Ground scale and terrain abstraction

[dalem]

I want to throw this out for people to chew on if interested:

I think there is a problem with CM terrain concepts and I think it is a major factor in how some of us may not be as fond of the current engine mechanics as regards movement.

We all know CM abstracts terrain features - it has to, all wargames have to, and that is right and just. So we are told that "an Open Ground tile should not be thought of as a billiard table". We are told that within each tile type, including Open Ground, there are rocks, boulders, dips, hillocks, streams, single trees, etc. all there, all factored in.

But my guys sure don't seem to be aware of that when the bullets start flying. I can't get an ATR team to stick in Open Ground when they're taking fire (hell, I can't get them to stick behind a Stone Wall). Those two guys don't seem to "see" any rocks, dips, or hillocks. The only thing they "see" is that Scattered Trees tile 40m behind them, and off they crawl, taking fire all the way.

Now I don't know what the datafiles are like - I don't know what kind of modifier is applied or not applied when units in Open Ground tiles come under fire, but my feeling (and yes, it's just a feeling) is that, with 20m wide terrain tiles, that modifier should be higher.

-dale

[Moon]

IMO this would apply to individual soldiers, but a formation like a squad (say, 10 guys) will have trouble finding cover behind that odd rock, streetsign or telegraph pole. Open ground does reduce exposure in CM, but - on a squad level - it really only has an impact over longer distances.

Martin

[photon]

It the cover modifier related to the unit size? In open ground there may not be enough cover for a 12 man squad, but a sharpshooter or a ATR team may find a hunkey dory log to hide behind.

I'd like to see something like:

C0 = base cover value

C(f) = actual cover value

C(f) = C0 * sqrt(12 / unit_size)

That would allow small units to find good cover in relatively open ground while still keeping good cover the best.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

IMO this would apply to individual soldiers, but a formation like a squad (say, 10 guys) will have trouble finding cover behind that odd rock, streetsign or telegraph pole. Open ground does reduce exposure in CM, but - on a squad level - it really only has an impact over longer distances.

Martin

Why?

I know exactly what you're saying Martin, but in a 400sqm piece of "non-billiard table" ground, I can fit 10 guys pointing rifles and lmgs, on average. Maybe they can only fit as "pinned", although the ATR team, and LMG team, etc, should be more okay in my opinion, but I think I can fit them, if all that "stuff" is really there.

Someone recently asked me to sum up why I dislike CM:BB so much and I have boiled it down to this: "pretend that BFC had 10 'things' to fix in BO to truly take it to the next level. They could realistically only fix 5 of those 10 things, and to me, the 5 they fixed really point out the limitations of the 5 they had to leave as is."

Terrain scale and abstraction is one of the latter 5 'things' to me. It doesn't work well now that infantry is weaker. For instance, now we have the "advance" move command, which is theoretically great, but it's incredibly exhausting for even short distances, so you have to allow pauses. But pause in open ground and your guys are doomed because it's really a billiard table. If I screw the pauses my guys reach their objective, if they ever do, tired or exhausted. Not great choices.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

If I may wade into this discussion, I feel that the problem does not lie with the terrain abstraction but rather with the force balance. In real life, in order to advance sucessfully over that open terrain, you had to have quite a lot of suppressive fire laid down on the defenders. This is why the classic force ratio for a successful assault has been cited as 3:1. Fire and movement. If you go with a standard force balance in a QB, the attacker is likely not going to have enough force to both lay down really effective suppressive fire and have enough left over to be able to move into position to close assault.

Also, in a standard QB the attacker cannot usually buy artillery on the scale that was used in real life for an important breakthrough.

What you actually get is a scale of forces that would have been used for a "demonstration" or feint attack, something to confuse the enemy as to what your real intentions are and to draw reinforcements away from the true axis of attack or at least make the defender hesitate in committing them. The attack is strong enough to be convincing, but is not expected to achieve a breakthrough.

Michael

[Abbott]

For instance, now we have the "advance" move command, which is theoretically great, but it's incredibly exhausting for even short distances, so you have to allow pauses. But pause in open ground and your guys are doomed because it's really a billiard table. If I screw the pauses my guys reach their objective, if they ever do, tired or exhausted. Not great choices

Dale

I also find the “sneaking” to distance terrain a bit annoying at times but I have learned to live with it quite easily. Sometimes one has to just give up on a particular unit. There is no solution to the problem the troops may find themselves in. I have used the “hide” command with limited success in some instances.

I have not had any trouble at all with CMBB’s infantry model since about my 3rd. game. I do run into troops being in “Tired” state after they reach a point I have set for them. I then hide them for a turn or two or fight them “as is” if the situation calls for it. I generally only use the “move” command and the “Advance” command. Now and then I use “move to contact” and in rare instances “assault”.

CMBB forces one to be very careful about moving troops in open terrain. Many times I have carefully moved my infantry forward in a planned attack (or advance) only to find I have to re-direct my attack elsewhere as my opponent has covered my planned lane of advance by fire. Thus forcing me to back my troops up to find an alternate route, or bring smoke or heavy covering fire assets to bear. Sometimes I also encounter situations where an infantry platoon has no choice but to wait it out in a position they have reached due to my opponent’s tactics. Thus removing them from the combat for many turns and on rare occasions the entire battle.

When moving in the open one is forced to be very careful choosing lanes for movement, covered routes from fire are essential. Short halts of one to three turns may be needed before continuing a forward move, resting troops up for a dash using “Advance” across open areas. I never put my troops in a position where their “pauses” have to be taken in open terrain unless it is as safe as possible. Sometime a map actually may even force one to not even deploy infantry, hiding them for most of the battle. An uncomfortable position to be in but it feels correct in some instances.

Even when moving troops in what seems like “rear areas” can cause problems from long-range fire that was not anticipated. This can be frustrating when it happens, forcing one to begin a combat style advance much sooner then anticipated. Designing scenarios has taught me to add extra turns to battles to facilitate employing infantry.

I know the above is a bit “off topic” but I remember your comments on the subject when CMBB was released. I was pleased you chose to stick it out and I hope you may find a glimmer of help from the above.

Regards,

Abbott

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

If I may wade into this discussion, I feel that the problem does not lie with the terrain abstraction but rather with the force balance.

Indeed. One of my "ten things" that was left "broken" is Area Fire. Without a more realistic Area Fire model it is almost impossible for a covering force to actually lay down effective suppressive fire.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I know the above is a bit “off topic” but I remember your comments on the subject when CMBB was released. I was pleased you chose to stick it out and I hope you may find a glimmer of help from the above.

Regards,

Abbott

Abbott-

I value your comments and I am aware of all the things you point out, but I still find the current modeling unusable in most situations. Quite simply, for instance, not every company advance required a smoke mission, and that's ignoring the unrealistic amounts of smoke we all have access to in the game.

Also I tend to play smaller games that cannot easily afford me "giving up" on a unit.

-dale

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I generally only use the “move” command and the “Advance” command. Now and then I use “move to contact” and in rare instances “assault”.

Regards,

Abbott

I find this very interesting. I very rarely use the "move" command, using "move to contact" almost exclusively.

It has been my experience that infantry that is under a "move" command when taking fire, breaks and retreats more readily. In "move to contact", they take the fire, but most time remain prone in the hex(?) that was fired upon.

I would like to see a "hunt" command for infantry, that would allow them to move forward at a walk, then drop prone and return fire if they come under fire.

This would be a huge help when playing QB's due to the complete lack of intelligence in regards the enemy's dispositions.

Any other insights on the "move" vs "move to contact" usage?

[Abbott]

Any other insights on the "move" vs "move to contact" usage?

Jim ,

I find the “move to contact” order a bit frustrating at times. I am able to cover more distance much quicker using the “move” command. When under incoming fire “move to contact” forces the troops to stop and return fire. Thus often leaving them in undesirable positions until corrections can be made. I have good luck with “move” as the troops can draw a bit of fire and continue moving upon the path I have chosen. Of course using “advance” as often as possible when moving in poor terrain.

I use “move to contact” in situations where I know incoming fire is likely and cannot use “advance”. Or when squads are moving through covered terrain where enemy contact is likely or assured and “advance” is not called for at the moment. When I am using infantry squads or split squads as a reconnaissance element in open terrain I will also use “move to contact”.

You do bring up a very interesting point. I look forward to further discussion on the matter towards improving my play.

Excellent topic Dale and Jim .

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Any other insights on the "move" vs "move to contact" usage?

Jim ,

I find the “move to contact” order a bit frustrating at times. I am able to cover more distance much quicker using the “move” command. When under incoming fire “move to contact” forces the troops to stop and return fire. Thus often leaving them in undesirable positions until corrections can be made. I have good luck with “move” as the troops can draw a bit of fire and continue moving upon the path I have chosen. Of course using “advance” as often as possible when moving in poor terrain.

I use “move to contact” in situations where I know incoming fire is likely and cannot use “advance”. Or when squads are moving through covered terrain where enemy contact is likely or assured and “advance” is not called for at the moment. When I am using infantry squads or split squads as a reconnaissance element in open terrain I will also use “move to contact”.

You do bring up a very interesting point. I look forward to further discussion on the matter towards improving my play.

Excellent topic Dale and Jim .

</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Any other insights on the "move" vs "move to contact" usage?

Jim ,

I find the “move to contact” order a bit frustrating at times. I am able to cover more distance much quicker using the “move” command. When under incoming fire “move to contact” forces the troops to stop and return fire. Thus often leaving them in undesirable positions until corrections can be made. I have good luck with “move” as the troops can draw a bit of fire and continue moving upon the path I have chosen. Of course using “advance” as often as possible when moving in poor terrain.

I use “move to contact” in situations where I know incoming fire is likely and cannot use “advance”. Or when squads are moving through covered terrain where enemy contact is likely or assured and “advance” is not called for at the moment. When I am using infantry squads or split squads as a reconnaissance element in open terrain I will also use “move to contact”.

You do bring up a very interesting point. I look forward to further discussion on the matter towards improving my play.

Excellent topic Dale and Jim . </font>

[JonS]

IIRC, MTC with a CA may do what you guys are asking for - it is more robust than MOVE, but the CA prevents them from going to ground if they spot some dude 600m away.

[Michael Emrys]

Are you certain about that, Jon? I haven't tested this out myself, but I had assumed that they stopped as soon as they saw an enemy unit, whether it was in their CA or not.

Michael

[tar]

IIRC one of the patches modified the behavior of Move to Contact to take the covered arc into account. This was in response to customer requests! Yay, BFC!.

[flamingknives]

Just to confirm that MTC with a CA means that a unit will only halt if they spot enemy within that CA or are fired upon.

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, cool. I didn't know that. Thanks all.

:cool:

Michael