Bocage Bug?

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff Dale. Looking at it that way then I guess CM does not accurately model bocage. However using similar stringent criteria you could happily disect all of CMs terrain representation.

My point is that BTS have gone to the trouble of creating a separate bocage element which unlike woods or scattered trees can be used to create claustrophopic field networks similar to those found in Normandy. Then for some mysterious reason (which I accept they have probably explained in an old lost thread) they decide to allow all Allied tracked vehicles to negotiate it while denying the same ability to all Axis tracked vehicles.

Early in this thread myself and others have positted that use of bocage-breaching attachments on Allied vehicles was not widespread and that tanks could and did cross bocage without them. We have also ventured alternative solutions to the present 'apartheid' treatment which while better reflecting actual bocage conditions and tactics should be well within the capabilities of the CM engine.

These alternative solutions can be summarised as:

a) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles except Allied AFV types that were historically fitted with bocage-busting attachments. (probably the most workable idea)

Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but include a risk of bogging or immobilisation (Ideally July + US Shermans, Stuarts, M10s ?? would run a reduced risk)

c) Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but any vehicle in passage is effectively blind and does not gain any cover benefit from the bocage.

d) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles and leave gap-making up to mappers.(The advantage the Allies gained from hedgecutters was only a significant factor in Op Cobra and this would at least do away with present massive anti-Axis bias)

What do you think? Any other ideas?

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly Reverendo.

[dalem]

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

Interesting stuff Dale. Looking at it that way then I guess CM does not accurately model bocage. However using similar stringent criteria you could happily disect all of CMs terrain representation.

--snipperoo---

What do you think? Any other ideas?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, factually it is incorrect to claim that the hedgerow cutters were "not widespread". It was only the use of such devices and the successful coordination of true combined arms tactics that allowed the U.S. forces any significant progress whilst in hedgerow country, and various sources all use something around the 50-60% figure. When 50% of your fielded combat vehicle force (for U.S.) is equipped with a special option, then it is "widespread".

I have already agreed that all tanks could cross most bocage, and that all such were at the same disadvantages when doing so: exposed underbelly (thin enough armor that MG bullets could rip through in some cases, no need for an 88 or a panzerfaust there), and risk of suspension/track damage.

The cutter devices allowed passage of sufficiently-horsepowered vehicles through most hedgerows without the two disadvantages above.

So in my opinion, bocage terrain is modeled incorrectly in both dimension and effect, and it affects my personal enjoyment of the game when trying to use that particular feature (much like town combat bugs some folks because of the way buildings are modelled). So as stated I don't use it.

Now each of your alternative solutions involves utilizing the current bocage model with modifications for passage of vehicles. In my opinion none of them can address the modeling issues that I've raised, so I consider them no better than BTS' solution, which I believe to be an adequate global solution to an issue that I'm sure they pounded their heads against the wall about long ago. So I don't have any current alternatives to add to yours because I don't think they are any better than what we have, and I don't think it's possible to improve upon that situation until the engine rewrite.

But after all that typing the true answer to me is that no one should be driving their tanks around in bocage country anyway and have any hope of accomplishing anything constructive, so using true 'historical' tactics will generally allow you to achieve 'historical' results, even within the current hedgerow terrain solution. If you're a German and you can't drive your PzIV through a hedgerow tile and the Allies can, well, great! You're supposed to be on the defensive, so what the hell are you trying to move your tanks around for anyway? And as the Allies, your life in the bocage should suck until you start getting the cutters - you are attacking in an ideal defensive terrain type that no one has trained you for and for which your forces are not equipped.

I'd be interested, if anyone from BTS is reading, to know (or be directed to an extant thread containing) their take on this issue.

-dale

[Ninotchka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, factually it is incorrect to claim that the hedgerow cutters were "not widespread" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slightly disingenous counter-claim Dale. What I said was: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Early in this thread myself and others have positted that use of bocage-breaching attachments on Allied vehicles was not widespread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have established that for Op Cobra (very late July)roughly 60% of US 'tanks' were fitted with cutters. No-one has yet produced any evidence that British/Canadian/Polish/French armour was similarly equipped (photographic and written records seems to indicate negligble usage by non-US forces..Anyone got any concrete data?) CM assumes that all allied tracked vehicles had bocage-breaching capability from July onwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was only the use of such devices and the successful coordination of true combined arms tactics that allowed the U.S. forces any significant progress whilst in hedgerow country, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems that cutters were not a significant factor in the bocage until Op Cobra and success in this operation probably had as much to do with the diversionary effect of Op Goodwood.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> . If you're a German and you can't drive your PzIV through a hedgerow tile and the Allies can, well, great! You're supposed to be on the defensive, so what the hell are you trying to move your tanks around for anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure I can respond to that without recourse to expletives

Interesting debate Dale but looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps its time I spared the riding-crop and left this ex-equine to moulder in peace.

Ninotchka

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]

[dalem]

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

Interesting debate Dale but looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps its time I spared the riding-crop and left this ex-equine to moulder in peace.

Ninotchka

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Ninotchka ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ninotchka-

I apologize if I misquoted you or missed the point - that was not my intention. Likewise I'm not trying to debate you. I think we both agree on the problem, just not on the solution. Your methods (looking for alternatives) are no worse than mine (capitulation). And I think it's safe to say I'm as interested in the subject as you .

Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" has good passages on the significance of the cutters for small-unit actions - if you can grab a copy I'd recommend it, it might have more details on other Allied usage than I remember at the moment.

-dale

[Simon Fox]

I basically agree there are a number of problems with the way bocage is modelled. Even so it is possible to get some of the 'feel' for the difficulties of bocage fighting if you have judiciously designed maps. I am not quite sure what you are on about with regard to rhinos, as pointed out by someone else if you set your scenario in June then the playing field is even. Some clarifications:

Real life bocage:

-defined by dalem above

-variable in both height of bank and density of vegetation

-bocage with lower banks and density of vegetation can be crossed by tanks but with some risk of damage or immobilisation

-bocage with higher density vegetation (basically small trees etc) cannot be crossed by tanks

CM has two types of hedge terrain: hedge and bocage.

-the bocage terrain in CM represents the worst form of real life hedgerow which is impenetrable to tanks (those without some method of cutting through the earthen bank)

-In order to simulate bocage hedgerows of lesser density you need to use other terrain types ie hedge etc

-CM bocage (along with other natural terrain types) is not dynamic and therefore cannot be damaged as an aside has anyone seen bocage burn in CM?.

Why German tanks cannot cross bocage?

-the CM bocage is the most impenetrable type use other terrain to simulate lesser bocage

-the Germans could not afford to waste tanks with mobility kills and therefore would be less likely to try it

-German tanks mounted high velocity guns which were long, in order to cross the bocage bank they would probably have to reverse their turret to avoid a very embarrassing impalement of the ground this would not apply to the shorter barrel on standard Shermans. Irrespective of the exposure of the belly (which is of course not modelled in CM) having to rotate the turret through 180 before you could engage the enemy would make you a sitting duck.

Availability of "rhinos":

-making them available in July 44 is a bit of a fudge by BTS, personally I think starting them in August would be better but really as long as you set you're scenarios in June it doesn't matter even if historically it is set in July.

-the Brits did use tanks fitted with hedgerow cutters including some Churchills and Cromwells but generally they didn't need them since they were basically out of the hedgerows by then. They were used a bit in Operation Bluecoat I beleive.

-the scarcity of pictures is easily explained since under normal combat conditions the hedgerow cutter would actually act as an impediment to a tank?s cross country mobility by lowering the angle of approach a tank could have to a hill or obstacle. Therefore this device would have been removed as soon as it was no longer necessary. Also in real life you only need a few such tanks to pave the way for the rest but in CM they all need it.

Hope this helps.

For some further enlightening discussions of this subject

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002878.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001786.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These alternative solutions can be summarised as:

a) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles except Allied AFV types that were historically fitted with bocage-busting attachments. (probably the most workable idea)

Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but include a risk of bogging or immobilisation (Ideally July + US Shermans, Stuarts, M10s ?? would run a reduced risk)

c) Allow access to bocage for all tracked vehicles but any vehicle in passage is effectively blind and does not gain any cover benefit from the bocage.

d) Bar access to bocage for all vehicles and leave gap-making up to mappers.(The advantage the Allies gained from hedgecutters was only a significant factor in Op Cobra and this would at least do away with present massive anti-Axis bias)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In response to these latest points of Ninotchka:

A)As already stated by BTS this is not possible with the current game engine otherwise I am sure they would have done it (at least I hope so ).

B)Not realistic, the CM bocage simulates the worst kind, ignores vehicle specific differences as already stated for A)

C)There is no cover benefit to being in bocage. No better than current system IMO.

D)Removes real life massive allied mobility advantage provided by rhinos. No different to the current model pre-July so if you want this then play in June (which is what I do).

[Ninotchka]

Very interesting reading Simon. Thanks for digging-out those old threads. Cant say the BTS explanation inspires much confidence.

So it all seems to come down to definitions of the word bocage. CMs bocage is by implication impassable without breaching attachments. For the other passable 'low-density' kind that British tankers like Ken Tout were crossing we have to use hedges which crucially have none of the LOS-blocking character of bocage. Oh well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In response to these latest points of Ninotchka:

A)As already stated by BTS this is not possible with the current game engine otherwise I am sure they would have done it (at least I hope so ).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Call Ninotchka an old cynic but I just can't believe that it would be that difficult for CM to differentiate between vehicles when it comes to bocage. Its able to do something similar with hedgerow so why not with bocage?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> C)There is no cover benefit to being in bocage. No better than current system IMO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what I was getting at with C is some abstract way of simulating tanks climbing and descending bocage and exposing themselves in the process. Currently allied tanks just 'pop-out' on the other side (which is probably fine if you are assuming the vehicle is breaching the bocage)

Without evidence its extremely difficult to ascertain how much bocage-hurdling was done by panzers but I accept your point that those with long barrels would have had problems. (which makes me wonder if long-barrelled Allied tanks like the Firefly were ever fitted with 'rhinos')