Simulating hedgerow fighting

[kensal]

Just to go back to the OP, I think that BF took a bit of a risk with this title. The risk is that, from what I've read, the fighting in the bocage was a morale-sapping grind, and an accurate simulation of that is not going to be too much fun. I think we generally agree that they have produced a pretty accurate simulation of WW2 tactical combat. Therefore, because it is a good game in terms of representing what what on at the time, it might not have been a popular game since what it represents was not much fun.

I certainly agree with that.

[Sgt Joch]

I certainly agree with that.

its more fun when you are defending as the Germans.

[JonS]

as the Germans.

Let's not forget that EVERY time the Germans attempted to take the offensive in Normandy, they had their asses handed to them too.

So, your quote could be refomulated as simply "it's more fun when you are defending ;)"

[hoolaman]

It does, doesn't it. The field lines are still visible, but it appears that the brush is gone. I believe most of this area between Saint-Côme-du-Mont (off-map to the NNW) and Carentan was flooded during the battle; my guess is that the vegetation along the bocage was drowned and the lines we can see are possibly the berms that remained???

I'm certainly willing to entertain other hypotheses

I think you're right, that area where there seems to be "dead" bocage is marked as flooded on battle maps.

@ the broader thread:

Incidentally, anyone who wants to make historical Normandy scenarios must look at the 1946 photos. Even where plenty of bocage still exists, many bocage fields today have been amalgamated into larger ones, or had one or more sides removed, or are just twice as thick and wild as modern ones. There are also more (or fewer) buildings and outbuildings in many locations.

[Broadsword56]

Incidentally, anyone who wants to make historical Normandy scenarios must look at the 1946 photos. Even where plenty of bocage still exists, many bocage fields today have been amalgamated into larger ones, or had one or more sides removed, or are just twice as thick and wild as modern ones. There are also more (or fewer) buildings and outbuildings in many locations.

+1 to that. Although of course anyone who takes the time to make a map is free to take whatever artictic license or shortcuts he or she wants...just disclose it in designer's notes or on the forum if it's historical or not. And if it is historical, the 1946 aerials are readily available, and we have overlay capability now, so there's really no excuse not to use them.

One of my favorite moments in mapping is always when I place the 1946 image as a jpg overlay on Google Earth, get it aligned just so to match the scale and features of today, and then flip the "transparency" slider back and forth quickly to watch the landscape travel in time and back again. Amazing how much bocage is gone now, and how much more urbanized and suburbanized these areas are now too.

[Macisle]

Hey, guys. This is a quick note to let you know that I'm going to put together a pdf reference chart of building types to upload to the repository. I want to make it fast, so my idea is to do one category per page in landscape format with essentially no text.

So, for example, single story modular would have left to right on one full landscape page: a screen of that choice in the editor showing the grid of choices, a 3D preview screen facing N with one building per choice lined up in the same grid pattern as the editor options, and a screen of same facing W, so as to see the decoration style just below the roof (tudor timber, brick, etc.). Again, that's:

L: option grid

C: N view of 3D preview showing options, matching option grid layout.

R: W view of same.

I won't have time to do it until the weekend, but I don't want to do any more building work without such a guide. I'll drop a link to the forum (prolly next week) when it's up.

[Michael Emrys]

I'd just like to echo that - this is a lovely piece of work. I tried similar things with the CMBB map editor, and using actual terrain (I used the contour lines from OS maps!) as a template produces a much more realistic geography. The roads then follow a natural line and the buildings nestle into the landscape. Though the addition of props and so on help, it is in the underlying topography that the real battle for realism is won.

I could hardly agree more. During the '70s and '80s I spent a lot of time looking at aerial photographs, mostly over Western Europe, and got pretty familiar with the typical terrain that was fought over. As a consequence I grew very disdainful of the kinds of maps supplied with tactical wargames. More than once I have been heard to make the observation that they bear as much resemblance to real terrain as a miniature golf course does. If you are going to make maps from scratch, and you insist that they look as real as possible, I suggest that first of all you spend a couple of years in intense study of geology and the way that tectonic forces give basic shape to the ground. Then spend some time studying how erosive forces further shape that ground and how they in turn can be modified by plant life. Study how water flows in a natural environment. Lastly, study what attracts human populations and how they in turn modify nearly everything as they adapt to their environment.

Or, more simply, work from photographs wherever possible.

Michael

[Macisle]

Whoa.

-Looks like the 2.01 patch changes might make play on this map even more realistic and interesting. Lucky timing, huh!

I'm sooo looking forward to getting this done and reading some AARs from the community!

[LongLeftFlank]

Still on CM sabbatical, but couldn't resist peeking in here a moment. MacIsle, your devotion to photorealism truly warms my heart!

One thought though, looking at your screenies: be sure to study the 1947 imagery with care, because I strongly suspect a lot of the roadsides where you have wire fences were actually hedgerows back in 1944. So much of the bocage has been removed since then to support mechanized farming and widened roads.

[Macisle]

Thanks, LLF.

I'm not going for a historical map (there was basically nothing there but bocage and fields during the war). My goal is to produce a "real world" map that could have existed. For this map, I want to use Google street and attempt to recreate what is actually there.

The goal is to give players a map that, as much as the current engine allows, accurately recreates an interesting typical village/hamlet setting , so as to see how H2H battles play out.

I made a ton of progress over the last two days (lost a few hours messin' around with hotseat testing--couldn't resist!). The buildings are almost done (so many walls, so many doors and windows...). After that, I will add all the foliage, then flavor objects, then do final elevation-tweaking and finally, a last "beautification" pass.

After that, I'll post pics and a birds-eye and let folks give me feedback on objectives and final packaging (this is my first map, so I'm not sure what editor battle details are needed for this purely H2H map).

I'm going to hold off on doing the pdf building guide until after I finish the map. I really want to get this sucker done!

Maybe one more week, plus a few days for getting and applying community feedback.

[Macisle]

Current status pics:

That's it until the weekend!

[Duckman]

Amazing pictures!

And if it is historical, the 1946 aerials are readily available, and we have overlay capability now, so there's really no excuse not to use them.

Where? I found the beaches here:

http://normandyheritage.com/

but not much inland.

[Broadsword56]

Great progress on the map. I can almost hear the cows mooing and the church bell tolling.

One small recommendation for when you get to your finer detailing stage: Your bocage looks too uniform and treeless. Consider sticking the occasional low bocage section among the high ones, and vice, versa, to give it a more natural variation. Don't forget to insert bocage gaps here and there, and at logical entrances and exits to fields. Do players a favor and mark most of them with a dirt or mud tile. And don't forget to put some scattered vegetation right in the bocage line -- trees, bushes, etc.

[Michael Emrys]

That's really beautiful and I think you are definitely getting a handle on making great maps. One thing does bother me, it may just be the angle we're viewing from in those shots, but the ground looks unnaturally flat. Even nominally flat ground has a little relief and roll to it. Otherwise, do keep up the good work.

Michael

[Macisle]

Thanks, guys!

I'll be adding full foliage (and tweaking bocage lines) and expanding elevation variation after I finish the buildings. What you see now on elevation is just a first pass, with minor tweaking as I go. I'm waiting on foliage (other than bits and pieces for experimentation and "flavor" screenies) until later to avoid too much framerate slowdown while working.

For elevations and gaps, I'll be literally "travelling" down every "click" of the main roads on google street view to analyze them for proper elevation views and gaps.

On gaps, though--be ready for some "dead ends." The defender may also want to bring some breach teams for hairy escapes--especially in parts of the town. I'm doing this on-purpose, as my hotseat testing revealed some potentially interesting combat dynamics on that. Once the defender is pushed south into the town, it's possible for there to be a standoff where the attacker cannot move infantry along the south road (or attack from behind without being shot first, due to the wall) and the defender cannot escape (without demos) from the cafe/church school (infirmary) line of buildings. So, basically, without DC's, tanks, or a big artillery strike, a total infantry stalemate can develop.

I think this is realistic and good. Stuff like this happened a lot in real life, and it would require the player to use his tools very well, or change his battle plan.

In general, there should be plenty of gaps--especially for the defender. And, some may be hidden a bit on purpose (if not "hidden," I'll try to mark them with ground color). Without Rhinos or DCs though, I think it is going to be a tough nut for the attacker. But rightly so!

After all, this was born as a test of whether the game models bocage country accurately enough. The general feeling is that it is too easy for the attacker.

Okay, I won't have time to do anything much before next weekend. I'll post more screenies then. Those should include more elevation variation and foliage.

[$Pec5]

Keep us updated on when that map will be available in the repository. That looks like a lot of fun to play

[Steiner14]

A really beautiful map, but even for my untrained eye for graphics on an old laptop display,

the graphics in CM are underexposed, have too much color/saturation(?) and way too less contrast

(contrast of the medium levels is missing, while the compression of dark and bright levels into saturation of black and

white are missing, too; this makes for the flat washed out unnatural look).

If you look at real photographs, areas in shadows are much darker overall (nonlinear compression of darker areas towards dark),

while surfaces in the sun are much brighter overall (nonlinear compression of brighter surfaces torwards brightness).

If there is no contrast compensation possible at the GFX-driver level, I'm wondering if at least shadows could be darkened and the sun be brightened?

[Macisle]

Okay, here is this week's status report:

I need to work on final decoration and elevations (what you see below is NOT final with regards to elevations!). But, aside from any mistakes I find, buildings are done. Foliage is also done, except for tweaks needed to accommodate final

decoration. I'm saving final elevation work for last-last-last, cuz' it's going to be rather tedious and once it's finished, I really want to be able to stick a fork in this and call it done.

I wrote a long designer notes section, but I can't get it to show when firing up a QB. It shows fine in the editor under "designer's notes." Is that normal for QB maps? If so, I'll just include them as a txt file in the rar for folks to download from the repository.

I'm posting full-sized screens for best clarity. Let me know if you'd rather they be smaller, like I did before.

Okay, here they are (the last pic has a question attached about points for objectives):

Something weird about points for objectives. I'm trying to have the N Crossroads be 200, the hamlet center be 300 and the S Crossroads be 500. All the objectives are very large areas, separated by one row of non-objective space. However, in

testing, I cannot get the game to award full points for any of them. It always seems to award points according to the following screenshot:

This occurs no matter what. I've tried outright surrender, ceasefire, having the zone completely free of enemy and COVERED with friendly. Nothing changes it. -Help on this would be appreciated. I'll post pics of the current zones tomorrow. I

don't have time right now.

Thanks and hope you liked the pics!

[JonS]

That's ... really odd.

What kind of objectives are they? (touch, occupy, preserve, etc)

[Macisle]

All three terrain objectives are occupy and known to both. Both sides have identical objectives. There are no other kinds of objectives for the map.

[JasonC]

I notice the points awarded are 65% of all 3 objective values, as you set them.

FWIW...

[Macisle]

Weird. I did not touch any of the other points stuff--only set the three occupy objectives exactly the same for both sides.

-Just noticed that it is awarding 997 out of the 1000 total, but then doing the funky 65% each thing for the actual objective breakdown, as you say.

FYI, for this screenshot, I gave each side only a single FO section and then just had the Germans surrender immediately. But I playtested having the N Crossroads full of US troops with no Germans present and it still listed 129 points in the breakdown (can't recall the total).

I think I'll finish up the terrain part of the map this weekend and then troubleshoot the objectives issue. I haven't tried simply deleting them and starting over (wish you could copy-paste objectives over to the other side. It's a pain trying to match them using the current painting system).

Does anyone have info on the designer notes section? Does that only work for full-blown scenarios, or should it still work for QB maps, too. Also, on insert images, I've put in the 170x170 "header" graphic, but I haven't tried putting in a tactical map yet. Maybe I'll try a dummy graphic before I spend the time on a real map, in case it won't "take" in a QB map.

[JonS]

wish you could copy-paste objectives over to the other side. It's a pain trying to match them using the current painting system.

Don't bother even trying. It's very rare that both sides would be fighting for exactly the same set of objectives, with exactly the same motivation. I think more interesting scenarios can be had when the objectives are asymmetric.

[Pete Wenman]

With regard to the oddity with the terrain objectives points value, I suspect it has something to do with the following

the last couple of lines in the V2 manual - page 103

Victory conditions

Only terrain objectives are considered for determining victory conditions in a QB.

All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are

converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically. The code automatically adds an

enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side, which is lowest for meeting

engagements, and highest for assaults.

It looks like the game is switching an element of the total points you allocate to an unit objective, in this case 33%. So this is a problem specific to QBs, which is why Jon and I haven't seen it before.

Nice map by the way

P

[Macisle]

Don't bother even trying. It's very rare that both sides would be fighting for exactly the same set of objectives, with exactly the same motivation. I think more interesting scenarios can be had when the objectives are asymmetric.

These objectives are just a first thought. My thinking goes that the both sides would want to control the two crossroads and the Hamlet Center is the link between the two. The S Crossroads are the main ones, so they get more points. The N Crossroads are minor and pretty close to the attacker's start point, so they are low in value. If the attacker takes the Hamlet Center and N Crossroads only, it's a draw to be decided by casualties.

In this situation, I felt that both sides would likely have the same terrain control objectives--maintaining control of theses two crossroads and the surrounding areas that allow safe passage through them. That is why I have made them large. What would be the good of occupying a crossroads itself when the buildings overlooking it are still held by the enemy?

However, like I said, these objectives are just a first thought. But don't most QB maps (not battle scenarios) have the same objectives for both sides?