How to make credible fields without bocage?

[Rokko]

Hi guys,

theres a particular Editor-problem I've been wondering about for quite some time now.

When you look at aerial photos or satellite images you often see pretty large fields, even in late 1940's Normandy in some places. But they never look uniformly. You can see many distinct patterns, many different colors, traces of where farming machines drew lines, etc.

Now my question is: Is there a way to represent this CMBN that looks credible?

I've been testing mixtures of crop, green and yellow grass tiles. But while this may look convincing in 2D-mode, in 3D it always looks crappy, since many tiles look different in 2D mode but usually share textures in 3D.

I've attached a pic that show how it looks in the editor.

[Sgt Schultz]

There are fences or low walls instead of bocage dividing the fields.

The only time a field will have two distinctly different terrain types inside it is if the battle happens right in the middle of either plowing or harvesting(no dead bloated horses ).

The only ways to make that look fairly believable is to use only N/S or E/W fields for that effect. Diagonal effects are difficult at best in any number of terrain situations.

Ari's terrain mod has incredible blending effects that can help negate diagonals, but that is user-dependent.

[LongLeftFlank]

To help you understand why things look as they do, I'm going to repeat a little of what I said in another thread. Keep in mind that the below is all about 1940s agriculture -- the postwar agrarian revolution has changed many things.

Fields growing crops make a lot more sense in lowland areas than they do in the stony uplands of Basse Normandie, since these areas have had thousands of years of rivers and streams meandering across them and topsoil has had a chance to become deeper and more fertile / plough-friendly as opposed to washing away.

Starting with the growth of cities, commerce and the French nation state in late medieval times, the ancient patchwork of tiny "strip" fields was progressively consolidated into large tenant-farmed "estates" whose landlords became wealthy exporting produce -- hence all those chateaux. The tenants live together in tiny villages. In the 1790s the tenants rose up and chopped off the heads of their landlords, but the basic economic structure remains.

So the footprint of the 1944 fields has been in place for hundreds of years already, enclosed by crude stone walls made from rocks pulled from these fields (they are plentiful even in the lowlands owing to the repeated passage of glaciers). Over time, these crumbling walls become overgrown embankments -- i.e. hedgerows -- but these aren't truly bocage any more than are their counterparts in England. While the Atlantic winter winds are less harsh than they are in the uplands (and the fields are mostly bare in winter anyway), you still do want windbreaks, typically at the North and West edges of these fields. But instead of high bocage, which won't protect big fields, the farmers cultivate patches of woodland or (along roads) rows of straight, tall trees like poplars, creating that classic "French countryside" look.

Unlike North America which is (was) awash in cheap timber, you probably wouldn't see wood fences much except on horse farms. Still less would you see barbed wire.... there are exceptions of course, but you'll find these would be in proximity to more modern agroindustrial complexes like dairy barns, or adjoining the Routes National to replace ancient walls that had to be removed to widen those highways.

Mechanised farming (tractors) have not yet entered widespread use by 1944 -- mass production of such equipment only began after WWI, and you had the Depression in the 1930s, so it's not like the manor farms have had a lot of capital to modernize. Ergo, cattle and horse power remains predominant.

I hope this helps give you some insights.

[Rokko]

Well thank you, but that doesn't really answer my question.

Like look at at this aerial photo:

http://aerial.rcahms.gov.uk/database/record.php?usi=006-001-011-172-C&scache=38qawkzv5z&searchdb=tara_scran

I've picked this one randomly.

I'd say Bocage can be seen clearly in this pic, and theres rather field. The individual patters look very distinct, but don't look like they were seperated in any way, and my question would be how to recreate those in the CMBN Editor.

I mean I don't know a whole lot about farming, but it would seem rather odd to place a, say 20x100m strip of Crop2 directly adjactant to small strip of Yellow grass and next to this one a strip of Crop6. It looks just strange, but from these pictures (going after the strong contrast of colors) one would assume that this is the way its done.

[George MC]

Several ways you can boundary fields without bocage. Here are some:

raised banks (from stones that are shifted etc)

another raised bank

fences - various types from wooden to barbed wire. These won't show on the aerial image you posted.

strip of rough ground - not ploughed etc. Guess you'd only leave this if no grazing animals are likely to get into the field.

So in your scenario you could use any of the above. Leaving aside the obvious options you could just use a strip of say long grass, or long yellow grass or woods between each of your fields.

Another option but perhaps not as aesthetic is to create berms using the elevation tool. Downside of this is your berms would be rather large (not like a small pile of stones). As a compromise what I've done is use sections of low bocage to represent an old boundary but rather than use continous sections just isolated bits with some small bushes. Then use a strip of rough ground to continue on the boundary. TBH it's worth just playing about in the editor. It is possible to create plausable fields without bocage - just need to experiment

[Broadsword56]

Great tips, Georgie!

I also recommend this: Place your historical photo as a jpeg overlay on the same area in Google Earth. Pick a farm you want to examine more closely, then zoom way, way in. Switch the transparency on and off a few times (using the "properties" dialog) to see how the photo location compares with modern satellite view -- in GE you can get close enough to see individual sheep grazing, so details should appear pretty clearly. Another thing to do is search for your location in Google Maps and then click on the pushpin to see if a street view is available. You'd be amazed at how many tiny hamlets and back roads in Normandy have street views now. Take a virtual drive along a route and just look at the characteristics of the fields, boundaries, the way buildings are situated, etc.

[RockinHarry]

Quick note: Fences are very very scarcely used to line farmfields in NWE. Fences usually do "fence in" (cattle, private property, gardens...) and less oftenly "fence out". So any likely farmfield invaders could be better dealt with by scarecrows.

[Broadsword56]

Here's some fodder for a mapping geekfest: wire fences.

I agree that wooden fences would have been rare in Normandy except ornamentally or right around houses and farms and towns. Rural stone walls and bocage would be the most prevalent perimeters to fields. But how about the wire fences?

LongLeftFlank says wire fences would have been extremely rare, except perhaps along the departmental routes where bocage would have been removed during road building, widening, etc.

I largely agree. But in all the modern virtual "driving" I've done around my battle areas using Google Street View, I see wire fences very often along the sides of fields that border roads. I realize that Basse Normandie has lost a lot of bocage since WWII and the landscape has been changed due to mechanization and modernization of agriculture. But wire fencing has been in use since the 1870s, even in remote places like the American Great Plains. And I suspect that while animals were still heavily used as draft animals for Norman farms in the 1940s, the larger fields of cereal crops and wheat may have been worked with at least some machinery even then. The larger sizes on these wheat fields on wartime photos suggest to me that some bocage was removed to create these larger fields, and probably to make it easier for the machinery to move about and work efficiently. So wire would have been a handy way to fence these larger areas, wherever the farmer couldn't just rely on the existing stone walls or bocage lines.

So on my maps, I do probably use a bit more wire fence than some other mappers might. I use it on fields that tend to be larger pastures or wheat fields along the edge that borders a road, particularly if it's a departmental route or highway.

[LongLeftFlank]

You're bringing a very North American perspective to this though. America had thousands upon thousands of square miles of virgin land to be brought under the plough. In Europe the large fields had existed for hundreds of years. Fuel was more expensive in interwar Europe and I'd suspect that the bulk of farm mechanization capital would be focused on trucking produce to market. While tractors were certainly not unknown you simply didn't have the massive demand -- at least not yet -- that fed the success of John Deere et al, pushing these things into the market. I will try to do a little more research on this.

[Broadsword56]

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about -- granted, these are modern-day videos of the area, but interesting to look at anyway...

A 29th ID veteran returns to Hill 108 where he fought in 1944:

A Google map -- click on the pushpin and select the street view, then "drive" north along the D-91 and look along the roadsides:

http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Le+Mesnil-Rouxelin,+Manche,+Lower+Normandy,+France&aq=&vps=2&g=14+Moulin+a+La+Fi%C3%A8re,+50480+Sainte-M%C3%A8re-%C3%89glise,+France&ie=UTF8&geocode=FY3s7QId1G7v_w&split=0&sll=-41.244772,172.617188&sspn=17.430211,24.345703&mpnum=1001&hq=&hnear=Le+Mesnil-Rouxelin,+Manche,+Lower+Normandy,+France

[Wodin]

I expect the fields where divided by drainage ditches more than wire and wooden fences. Just a thought.

[LongLeftFlank]

Sorry about hijacking yoir thread Rokko in order to engage in ridiculous agriculture groggery. On the other hand, this matters in game terms because walls and hedgerowns have very different cover and navigability qualities than fences. We wouldn't want map designers to say "Whew, now we're FINALLY out of the damn bocage, so fields can all look like Iowa, or the Ukraine, or even the Ardennes" (where a lot of wire fencing is indeed used since these formerly wooded areas had only been brought under the plougg in the late 19th century -- as distinct from northern France.

Again, not suggesting wood and wire (to quote Johnny Cash) wasn't to be seen at all in Northern France. It appears quite clearly in that game loading screen showing the 2 Shermans observing the barrage. I just don't want to see it overused on maps that purport to be authentic. LOS blocking terrain is all too scarce on CMBN maps as it is.... Making the mortars and German uber-longs even more uber than they already are...

[Rokko]

I'm actually really happy that this is getting so many responses.

Also, as someone how knows jack about farming (city dweller), I consider these insights pretty helpful.

To clear some things: What I'm trying to represent is the Rauray spur, which, essentially, is one really big field (by Normandy standards). I'm working on a 1.7km x 1.6km excerpt of the area around Rauray.

I do agree that for most of Normandy fields would be pretty small where you wouldn't have to worry about what I've been asking in this thread, but in the area around Caen the fields were considably larger (even back then).

As for the proposed solutions: berms with the elevation tool wouldn't suite me, as they would be oversized (8m wide!). It also doesn't seem as if fences would be a good choice.

I think the best way would be the right connection of different ground tiles. I just haven't found a credible way how to do this so far.

Also, since this thread has gone a bit off-topic I think its acceptable if I re-ask a different question, which back then nobody did answer:

http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97247

[Wodin]

As I said all fields have drainage ditches. In South West England nearly every field has a drainage ditch even though you may not see them driving past. When I was in the Cadets I fell into many on night route marches.

[Rokko]

That would be an option if there were trenches like in CMSF. Since there aren't, no way IMHO.

[Sgt Joch]

It is possible to make credible drainage ditches using the elevation tool to create the ditch and suitable vegetation (marsh/mud) to line it.

[hoolaman]

Well thank you, but that doesn't really answer my question.

Like look at at this aerial photo:

http://aerial.rcahms.gov.uk/database/record.php?usi=006-001-011-172-C&scache=38qawkzv5z&searchdb=tara_scran

I've picked this one randomly.

I'd say Bocage can be seen clearly in this pic, and theres rather field. The individual patters look very distinct, but don't look like they were seperated in any way, and my question would be how to recreate those in the CMBN Editor.

I mean I don't know a whole lot about farming, but it would seem rather odd to place a, say 20x100m strip of Crop2 directly adjactant to small strip of Yellow grass and next to this one a strip of Crop6. It looks just strange, but from these pictures (going after the strong contrast of colors) one would assume that this is the way its done.

Have a look at the same spot on Google earth and I think you'll be surprised how similar it looks with the patchwork of colours.

It could be crops are sowed on different days, or partially harvested, or even the direction of the plow rows that make them catch the light differently in an aerial picture. Some of the fields could be fallow or planted with legumes, or simply left for pasture.

Even within a larger field there can be banks (maybe old bocage) that a farmer can't plow through. That may dictate the direction he plows in or maybe he may sow a different crop either side.

The smaller size of the patches in 1944 may reflect on how much land could be worked over in a day, and remember there is the possibility manpower shortages only saw a smaller percentage of fields sown.

Divide your fields with earthen banks or stone walls. Leave some as grass, some with crops, some with weeds etc. Nobody will tell you you are wrong, just make it interesting.

[undercovergeek]

Divide your fields with earthen banks or stone walls. Leave some as grass, some with crops, some with weeds etc. Nobody will tell you you are wrong, just make it interesting.

perfect advice - its your map - im doing a real life location with arial photos coming out of my ears but you still every now and again have to put in a bit of abstraction and imagination - the game is short of good historic/ahistoric scenarios - just build your map as you think it should be using the excellent advice provided already - the fields will be stripped of stones and the border walls made of these stones - i like the fence graphic better than the wall and i am woefully guilty of overusing fence as opposed to wall - in fact after reading this im going back into to change some fence to wall but nobody will tell you youre wrong

[A Canadian Cat]

Nobody will tell you you are wrong, just make it interesting.

Lots of good advice deleted. What I wanted to add was - make sure the fields are not billiard tables. Many topo maps show contour lines that are 10m or more apart. What that means is elevation changes that are less than 10m will *not* show up on the map. But changes in elevation of 1, 2 or even 5m will make a big difference to how real things look. Around here fields that are flat are few and far between and those that are are full of water:) Most fields have a roll to them with high spots and a variety of gradients, heights and shapes.

[hoolaman]

Thats good advice for every spot on any map actually. I like to place a myriad of lumps and bumps and banks and draws on almost every ostensibly flat surface. The game engine grants much better cover from elevation changes than it does terrain types.

[Rokko]

There's another question I have in regards to mapping:

This is an aerial photography from the area around mortain (Le Mesnil-Tôve to be exact), but I have this problem with other areas of Normandy as well.

What we can see here are predominantely rather thin lines, separating the fields.

Now obviously thats bocage, some with trees in them (the broader ones), some without.

Now my question is, would you say that those thin ones are high or low bocage (in game terms). Somehow I have the feeling they look to thin to be the "real" ones. But on the other hand they're all over the place and I thought that low bocage was somewhat rare in comparison to the really high hedges.

[hoolaman]

Get down and have a look around in google street view.

Many of the hedges may be rubbed out but you can still get an idea what is going on.

Remember sparse bocage means put in lots of gaps.

[Rokko]

Google Street view doesn't help one bit. The landscape has totally changed there. Also, many of the pictures were taken in autumn or winter.

Really, the only thing are roads and sometimes settlements. In rare instances you can guess or see were the bocage was in the past.

Here's the same spot today.

[LongLeftFlank]

I haven't studied the Mortain battlefield, but going on you photos alone I'd hazard a guess that you're out of the dense bocage country at this point and into flatter, more fertile countryside bounded by conventional hedgerows (Low Bocage) like you'd see in England. The pattern of the fields is far less chaotic than the hills of Basse Normandie; neat square fields (as opposed to medieval "strips") may also be an indicator of land centuriation from Roman times.... in other words this was desirable farmland back then. Also, you can see in the 1947 imagery where the orchard trees have been removed in favour of croplands. And now virtually all the hedgerow is gone.

[Rokko]

You mean those light dots indicate where apple trees used to be?