How should I go about clearing forests?

[JonS]

Not clearing the forest. Huhmph. Yeah. Seems necessary to do so a lot in the RU campaign. The road and the empty gaps seem so much more dangerous. I'll definitely keep that in mind, though. Thanks for the advice. All of it will come in use, I'm sure.

Bear in mind that even if you feel the burning need to clear part of the forest, there's more-than-likely no need to clear the whole forest.

I generally find it very easy to find the dividing line between where it's necessary to clear up to and clearing too far - it is invariably marked with piles of my pixeltruppen. Dead, of course. I just wish it was as easy to tell the difference before they all died.

[H1nd]

Another problem is that you can't shoot in the direction of a sound contact. Since LOS in woods is very limited you can not shoot (and suppress) very far into woods because there is no aim point.

So even if you can guess where the bullets came from you can not shoot back because there is no target.

While it is true that the los gives some problems you will always have to remember that it also goes the other way as well. You dont have clear los to the enemy? well neither has he to you. At least in most cases regarding area fire. Ofc pinned down infantry has much more harder time doing anything.

Also it is to be remembered that supressive area fire only needs to go roughly to the right direction so you dont actually have to target the action plot where the enemy is but you can fire roughly to that direction by targeting any action square in that direction to wich you have at least partial los. It is a common misconseption that troopers area fire in to the ground when in reality they seem to fire to that direction so bullets fly way beyond from where you have los. This ofc depends quite a lot of the thickness of the forest and it can be real pain to get the firing vector right when you dont have optimal los.

Edit. naturally this is also handy when firing through smoke cover.

[A Canadian Cat]

Does anyone else believe the new tweaks to the game engine make this kind of combat ridiculously (ie unrealistically) difficult?

<snip>

I thought the previous versions of the engine handled this rather fairly. Why the changes?

Am I alone in this assessment?

Did I miss something? I am not aware of *any* changes to the game that fundamentally effect forest fighting. I do not experience forest fighting differently between CMBN and CMRT. It is tough in both games. Yes, more automatic weapons makes some forces tougher in the forest but nothing unexpected. IMHO.

[MikeyD]

it was mentioned that the casualties were cranked up for RT to reflect the nature of...

I'm not positive but I believe that was referencing scenario designer allocation of points so casualties wouldn't automatically lose you the game. I remember in CMSF NATO module the Blue side had a VERY low tolerance for taking casualties. Over a certain percent and you lost the battle whether you won the objective or not. The fighting and casualty modeling may be the same, it's the points allocation that effectively cranks up the casualties.

[GI Jas]

I use a mortar team and a mg team to recon. The mortar team to "flush" them out and a mg team to suppress them until I can send my platoon or squads in for to eliminate them. Tanks and AP vehicles work well to. Just target the forest area and fire away for a minute or two to see if its clear or not.

[sfhand]

Bear in mind that even if you feel the burning need to clear part of the forest, there's more-than-likely no need to clear the whole forest.

I generally find it very easy to find the dividing line between where it's necessary to clear up to and clearing too far - it is invariably marked with piles of my pixeltruppen. Dead, of course. I just wish it was as easy to tell the difference before they all died.

That you write this is actually pretty amusing when I stop to consider how many pixeltruppen I buried (buddy aid when on the attack) on those forested hills in Bois de Baugin... thanks for a great scenario btw!

[Peregrine]

Another problem is that you can't shoot in the direction of a sound contact. Since LOS in woods is very limited you can not shoot (and suppress) very far into woods because there is no aim point.

So even if you can guess where the bullets came from you can not shoot back because there is no target.

That is not true. While you can only aim 40m - 50m in the heaviest of forest when you do this the bullets travel a lot further. I didn't bother testing the limits but shooting in the direction of the enemy does have effects out to 100m. Once you know roughly where an enemy is in the forest it is important to shoot and keep shooting, whether you can see the enemy them or not.

[poesel]

Hmm, I guess I'll have to have a closer look what happens when you area fire with infantry.

[womble]

If you can only area-fire very close, I get the impression that there's less "grazing" fire that carries beyond the target AS, since there's a slight plunging aspect, as the troops are aiming at the floor. Similarly, if you're shooting up or down a concave hill, there won't be (as) much carry-through. Conversely, if your troops are prone, and you're firing up or down a convex slope, the grazing fire tends to go up in the air. Using this feature bears close inspection to check it's doing what you're hoping it will.

[Peregrine]

Hmm, I guess I'll have to have a closer look what happens when you area fire with infantry.

I didn't test it with elevation but in the editor on a billiard board in heavy forest two squads area firing 50m in the direction of one squad at 90m? (can't quite remember the exact range) gets suppression and casualties in the first turn.