Trench networks, ditches, et al.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've read through the accumulated "bones" and searched numerous keywords, but I've found no information on whether / how trench networks and related terrain features such as irrigation ditches and small watercourses) which are critical routes for infiltration (as well as good emergency cover) will be handled in the CMx2 engine.

I've always felt the absence of these features to be a notable shortcoming of CMx1. True, you can abstract them on maps using one square wide terrain dips, but these are more like wide gullies than slit trenches. When I try to use these dips for infiltration tactics that worked very well historically, the units are generally quickly spotted, even at night and even when I fill them with brush.

I suppose infiltration is of secondary application in the CMSF age of reliable night vision and motion detection equipment. But in the pre-IED/ATGW era it was pretty much the only reliable asymetrical warfare tactic available to outgunned forces. The German infantry were feared for their night infiltration counterattacks, as were the Red Army, partisans and of course the Korean war CCF and NVA/VC. On defense, communications trenches were also a critical element of fortified positions.

Given the refinement of the CMx2 terrain mesh (sounds great BTW!), I'd love to see small but crucial terrain details like these that can't be readily spotted by units until they get close enough. But I'd guess that this refinement would have to wait for the second game.

Any information available that I've missed?

[Battlefront.com]

The terrain mesh allows us for 8m wide trenches, gullies, or whatever you want to call them. There is a lot of control over how deep these can be too.

However, most of your post talks about things which have little to do with terrain, rather the ability to sneak around undetected based on presumptions of who was good or not good at it historically. This is a separate issue.

We never have, and never will, base modeling decisions on stereotypes. If there was a reason for Germans being better at night infiltration than some other nation (which is a VERY dangerous position to take ), it must be for some specific reason. For example, specialized training that another nation lacked. Or it could be that the Germans simply picked their best and most experienced soldiers and had them do the mission. Different reasons, different implications for modeling decisions.

For CM:SF we are not modeling any special abilities that can not be tied to equipment, training, or experience. If you use the right units in the right terrain the right way then you should have a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. EVEN IF the other side has Night Vision capabilities. These systems can't see everything all the time

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I don't know that I suggested anywhere in my post that some armies were or should be "stereotypically" better than others at infiltration. That wasn't my point at all.

My query was: since the new terrain engine lets you create features like narrow alleyways or small footpaths through woods, can you also create narrow trenchlines, ditches, etc. (i.e. narrower than 8m -- that's still pretty wide).

This kind of thing may seem trivial, but such terrain features can be key for both defenders and attackers (particularly infiltrators) in company level infantry actions. I've read many accounts of heavily fortified positions being compromised by a tiny ditch or rivulet that went unnoticed and became an infiltration route. And I'd much rather advance along a road with a drainage ditch next to it as opposed to one without, how about you?

Best regards, and keep up the good work guys.

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

Some months ago, the was a Fire Fight segment on a daytime clash in Iraq between some Marines and a couple of insurgents who blasted away with AKs then vanished into an extensive field of riverside rushes. The fight to run them to ground involved M-16s, grenades, and ultimately ended with a K-Bar

stabbed repeatedly into the last insurgent.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

Well that terrain type -- marshlands -- is modeled quite adequately in CMx1, as is the bump-and-run type of ambush you describe.

My question concerns a very different terrain feature.

[Battlefront.com]

Again, the terrain mesh supports changes every 8m with variable depth. There is no special terrain type to discuss because it's up to the guy who makes the map how to make the topography. If he wants to simulate gullies and what not, he most certainly can within the 8m limitations I just mentioned.

Steve

[cassh]

Steve-

Please tell me I am reading the above wrongly and you still have specific trench type engineering defences that can be placed; and that this can be done at the start of a battle by either player who has "trenchline" units or locked in place by the designer?

I would hate to think we had lost this basic military engineering ability that we've had since CMBB.

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

Please tell me I am reading the above wrongly and you still have specific trench type engineering defences that can be placed

Sorry, defenders are just going to have to make do with the trenches as they are placed by the scenario designer. On the fly placement of trenches is extremely involved because, unlike CMx1, they have to alter the map structure since they are truly 3D. They also have to alter the Action Spot map, which is set up at the time the map is made. It is possible these things can be worked around, but we aren't going to try to for 1.0. Too many things on the ToDo list.

Steve

[dan/california]

How are you simulating large underground bunkers and some of the other more exotic digging enterprises that Hezbollah balked the Israelis with. Can it be put in at the scenario design stage or is that too much to hope for for 1.0?

[Battlefront.com]

We have bunkers and, unlike CMx1, they can be dynamically occupied. We have two sizes right now... one that can hold 7men or less and the other up to 14 men. Headcount is relevant, not how many units. Meaning, you can in theory have four 3 man Teams in the large bunker or a single 12 man Squad and a 2 man Team.

Bunker types are yet to be defined, but I'm expecting at least wood/earth and concrete.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Will fortified houses be simulated?

[cassh]

Steve - just to clarify though - the designer can place actual trench elements rather than 8m wide deformed terrain?

[Battlefront.com]

dietrich,

Will fortified houses be simulated?

I hope that we can get it so bunkers can be placed inside houses. But we'll see.

cassh,

Steve - just to clarify though - the designer can place actual trench elements rather than 8m wide deformed terrain?

What's the difference you're looking for? A slit in the ground of a certain depth is effectively the same thing as a trench, and vice versa.

Steve

[MikeyD]

We're of course expecting Syrian fortifications but what about U.S. foritifcations? If the game's a straight U.S.-assault-into-Syria sim then the U.S. won't have the time to construct fortifications. If the game projects events a few weeks/months into the occupation then U.S. reinforced checkpoints, concrete barricades and 'Bremmer walls' would be expected to show up. I don't think there's a metropolitan area on earth that's unfamiliar with those cast concrete "Jersey Barriers" dividing highway lanes. These cry out to be positionable barrier elements in the game.

Concrete Barrier Basics

[Battlefront.com]

We will allow the US to have fortifications simply because there is an option to play Blue on Blue. We are not simulating occupation ops, so no Bremmer Walls.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steve - just to clarify though - the designer can place actual trench elements rather than 8m wide deformed terrain?

What's the difference you're looking for? A slit in the ground of a certain depth is effectively the same thing as a trench, and vice versa.

Steve </font>

[Glukx Ouglouk]

What's the difference you're looking for? A slit in the ground of a certain depth is effectively the same thing as a trench, and vice versa.

As I understand it, their could be 2 differences :

- It seems to me that a trench may be less than 8m wide (and the narrower it is, the more difficult it is for a grenade or mortar round to fall inside the trench, right ?)

- a trench's protection can be enanced with more complex pieces of fortifications than the basic slit in the ground.

But I don't think it's important (it's not a WWI game ! Trenches are nor exactly that important in modern warfare...)

Btw, it's the first time I post here, so hello to everybody... And I hope my English is not too bad !

[dan/california]

I want the game this decade and for less than the price of my computer. Some of these details get out of control hard when trying to do real 3D. I am sure 1.3.? will have nice slit trenches, I am also sure that I want to discuss this addition while actually playing the game.

Is the real 3D that important for a simulation at this level is another debate but it is already decided for this game.

[J Ruddy]

Hi Glukx. Welcome to the dicussion.

But I don't think it's important (it's not a WWI game ! Trenches are nor exactly that important in modern warfare...)

I disagree. I think that Afghanistan has shown how trenches/foxholes/tunnels/caves etc... are very important in modern warfare.

It's free hard cover isn't it? (Well, sweat equity comes into play, but free compared to a bunker etc...)

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

cassh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Please tell me I am reading the above wrongly and you still have specific trench type engineering defences that can be placed

Sorry, defenders are just going to have to make do with the trenches as they are placed by the scenario designer. On the fly placement of trenches is extremely involved because, unlike CMx1, they have to alter the map structure since they are truly 3D. They also have to alter the Action Spot map, which is set up at the time the map is made. It is possible these things can be worked around, but we aren't going to try to for 1.0. Too many things on the ToDo list.

Steve </font>

[cassh]

Steve said -

What's the difference you're looking for? A slit in the ground of a certain depth is effectively the same thing as a trench, and vice versa.

There is a big difference in cover and performance between a 1m military trench and an 8m depression. I merely want to clarify the proportions of the deformed terrain and that we can make something about 1m wide by 1.5m - 2m deep approximately?

Although one can make an 8m wide trench, to protect troops from lateral fragmentation as in a normal scale trench it would have to be very deep.

This would mean that none of the soldiers at the bottom of the trench could see over the side to fire their weapons - which kind of defeats one of the trenches key defensive features.

At 8m wide, if this were the minimum scale these trenches could be, they'd be more akin to anti-tank ditches and restrict AFV unrealistically!

Tell me this is me being a worrying old hen, but my impression from what was said was that 8m was the minimum deformable element - and 8m wide seems awfully large for a trench.

Glukx Ouglouk said -

But I don't think it's important (it's not a WWI game ! Trenches are nor exactly that important in modern warfare...)

Walk about any battlefield of the past 20 years and you'll see plenty of trenches - it is still the primary defence again artillery and mortar fire.

dan/california

I want the game this decade and for less than the price of my computer. Some of these details get out of control hard when trying to do real 3D. I am sure 1.3.? will have nice slit trenches, I am also sure that I want to discuss this addition while actually playing the game. [big Grin]

The strength of CMx1 was that it addressed more aspects of infantry combat than any commercial simulation/game to that point. I just am nervous that we might loose an intrinsic element of infantry combat without trenches of trench like proportions that's all.

[LongLeftFlank]

I'd second those comments, cassh, particularly about there being a world of difference between an 8m (26 foot) streambed and a 6 foot slit trench.

On the other hand, I'm willing to accept that CMSF should focus on other more crucial realism items for the Syrian campaign.

Since I understand the second module will be Normandy (i.e. hedgerow hell), I'll just hope that the BFC team will see the value in refining some of the details for us at that time.

Please understand, I didn't start this thread to nitpick. Due to RL constraints, I avoid the big mech Rgt/Bn assaults in CMx1, instead preferring single sitting Co/Plt patrol/ambush or infiltration/trench raids. IIUC, company level actions will be the focus of CMx2 and unlike some folks here I'm really looking forward to that.

What I've noticed in 5 years of playing these kinds of bumps is that infiltration is a lot harder in CMx1 than it was in RL. Not to say it wasn't quite tricky in RL, it's just IMPOSSIBLE in CMx1 unless you deliberately designed a big gap in the defense. Borg spotting is part of it, but not all.

In RL, halfway competent defenders readily observe and mine/ defilade/zero big 20m gullies in their fire zone, and turn them into kill sacks for the unwary (read that 34th ID "lessons learned" document for some horrid examples).

What defenders don't always pick up though are the smaller, shallower watercourses (natural and manmade, dry or not, often brushfilled) that crisscross all types of land. A skilled infiltrator gets good at patiently identifying these routes and worming his way into grenade range UNSPOTTED. In CMx1, this can't be easily simulated-- the "stealthy" units invariably get spotted and pounded even at night unless you make the terrain as dense as PTO jungle (which is the same as engineering a big defense flaw).

So that's why in the Normandy incarnation of CMx2, I'd really like to see this kind of subtle but important terrain feature modeled distinct from 8m wide streambeds. Even better would be for it to be treated somewhat like foxholes are now ... features you can't prelocate in "god view" by scanning the map pre-game. Something you need to spot as you go along. Here endeth my catechism.

[LongLeftFlank]

BTW, if anyone remembers "Up Front"/"Banzai", the very unique WWII card game AH put out in the 1980s, that system did a very nice job of simulating recon / infiltration tactics, although the scale was too small to model other types of combat.

[Battlefront.com]

Not to worry, I understand the difference between a slit trench and a gully in terms of what kind of protection they offer. I was picturing something in my mind when I said what I said that actually isn't relevant to the discussion, so scratch what I said earlier

CM's underlying terrain mesh is actually 1m x 1m on the horizontal plane. Think of a flat 2D area with points on it, grid-style, at 1m increments. This means that at every 1 meter interval we can change the height. This means we can have a 1m wide trench, 2m wide gully, 6m wide wadi, etc.

On the vertical axis of each 1m point on the map we can have height adjusted by millimeters. Meaning, we can have a gully that is 1m wide by 1mm deep. Not much point in that, but it is possible.

So there will be some way to make trenches as you are picturing them. I am not sure if it will be an explicit tool or you will just make very narrow gullies. We shall see. But almost for sure they won't be placable by the player during the Setup Phase. As I said above, in theory this is something we can code into the engine but we are not sure we'll have the time for it. We shall see.

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

One problem I can see with trenches as terrain is that everyone can see terrain at all times, the same is not true of trenches even with modern imagery.