2 new terrian types should be added

[SFJaykey]

In my American bibles, the words "grain" and "barley" are often used in the places I think Wisbech_lad is referring to.

Judging from American photos of the 1930s, grain crops like wheat and barley stood no more than 1.2m tall, often lower. Corn (maize) often reached 2m. Also, corn is (and was) planted in more widely separated rows, allowing movement between the stalks. I think it would provide much better concealment than grain for both moving and unmoving troops.

In terms of game effects, the brush tile probably makes a better stand-in for corn (maize) fields than does the wheat tile, and maybe for the sunflowers as well. There's an idea: use the sunflower mod to replace the brush tile instead of the wheat, and you can have a farm map with multiple crops...

[Jack Carr]

It really would have been great to have unique terrain types for each of the types being discussed in this thread. I have downloaded and used the sunflower mod but the bmp's for the mod replace existing bmp's for a specific terrain type which is also a valid type. Switching these back and forth becomes tedious.

[SgtMuhammed]

I wouldn't mind a dirt tile to add a little more spice to the map.

[Chad Harrison]

To answer the original question, I would say that woods offer MORE cover from artillery the more devastated they become. Why? No more tree bursts. Andreas' picture shows this quite nicely. But that is a small point when Id rather have full game movie abilities

Chad

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

It really would have been great to have unique terrain types for each of the types being discussed in this thread....

Agreed. And I am still hoping for my little vegetable garden tile, too.

One of the things I am most looking forward to with CMX2 is more terrain types, along with smaller tile size to allow more realistic maps, especially towns.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Hey Andreas, did Germans grow those yellow oil flowers then like they do now? If they did then we need a tile for fields of bright yellow grain.

If the Germans only knew that you can make fuel out of it. Let those tanks run on environment friendly gaz !

[Joachim]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I wouldn't mind a dirt tile to add a little more spice to the map.

Only if we get a different bmp for dirty soldiers afterwards!

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

And all that cover gives you the possibility to sneak in there without being seen by the defender...

Nix. The additional cover only applies if you are close to the ground. For standing or even crouching men it would provide little or no advantage.

Further, trying to sneak undetected through a destroyed forest would be nigh on to impossible even if you weren't more visible. Whatever the tanglefoot was like before, it will be many times worse now. In addition to impeding rapid movement, it's noisier than hell. Even if somehow you manage to completely avoid loud crunching from stepping on debris (not at all an easy thing to do in itself), there are all the scraping and swishing noises you make as you unavoidably drag your legs through branches, etc. Unless there is some really loud background noise to drown that out, it can be heard up to 100 meters away or more.

Michael

[Polish Bruce Lee]

yea, i agree with the noise factor so sneaking would be nearly impossible. i think that the LOS should be able to see through it, but make the things on the other side harder to see (like dark blue instead of bright blue) i think concelment (spelling?) should be alot higher, maybe just for hiding toops or troops just taking cover. cover would be poor because a 76mm or and 88mm shooting into a bunch of twigs would be deadly. but the stumbs of the trees could provide cover from small arms fire...so i dont know

just to make sure

Cover = protection and

Concelment = better hiding place right?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by commi18:

yea, i agree with the noise factor so sneaking would be nearly impossible. i think that the LOS should be able to see through it, but make the things on the other side harder to see (like dark blue instead of bright blue) i think concelment (spelling?) should be alot higher, maybe just for hiding toops or troops just taking cover. cover would be poor because a 76mm or and 88mm shooting into a bunch of twigs would be deadly. but the stumbs of the trees could provide cover from small arms fire...so i dont know

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

just to make sure

Cover = protection and

Concelment = better hiding place right?

Right. Sometimes we slip up and use 'cover' to mean concealment, but strictly speaking that is incorrect.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

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

It is a bit more complicated than that. The question is if they can see the defenders positions so they can shoot at them.

And being on a small elevation some distance away from said patch of forests puts them on a pedestal in the open for any and all weapon in range to take pot shots at. Which would put them in a position which is not unlike standing up.

- which it could not do if the forest would still be there.

That depends on the amount of undergrowth.

And all that cover gives you the possibility to sneak in there without being seen by the defender

Which do you see better, a moving object or a stationary object ? In a tangeled mass like than you can sneak over a position and get shot from behind.

- albeit you are better ready for some handgrenades as if you sneak in there sooner or later you will be heard by the defenders...

You are forgetting the felled trunks and branches muffle the effects of hand grenades. They can even deflect them back at you.

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

If you go into a real forest you will not be able to hump heavy direct fire support at all so you will end up relying on indirect fire support, mainly mortars. Or your SAW's and other automatics your troops carry.

if I go in that blown up forest, I can call in direct fire support

The thing is your direct fire support may end up blowing and shooting YOUR people up by mistake.

- if there is still someone alive in there, that is. Looks devestating.

That kind of devastation takes several days, even weeks to adcheive.

For the defender best would be if he hides in a kind of mess as seen on these pictures but in a intact forest.

It is not as simple as that. For example in an intact forest the trees block you LOS so the attacker can get much closer without being zapped after having crawled to get to the jump off point. And (depending on the undergrowth) the attacker does not have to fight the obstacles of felled trunks and branhces in addition to dodging bullets and firing their weapons.

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.

That assumes the attacker prefers to break cover and go into the open when they are in a forest.

The best alternative for the defender is close combat so the (relative) open LOS and the effects of heavy fire support is negated.

BTW, the reverse slope doctrine works in this kind of terrain too.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/cwdata/4408KannasIhantalanTienMets%E4%E4.html

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Talvisota/Rintama/cwdata/400301TaipaleMaaliskuussa.html

[ July 18, 2003, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by tools4fools:

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

It is a bit more complicated than that. The question is if they can see the defenders positions so they can shoot at them.

And being on a small elevation some distance away from said patch of forests puts them on a pedestal in the open for any and all weapon in range to take pot shots at. Which would put them in a position which is not unlike standing up.

>>>>> just being on an elevation away from said hill doesn't mean automatically that they are in the open. They could be hidden in a farmhouse, patch of woods, etc, or it could be a hull down tank (all regading CM).

LOS goes both ways of course and you can be shot at by anything that is hidden in there.

Point was it would be possible to bring direct fire support in which would not be possible in an undamged forest.

- which it could not do if the forest would still be there.

That depends on the amount of undergrowth.

>>>>>> Regarding CM you can shoot a bit into all forests, most into tall pines (because of less undergrowth I think). In a shot up forest like the one on the pics your LOS into the (former) forest is way longer in any case.

And all that cover gives you the possibility to sneak in there without being seen by the defender

Which do you see better, a moving object or a stationary object ? In a tangeled mass like than you can sneak over a position and get shot from behind.

>>>>>Moving object of course;

Making noise and being detected is sure a problem crawling in there.

Maybe an undamaged forest would be better for advancing infantry? Easier and less noisier to advance, still some cover around if needed.

- albeit you are better ready for some handgrenades as if you sneak in there sooner or later you will be heard by the defenders...

You are forgetting the felled trunks and branches muffle the effects of hand grenades. They can even deflect them back at you.

>>>>I didn't think of the reduced effect of handgrenades in such terrain. But I think I would throw'em anyway if I hear someone sneaking (crawling) around in 20-30m distance. I think he would have to worry more about where the muffled blast will be deflected to

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

If you go into a real forest you will not be able to hump heavy direct fire support at all so you will end up relying on indirect fire support, mainly mortars. Or your SAW's and other automatics your troops carry.

>>>> seems we agree here.

if I go in that blown up forest, I can call in direct fire support

The thing is your direct fire support may end up blowing and shooting YOUR people up by mistake.

>>>>that can happen in any terrain, no?

If I got blue LOS to enemy troops, well I target them and shoot at them. No?

- if there is still someone alive in there, that is. Looks devestating.

That kind of devastation takes several days, even weeks to adcheive.

Wonder how long it takes, how many guns and rounds since it is not exactly a small aera. An amazing picture of destruction.

Wonder how effective such bombardments were. Effects on morale, percentage of casualties.

For the defender best would be if he hides in a kind of mess as seen on these pictures but in a intact forest.

It is not as simple as that. For example in an intact forest the trees block you LOS so the attacker can get much closer without being zapped after having crawled to get to the jump off point. And (depending on the undergrowth) the attacker does not have to fight the obstacles of felled trunks and branhces in addition to dodging bullets and firing their weapons.

>>>> Where would you hide your troops then in a not damaged forest?

And didn't I say that (ideally) the hiding defenders are in the thick undergrowth, while the attackers should be ambushed in a relative open part of an undamaged forest (if possible)?

See next point...

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.

That assumes the attacker prefers to break cover and go into the open when they are in a forest.

>>>>>Doesn't that contradict your comment above where you say an attacker in a undamaged forest does not need to fight felled trunks and branches? I guess you would try to to put your ambush point in such a place that the attacker has to cross it. A small stream or somefink like that can create such a point. I would think that troops which do not expect enemy troops around would use paths and lighter undergrowth to advance.

The best alternative for the defender is close combat so the (relative) open LOS and the effects of heavy fire support is negated.

>>>>Agree, I would put my troops on hide and ambush at very close range.

BTW, the reverse slope doctrine works in this kind of terrain too.

>>>>>Sure. If mother nature was nice enough to give you the needed hill

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/cwdata/4408KannasIhantalanTienMets%E4%E4.html

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Talvisota/Rintama/cwdata/400301TaipaleMaaliskuussa.html

Couldn't see your pics.

Regards

Marcus

****

[tools4fools]

ups, double post

[ July 18, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: tools4fools ]

[eichenbaum]

Tanks pushing or pulling trees to the ground could be an idea. Or bulldozers (like the famous caterpillar) assigned to this task.

Eichenbaum

[SFJaykey]

I agree with those who don't feel CM should be turned into a "Combat Enginerring" simulation, ie laying maines, buidling bridges, digging trenches, etc. But bulldozers and blade-equipped tanks would be cool. Pushing paths through trees and walls, knocking down light buildings, collapsing foxholes....

[Midnight Warrior]

This is a pretty interesting thread.

I wonder what the effects of a denuded forest would have on wheeled vs track movement? For traversing dense forests tracked vehicles might be able to traverse downed trees better than pick their way between standing trees. In contrast, wheeled vehicles may not be able to travese the downed trees and tangled branches. However, (based on the previous photos) there does not appear to be an abundance of tangled branches in the heavily denuded forests. Perhaps the explosions pulverize the smaller branches into splinters and only leave the larger tree trunks intact (either standing but stripped of branches or felled).

I wonder would it be historically accurate to use arty to blast holes in forests for tracked vehicles to pass (sort of like how Daisy Cutters in Vietnam were used to clear LZ's)?

Sumarizing the previous posts perhaps the rules for a denuded forest might be as follows:

1. No tree bursts.

2. Somewhat better protection when hiding or slow movement(but not better concealment)

3. Increased fatigue and exposure for fast leg movement (unless heavily denuded)

4. Traversibility for tracked vehicles (with higher "bogging" for faster movemenmt

5. Reduction in LOS blockage.

6. Mod'ed visual presntation

7. Possible reduction in any road traversibility in denuded woods

8. Model various degrees of being denuded from heavily tangled branches to everything pulverised to splinters).

Perhaps these effect can be created to some degree using existing terrain artifacts such as through cratering and/or creating rubble or road blocks in the denuded forest hexes and down grading forests (i.e. a tall pines becomes the normal trees, normal trees to light trees, etc).

Last thought. Modeling forest denuding probably wouldn't effect game play that much for most scenarios but it could enhance the fun level by adding more richness of detail.

[Michael Emrys]

Trees downed by artillery provide really good obstacles for both tracked and wheeled vehicles. Despite dramatic propaganda photos that have gotten wide circulation over the years, a felled tree over, say, eight inches in diameter stands a reasonable chance of breaking a track, depending on how it lies. A series of trunks over a foot in diameter is virtually certain to break most WW II vintage tracks. And stumps of almost any size are death to tracks.

Tankers were reluctant to drive into forests even when they had not been blown to bits. Just the natural litter on a forest floor represents a certain minimal risk.

For wheeled vehicles, it was simply impassable unless a path had been cleared previously.

Michael