James Crowley Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 The low bocage in RT is, for those who perhaps had not realised, is permeable to both tanks and infantry, unlike in CMBN where it is not. Given that, I have been experimenting in the editor by 'creating' Normandy -style bocage. That is I have raised the ground up by two levels relative to the surroundings, used ditch-lock and put the low bocage along the top. To that, I have added patches of 'heavy forest' ground to make parts of it impassable to tanks and added a mix of trees and bushes. Even doing this quite quickly the effect is such that the finished article resembles real bocage far better than the 'tall' bocage graphic in CMBN, IMHO. More importantly it means that both infantry and tanks can cross it in a realistic manner. Infantry file over quite slowly, even with a 'fast' command and become very vulnerable to fire whilst doing so. Tanks struggle; sometimes more than others. But they rear up and then drop down the other side very convincingly and are also very vulnerable. I've seen several hit, very realistically, on turret tops, hull tops , through an open hatch and, for me best of all, right through the belly plate which was recorded as such and displayed the correctly placed decal. The bocage in Normandy was hell to manoeuvre and fight in but it was not uniformly impervious to infantry or even tanks as it currently is in CMBN. If the new permeable low- bocage feature is transferred to CMBN via the 3.00 upgrade, it should be possible to create some very realistic bocage and related effects. Here's hoping. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Good stuff, James! Hope low bocage will make it in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Nice work! Would you consider showing some screens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 The low bocage in RT is, for those who perhaps had not realised, is permeable to both tanks and infantry, unlike in CMBN where it is not. I had no idea. I am trained to avoid it from playing CMBN. Good to know. Given that, I have been experimenting in the editor by 'creating' Normandy -style bocage. That is I have raised the ground up by two levels relative to the surroundings, used ditch-lock and put the low bocage along the top. To that, I have added patches of 'heavy forest' ground to make parts of it impassable to tanks and added a mix of trees and bushes. Sounds really interesting - I second the request for screen shots. Better yet, how about a sample map file? right through the belly plate which was recorded as such and displayed the correctly placed decal. Very cool. I have always wondered about that but never had the occasion to see a tank hit from the underside. Sweet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Low Bocage is fine either way, imho, passable or impassable. The key consists providing numerous gaps in the latter. There was a scenario (Last Defense?) in BN that featured two lines of low bocage extending several hundred meters with no holes. Implausible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 I'll try and get some screens up tomorrow. Have builders in at the moment and it is all a bit muddled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangun Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Some screenies would be nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 Here are some screens: A general view from one side. Over they go... One through the turret roof... Infantry lined up ready to go; they have a limited field of view from this position... Even with a fast command, they are still not over and functional after 20 seconds...very vulnerable to fire. Just a random selection but hopefully they convey the point. I couldn't find the one that got holed in the belly; I will try to re-create it. The only downside - so far - is that HTs can get over as well; not sure if that would have been possible in reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Really nice JC. Thanks for the screens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 You're welcome. Here's the belly shot I couldn't locate previously.... and the resultant hole..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Good work, both in creating the terrain type and providing the screenshots. If this or something with the same properties gets adopted by BFC, there may need to be some work on restricting which vehicles can make it through though. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Very cool thanks. So, infantry lined up on the bocage - how well can they fight through it? Specifically I wonder how well they can see over the berm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 I haven't really done any great amount of testing in regards to the vehicles that can get over but Half Tracks definitely can and probably would need to be restricted. In fact anything with wheels would need to be prohibited in the same way as they are from crossing walls. Infantry seem to cross quite slowly and on one off the screenshots previously, they set off at the beginning of a turn with a 'fast' command and were still getting through it after 20 seconds. They would certainly be very vulnerable to fire. I only tested from the German infantry perspective but they had LoS out to about 28m the other side of the bocage. I don't know if something positioned at that distance would have LoS to them or not. I guess I never fully accepted the 'nothing gets through bocage' notion in CMBN. It should be slow and difficult for sure, impossible in places but definitely doable for both tanks and infantry. The CMBN workaround, in having 'gaps' in the bocage, beyond those created by gates, is not aesthetically pleasing either. I think this looks and acts like the bocage I have read about and seen in France (very little left of it) but it remains to be seen if permeable low bocage will make it into the 3.00 upgrade for CMBN If I get the time I may run some more tests on different vehicles and squads at different speeds and angles of approach. On one occasion a tank, having failed to cross at a 'heavy forest' section, tried to cross obliquely and bogged, then became immobilised which was quite a cool occurrence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Wouldn't adding the heavy trees ground to the "hill" prevent all vehicles from moving through? So that would take care of the problem in general with vehicles passing over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 James - very nice work. That looks excellent! When you say that infantry behind this has LOS to 28m - why not further? If they can see over/through this they should be able to see as far as they like? Or not? IIRC we had a LOT of discussions about crossability of bocage. This gist was that some bocage wasn't crossable at all (without Rhinos). And I guess it would break many scenarios if that assumption is changed - especially for the high bocage which is everywhere. But I would be all for changing the low bocage to be (slowly) passable by infantry and tanks. With the ditch lock it looks gorgeous! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 My take on it is that low bocage (the permeable low bocage of RT) when placed on a high bank, becomes high bocage. Undoubtedly there were areas of high bocage that were more or less impassable but there were many areas that could be scaled, albeit with difficulty and associated risk as I hope some of the screenshots demonstrated. It was mainly the danger of exposing weak belly armour to the enemy that, wisely, prevented most tanks from attempting the crossing. Which is where Cullin came in. However, the British Churchill was more than capable of crossing high bocage and did so on various occasions and in some quantity. The way I constructed that test section of bocage was to have every 'ground' tile either light or heavy forest. The heavy forest tile prevents any vehicles from crossing and represents those parts that were genuinely impassable to tanks. The other areas can be crossed. Infantry were found, on brief testing, to take quite a while to cross over and IMHO that is a more realistic interpretation than a blanket 'no crossing' that currently exists. Again, in reality, it was less that infantry couldn't get through but that it was bloody dangerous to do so. As for LoS I was quite surprised to find that they could see over it at all and I'm not sure why this was limited to around 28 m. I will test this aspect some more. I agree, that if nothing else, low bocage should also be permeable in CMBN and, if it is integral to the 3.00 engine, it will be in the upcoming upgrade. Gifted scenario authors can then, if they wish, construct 'real' bocage rather than using the stock 'no way through' tall bocage if only because it looks much better IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Have you experimented to see whether your custom-made low bocage using ditchlock can also have foxholes or trenches planted in it? Since it's ground, it should. This was also a big wishlist item for CMBN to allow Germans to have "true bocage defenses" where they had fighting and shelter positions dug right into the bocage. Some of us who tried to do an ersatz version in CMBN (by planting a bocage section right on top of an existing foxhole) never really worked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I agree, that if nothing else, low bocage should also be permeable in CMBN and, if it is integral to the 3.00 engine, it will be in the upcoming upgrade. Despite sharing a label, I'm pretty sure the low bocage in CMRT is considered a different terrain type than the low bocage in CMBN. You may recall it was suggested internally that the name should be changed to reflect the difference but it didn't happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtsjc1 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Nice work James! I see the PzIV took one through the top of the turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverstars Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 The only downside is that since the berm is part of the terrain mesh you cannot have a Culin device push through it, nor can you have your demo team blow it up so vehicles can traverse it normally. Otherwise that would be perfect, and if nothing else it's still a perfect setup for most pre-Culin device scenarios since using demolitions to blow a path through took much longer then the 20 seconds for an engineer team to make a path....Good job! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 This game just gets better and better.. Nice screen shots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 One thing that dawned on me now is that the AI won't be able to handle this realistically. It will just see a small hill with bushes on it more or less and not navigate around it, but rather through it despite the risks. This might be best contained to H2H maps and not maps where the AI will partake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Happy to see that (low) bocage is now traversible by tanks. Hoping Battlefront will also make huge shells and bombs blow holes through it, instead of having the bocage hang like a bridge across the crater. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 One thing that dawned on me now is that the AI won't be able to handle this realistically. It will just see a small hill with bushes on it more or less and not navigate around it, but rather through it despite the risks. As I understand it, there's no "AI" as such, just AI plans designed by the scenario maker. So the designer merely needs to design appropriate plans for the terrain.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 As I understand it, there's no "AI" as such, just AI plans designed by the scenario maker. So the designer merely needs to design appropriate plans for the terrain.. Then you understand wrong. There is a plan, sure, but that plan is just a largely broad plan of "In 10 minutes you should move into this area" without actually specifying what route they should take. So in a normal CMBN scenario with the normal Bocage, they would have to move around the bocage or through the small openings. On this bocage, they would simply go for the fastest way there and since it would consider the bocage "woods" it would move straight through it instead of around it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.