Ninotchka

Just replaced my Voodoo2 with an ErazorX and now CMBO refuses to start (It just freezes on the Win98 desktop) All other games seem to work fine. I ve tried a couple of different drivers (both Nvidia and Elsa) with the same lack of success... Anyone experienced (and solved) anything similar? All help much appreciated, Ninotchka

Very interesting reading Simon. Thanks for digging-out those old threads. Cant say the BTS explanation inspires much confidence. So it all seems to come down to definitions of the word bocage. CMs bocage is by implication impassable without breaching attachments. For the other passable 'low-density' kind that British tankers like Ken Tout were crossing we have to use hedges which crucially have none of the LOS-blocking character of bocage. Oh well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In response to these latest points of Ninotchka: A)As already stated by BTS this is not possible with the current game engine otherwise I am sure they would have done it (at least I hope so ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Call Ninotchka an old cynic but I just can't believe that it would be that difficult for CM to differentiate between vehicles when it comes to bocage. Its able to do something similar with hedgerow so why not with bocage? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> C)There is no cover benefit to being in bocage. No better than current system IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess what I was getting at with C is some abstract way of simulating tanks climbing and descending bocage and exposing themselves in the process. Currently allied tanks just 'pop-out' on the other side (which is probably fine if you are assuming the vehicle is breaching the bocage) Without evidence its extremely difficult to ascertain how much bocage-hurdling was done by panzers but I accept your point that those with long barrels would have had problems. (which makes me wonder if long-barrelled Allied tanks like the Firefly were ever fitted with 'rhinos')

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, factually it is incorrect to claim that the hedgerow cutters were "not widespread" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slightly disingenous counter-claim Dale. What I said was: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Early in this thread myself and others have positted that use of bocage-breaching attachments on Allied vehicles was not widespread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have established that for Op Cobra (very late July)roughly 60% of US 'tanks' were fitted with cutters. No-one has yet produced any evidence that British/Canadian/Polish/French armour was similarly equipped (photographic and written records seems to indicate negligble usage by non-US forces..Anyone got any concrete data?) CM assumes that all allied tracked vehicles had bocage-breaching capability from July onwards. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was only the use of such devices and the successful coordination of true combined arms tactics that allowed the U.S. forces any significant progress whilst in hedgerow country, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems that cutters were not a significant factor in the bocage until Op Cobra and success in this operation probably had as much to do with the diversionary effect of Op Goodwood. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> . If you're a German and you can't drive your PzIV through a hedgerow tile and the Allies can, well, great! You're supposed to be on the defensive, so what the hell are you trying to move your tanks around for anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure I can respond to that without recourse to expletives Interesting debate Dale but looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps its time I spared the riding-crop and left this ex-equine to moulder in peace. Ninotchka [ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Arguing that this belly-exposure matter is enough of a reason for making hedges impassable to German tanks strikes me as nonsense. Driving up a hill with a Pz IV and staying on top of it, buttoned up, is not wise either. Rushing a Sherman towards a German infantry-defended position and staying as close as 10 meters is not wise either. But if I tell my tanks to do it, they do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My thoughts exactly Reverendo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You need a field, obviously, then a ditch of about a half-meter or so. Then you need a raised dike or mound anywhere from 1 to 2 meters high (relative to the field), and about a meter or so thick. On top of that dike is either the Woods or Scattered Trees terrain type. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting stuff Dale. Looking at it that way then I guess CM does not accurately model bocage. However using similar stringent criteria you could happily disect all of CMs terrain representation. My point is that BTS have gone to the trouble of creating a separate bocage element which unlike woods or scattered trees can be used to create claustrophopic field networks similar to those found in Normandy. Then for some mysterious reason (which I accept they have probably explained in an old lost thread) they decide to allow all Allied tracked vehicles to negotiate it while denying the same ability to all Axis tracked vehicles. Early in this thread myself and others have positted that use of bocage-breaching attachments on Allied vehicles was not widespread and that tanks could and did cross bocage without them. We have also ventured alternative solutions to the present 'apartheid' treatment which while better reflecting actual bocage conditions and tactics should be well within the capabilities of the CM engine. These alternative solutions can be summarised as: a) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles except Allied AFV types that were historically fitted with bocage-busting attachments. (probably the most workable idea) Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but include a risk of bogging or immobilisation (Ideally July + US Shermans, Stuarts, M10s ?? would run a reduced risk) c) Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but any vehicle in passage is effectively blind and does not gain any cover benefit from the bocage. d) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles and leave gap-making up to mappers.(The advantage the Allies gained from hedgecutters was only a significant factor in Op Cobra and this would at least do away with present massive anti-Axis bias) What do you think? Any other ideas?

I dont get it Dale. Why does the tile size prevent accurate modelling of bocage? With the current 2m width of the bocage element and tile selection its possible to create credible field networks.

Simon, No more patches for CMBO? I didnt know that. I guess I should stop by the forum more often If you can find those old threads I would be most interested, especially any BTS responses to similar queries. Yes I guess I could always play my Normandy scenarios as the Brits and never venture into the bocage but as I stated previously its not a level playing field I'm after its the opportunity to use historically-prevalent tactics against an enemy thats not ham-strung by questionable behavioral limiters. Kingfish. True the Germans were on the defensive, utilising ambushes and dug-in positions but I would suggest that one of the reasons they didnt grow their own rhino horns is perhaps that panzers like there allied equivalents could and did cross bocage without mechanical aids. (All evidence supporting or contrary to this statement most welcome)Of course it was risky if the field beyond was terra incognito but its not hard to imagine that if there was a significant tactical advantage to be gained then the risk would be taken. Dale. Isnt it a pity that you feel inclined to boycott bocage scenarios and miss out on arguably the most challenging and intense phase of fighting on the Western Front. This is exactly the reason Im whipping this particular(as Simon pointed out)dead horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you feel that Germans and Allies should have equal mobility in bocage simply create a scenario with woods similar to what Offwhite sugested and set it in June of '44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not after 'equal mobility' but after a more accurate representation of actual capabilities. If the majority of Shermans from July 44 onwards had a significant advantage in the bocage then surely this can be reflected without giving the same degree of advantage to a universal carrier or an archer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ahh. I think they stated something along the lines of "it's the best of all the bad solutions". Basically, at a very high level, after a certain date you have to give Allied armor some kind of advantage in the bocage and any other solution would have been impractical given the already abstracted play of bocage terrain <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I cant believe it would be that difficult to change the vehicle data relating to bocage access. If I remember correctly one of the patches enabled the M3A1 and Humber scout cars to traverse hedges.. Are the current rules really 'the best of all bad solutions'? CM takes such pride in accurately modelling the capabilities of vehicles, weapons and men and this arbitrary bocage apartheid just doesnt seem to fit. Let say (hypothetically) we could establish that only American Stuarts,Shermans and M10s were fitted with bocage tools in any numbers wouldnt it be good to see this reflected ingame rather than the current fallacious fudge?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> wasnt or isnt Ken tout British or Canadian? IIRC the brits and cans didnt have many or any hedgecutters or rhinos... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes British, Northants Yeomanry. Im really interested to know whether Brits + Canadians made extensive use of hedgecutters or rhinos. Books like 'Tank!' seem to indicate that these attachments might not have been in common usage outside of US forces. Which would further undermine CMs blanket assumption that all Allied tracked vehicles had bocage breaching capability from July onwards. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We've already said that any tank could probably do it but it exposed the very thin underbelly armor. The various hedgerow devices let the vehicle plow through without rearing up like that. That's the only benefit to a vehicle so equipped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Im not disputing that Dale. Im just trying to understand the designers decision to ban German armour from bocage whilest allowing their allied equivalents access. [ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]

Heres an interesting quote regarding tanks in bocage country. Its another one from the excellent memoir 'Tank!' written by Ken Tout. '14.10 hours (8 Aug 44) Harvey:'I cant see a thing but hedge from here. Hold tight!' Stony Stratford digs its tracks into the high bank and begins to climb into the dense hedge. This is the moment we have all feared in Normandy. Whoever designed the Sherman had never heard of Bocage!. These thick, impenetrable hedges are planted on high banks defended by deep ditches. Moving from one field to another the tank presents to the enemy its underside of thin plate, tempting to whatever iron beast or demon be lurking. So Harvey balances the tank on the ridge of the bank, balances and then allows it to topple gently overuntil the tracks hit the lower ground, still with a nerve-jarring bump, and we are through, in the corner of an extensive vegetable field.' If un-rhinoed Shermans are able to negotiate the notorious bocage then its a pretty safe bet that German tanks could (and would) do so. (Interestingly this was written on 8 Aug and through the whole book theres no mention of rhinos or hedgecutters)

If calculating bogging/immobilisation is to complex a task then at the very least I think ability to pass thru bocage should be limited to types of allied AFV that were commonly fitted with bocage-busting attachments (some historical research required to ascertain which...but, from limited reading I have been doing on the subject that could be just US tanks and some? tank-destroyers. Anyone have more info?) Presently I am using your workaround Spook of adding scattered tree sections,hedges or gaps to bocage although this I feel is pretty unsatisfactory. The essential character of bocage country was/is the limited access to the tiny fields. Fields were linked by narrow cart-tracks, bridleways, and paths. There were very few gates or gaps wide enough to fit a tank. AFVs were often forced to brave the bocage.. And again, allies in CM still have huge advantage of being able to 'read' terrain - knowing that enemy armour must use the breaks. [ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Note: Starting in July 1944, all fully-tracked allied vehicles are assumed to have the so called "Rhino" attachments <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly my point Kestrl. Historically I think this is an extremely unsafe assumption. While there is evidence for some use of ad hoc hedge-rams made from salvaged beach obstacles before Op Cobra the Culin hedgecutter only really come into play the last week of July (in Op Cobra) 'By the last week of July about three-fifths of all american tanks had been equipped with Culins spikes. So far none had been employed in combat. Bradley had decided to keep them as a surprise until Cobra was underway' Duncan Anderson 'D-Day' <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't see how it could be "Gamey" when a allied fully-tracked vehicle moves through bocage its speed is extremely reduced and it has poor LOS and is easy prey for AT infantry, AT gun, or a enemy tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe its gamey when all allied tracked vehicles including universal carriers, archers, churchills, priests etc can nip through bocage while all german armour cannot. There is simply no historical justification for this and it radicaly changes the balance of power in bocage country. CM allows for more sophisticated solutions than this. Speed extremely reduced? Not really vehicles will hunt thru in no more than 5 seconds. (Havent really got a problem with this, could well have been possible)Poor LOS? Yes but while its 'in' the bocage its also invisible to any enemy on the other side. Not sure if spotting ability is impaired immediately after exiting bocage but if it isnt I think it certainly should be - the vehicle would likely be covered in mud and undergrowth. Ninotchka

Thanks for the responses, most illuminating. Ive been doing a bit of homework with the scenario maker and discovered that CM does attempt to simulate the use of plows/hedge-cutters over June-July period. In June all allied vehicles cant pass thru bocage. In july all tracked allied vehicles can pass thru bocage. Its a reasonable solution but still lacks the subtlety/realism we have all come to expect from this wonderful game. From everyones contributions and my own research it seems that bocage-busting tanks were only used in significant numbers during the Normandy breakout (Op Cobra) in the very last days of July. Even then figures seem to indicate that 40% of US tanks were not equipped. British/Canadian use at this time is unclear but I believe (contradict me please)that it was much less widespread. The hedgecutter was a significant factor in the success of Op Cobra (Culin the inventor was awarded Legion Of Merit)and I dont think it is beyond a CM ethic/engine that models the small diff between a M4A3(75)W and a M4A3(75)W+ to also model Shermans, Stuarts etc with bocage penetration capabilty and without . Obviously no visual adjustments would be possible or expected. As it stands in any July+ scenario all tracked allied vehicles including universal carriers, self-propelled guns, and churchill AVREs can slice thru bocage banks like knives thru pilfered French buerre whilest axis armour in accurately-mapped bocage country (the scenarios included with CM give a pretty poor representation of the claustrophobia of pocket-handkerchief fields and labyrinthine sunken lanes) is effectively forced to sit-tight or move via roads. This makes for seriously gamey bocage engagements. What do you think?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Use of plows was nearly universal by July 1944. FYI, axis armor WAS at a disadvantage in hedgerows <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Use of plows nearly universal by July? Highly improbable I think. Any evidence? [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]