Accuracy and Exposure in Woods

[Wolfe]

A few simple questions.

Q1) Why are guns that sit far back in a wooded area so inaccurate? When you're targeting a tank from the woods either you can see the tank and lay the gun on it or you can't because there's something (e.g. a tree) in the way. But in CM putting a gun deep into the woods imparts a particularly harsh accuracy penalty. Here's a pic:

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/ATgun_accuracy.jpg

The gun on the left sits *just* on the edge of the woods and is given a 49% chance of hitting its target on the first shot. The middle gun sitting far back in the woods has a 17% chance and the gun on the right sitting outside the woods is given a 52% chance of a hit. I don't understand why there is such a large difference between the two guns sitting in the woods. What is this supposed to represent for the gun deep in the woods? Leaves or low hanging limbs which somehow affect accuracy? :confused: I can understand why a wooded area, with its underbrush, limbs and leaves would greatly affect someone shooting *into* the woods, but I don't see how it would have such a significant impact on accuracy when shooting out of the woods.

Q2) Another question is why does a gun sitting *just* inside the tree line get such a large benefit in terms of how much it is exposed to enemy fire. The gun on the left shows a 17% exposure. The middle gun a 13% exposure. And the gun on the right (not in the woods) a 75% exposure. Yikes!

That's a pretty significant jump just for being a half a meter out of the wood line. Should a gun really get that much benefit just for sitting on the edge of a treeline? None of the guns are sitting in foxholes, either. And if it is correct, why does the middle gun sitting far back in the woods get so little additional benefit (13% vs. 17%) from being much deeper in the woods?

Q3) I thought that terrain features were supposed to be cumulative, but stone walls don't seem to be. Put a wall in front of the left and right guns and the left gun stays at 17% exposure (gets no additional benefit from the wall) while the fully exposed gun goes down to 30% (nice wall ).

Also, when the guns are behind a wall and defending (therefore dug-in in foxholes), both the guns sitting in the woods get some extra benefit from the foxhole (down to 14% and 11%, respectively). While the gun on the right gets no additional benefit from the foxhole and stays at 30% because of the wall.

Without the wall the gun on the right goes down to 45% exposure with a foxhole. The game seems to give the units the best (lowest) of the available exposure choices, but they aren't necessarily cumulative.

Just some things to think about for CMBB.

- Chris

[PiggDogg]

Wolfe,

Thanks for the tests. I was not aware of such a severe accuracy penalty for firing from deep in the woods. Further, the coverage benefit for being deep in the woods as compared to being shallow in the woods does not seem to outweigh the above noted accuracy benefit. :eek:

Moral to the story: set up guns near the edge of the woods if you are sneekily laying in wait. I have learned a lesson.

Cheers, Richard :cool: :cool:

[Redwolf]

If you have the time, please test-fire two differently exposed guns, with enough cases to be statistically relevant.

The display shows only part of the real hit probability and I suspect that the result may not be that far different than the number suggest.

[Andreas]

Well, I don't really think the increased penalty further inside is that surprising. There are just more trees and stuff in the way, and you may only see parts of the target, and if it is a moving target, the chances of it being obscured increase quite a bit. Seems logical to me.

[Herr_B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wolfe:

A few simple questions.

Q1) Why are guns that sit far back in a wooded area so inaccurate? When you're targeting a tank from the woods either you can see the tank and lay the gun on it or you can't because there's something (e.g. a tree) in the way. But in CM putting a gun deep into the woods imparts a particularly harsh accuracy penalty.<hr></blockquote>

Don't know but it's kind of hard to rotate a gun i the middle of the forest.

20 cm to the left, 70 cm to the right on top of that there is a tree in the middle of it (in front of your gun gives you two fileds of fire and this gun is not placed all that far in the woods. Move it back some meters and you will have several fields of fire each will be 10-15 cm wide or so not that that will help you alot since you can't turn your gun as far as you want. Whatever you do there will be a tree in the way.

[Urban Shocker]

The manual says (page#?) darker blue lines imply worse LOS than due lighter blue lines. Compare the lightness of the targeting or LOS lines to see if there is a difference. Deeper in the woods may mean more shrubs, small trees, fallen tree snags, etc between you and your potential target thus lowering your chance of a hit.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]</p>

[Moon]

Chris, I don't really see that much of a problem.

Q1) I can understand why a wooded area, with its underbrush, limbs and leaves would greatly affect someone shooting *into* the woods, but I don't see how it would have such a significant impact on accuracy when shooting out of the woods.

There is way more in woods than just trees that obscure, and not necessarily block the line of sight. A partially obscured target is much more difficult to hit, not the least because it's harder to observe fall of shot. Obviously we can always argue about percentages, but overall I don't see a problem.

Q2) Another question is why does a gun sitting *just* inside the tree line get such a large benefit in terms of how much it is exposed to enemy fire. The gun on the left shows a 17% exposure. The middle gun a 13% exposure. And the gun on the right (not in the woods) a 75% exposure. Yikes!

Why yikes? If you're standing in the open in the middle of a nice grass field or if you're half a meter into a treeline makes a HUGE difference.

>And if it is correct, why does the middle gun sitting far back in the woods get so little additional benefit (13% vs. 17%) from being much deeper in the woods?

Because there is only so much you can minimize exposure, no matter how deep you are. The AT Gun still has LOS to the target, right, so it has to be exposed in a way, and the effect of being 5 meters into the woods or 10 doesn't degrade exposure in a linear fashion.

Q3) I thought that terrain features were supposed to be cumulative, but stone walls don't seem to be. Put a wall in front of the left and right guns and the left gun stays at 17% exposure (gets no additional benefit from the wall) while the fully exposed gun goes down to 30% (nice wall ).

Yes, a wall which obscures a little more than half of the targte. Since walls in CM are supposed to be about 1 meter in height, that makes sense, no?

> Also, when the guns are behind a wall and defending (therefore dug-in in foxholes), both the guns sitting in the woods get some extra benefit from the foxhole (down to 14% and 11%, respectively). While the gun on the right gets no additional benefit from the foxhole and stays at 30% because of the wall.

A foxhole behind a wall doesn't add cover, because you have to be above the wall to see anything. A prone unit in a foxhole behind a wall will be invisible to an enemy on the other side. If that units pops its head up to take a peak, only the wall provides cover.

Martin

[Wolfe]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moon:

There is way more in woods than just trees that obscure, and not necessarily block the line of sight. A partially obscured target is much more difficult to hit, not the least because it's harder to observe fall of shot. Obviously we can always argue about percentages, but overall I don't see a problem.<hr></blockquote>

A good point about fall of shot. And I wouldn't be able to argue about what would be a more "proper" percentage. Though that is what it mostly comes down to. But what I am trying to get at is if a gunner can see a target (even partially) he has a pretty good chance of hitting it. The leaves and undergrowth can certainly hide a target, but then he wouldn't be able to fire at it at all. I see it as more of a binary choice. Either the target is visible or it isn't. He can shoot at it or not. If parts of the forest are able to obscure the target enough to induce that much of an accuracy penalty, he probably wouldn't be able to fire at the target in the first place.

Also, because the gunner is the one sitting in the woods he should have a pretty good idea of his surroundings: whether he can sneak his shell between the pine and oak trees, under the branches, and over the shrubs. If there's a tree in the way or a low hanging branch, he wouldn't be able to fire at all. It wouldn't be so much a question of accuracy, but of basic targeting.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Why yikes? If you're standing in the open in the middle of a nice grass field or if you're half a meter into a treeline makes a HUGE difference.<hr></blockquote>

For concealment I agree, but for cover I don't. Even with -say- a fallen log in front of the gun, it still has to be fairly exposed to be able to fire out. Infantry just inside a treeline can have both good concealment and cover. That I can see, but a gun (particularly one that isn't dug-in) on the edge of a treeline wouldn't have nearly as good cover, IMO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Because there is only so much you can minimize exposure, no matter how deep you are. The AT Gun still has LOS to the target, right, so it has to be exposed in a way, and the effect of being 5 meters into the woods or 10 doesn't degrade exposure in a linear fashion.<hr></blockquote>

That certainly makes sense, but what I'm getting at is what Richard Cuccia summarized better than I did: the rewards of being deeper into woods for better cover and concealment are not only very small, but are all but nullified by a significant loss in accuracy. The only benefit to being deeper is it takes longer to be spotted. Which is certainly a good thing, but all the extra trees, logs, underbrush, limbs, leaves, etc. between the gun and the enemy tank don't add much to your cover over that of a gun on the edge of the treeline. It doesn't seem to get the benefit of being deep in a forest to me. BTW, I'm not arguing that the gun deep in the woods should be unhittable. IMO the gun on the edge should be more vulnerable (exposed).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yes, a wall which obscures a little more than half of the targte. Since walls in CM are supposed to be about 1 meter in height, that makes sense, no?<hr></blockquote>

Ok, that I understand. The unit is essentially "hull down" (though not really) and anything extra below/behind the wall isn't going to help any with cover. No problem.

Thanks, Martin.

- Chris

[Tero]

One noteworthy consideration is how different armies utilized the cover of woods when planning prepared defenses IRL.

IIRC the German army preferred to dig in in front of the woods. IIRC the Red Army army dug in inside the woods. The Finnish army dug in inside the woods, I know that for a fact. What about the Western armies ?

The trick was to clear fire lanes and LOS so that the woods seemed untouched from afar. Undercrowth and lower branches were cut down and removed. But not all of it in a fashion that told the trained eye that there was something lurking in those woods.

This means that the LOS from inside the woods was not that obstructed by tree trunks and foliage as one might think. Also, positions were picked out so that the LOS and firelane would be the best possible with the least amount of work.

[Redwolf]

That raises a general question.

When setting up a gun, what was the general guideline with regards to maximize the own field-of-fire on on hand and protection/concealment on the other hand?

The Germans were known to prefer to fight over long ranges, so they probably chose the first. Any more info on this?