Bocage Bug?

[Conscript Bagger]

Ninotchka, I've also liked to design claustrophobic bocage better than leaving huge gaps or patches of scattered trees, etc. Try placing a tile of woods at the intersection of different lines of bocage, and make that tile one elevation level higher than the surrounding terrain. Between the woods and the bocage will be a tiny bit of open ground where vehicles can fit through (most of the time), with careful placement of waypoints. View 5 (overhead) is very helpful in this. Also, elevating the woods one level blocks LOS from one field to another, but at the same time, it isn't high enough for units in the woods to see over bocage. It also creates a great place for hidden machine guns to set up ambushes.

As for the rhino concerns, I think I recall a comment from BTS long ago that the vagaries of the game's code made it impractical to further specify which vehicles could move through bocage and which couldn't. It seems to be a case of any fully-tracked, Allied, post-June vehicle having that ability, which unfortunately includes carriers and some of the others you mentioned which likely wouldn't have been fitted with the prongs. So... ahistorical, perhaps, but not as bad as if no Allied tanks could move through the hedgerows.

[Ninotchka]

Heres an interesting quote regarding tanks in bocage country. Its another one from the excellent memoir 'Tank!' written by Ken Tout.

'14.10 hours (8 Aug 44)

Harvey:'I cant see a thing but hedge from here. Hold tight!'

Stony Stratford digs its tracks into the high bank and begins to climb into the dense hedge. This is the moment we have all feared in Normandy. Whoever designed the Sherman had never heard of Bocage!. These thick, impenetrable hedges are planted on high banks defended by deep ditches. Moving from one field to another the tank presents to the enemy its underside of thin plate, tempting to whatever iron beast or demon be lurking. So Harvey balances the tank on the ridge of the bank, balances and then allows it to topple gently overuntil the tracks hit the lower ground, still with a nerve-jarring bump, and we are through, in the corner of an extensive vegetable field.'

If un-rhinoed Shermans are able to negotiate the notorious bocage then its a pretty safe bet that German tanks could (and would) do so.

(Interestingly this was written on 8 Aug and through the whole book theres no mention of rhinos or hedgecutters)

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

If un-rhinoed Shermans are able to negotiate the notorious bocage then its a pretty safe bet that German tanks could (and would) do so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've already said that any tank could probably do it but it exposed the very thin underbelly armor. The various hedgerow devices let the vehicle plow through without rearing up like that. That's the only benefit to a vehicle so equipped.

-dale

[Dogface]

wasnt or isnt Ken tout British or Canadian?

IIRC the brits and cans didnt have many or any hedgecutters or rhinos...

BUT... I aint no grog.

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> wasnt or isnt Ken tout British or Canadian?

IIRC the brits and cans didnt have many or any hedgecutters or rhinos...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes British, Northants Yeomanry. Im really interested to know whether Brits + Canadians made extensive use of hedgecutters or rhinos. Books like 'Tank!' seem to indicate that these attachments might not have been in common usage outside of US forces. Which would further undermine CMs blanket assumption that all Allied tracked vehicles had bocage breaching capability from July onwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We've already said that any tank could probably do it but it exposed the very thin underbelly armor. The various hedgerow devices let the vehicle plow through without rearing up like that. That's the only benefit to a vehicle so equipped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not disputing that Dale. Im just trying to understand the designers decision to ban German armour from bocage whilest allowing their allied equivalents access.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

Im not disputing that Dale. Im just trying to understand the designers decision to ban German armour from bocage whilest allowing their allied equivalents access.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh. I think they stated something along the lines of "it's the best of all the bad solutions". Basically, at a very high level, after a certain date you have to give Allied armor some kind of advantage in the bocage and any other solution would have been impractical given the already abstracted play of bocage terrain in the game.

-dale

[Maastrictian]

If you feel that Germans and Allies should have equal mobility in bocage simply create a scenario with woods similar to what Offwhite sugested and set it in June of '44.

--Chris

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ahh. I think they stated something along the lines of "it's the best of all the bad solutions". Basically, at a very high level, after a certain date you have to give Allied armor some kind of advantage in the bocage and any other solution would have been impractical given the already abstracted play of bocage terrain

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cant believe it would be that difficult to

change the vehicle data relating to bocage access. If I remember correctly one of the patches enabled the M3A1 and Humber scout cars to traverse hedges..

Are the current rules really 'the best of all bad solutions'? CM takes such pride in accurately modelling the capabilities of vehicles, weapons and men and this arbitrary bocage apartheid just doesnt seem to fit. Let say (hypothetically) we could establish that only American Stuarts,Shermans and M10s were fitted with bocage tools in any numbers wouldnt it be good to see this reflected ingame rather than the current fallacious fudge?

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you feel that Germans and Allies should have equal mobility in bocage simply create a scenario with woods similar to what Offwhite sugested and set it in June of '44.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not after 'equal mobility' but after a more accurate representation of actual capabilities. If the majority of Shermans from July 44 onwards had a significant advantage in the bocage then surely this can be reflected without giving the same degree of advantage to a universal carrier or an archer?

[Simon Fox]

Well, Ninotchka, no doubt you are right, there are a number of limitations (quite a few more than those few you have alluded to IMO) which make bocage in CM a little unsatisfactory. The facts are that BTS has said there will be no more patches for CMBO since they are hard at work on CM2. So you can argue until you are blue in the face but it won't be "fixed". I would also suggest that if BTS said that they couldn't readily make certain vehicles cross bocage and others not because of massive coding then they are correct. I am sure that they do not actually think carriers can ram their way through bocage.

Personally, if I am playing Brits I don't drive through bocage with them because I think it's cheating. There have been many 'discussions' of bocage in the past on this forum and I am sure if the damn search function was working properly you would find them illuminating. Your quote from Ken Tout has been used before too (hehe). When I get a bit of time (I am at work) I will attempt to dig out some of those old threads for you.

[Kingfish]

This brings up a very interesting question: Why didn't the Germans develop a Rhino-type device? It's not like the terrain of Normandy was new to them.

The Allies landed in June '44 and by July had a solution to the Bocage problem. The Germans were there since June '40 and were still without one 4 years later.

[Schrullenhaft]

Since the Germans were on the defensive, I don't think they really saw a need for "bocage-busting" attachments to their AFVs. The bocage proved a very powerful defensive ally to the German defenders with its ability to slow down and channel an attack.

I believe most of the German armor in the Normandy battles was employed around Caen (against Commonwealth forces), where there was a bit less bocage than the western half of Normandy. Also the panzer forces (other than the 21st Panzer) were deployed away from most of the beaches to act as a powerful reserve force - wherever the landings were to occur (which wasn't necessarily assumed to be Normandy - probably the only area where bocage was common).

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[CBase]

I would think that once an allied tank plows through the bocage, it would be easier for any following tracked vehicles to get through. Perhaps "bocage rubble" should be created after an allied tank passes through the bocage.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

I cant believe it would be that difficult to

change the vehicle data relating to bocage access. If I remember correctly one of the patches enabled the M3A1 and Humber scout cars to traverse hedges..

Are the current rules really 'the best of all bad solutions'? CM takes such pride in accurately modelling the capabilities of vehicles, weapons and men and this arbitrary bocage apartheid just doesnt seem to fit. Let say (hypothetically) we could establish that only American Stuarts,Shermans and M10s were fitted with bocage tools in any numbers wouldnt it be good to see this reflected ingame rather than the current fallacious fudge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I believe what Steve & Charles say about their game. My personal solution is to just never bother with bocage scenarios - I don't play them because I don't think the game handles it well for infantry or vehicles. That doesn't bug me all that much considering the vast majority of things the game does do correctly.

-dale

[Ninotchka]

Simon, No more patches for CMBO? I didnt know that. I guess I should stop by the forum more often If you can find those old threads I would be most interested, especially any BTS responses to similar queries. Yes I guess I could always play my Normandy scenarios as the Brits and never venture into the bocage but as I stated previously its not a level playing field I'm after its the opportunity to use historically-prevalent tactics against an enemy thats not ham-strung by questionable behavioral limiters.

Kingfish. True the Germans were on the defensive, utilising ambushes and dug-in positions but I would suggest that one of the reasons they didnt grow their own rhino horns is perhaps that panzers like there allied equivalents could and did cross bocage without mechanical aids. (All evidence supporting or contrary to this statement most welcome)Of course it was risky if the field beyond was terra incognito but its not hard to imagine that if there was a significant tactical advantage to be gained then the risk would be taken.

Dale. Isnt it a pity that you feel inclined to boycott bocage scenarios and miss out on arguably the most challenging and intense phase of fighting on the Western Front. This is exactly the reason Im whipping this particular(as Simon pointed out)dead horse.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

Dale. Isnt it a pity that you feel inclined to boycott bocage scenarios and miss out on arguably the most challenging and intense phase of fighting on the Western Front. This is exactly the reason Im whipping this particular(as Simon pointed out)dead horse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I don't think of it as 'a pity', just 'reasonable'. I believe that the key to this issue is the size of the terrain tiles, which prevents accurate modelling of bocage, period. Until the terrain tile size changes, there is nothing to address with bocage for me, and BTS has stated that the terrain tile size will not change until the complete engine rewrite of CMII. I am content to wait.

-dale

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Ninotchka]

I dont get it Dale. Why does the tile size prevent accurate modelling of bocage? With the current 2m width of the bocage element and tile selection its possible to create credible field networks.

[Kestrl]

You could create a scenario in June 44 so no one can traverse bocage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

I cant believe it would be that difficult to

change the vehicle data relating to bocage access. If I remember correctly one of the patches enabled the M3A1 and Humber scout cars to traverse hedges..

Are the current rules really 'the best of all bad solutions'? CM takes such pride in accurately modelling the capabilities of vehicles, weapons and men and this arbitrary bocage apartheid just doesnt seem to fit. Let say (hypothetically) we could establish that only American Stuarts,Shermans and M10s were fitted with bocage tools in any numbers wouldnt it be good to see this reflected ingame rather than the current fallacious fudge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

I dont get it Dale. Why does the tile size prevent accurate modelling of bocage? With the current 2m width of the bocage element and tile selection its possible to create credible field networks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dale is refering to the internal respresentation of the terrain. This prevents a scenario designer from putting bocage right up against the road as it was in real life. Personally I think there are enough ways around this (like diaganol (sp?) roads) that it is not the end of the world, though it is annoying.

--Chris

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka:

I dont get it Dale. Why does the tile size prevent accurate modelling of bocage? With the current 2m width of the bocage element and tile selection its possible to create credible field networks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to the descriptions I've read or the actual hedgerows I've seen.

A hedgerow shouldn't really be a 'tile type', but should be pieced together from extant terrain types. You need a field, obviously, then a ditch of about a half-meter or so. Then you need a raised dike or mound anywhere from 1 to 2 meters high (relative to the field), and about a meter or so thick. On top of that dike is either the Woods or Scattered Trees terrain type. Then there is another steep drop of 1 to 3 meters down to a Road or lane of some type, then the whole thing can repeat in reverse order on the other side of the road. Sometimes there is a secondary overgrown ditch in between the dike and the road that is closer to a small tunnel than anything else.

The extant individual feature sets all take care of the effects of bocage for tanks (i.e. how steep is the slope of the dike? Scattered Trees allow passage, Woods do not) and infantry. Then BTS would have to somehow put in the ability of some tanks to be able to go 'through' the dike instead of climbing it like a normal slope - I don't know if that's possible either.

If CMII goes to 5m x 5m tiles then some of the above would still have to be dropped (the little ditches and tunnels) but the overall effect of sharp elevation changes and impassable terrain types on top of the dike (which would be artificially widened with a base thickness of 5m), which is the true issue of bocage for tanks, would still be there.

2m x 2m tiles would be ideal, but I have no idea of the feasibility of such things.

Now, if BTS can create a separate Tile Type that does all the things I mentioned above, and adjust the internal dimensions of it to get the 'true' (true average, anyway) shape and dimensions of bocage, then tile size is no longer really a limitation.

-dale

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[MikeyD]

I'm only comfortable with the game's use of bocage when I'm playing the Allied side. I make a point of NOT driving my ACs and halftracks through bocage, whether the game lets me do it or not. Playing Axis, it does get on my nerves to see an AI-controlled greyhound suddenly shows up where it hadn't ought.

There's another problem with Bocage scenarios. I've noted the scenario designer often is tempted to design a maze. 'First I go left, then right, then double-back, then up this lane and across this open stretch..." I expect to find a wedge of cheese as a reward at the end!

[Dunnee]

"Use of plows was nearly universal by July 1944. FYI, axis armor WAS at a disadvantage in hedgerows."

Ahhh, actually, axis armor had all the advantage in hedgerows. They saw no need to "bust" the bocage because sighting down narrow lanes and roads was much more practical. In Normandy, allied progress was measured in YARDS per day, losses were appalling, and one Pak-38 could hold a single road for days. The germans were much more content to let the allies waste shermans in such costly fighting.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

"Use of plows was nearly universal by July 1944. FYI, axis armor WAS at a disadvantage in hedgerows."

Ahhh, actually, axis armor had all the advantage in hedgerows. They saw no need to "bust" the bocage because sighting down narrow lanes and roads was much more practical. In Normandy, allied progress was measured in YARDS per day, losses were appalling, and one Pak-38 could hold a single road for days. The germans were much more content to let the allies waste shermans in such costly fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. How would you have advanced in such terrain, Dunnee?

-dale

[Dunnee]

I don't know how I would advance, much in the same way I suppose, wasn't really any other options. I was merely replying to the fact that he said Axis armor was at a disadvantage when in fact they held all the advantages until the advent of the "bocage plow".

[Reverendo]

Well, the discussion about tile size is purely academic, since this will not change until CM2, and I must say I have not seen lots of hedgerows around Russia.

Allowing allied tanks to go through hedgerows seems to be the best solution, but I have to agree that not allowing Panzers to do so is not actually fair.

A couple of years ago I was speaking with a veteran tank commander about the hedge-cutters fitted in allied tanks. As he stated, the only purpose of these was to avoid the exposure of the tank's belly. Also, he stated that heavy tanks could actually get track damage by driving over a hedge, while light tanks often 'flipped' upside down when trying to do so. Medium tanks, though, did extensively run over hedges before being equipped with the hedge-cutting device, with no problem at all -apart from the ocassional '88 AP shell that found its way into your ass through the tank's belly plating, that is-

Arguing that this belly-exposure matter is enough of a reason for making hedges impassable to German tanks strikes me as nonsense. Driving up a hill with a Pz IV and staying on top of it, buttoned up, is not wise either. Rushing a Sherman towards a German infantry-defended position and staying as close as 10 meters is not wise either. But if I tell my tanks to do it, they do it.

What I mean to say is that if everything that is considered a tactical flop was totally left out of CMBO, I would not lose a single battle: my trusty TacAI would avoid casualties and I would be able to relax.

As I said before, though, this discussion is just for killing time, since nothing we discuss here is likely to be included in any CM related game anytime soon...