Jump to content

CMAK useful for doing CMBO type stuff?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by JasonC:

I think bocage is pretty easy to simulate. I have a sample scenario if anyone wants to try my version of it in CMAK. At all interested, dalem?

Sure thing. I made some efforts a while back but never really was satisfied with the result.

Thanks!

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site is great Kingfish.

I have been using it to design maps for my own use after you posted the link in the CMBO forum.

I have made a couple of maps already and I am using roughly the same method as Jason i.e I use forest tiles to represent bocage instead of tall hedges.

However I am not entirely satisfied with the result. What bothers me is that in practice what incentive is there to cross an open field with this system? I mean why not just follow the hedgerow and stay in cover. In the real deal soldiers had to cross open ground to reach the next line of trees.

I wonder how easily you could cut through bocage on foot, but I guess there was more than a single type of bocage it was probably thicker in some areas and thinner in others.

btw it looks like there is no Marigy neat St Lo, so it is probably a typo and should be Marigny instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a rough sketch of a "standard" bocage cross section.

You can see from that why it's impossible to do correctly with 20x20m resolution - the best we can do is a rough approximation.

I will try Jason's scenarios this week, but honestly I think Trenches in Woods is the best we can do. And that looks ugly. smile.gif

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got a definitive reply on this yet, so I won't name the exact map, but I am in a battle at the moment which is a CMBO map imported or recreated in CMAK. Which is a great map, but because of the geographical quirks of the North Africa of CMAK and the Europe of CMBO, you can be in the bizarre position of your rattled troops trying to get out of harms way by advancing towards the enemy. Always. Which is horrid if you are defending, as your defending troops rush out of their prepared positions to hide in the arms of the enemy, and his rattled attacking troops just keep on coming - the more rattled, the faster they come.

See threads on PyeWacket's Map Converter which addresses this amongst other issues.

I think I'm right in saying that the friendly edges defined in the map are over-ruled by the theatre geography of the game. Which is fixed by swapping North and South. But since I only came across this yesterday I am quite expecting to be corrected.

But it really really affects a battle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dalem:

Here is a link to a rough sketch of a "standard" bocage cross section.

You can see from that why it's impossible to do correctly with 20x20m resolution - the best we can do is a rough approximation.

Actually, the 20x20 resolution of the tiles doesn't matter that much, because the tiles can and do contain features at a finer grain, such as buildings, roads etc. The problem is just that there isn't a proper 'bocage' tile.

Based on your drawing, bocage tiles ought to resemble forested road tiles, with LOS, hindrance and cover properties appropriate to what bocage looks like. The terrain feature titled 'bocage' in CMBO actually was nothing but a tall hedge that obstructed LOS and movement but provided zero cover, meaning that troops behind the bocage would think they were in the open and would boogie when fired upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CMplayer:

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

Here is a link to a rough sketch of a "standard" bocage cross section.

You can see from that why it's impossible to do correctly with 20x20m resolution - the best we can do is a rough approximation.

Actually, the 20x20 resolution of the tiles doesn't matter that much, because the tiles can and do contain features at a finer grain, such as buildings, roads etc. The problem is just that there isn't a proper 'bocage' tile.

Based on your drawing, bocage tiles ought to resemble forested road tiles, with LOS, hindrance and cover properties appropriate to what bocage looks like. The terrain feature titled 'bocage' in CMBO actually was nothing but a tall hedge that obstructed LOS and movement but provided zero cover, meaning that troops behind the bocage would think they were in the open and would boogie when fired upon. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it wouldn't really be perfect unless units can effect terrain, digging into and through, etc. Remember, a breach leaves a hole.

While on the subject of CMBO in CMAK, has anyone done a conversion of "All or Nothing?" You would have to sub a few vehicles but it was always one of my favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have come across a very disappointing CMBO to CMAK map conversion where the re-designer , though changing the friendly edges, did not realise that when loading the map the edges are changed to the CMAK default ones. The game now sucks mightily as the broken units charge towards the enemy lines.

The map needed to be rebuilt with the correct orientation .............

Re JasonC!s comment on the artillery. It does suck mightily however if you go with 50% casualties big artillery is affordable. US squads are big enough to have casualties knocked off and still be big enough to do damage. It works quite well - and in any event a little ahistorical to have 100% perfect units. : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

i have come across a very disappointing CMBO to CMAK map conversion where the re-designer , though changing the friendly edges, did not realise that when loading the map the edges are changed to the CMAK default ones. The game now sucks mightily as the broken units charge towards the enemy lines.

The map needed to be rebuilt with the correct orientation .............

Re JasonC!s comment on the artillery. It does suck mightily however if you go with 50% casualties big artillery is affordable. US squads are big enough to have casualties knocked off and still be big enough to do damage. It works quite well - and in any event a little ahistorical to have 100% perfect units. : )

Can you not just go into the editor and change them yourself... its not that hard. tongue.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On what incentive you have to leave the trees in my version of bocage, the answer is AP mines.

;)

I've tried using tree lined roads instead, which give a much more realistically thin strip of woods terrain. But they don't block LOS enough, even with a height difference.

What would really be good is to have height difference terrain features like walls and fences now, rather than always producing blocky diagonal slants between large tiles. That can still be there as background or suggestion, but the editor could e.g. put the crest line between higher and lower right here or right there, a bump up or down, rather than always a gradual slope.

Or, let designers "assemble" a new terrain "key" in the editor out of existing types - a hut in brush, a wall through wheat without the strip of open ground, etc. It would have lots of uses as an extra capability.

As for how I do "passable openings" in my current method, I just use single tiles of scattered trees. Fine as the "cow entrance"...

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...