Jump to content

2 new terrian types should be added


Recommended Posts

well, not really types, more like mods of them. i think that thinngs like forests, tall pines, maybe scattered trees, and bocage, should all have damage, like building. they give less protection, and less concelment. also, meh, i forgot the second one. but what you guys think about my lil forest idea? to much to handle for CMAK? what you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by commi18:

well, not really types, more like mods of them. i think that thinngs like forests, tall pines, maybe scattered trees, and bocage, should all have damage, like building. they give less protection, and less concelment. also, meh, i forgot the second one. but what you guys think about my lil forest idea? to much to handle for CMAK? what you think

Hmmm, I think this could be a more complex issue than it immediately appears. Why would damaged woods provide less cover? Downed trees are dandy for hiding behind. And while it might provide less cover for troops on the move, it would also tend to hinder their movement I should think. On the other hand, damaged scattered trees might not make that much difference either way to either concealment or movement, if I have them pictured in my mind correctly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Actually, in English corn = wheat/ barley/ rye.

So we do have cornfields in CMBB, just no maize fields...

So isn't that the same as a grain field, only slightly more greenish ?

If you say I want potato fields, then I say yes, those are missing in CMBB!

icon_bbs.gif Eichenbaum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there more or less cover in this forest?

forest.jpg

Picture taken by my grandfather, probably in the Wolchow sector, Army Group North.

To be honest I do not know the answer to it, but I agree that in the new engine I would love to see terrain damage beyond craters. I.e. if a 15cm or a 300mm rocket barrage comes down in the forest, trees should be affected visually. This would add to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

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

Actually, in English corn = wheat/ barley/ rye.

So we do have cornfields in CMBB, just no maize fields...

So isn't that the same as a grain field, only slightly more greenish ? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

Is there more or less cover in this forest?

If you are standing up, less. If you are in a dug out, trench or simply lying prone on the ground, more.

In addition to less debris flying around adding to the damage of bursting arty shells (far less tree bursts overhead) any fallen tree truncks provide cover from flying bullets and fragments in addition to providing cover and concealment from spotting. Even if you are firing your weapon.

The tangled mass is also a very formidable obstacle for attacking forces.

[ July 17, 2003, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas.

Spot on. English English corn = generic term for crops such as wheat/ barley/ rye. Americans use corn to mean maize.

If any Americans out there, what do your bibles use for the stories about sowing/ reaping/ gleaning corn? Is it changed to a specific crop tyoe, or do y'all assume that maize was a popular crop in the Middle East pre Columbus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think not - AFAIK the massive expansion of rape seed is a fairly recent event in agriculture.

Here is a paper dealing with the history of rapeseed that seems to support this conclusion. Look at the graph at the very end.

My suspicion would be that in the Soviet Union most oil was from sunflowers, so rape-seed would not need to be grown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the middle of a fully matured corn/sunflower field I'd give you <1m LOS. One thing though is that modern wheat/rye is a lot shorter than even varieties from 20-30 years ago. Selective breeding has done a lot for this. Shorter crops are less likely to be damaged in a storm, and obviously waste less input on straw.

Edit - it would still be shorter though, I am sure. Anyone knows the height of 1940s wheat/rye?

Andreas 'Home on the Ranch'

[ July 17, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

One thing though is that modern wheat/rye is a lot shorter than even varieties from 20-30 years ago. Selective breeding has done a lot for this. Shorter crops are less likely to be damaged in a storm, and obviously waste less input on straw.

At school we were taught the shorter straw/larger grain is due to better irrigation/more rain. During dry summers the crop tends to grow the straw rather than the grain.

Something to do with the fact the grain is only a by-product as far as the plant is concerned. During dry season fewer/smaller grains ensure the plant itself survives on the available water/nutriates and at the same times produces as few "offspring" as is necessary for the survival of the species.

I'm not sure about the selective breeding but AFAIK they grow the same varieties nowadays they grew 50 years ago. AFAIK the recent introduction of genetic manipulation has been the main source of new varities.

Edit - it would still be shorter though, I am sure. Anyone knows the height of 1940s wheat/rye?

I think they have always been about waist high. At least pictorial evidence would suggest that.

Then again people were shorter back then so that is not conclusive. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Don't know about cover, but LOS is sure better than before!!!

Depends. For the defender that is a clear bonus. For the attacker...... to be able to see INTO that kind of scenery properly you need to stand up (and even that will not necessarily give you a better view). As you know standing up in in the open in the combat zone can be hazardous to your health. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Don't know about cover, but LOS is sure better than before!!!

Depends. For the defender that is a clear bonus. For the attacker...... to be able to see INTO that kind of scenery properly you need to stand up (and even that will not necessarily give you a better view). As you know standing up in in the open in the combat zone can be hazardous to your health. smile.gif

Goes both way - A HMG, inf gun or tank on a small elevation got much better LOS into that forest and can shoot at defenders in there - which it could not do if the forest would still be there.

And all that cover gives you the possibility to sneak in there without being seen by the defender - albeit you are better ready for some handgrenades as if you sneak in there sooner or later you will be heard by the defenders...

At the end:

if I go into a real forest with infantry, I cannot call in direct fire support.

if I go in that blown up forest, I can call in direct fire support - if there is still someone alive in there, that is. Looks devestating.

For the defender best would be if he hides in a kind of mess as seen on these pictures but in a intact forest. Attacker should be ambushed in a realivly open aera - small path or clearing - with realtive little cover. And no direct fire support possible due to the forest blocking LOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...