes things very easy for an attacker. But if artillery/air support is limited and there are alot of trenches and the attacker does not know which ones are manned and which ones are empty, he cannot simply waste his support on everything. To take it one step further, why not place some trenches and leave them empty just to distract the attacker?

That said, I think an introduction of some sort of overhead cover against airbursts would be very welcome, indeed; and provide a short-term solution for the current shortcomings.

And I wonder if it is possible to introduce some sort of "overlay" tile or flavor object to cover or conceal the trenches visually?

[Redwolf]

Whether you can them terrain or not, for WW2 you have to bring back trenches with FO like you have in CMBB and CMAK.

In 2007 you can assume that a UAV spotted the trenches or something, but in Normandy that would be a joke.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[GSX]

Whether you can them terrain or not, for WW2 you have to bring back trenches with FO like you have in CMBB and CMAK.

In 2007 you can assume that a UAV spotted the trenches or something, but in Normandy that would be a joke.

As Steve has already said this aint going to be happening in CM-N I think its going to have to be something were all going to have to deal with.

Ah well, as long as the animations look good I can suspend disbelief.

How come CM-1 had stuff you couldnt see until you got up to it?

[Sergei]

Because in CMx1 trenches and foxholes were objects slapped onto map, while in CMx2 they are micro-modifications to the terrain itself. Hence they were easy to handle according to the same fog of war rules as units.

[Battlefront.com]

LRC,

To go back to the original "enter via window" discussion...

In 1944 Normandy, the windows are rarely more than 4ft from the ground and almost never have bars. Any platoon in CM Normandy should be able to enter buildings this way (except of course if they insist entering via the door that is under enemy fire....)

True, but the door is always the quickest and easiest form of entry. It would be extremely foolish for any soldier to presume that just because a door is a door that it is covered while a window isn't because it's a window. The best way to enter a Norman house would be to take up positions at the windows to cover entry through a door. But circumstances could easily result in other conditions being optimal. There's no practical way for us to simulate such nuances because buildings are largely abstracted.

I'll say again, people can complain about the current simulation of entry/exit as much as they want, but it is more realistic than it was in CMx1. So far nobody has challenged that, which is good because it would be a distraction. So the question is if there is some way to be more flexible.

In 201x middle east, windows with bars are common but are low and large enough to enable entry. A few rounds can easily dislodge the bars. So once again this is just a delay...

In past discussions we had with veterans from Iraq that they were generally in agreement with us that window entry was more theoretical than practical. Same with entry from top down. Sure, obviously it is done... but our understanding is that in the sort of environment CM simulates it would be the less common approach.

And finally, this is a current MOUT drill (at least for European units).

Sure, as are dozens of other things which soldiers rarely use in battle. For example, as far as I know tankers still learn "Sagger Drill" even though the chances of practical use in the field are very low. The whole purpose of training is to expose soldiers to the range of possibilities so when they find themselves in a combat situation that they have the widest range of knowledge (and hopefully some experience) to draw from. Therefore, just because a soldier trains to do something doesn't mean much.

Adam ,

Why did you build a game system that has such enormous built-in deficiencies treating FOW for a wargame?

Ask yourself a question instead. If we knew of the importance of supporting such a thing before we had written one line of code, then why didn't we support it? Clearly ignorance can be ruled out. Stupidity? Well, that should be safe to rule out because if we are stupid then I don't think that makes you guys hanging out here day after day for years on end appear very intelligent So what are we left with? Technical limitations, obviously. There are thousands of such limitations imposed upon us always and forever into the future. CMx2 overcame a TON of the ones found in CMx1, just as CMx1 overcame many of the limitations of games which came before it. But each approach generally has its own set of limitations. Therefore, every game is simply a collection of features and compromises with the player deciding if the balance is right. Lots of SP and CC players never made the switch to CM for this very reason. In their eyes the WeGo, 3D environment, lack of unit attribute editing, etc. was enough to turn them off.

And it's not like I've ever said we won't address these issues eventually. I'll touch on that further below.

You know I can't run a multiplayer meta campaign based on CMSF because the only weapon an attacker needs is airburst and a tank, since "trenches" are visible just by initiating combat and tanks can clobber structures from as far away as they please. There's something really wrong there, don't you agree?

While I disagree with your gross generalization and its implications, of course I agree that 100% knowledge of enemy trenches is an issue we rather not have. However, taken as a whole it really isn't a big deal for the setting we currently have. The chances are the trenches would be known about ahead of time or before close combat. And just because there's a trench doesn't mean the enemy is there. Personally, I don't waste a single tank or artillery round until I know there's a reason to use them on a trench.

birdstrike

While I agree that it is highly desirable to have LOS restrictions applied to terrain effects, too, it sure doesn't make the game "unplayable".

Of course

And I wonder if it is possible to introduce some sort of "overlay" tile or flavor object to cover or conceal the trenches visually?

Not possible, unfortunately. Too many vertices (points) to connect and disconnect. Believe me, I've asked about this before you guys even knew what the setting for the first CMx2 game would be

Redwolf,

Whether you can them terrain or not, for WW2 you have to bring back trenches with FO like you have in CMBB and CMAK.

In 2007 you can assume that a UAV spotted the trenches or something, but in Normandy that would be a joke.

Agreed that always spotted trenches in Normandy would be far from optimal. I do not, however, for one second think that the lack of such functionality precludes us from making a WW2 based game. We will make whatever we want to without prior permission from you. You get your vote on things after the game is out in the form of buying it or not. Based on my years of observing your behavior and purchasing habits I think it's quite probable that you'll purchase a Normandy game from us with always visible trenches. Of course you'll probably spend almost as much time bitching and launching personal attacks against us on other Forums as you do playing the game you find so utterly contemptible, but again that is your choice and has no bearing on what we do or not do.

GSX,

As Steve has already said this aint going to be happening in CM-N I think its going to have to be something were all going to have to deal with.

We are definitely aiming to improve the way trenches, and fortifications in general, work for Normandy. I can't say more than that at the moment, but some things which weren't done for CM:SF due to lack of time will most likely be in CM:Normandy.

How come CM-1 had stuff you couldnt see until you got up to it?

Sergei had a very good answer. Here's something I dug up from Charles during a discussion about trenches many moons ago:

We kinda faked/hacked "hiding" trenches in CMx1 because they were nothing but cheap decal graphics. There was no depth to them. And there was no physics model either. But now we have those things, so it's a completely different situation, from graphics to physics to unit behaviors to LOS. Everything is different and can't just be "hidden".

The simple fact of the matter is that terrain in CMx1 was basically one big abstraction and there were no physics in it at all. I think anybody here who was on these Forums back then can remember at least one, probably a dozen, complaints about the "decal" trenches and craters. They really did offer a hit to the overall realism of the graphical environment and that's why people kept asking us to make them polygonal. Well, as the old saying goes... people should be careful about what they wish for

The old system was pretty tough on us from a development standpoint. The old trenches were pretty poorly simulated within the game system and there were always nagging graphics problems with them too (usually only visible at ground level). The current trenches and craters are vastly superior in these terms, though as I said above not without some sacrifice. Overall we feel the current way things are is superior and therefore we have no regrets about the way it turned out. We understand far better than you customers what the balance of sacrifices means for the simulation as a whole. You guys can afford to get fixated on a specific issue and put the blinders on, we can't.

In short... there will be improvements with how Normandy handles fortifications. More information on what those improvements are later on when we've actually coded them.

Steve

[Scipio]

I thought about the trenches problem for a while now.

I don't see a general problem with always visible trenches, as long as a future quickbattle purchase system - if there once will be such a thing in future CMx2 titles - doesn't count them. Indeed I do see advantages for the defenders when they can have a lot of unused trenches. The CMx1 system works pretty much like this: trench spotted -> area fire on the trench, since you can be sure that something is there to hit.

But what disappoints me is the simulation of trenches right now. Firstly, the 'trenches' look like natural ditches. While I think it's nice to have ditches in CM, they are not what I would expect to be called a 'trench' in the meaning of a fortification, for the simple reason that the angle of the ditches' sidewalls are to small - it should be closer to 80-90°. A second point is that they always have a massive sawtooth shape if they are drawn in 45° angles to the map border. Third point is the lack of crossings, what makes it rather difficult to withdraw troops within a trench system.

[Battlefront.com]

Scipio,

I don't see a general problem with always visible trenches, as long as a future quickbattle purchase system - if there once will be such a thing in future CMx2 titles - doesn't count them. Indeed I do see advantages for the defenders when they can have a lot of unused trenches. The CMx1 system works pretty much like this: trench spotted -> area fire on the trench, since you can be sure that something is there to hit.

Good point about the reality of CMx1. Not only that, but we didn't simulate overhead cover, shelters, or anything else people have insisted we need or the game will be a "joke". Heck, we even had bunkers that had crews which could not leave nor could the bunkers accommodate other units. Funny that this hasn't come up before.

As for trenches in QBs... we've got a plan for that. Not to worry.

But what disappoints me is the simulation of trenches right now. Firstly, the 'trenches' look like natural ditches. While I think it's nice to have ditches in CM, they are not what I would expect to be called a 'trench' in the meaning of a fortification, for the simple reason that the angle of the ditches' sidewalls are to small - it should be closer to 80-90°. A second point is that they always have a massive sawtooth shape if they are drawn in 45° angles to the map border. Third point is the lack of crossings, what makes it rather difficult to withdraw troops within a trench system.

I forget the reason that trenches aren't more pronounced. IIRC it had something to do with the way terrain deforms (i.e. mesh related). However, this has no bearing on protection as it is just visual. Trench depth and protection are simulated correctly.

I would like to see a few more trench configurations because, as you say, when arrayed 45° to the map border it's difficult/impossible to get things connected the way they should be. Hopefully this won't be too difficult to fix.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

But anyway... I don't really understand what the point of all of this is.

the primary point was that Colonel's posts gave an impression that what he wanted to do would be atypical in the setting, while IMO that type of defense would be the norm.

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

the primary point was that Colonel's posts gave an impression that what he wanted to do would be atypical in the setting, while IMO that type of defense would be the norm.

Well, there's many pages here with a lot of discussion about the issues. Obviously there is quite a bit of disagreement too, especially from me. From my perspective the Colonel's fixation on Al Huqf has more to do with his initial post than shortcomings in the game engine as a whole. I'm sure there were many scenarios in CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK that were less fun than others because of this or that game feature/limitation.

What we can all agree on are that things could be done better. This is kinda a dumb point to keep hammering away on, though, since there isn't a single thing in any game that couldn't be done better. CM:SF is no exception. At some point the player has to either fundamentally accept the game for what it is or reject it and move onto something else. Continuing to dwell on real or perceived shortcomings will only kill off enjoyment of the game experience.

Note that I said "fundamentally accept". Sure, there are lots of things we can and should do to improve the game system (we've probably done a few hundred since the initial release, in fact), and we will continue to make improvements when we feel they are worth our time or are technically possible to do. However, at this stage if someone still thinks things like MOUT and positional warfare in CM:SF are "a joke" then I think it's time for that person to just opt out of the game system for a couple of releases. Obviously we can't satisfy the expectations of such a person and we're all better off with a parting of company.

Steve

[Scipio]

Here's another important question about MOUT settings that ain't modeled, and from my personal point of view a more important thing as the windows topic: why doesn't buildings start to burn? I could be wrong, but when I frequently read in the news how quick somebody lights up his flat, wouldn't this mean that we should see a lot of fires started by larger weapons? I would even think that fire starts much easier as we have seen it in CMx1, because of all the flammable cheap funitures and stuff we have today.

Even if this sounds like a simple topic, this feature can have a great impact on the endresult. Just imagine, the building that should be preverved is in flames. Or think about a 5 story building with some soldiers in the upper half that's start to burn on the first floor...

[MarkEzra]

Here's another important question about MOUT settings that ain't modeled, and from my personal point of view a more important thing as the windows topic: why doesn't buildings start to burn?

Interesting point. I cannot recall any news articles of burning buildings or mass burn casualties in Iraq. Can some boot on the ground speak to this?

Normandy is a no brainer...burn, baby, burn!

[tc237]

Interesting point. I cannot recall any news articles of burning buildings or mass burn casualties in Iraq. Can some boot on the ground speak to this?

Normandy is a no brainer...burn, baby, burn!

Why?

Answer: Wood

[Battlefront.com]

Good point about fire in Normandy. As TC237 pointed out (even though it is obvious ), the big difference is the potential fuel. Wood for the floors, walls (at least parts of them), ceilings, roofs, furnishings, etc. are all combustible. Plus, we know all Norman houses are loaded with wine, so there's the grape flavored Molotov Cocktail effect to consider

I've seen footage of all kinds of stuff thrown at/into buildings in Iraq and no fires. Even incendiary rounds don't seem to do much from a CM perspective. I'm sure that fires do crop up from time to time, but from the hours of combat footage I've watched over the years it would appear to be a big exception to the rule.

Steve

[jenrick]

In the mideast, Iraq at least the vast majority of your construction is gonna be brick or concrete. Interior furnishings might be flammable but as a structure it's not gonna go up in flames usually.

-Jenrick

[birdstrike]

birdstrike

Quote:

While I agree that it is highly desirable to have LOS restrictions applied to terrain effects, too, it sure doesn't make the game "unplayable".

Of course

Um, yeah - that should read "the absence of it sure doesn't make the game unplayable."

Anyway, back to the CM Normandy buildings - are there any plans to distinguish between several types of buildings, like rural farm houses, wooden shacks and city buildings?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

What we can all agree on are that things could be done better. This is kinda a dumb point to keep hammering away on, though, since there isn't a single thing in any game that couldn't be done better. CM:SF is no exception.

indeed. my intention was not to talk about CMSF at all, but about tactics in general.

However, at this stage if someone still thinks things like MOUT and positional warfare in CM:SF are "a joke" then I think it's time for that person to just opt out of the game system for a couple of releases. Obviously we can't satisfy the expectations of such a person and we're all better off with a parting of company.

people say lots of things, especially on the net and especially when they are frustrated. it's very likely not as serious to them as it sounds to you as the game's designer.

to tell them that they are wrong in their frustration is going to just annoy them more. and if the downplaying of their frustration is justified by what seems to them to be just a make-believe rationalization, it is likely to piss them off.

in most cases if they heard "yeah, sorry it's pretty screwed up IN THAT WAY, perhaps we get to fix that in future" they would likely not only be cool with it but think more positively about the whole game and company.

[Thomm]

In most cases if they heard "yeah, sorry it's pretty screwed up IN THAT WAY, perhaps we get to fix that in future" they would likely not only be cool with it but think more positively about the whole game and company.

Yep, that would be how to do it by the book.

Best regards,

Thomm

[cabal23]

I think that Syrians not being able to split groups is ridiculous. At the least the uncons should be able to split up.

[LongLeftFlank]

I forgive Steve his annoyance -- there is a whole lot of terrific terrain-related stuff in the game already that seems to go unappreciated by us. And BFC has shown great creativity and diligence in addressing complex programming issues. Terrain is a huge memory hog relative to units, and there aren't really any other games out there that have done it better (their terrain is either abstract and monotonous or restricts the player to a limited corridor). Finally BFC must weigh any time and effort in this area against all the other items outstanding on their fix-and-enhance list.

Also, a lot of the MOUT realism problems are created by careless scenario designers, not the game engine. The default building layout is a tidy cottage with 2 doors and 8 windows (2 per side), like we Westerners used to draw in kindergarten. Too many designers just plop these down, add a few balconies and a low wall (Western style) and move on.

In reality, a Middle Eastern streetscape is a blank maze at ground level -- either a shopfront (a bunch of sliding metal garage doors and folding gates, usually shut by the owners who have fled or are hiding), or high brick and cinderblock walls pierced only with locked metal gates. What few ground floor windows do face outward are securely shuttered; exceptions are instantly suspicious to any soldier. Windows face inward onto courtyards, for security, privacy and sun/wind reasons.

Good door placement (i.e. tested "routes" through building mazes) is also key to good MOUT map design. This gives Red inherent movement advantages over Blue, since the costs of having guys stumble into a point blank ambush while hastening through a building interior are far more severe for the latter. Also, add some disposable Uncon Spy groups to Red's force mix to reflect his superior knowledge of the terrain and a sympathetic, cellphone using populace.

For me, the biggest missing urban terrain feature remains the wall gates (i.e. a high wall segment with a door in it). Right now, we have to choose between an entirely unscaleable wall (i.e. to get into the house you have to use a demo charge), or a huge vehicle-sized gap. Neither are realistic, and greatly change the character of the street fight. And this doesn't seem like a hard thing for Charles to add.

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

it's very likely not as serious to them as it sounds to you as the game's designer.

No, it's just not as serious to them as they try to make it sound like PERIOD If we ran around like our pants were on fire every time someone found something to complain about, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's for sure.

to tell them that they are wrong in their frustration is going to just annoy them more. and if the downplaying of their frustration is justified by what seems to them to be just a make-believe rationalization, it is likely to piss them off.

Well, when the charges are overblown and the arguments for x feature are weak, what am I supposed to do? Cave in just to smooth people's egos? That's what a PR flak is for, not a game designer. If people aren't mature enough to get into a ration discussion I rather them get frustrated and leave. The quality of the discussion can only improve in that case.

in most cases if they heard "yeah, sorry it's pretty screwed up IN THAT WAY, perhaps we get to fix that in future" they would likely not only be cool with it but think more positively about the whole game and company.

Heh... not sure what Forum you think that works on, but speaking from 10+ years of experience it sure doesn't work here! Personally, I think we get more kudos for having a spine than we lose by ticking off those who don't like being challenged.

When I agree with the criticism I do, indeed, say so along with the reason why it is regretfully the way it is. If we can fix it I say so and give a rough idea when it might get fixed. Check out my previous comments about FOW terrain in this very thread. Did I or did I not do exactly as you suggested? The problem is I refuse to be bullied into saying something I don't believe is true. So I agreed with part of the complaint but not the degree of importance. It's the best I can do without lying to keep people happy (which they wouldn't be once they figured out I was just lying ).

Steve

__________________

[Battlefront.com]

LongLeftFlank,

I forgive Steve his annoyance -- there is a whole lot of terrific terrain-related stuff in the game already that seems to go unappreciated by us.

Thanks, but this is expected. Wargamers tend to focus on the things that they don't like or perceive to be incorrect (might be, might not be). It's in the wargamer's core nature to do this, and we accept it as reality. The day we can't handle it any more is the day we stop making wargames.

Our job is to sort through the real issues and the imagined ones, figure out which are the most important things to address, prioritize them, and then get them done. The arguments for SOME access through windows is legitimate, but overall we don't see it as a big issue when things are looked at on the whole. The number of times where it can be realistically argued that the lack of window access has a true tactical bearing on a battle is extremely small. There are plenty of things I would go for before spending time on that.

One of the problems we see when discussing something like this is that the person making the complaint knows that if it's not a REALLY BIG COMPLAINT the chances of it getting addressed are slim if there is significant programming needed. This tends to turn molehills into mountains, such as with window egress. Then some people's feathers get ruffled during the discussion and we start talking about things which have nothing to do with the core issue. Like advice on how I'm wrong to challenge customers

For me, the biggest missing urban terrain feature remains the wall gates (i.e. a high wall segment with a door in it). Right now, we have to choose between an entirely unscaleable wall (i.e. to get into the house you have to use a demo charge), or a huge vehicle-sized gap. Neither are realistic, and greatly change the character of the street fight. And this doesn't seem like a hard thing for Charles to add.

I would like this too, but it was rejected ages ago as being "one terrain type too many". The problem for us is that at some point we have to draw the line. We've got at least 10 years worth of decent suggestions from you guys, which means about 90% of the good ideas will never get in. This is probably going to be one of them.

cabal23

I think that Syrians not being able to split groups is ridiculous. At the least the uncons should be able to split up.

Since the very beginning of CMBO development we've tried to protect the game from the gamers. Splitting units is a slippery slope and gamers have a major under appreciation for what happens when we go too far down the slope. Uncons are generally very small units of a few men... there's no need to be able to split them off to individuals.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Jak170]

one thing that is missing from the game is fences.

Something unpassable but does not provide protection.

In the scenario editor, it says "walls, trenches, and fences" but I have yet to see a fence. I dont know if it will be hard to integrate fences but it will definitely add to the game a bit.

Other than that and units not being able to peek/shoot around corners (which has been discussed) I am quite satisfied with the new patch's MOUT