Pines vs woods...

[Der Kuenstler]

According to Chris Hare's exposure chart, infantry resting at the edge of both woods and pines have 18% exposure. I find it hard to believe that this exposure rating could be identical but it seems to old up in a test. Are there any differences or advantages to being in woods instead of pines (in summer) or are they basically the same? Anyone know?

[John_d]

Never been in any type of combat situation, but I do happen to live in the middle of a forest and having grown up there know a fair amount about trees.

In my experience there is a huge difference between coniferous and deciduous cover. The pines modelled in CM tend not to provide much cover at all. The branches at the bottom of the tree fall off when the light becomes restricted. Also, due to the huge amount of water that these trees require, pine forests tend to be quite sparse. At ground level there isn't really very much in the way of cover, just large trunks spaced fairly far apart. Its pretty hard to hide yourself in, but one of those trunks could probably quite easily stop a round.

Deciduous trees (woods in CM) on the other hand, have leaves all the waydown their trunks. The trees tend to be smaller and more tightly packed, with more undergrowth. However, there probably is less in the way of solid wood to stop flying rounds. I'd reckon that the concealment is better, but the cover softer and offering less protection.

Fir forest, which aren't modelled in CM, are a whole different kettle of fish though. Virtually no visibilty, little in the way of 'hard' cover and extremely difficult to move through. These would be awesome in CM. Maybe something to consider for CM2?

[JasonC]

In CM, the only difference between woods and pines is that pines are a taller LOS obstacle. Otherwise they are the same. If you want to simulate open woods with wider visibility below the canopy, use scattered trees instead.

[Der Kuenstler]

Interesting - thanks. I would have thought pines would be modeled as worse than scattered trees at eye level and better than woods otherwise.

[stoat]

Originally posted by John_d:

Deciduous trees (woods in CM) on the other hand, have leaves all the waydown their trunks. The trees tend to be smaller and more tightly packed, with more undergrowth. However, there probably is less in the way of solid wood to stop flying rounds. I'd reckon that the concealment is better, but the cover softer and offering less protection.

Not a lot of oak trees in your forest, eh? It seems you have the trunk thickness reversed. From what I have seen, pine trees are thinner and more closely grouped, while deciduous trees are thicker and more widely spaced. With deciduous trees, if the tree is not a sapling, you won't be able to reach any of the branches if the tree is solidly in the forest. The height at which branches cease to grow is certainly more uniform in a pine forest.

I do agree with the amount of foliage. In a pine forest you would be hard pressed to find any ground cover, whereas in a deciduous one there would certainly be some brush and weeds. However, it is tree trunks, and not shrubbery that blocks LOS. Maybe forests are a little different in Europe?

[John_d]

Stoat, there are very few oak trees in my immediate area. I see your point. Most of the deciduous trees around where I live are birch trees and suchlike. Also, alot of the land is owned by the forestry commission and so is not old enough to have large trees. Therefore most of the deciduous forest is composed of densely packed smaller plants.

Perhaps my area is atypical b/c of the high numbers of 'alien' species. Rhodedrenron and even American redwoods grow freely after being imported for ornamental gardens in the 19th Century.

[JasonC]

Densely packed sapling sized trees are the kind of forest cover you get when an area has regrown after clearcutting. That is quite common in the US - e.g. Michigan was cut that way clear across the penisula, and has regrown as dense sapling stands. That is not representative of the much older growth forests of Europe (logged to be sure, but selectively, a few trees at a time), which have much higher, full canopies, and far fewer plants or leaves close to the ground.

[DTrill]

Not having been to Russia, I can't make definate statement but here in southwestern British Columbia we have a fair share of Ponderosa Pine that averages 36"+ in diametre. There is little ground cover save for some tall grasses and low sparse brush (under 18" tall). Where this Pine exists is also mixed with Fir and Balsm, again rather large trees and the terrain is very rocky with little topsoil. The trees are spaced at about 15' on average and they are up to 100' tall. I wonder if the pine in Russia is of this type or is it like or 50' tall 10" across Jack Pine that grow about 18" apart like we have in Northern BC., and the ground cover in the Jack Pine forest is thick with downed trees and brush well over 10' tall with no grasses at all and swampy/soft ground.

[David I]

Cool, a tree debate! Next thing you know there will be a "Pine Tree Fan Boy" charge launched.

Really, I thought the main difference was that you could see futher into or through pines than into or through woods.

DavidI

[Der Kuenstler]

Yeah - but you'd think since you can see further through pines the exposure would be higher, and not identical to woods.

[Darkmath]

Also , I found that CM wood trees are measure approximatively 4 to 8 metres.Sure, for gaming purpose, they distinguish well from pines trees in CM by the height, but wood trees are too low.

In reality, a oak can reach 25 to 30 metres, especially in Europe where some woods are old.

By the way, anyone know a good and realistic ETO trees mod?

Vossie's ETO pack is great, but the trees are low res unfortunately.

[John_d]

Its a difficult question to address given that forest types vary massively around Europe. Certainly in the South of England I would say that there should be a bigger difference between wooded areas and pine forest, but I would be hard pressed to how this would be translated into Russian or German forests.

Darkmath- I don't think that oak trees are really that common in Europe anymore. Most areas have undergone substantial clearance and simply aren't old enough to have decent sized oak trees.

Actually, I've just remembered. Apparently most Russian forests are birch forests. Which are small, soft trees that tend to pack quite densely and have lots of undergrowth.

[LongLeftFlank]

FWIW, back in Jan '89, a Dutch friend and I retraced the Ardennes attack (and massacre*) route of Kampfgruppe Peiper, using the Osprey book as our guide.

At a few places, we wandered into the woods to see what the terrain was like. Typically, there's only a lot of underbrush adjacent to settlements and main roads. Pine stands on level ground have a dense canopy and offer little ground cover beyond dense needles, treefalls and ground undulations/watercourses/ditches, but the low light plus density of skinny, scraggly trunks heavily impairs vision beyond about 150m or so. Nasty places for sniping, ambushes and treebursts.

I vividly recall one such spot about 50m off the small dirt road near a lumberyard called Buchholz (not the station AFAIK) where I stumbled across a small memorial marker to a US major killed at or near there in early Jan '45 (counterattack).

As you get into wooded slopes (e.g. the Ambleve valley up to Stoumont), you get older, thicker trunks, but a less uniform canopy so there are small saplings fighting for light as well. There's also more fallen trunks as well as small rivulets and gullies and boulders to offer cover.

* Not to slop over from a now tiresome separate thread, but all that about the infamous Baugnez crossroads massacre being mistaken identity is just more Waffen SS fanboy greywash. We ran across 3 other memorials to GI and civilian prisoners murdered by SS along Peiper's route -- not so many dead as Baugnez, but groups of 5 - 10 victims, too many to be anything other than deliberate murder.