Ditchlock terrain quirks?

[PhilM]

Anyone else finding these two quirks?

I'm playing a MG scenario which has ditches that - I assume - have been created with ditchlock. But:

- I can, courtesy of the new, improved speed (thanks BF!) - certainly for small maps - put all the settings at max and get a good frame rate etc: but even at those settings the new ditches disappear as a terrain feature much closer than anything else. Trees, hedges, buildings etc etc are all visible off into the distance, but the ditch appears to have an end slope and revert to normal level terrain quite close. (Should have measured how far away: but only just thought of that ...). Only by moving closer do you see that the ditch doesn't end, but continues ... This a deliberate design feature?

- the tac AI seems almost not to be aware of the ditches. I am trying to use the ditches as a concealed route: but the troops are ignoring waypoints placed on the bottom of the ditches and ending turns perched on the normal ground at the ditch edge. This exposes them to fire, and they still seem to perch there ignoring the cover provided by the ditch just beside them?

I wondered idly if the two things are in any way linked, in the sense of how the game both draws and uses in the game the new terrain feature?

[mjkerner]

Same here, PhilM. The second problem you mention is particularly disappointing.

[akd]

The TacAI does fairly well with -1m ditches. When the ditches are pushed deeper it present the AI with a problem: it can have cover in the bottom, but no LOS, or LOS at the crest, but not the excellent cover of the bottom. The AI defaults to seeking the crest. This issue is not really unique to the ditch contour terrain: a -1m or -2m "normal" depression presents the same issue; it is just more visually apparent with a -2m ditch contour.

The best solution is for map designers to stick to using the ditch contour feature in combination with -1m elevation changes.

[Placebo]

Anyone else finding these two quirks?

- the tac AI seems almost not to be aware of the ditches. I am trying to use the ditches as a concealed route: but the troops are ignoring waypoints placed on the bottom of the ditches and ending turns perched on the normal ground at the ditch edge. This exposes them to fire, and they still seem to perch there ignoring the cover provided by the ditch just beside them?

I have played a few battles with ditches, and while i expected my troops to make good use of being well down below cover they seem to be happy marching alongside the ditch if full view of the enemy. It would be good for at least one of the move commands to default the pathfinding along the bottom of the ditch.

[PhilM]

The TacAI does fairly well with -1m ditches. When the ditches are pushed deeper it present the AI problem: it can have cover in the bottom, but no LOS, or LOS at the crest, but not the excellent cover of the bottom. The AI defaults to seeking the crest. This issue is not really unique to the ditch contour terrain: a -1m or -2m depression presents the same issue; it is just more visually apparent with a -2m ditch contour.

The best solution is for map designers to stick to using the ditch contour feature in combination with -1m elevation changes.

Thanks for that: interesting, and helpful.

I guess I would hope that the tac AI, having chosen LOS mode as its default, would switch to cover mode when hits are being taken, and dive for the bottom of the ditch! They don't seem to so far - but I am going by by a (very) small sample, so perhaps other behaviours will appear in other occurrences.

Am I correct in inferring from what you say about the 1m and 2m difference that the troops have to position themselves on the bottom of the 2m ditch, and cannot "cling to the sides" at -1m, to get some LOS and some cover?