Foxholes and Trenches

[Rokko]

Watching the twitch.tv clip on the upcoming CMRT made me wonder about an issue that has bugged me ever since CMBN has been released.

Are there any plans to make trenches and foxholes more pleasing to look at anytime in the future?

And a second issue, could someone elaborate on how the entrechments we have right now are supposed to work? As I understand it, the 4 huge molehills per 8x8m we have now in which individual soldiers can sit in or lay down are supposed to represent 4 simple holes in the ground, with the occupants being inside them with only their heads or a small part of their upper body peeking out and that all calculations are based upon that, right?

But from my observation that does not appear to be the case, at least not consistently. For instance, why can troops in a foxhole that is placed right behind a waist high wall look, spot and fire BEYOND that wall? With only your head looking out, how is one supposed to see what's behind a waist high wall? Same issue with 1m high earthen bank (created with the elevation tool). Or how can troops in foxhole placed on a reverse slope look in front of that slope? Also, spotting of foxholes often seems very odd, I really cannot imagine how anyone could spot a hole in the gras (maybe 1m in diameter) from anywhere further than a few steps away.

I can live with the way these entrechments look for the time being, but I really don't understand how they work in the game most of the time. The only positive effect I definately have noted is that when troops hide or cower in foxholes and trenches they are better protected from artillery fire, but that's about it. I can't really tell if they help much in a firefight for instance.

[Childress]

Are there any plans to make trenches and foxholes more pleasing to look at anytime in the future?

Not without sacrificing Fog of War. Shock Force has pleasingly realistic trenches with appropriate terrain deformation. But they're always visible to both sides.

[Rokko]

That is true for the current engine I suppose, but I doubt it is impossible to have certain post-loading changes of the 3d Terrain mesh be subject to fog of war. I was wondering if maybe changes done to the terrain mesh that happened after the map loaded might cause problems with LOS calculations, but then again, thats just what craters do right now, only that craters can be seen "through" the fog of war.

So I don't see why future iterations of the engine (not talking 3.0 or 4.0, but rather CMx3) could not have FOW affected terrain.

[Vanir Ausf B]

For instance, why can troops in a foxhole that is placed right behind a waist high wall look, spot and fire BEYOND that wall? With only your head looking out, how is one supposed to see what's behind a waist high wall? Same issue with 1m high earthen bank (created with the elevation tool). Or how can troops in foxhole placed on a reverse slope look in front of that slope?

It's an abstraction. Machine guns deployed behind low cover are assumed to be set up on top of the cover but there is no animation showing it. I don't know if there are any plans to change this.

[Rokko]

That really doesn't make sense. What real-life behaviour should be simulated by such an abstraction?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Something like this.

[MikeyD]

Not only will breaking the terrain mesh ruin FOW, don't forget it'll deep-six framerates too. Those CMSF embedded trenches were a real hog on resources. Do you really want to trade framerate for depressed trenches with no FOW? Ever since Market Garden the editor has had 'ditchlock' option for elevations, for making a depression (or ridgeline) that's not unusably deep for fighting purposes. But they certainly ain't proper trenches.

[Freyberg]

I'd rather see improvements in housing / urban combat before renovating fortifications, though I would like to see AT-gun bunkers.

[Glubokii Boy]

As the game is getting more and more 'complete'...

An overhaul of the fortrification part of the game is getting higher and higher on my wishlist.

- new foxholes and trech graphics

- main trenches as well as comunication trenches

- THE ABILITY TO BUY CAMOFLAGE (to increase the stealthyness of the units)

- fortrified houses

[Aragorn2002]

As the game is getting more and more 'complete'...

An overhaul of the fortrification part of the game is getting higher and higher on my wishlist.

- new foxholes and trech graphics

- main trenches as well as comunication trenches

- THE ABILITY TO BUY CAMOFLAGE (to increase the stealthyness of the units)

- fortrified houses

I second all of that. And the ability of going underground during artillery barrages and becoming invisible when lying down.

[Battlefront.com]

There are no plans for us to change the way defenses are placed on top of the mesh. Three reasons:

1. Users would no longer be able to choose where their trenches/foxholes go. That would be determined by the map maker. That INCLUDES Quick Battles.

2. Both sides would know, with 100%, exactly where ever trench and foxhole is before the game starts. And by that I mean in Setup where you can plan accordingly.

3. Hurts framerate. Er, like a LOT. Maybe not as much as it once did, but certainly enough to be noticed.

Even if #3 wasn't a concern, #1 and #2 are since nobody wants lose that functionality.

There are no ways around this. Please, do not even bother suggesting anything. I can promise you we've seen it all about 100 times already. It simply isn't doable. If it was, it would be in the game already because obviously having trenches and foxholes visually in the ground would be preferable to having them be above.

Steve

[womble]

That is true for the current engine I suppose, but I doubt it is impossible to have certain post-loading changes of the 3d Terrain mesh be subject to fog of war.

It is, however, impossible to have post-loading changes of the 3D terrain mesh at all. At least with the current approach. This is because the game generates a LOS map at game load; it's a big chunk of the game's load time (for the mission, not the application). Changing the terrain mesh would involve recalculating that. Impossible to complete in RT, and potentially crippling to complete in WeGo, especially if several changes were made at separate times in the turn, which would each require a new LOS map to be calculated, even if only the deltas were stored.

Steve spent some time talking about how the LOS map is central to the game's current performance here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1502014&postcount=36

[Oddball_E8]

Would it be possible to let the units "sink down" into the ground then?

Making only the head and upper part of the torso stick out and the rest actually clip through the ground without actually changing the terrain when in a foxhole or trench?

It's a workaround, sure, but it would mean a better physical representation of a foxhole or trench.

[The Teacher]

AT bunkers should arrive one day I would think.

As I see it now the game has been improving with every module etc etc, so one day we may see things we have always wanted. eg Flamethrowers.

Anyone for toast ?

Oh look its a flamethrower warming my heart in Russia ;-)

[Rokko]

Something like this.

Yes thats obviously true for walls alone. But I'm talking about guys in a HOLE IN THE GROUND next to wall being able to look beyond that. What reallife behaviour is that supposed to represent? The people getting out of their foxholes to look what's behind the wall? Would kinda defeat the purpose and be quite counter-intuitive.

It is, however, impossible to have post-loading changes of the 3D terrain mesh at all. At least with the current approach.

I am aware of that and have mentioned it. But explain to me what HE does to the ground right now? It goes boom and leaves a crater in the terrain mesh where troops can hide in, which affects their LOS and everyones LOS on them and their action spot.

And I don't understand why it should be impossible for a player to have entrenchment entities that affect the 3d mesh depending on where they are placed (sort of like a user-placed crater that has to be spotted), maybe not in the current game engine obviously, but in general. I have at least seen things like that in other games.

Either way, the whole suggestion of improving foxholes and trenches was only a small part of my question, and I kinda already knew the answer. What I really would like to know is how these abstractions are supposed to work considering all the oddities I have mentioned.

[Fizou]

Im fine with the current trenches and foxholes but I feel they might be a bit to easy to spot as is.

[Wiggum]

But making the foxhole and trench models look better is possible for sure,they dont have to look that ugly or what ?

[Sixxkiller]

Rokko, craters can be spotted at anytime. Consider them decals that affect elevation into the mesh. The hit to the FOW part of the game as well as the performance of the engine would suffer. They went round and round about it and if they could do it differently they would have by now. It would have been one of the top priorities and in the current form they just ruin aesthetics not the game mechanics.

[DavidFields]

It is, however, impossible to have post-loading changes of the 3D terrain mesh at all. At least with the current approach. This is because the game generates a LOS map at game load; it's a big chunk of the game's load time (for the mission, not the application). Changing the terrain mesh would involve recalculating that. Impossible to complete in RT, and potentially crippling to complete in WeGo, especially if several changes were made at separate times in the turn, which would each require a new LOS map to be calculated, even if only the deltas were stored.

"At least with the current approach" seems to me the critical issue here.

Hmmm.....bring back the "setup" phase from CM1, and allow the --defense-- essentially access to the Editor, locked for everything except putting in certain terrain or terrain deforming features? Then calculate (or, recalculate) LOS.

I know...we are not supposed to even suggest anything at this point. But I am going to guess that 5-10 years from now, after finishing the last East Front module, you are going to sit down and say, "we need to get this foxhole/entrenchment/camouflage thing done". You shifted to 1:1 soldier representations--I can't think that this will be a bigger challenge.

[Sixxkiller]

Well in 5 years I guess we can start a new thread and find out if anything can be done.

[Baneman]

I can live with the current system as it is, however - Oddball's suggestion is good ( I know it's been suggested before, but I don't think there's ever been an examination of whether it or something akin to it could be done )

Would it be possible to let the units "sink down" into the ground then?

Making only the head and upper part of the torso stick out and the rest actually clip through the ground without actually changing the terrain when in a foxhole or trench?

It's a workaround, sure, but it would mean a better physical representation of a foxhole or trench.

It would also have less of an infantryman available for 3D-bullet-intersection calculations, making the foxhole/trench more valuable regarding the protection it gives.

Also, while we're on the subject - would it not be possible to create a new foxhole object specifically for ATG's ? With one large foxhole/breastworks for the gun and 2 or 3 of the current variety around it for the crew - as it stands, foxhole protection for ATG's is pretty rudimentary - players generally workaround with sandbag walls and so forth, but is a dedicated ATG "fortification" not feasible ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes thats obviously true for walls alone. But I'm talking about guys in a HOLE IN THE GROUND next to wall being able to look beyond that. What reallife behaviour is that supposed to represent? The people getting out of their foxholes to look what's behind the wall? Would kinda defeat the purpose and be quite counter-intuitive.

In the case of the low berm on which lines of bocage rest, Germans dug pits into the berms themselves. Low walls are an edge situation that would be unlikely in reality since a hole would have to be knocked in the wall.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think having soldiers sink down into the ground may look even more strange. Would this mean that they would be completely submerged when prone?

It would also have less of an infantryman available for 3D-bullet-intersection calculations, making the foxhole/trench more valuable regarding the protection it gives.

Levels of protection and concealment can be adjusted via the "micro-terrain" modifiers.

Also, while we're on the subject - would it not be possible to create a new foxhole object specifically for ATG's ? With one large foxhole/breastworks for the gun and 2 or 3 of the current variety around it for the crew - as it stands, foxhole protection for ATG's is pretty rudimentary - players generally workaround with sandbag walls and so forth, but is a dedicated ATG "fortification" not feasible ?

In my experience the foxhole made specifically for ATGs is call the trench

[umlaut]

But making the foxhole and trench models look better is possible for sure,they dont have to look that ugly or what ?

I´ve done what I could to make them less visible graphically (this of course has no impact on in game spotting) in this mod (it is supposed to represent camoflage net draped over sandbags):

http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4855/details

But I don´t know if this is what you´re asking for.

[Rokko]

In the case of the low berm on which lines of bocage rest, Germans dug pits into the berms themselves. Low walls are an edge situation that would be unlikely in reality since a hole would have to be knocked in the wall.

Ironically this doesn't work for either low or high bocage