Terrain?

[markshot]

Speaking of terrain as it came up in another thread ...

 

CMBO/CMBB/CMAK told you exactly what terrain the cursor was on or a unit was on.  Additionally, someone had published Excel sheets with the exact impact.  Anything analogous for this Engine?

 

Thanks.

[LukeFF]

Nope

[MikeyD]

Things aren't so simple in CMBN. Your units no longer occupy a single point. Take a 12 man squad, place them along a ridgeline. A couple men will be on rocks, a couple men behind a bush and a couple men in tall grass.

Basically the terrain is what-you-see-is-what-you-get. If the ground looks like sand its probably sand, if it looks like rocks its rocks. If you're REALLY confused about what terrain type you're looking at the spend a couple minutes in the editor to familiarize yourself. Once you know you know. Though if you've been playing since CMBO days I can hardly imagine CMBN terrain could possibly throw you.

[Bulletpoint]

Things aren't so simple in CMBN. Your units no longer occupy a single point. Take a 12 man squad, place them along a ridgeline. A couple men will be on rocks, a couple men behind a bush and a couple men in tall grass.

Not quite true, since a US squad is made of three teams. Each of those teams will always occupy a single terrain square when stationary.

Each type of square has a certain effect, for example, a forest square provides concealment. Squares are then modified with things like 1-3 bushes, trees, walls, or whatever.

Individual soldiers will place themselves in cover/concealment behind those features, but based on my experience, the team is still under the general effect of the terrain square. You can have troops hide quite well in a forest tile, even without any bushes or trees there. So, type of terrain matters a lot, and it's sometimes difficult to know what the graphics really represent.

For example, there's a type of tile called "red dirt" in the editor. It looks like muddy ground broken by cattle, but as far I can tell, it's just a cosmetic change from regular dirt. If there's any in-game effect on troops or vehicles, I've yet to notice it.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[markshot]

Yes, I can see that in earlier games, your unit occupied a point.  Now your unit occupies a heterogeneous area.

 

I more or less knew the following for the previous games.  The terrain tiles for previous games were pretty clear without seeing any "doodads", but for rough.  Now, it would be hard pressed to distinguish:  scattered trees, orchard, wood, tall pines, etc...

 

Edited September 16, 2015 by markshot

[MOS:96B2P]

I more or less knew the following for the previous games.  The terrain tiles for previous games were pretty clear without seeing any "doodads", but for rough.  Now, it would be hard pressed to distinguish:  scattered trees, orchard, wood, tall pines, etc...

 

Mark, interesting chart.  Is this chart for the old CMx1 games or CMx2 games?    

[Baneman]

Mark, interesting chart.  Is this chart for the old CMx1 games or CMx2 games?    

Must be for CMx1 - the new games don't have "light" or "heavy" buildings.

I wouldn't take any of that as gospel anymore in the new games - too much has changed - exposure, spotting etc. is all per man now, you can't cross wire, "cover" will vary according to the calibre shooting at you  ... etc.

[MOS:96B2P]

Must be for CMx1 - the new games don't have "light" or "heavy" buildings.

I wouldn't take any of that as gospel anymore in the new games - too much has changed - exposure, spotting etc. is all per man now, you can't cross wire, "cover" will vary according to the calibre shooting at you  ... etc.

Thanks.  I was about to print that chart out, laminate it and pin it to the wall of my command bunker.    

[ASL Veteran]

Many Old School Wargamers like to play games mathematically.  Back in the day it was always 'what are the odds for a successful attack' and then you roll the dice.  A chart like the one above acts in a similar capacity because it boils the game down to mathematical probabilities so some gamers are more comfortable with that rather than to simply try to play the game tactically.  The problem is that CMx2 doesn't function like that and so you can't really play it mathematically.  Each soldier just fires at a target and so part of the equation is the experience level of the firing troops as well as how some weapons penetrate different types of cover.  The game gives a 'casualty' result when a bullet intersects a pixeltruppen and you can't boil that down into a chart like the one above.  The only way that I can see someone recreating a chart like the one above for CMx2 would be to set up some sort of a test scenario and then just have various units firing at troops who occupy a certain type of cover.  It may be possible to come up with a sort of 'expected casualties per minute of play' for the various terrain types.  With all the different infantry weapons and the different combinations in various squads as well as various distances to the target I suspect that it would be quite the undertaking though since there would be so many variables involved in what was doing the firing.  You would also have to come up with a way for the target unit to refrain from firing back.  As far as creating a simple chart like the one above though - that isn't possible in CMx2.  At least not in the way that is being presented.

Edited September 16, 2015 by ASL Veteran
add one more sentence

[A Canadian Cat]

Many Old School Wargamers like to play games mathematically.  Back in the day it was always 'what are the odds for a successful attack' and then you roll the dice.  A chart like the one above acts in a similar capacity because it boils the game down to mathematical probabilities so some gamers are more comfortable with that rather than to simply try to play the game tactically.  The problem is that CMx2 doesn't function like that and so you can't really play it mathematically. 

Fewer posts sum things up better!  I see it quite often on the forums - even from people who are very comfortable with the game - the old tables and modifiers and die rolling is  is so ingrained in them that the even express the new behaviour in those terms.

 

Things aren't so simple in CMBN. Your units no longer occupy a single point. Take a 12 man squad, place them along a ridgeline. A couple men will be on rocks, a couple men behind a bush and a couple men in tall grass.

Very true. The important part to remember though is that while the basic terrain tile at that location is important what features are actually on the ground between any single solider and where the bullets are coming from are also important. 

Not quite true, since a US squad is made of three teams. Each of those teams will always occupy a single terrain square when stationary.

Each type of square has a certain effect, for example, a forest square provides concealment. Squares are then modified with things like 1-3 bushes, trees, walls, or whatever.

Actually I would argue that ^^^ this is not quite true.

You simply cannot say terrain tile X has Y effect. Sure we can make generalizations but there is no chart, there is no "throw the dice and add modifier from some other table over there".  There is no way to create meaningful look up tables like that.  Sure, we all know that this is a simulation and a computer is crunching the numbers but the *way* those numbers are crunched are fundamentally different from those table lookup games.  When an enemy solider fires at your troops the characteristics of their weapon, their skill and a few other soft factors (morale, motivation near by leadership etc not sure in what combination), they aim and the fire. That's right they aim (some interesting simulation of aiming at least).  The ballistics of that bullet are then tracked using basic Newtonian physics.  The computer figures out what that bullet intersects with (tree, wall, ground, your soldier) and that is what happens.  This is done with the 3D models you see in the game - just like in real life.  Some have speculated that there are modifiers and "saving throws" and it is possible but they would be secondary to the basic change in how the action in the game is calculated now. I believe you should discard those thoughts and focus on the simulation of "reality" that is packaged into such a game.

So, as you can see there is plenty of number crunching going on behind the scenes but it is *not* based on lookup table and dice rolling.  Hey, there is plenty of randomness baked in there but at multiple places in the calculations not in some simple die roll.

All that means that given the above and the fact that any single terrain tile can actually have features from any other terrain type (look carefully there are no hard edges in the maps where the tall grass stops and the forest floor covering starts) combined with the fact that other adornments can be present in the terrain your soldiers are in or any other place along a bullet's path coupled with the fact that the actual location of your soldier really matters: there is no table being used, there is no table that can be created by us.  There is no die roll either.

[Baneman]

...  The only way that I can see someone recreating a chart like the one above for CMx2 would be to set up some sort of a test scenario and then just have various units firing at troops who occupy a certain type of cover.  It may be possible to come up with a sort of 'expected casualties per minute of play' for the various terrain types.  ...

Would never work for me because MY men are much worse shots than my opponents' men ...

[Bulletpoint]

 

You simply cannot say terrain tile X has Y effect. Sure we can make generalizations but there is no chart, there is no "throw the dice and add modifier from some other table over there".  There is no way to create meaningful look up tables like that.  Sure, we all know that this is a simulation and a computer is crunching the numbers but the *way* those numbers are crunched are fundamentally different from those table lookup games.  When an enemy solider fires at your troops the characteristics of their weapon, their skill and a few other soft factors (morale, motivation near by leadership etc not sure in what combination), they aim and the fire. That's right they aim (some interesting simulation of aiming at least).  The ballistics of that bullet are then tracked using basic Newtonian physics.  The computer figures out what that bullet intersects with (tree, wall, ground, your soldier) and that is what happens.  This is done with the 3D models you see in the game - just like in real life.  Some have speculated that there are modifiers and "saving throws" and it is possible but they would be secondary to the basic change in how the action in the game is calculated now. I believe you should discard those thoughts and focus on the simulation of "reality" that is packaged into such a game.

So, as you can see there is plenty of number crunching going on behind the scenes but it is *not* based on lookup table and dice rolling.  Hey, there is plenty of randomness baked in there but at multiple places in the calculations not in some simple die roll.

All that means that given the above and the fact that any single terrain tile can actually have features from any other terrain type (look carefully there are no hard edges in the maps where the tall grass stops and the forest floor covering starts) combined with the fact that other adornments can be present in the terrain your soldiers are in or any other place along a bullet's path coupled with the fact that the actual location of your soldier really matters: there is no table being used, there is no table that can be created by us.  There is no die roll either.

I stand by what I said: I believe each tile type has an effect on cover and concealment. Probably on the "saving throw" each soldier gets when hit, to represent microterrain.

That doesn't mean I don't realise the game also models ballistics and other things. But we could indeed make a list of terrains and their general effects.

Mud/swamp slows down your troops and tires them faster, high risk of bogging vehicles. Forest gives a bonus to concealment, making your troops harder to spot and also protects against mortar fire. Etc.

[ASL Veteran]

Maybe so, but the effect on cover could be as simple as 'if bullet intersects wall then bullet's path is stopped' and 'if bullet doesn't intersect wall then bullet passes over it and if a soldier's head happens to be above that particular section of the wall when the bullet passes over it then a casualty is created'.  So how is someone going to put that into table format?  You can't.  At least not in the format of the chart above.  The game just doesn't function that way.

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe so, but the effect on cover could be as simple as 'if bullet intersects wall then bullet's path is stopped' and 'if bullet doesn't intersect wall then bullet passes over it and if a soldier's head happens to be above that particular section of the wall when the bullet passes over it then a casualty is created'.  So how is someone going to put that into table format?  You can't.  At least not in the format of the chart above.  The game just doesn't function that way.

First you need to spot the guy. Ground type affects that. Then you need to hit him, that's up to modelling of aiming and ballistics. Then you need to "roll the dice" to see if he dies or not. Ground type probably affects that too.

[A Canadian Cat]

I stand by what I said: I believe each tile type has an effect on cover and concealment.

Oh by all means stand away.  It is very true that the terrain effects cover and concealment.  All I am saying is you can not create a table like @markshot is asking for. I suppose you could create a table that was of some value and somewhat representative but it would *not* give you the ability to look at the terrain tiles the enemy are in and come up with a percentage chance your troops will cause casualties.  The game simply does not work that way.  You are much better off forgetting about tables like that and just consider the effects of the terrain you see on the map. 

Maybe so, but the effect on cover could be as simple as 'if bullet intersects wall then bullet's path is stopped' and 'if bullet doesn't intersect wall then bullet passes over it and if a soldier's head happens to be above that particular section of the wall when the bullet passes over it then a casualty is created'.  So how is someone going to put that into table format?  You can't.  At least not in the format of the chart above.  The game just doesn't function that way.

Exactly.

[Bulletpoint]

Oh by all means stand away.  It is very true that the terrain effects cover and concealment.  All I am saying is you can not create a table like @markshot is asking for. I suppose you could create a table that was of some value and somewhat representative but it would *not* give you the ability to look at the terrain tiles the enemy are in and come up with a percentage chance your troops will cause casualties.  The game simply does not work that way.  You are much better off forgetting about tables like that and just consider the effects of the terrain you see on the map. 

Maybe we are speaking past each other? I understood @markshot's post as asking for the effects of the actual terrain tiles by themselves, not as asking for a table letting you predict the the total combined effects of individual troop placement, cover, bushes, shrubs, etc. We fully agree that would be tough to do

[A Canadian Cat]

I expect you are correct, we agree more then we don't.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You could definitely create a table such as the one Markshot posted, and in fact I have been intending to do just that but haven't got around to it yet. For example, heavy rocks terrain increases cover by about 40% over pavement (this is from my memory of a test I did over a year ago so don't take that number as the word of god or anything).  This isn't particularly difficult to test. Maybe I'll start on it tonight. It really needs to be done to double check the values. It would also be interesting to compare to CMx1.

[markshot]

Yes, guys, I don't play by the numbers.  I did not come to this as many of you did from traditional BGs and dice despite being old enough to.

 

I came with the PCs (actually to ground combat much later; 2000).  The chart above is not a means to calculate the odds.  Rather it was a simple tool to help guide me, the player, to which terrain is best.  Rough or scattered wood?  Fox hole in woods or heavy building?

 

I am a systems designer by profession.  But I don't want to see CM's code or any games code.  That is like seeing your spouse and your love as hormones and neurons firing in various lobes on PET scans.  Some things should just be enjoyed for what they are; and not analyzed any further.  So, I simply want to enjoy the latest generation of CM and be able to read the map well; to play well; to play realistically.  The XLS was only a quick reference and CMBO/CMBB/CMAK tiles were far more visually identifiable they these games both:  in appearance, using the LOS tool, and finally the UI always showed you the ground upon which a selected unit sat.

[womble]

Another way of looking at things is to consider that knowing the ground type the troop is on, it being only part of the equation, could very often be misleading. If the target is in the open ground on the far side of a patch of a small patch of light woods (no trees) from the, shooter, it will get the concealment benefit of that patch of trees. So knowing it's in the open will only tell you about a small part of its situation. A patch of scrubby open ground might give better concealment than non-scrubby light woods. The number of trees affects it too. The terrain is visually represented with detailed textures for a reason: so you can get a feel for the cover and concealment it offers without needing a table.

There are some "gross" effects that might be quantifiable with big enough tests, but a lot of the time they'll be of marginal use or even downright misleading.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Exposure

Pavement: 100%

Grass: 95%

Light Forest: 90%

Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60%

 

Note that these values reflect cover from bullets (specifically 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser from a MG42, if you were wondering) and may not necessarily be accurate against explosive ordnance.

I'll test more tomorrow, time permitting.

 

[womble]

Just for the sake of completeness: I'm assuming that sort of test was done on flat ground. How are you handling variations in experience etc? What do you mean by "Exposure"?

 

Edit: Oh, and just to remind those who're new to this sort of thing that cover != concealment (and it's cover you're testing).

Edited September 17, 2015 by womble

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just for the sake of completeness: I'm assuming that sort of test was done on flat ground. How are you handling variations in experience etc? What do you mean by "Exposure"?

Targeted ground is flat, shooters are slightly elevated (3 meters). Range is 250 meters. Everyone is Regular experience. If we assume that pavement offers no cover and call that 100% exposure then everything else is in comparison to that. In other words 60% exposure is the same thing as 40% cover.

EDITED to add: The exposure numbers are simply how many casualties are inflicted on targets in that terrain compared to pavement, so troops in grass take 95% the number of casualties as troops on pavement, all else being equal.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bulletpoint]

Exposure

Pavement: 100%

Grass: 95%

Light Forest: 90%

Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60%

 

Note that these values reflect cover from bullets (specifically 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser from a MG42, if you were wondering) and may not necessarily be accurate against explosive ordnance.

I've done tests that show light forest with sparse trees offer very good cover against 60mm mortars. Roughly 33% exposure in your terminology.

[markshot]

You know here is the reason I love war games.  I am not former military and I hope that I shall get through life without ever having first hand knowledge of war.

 

But I love war games as strategy games.  I love analysis and problem solving.  You could make a game about wizards, but how can anyone say that the game behaves logically and accurately models a closed set of rules?  Not possible.  However, war games (and some other categories) do need to conform to real world behavior.  Thus, they are testable for closed and consistent set of behaviors as implemented by computer code.  So, I love them, because they are the ultimate mental exercise about which you can reason.  As such, exercises to test the behavior of the engine and modeling are not nit picky and gamey, they are one of the best ways there is to validate the quality of the product to model the real world and deliver a rewarding experience.