Lt Bull Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Despit being a CM disciple from it's genesis, this might be my first post in the CMSF forum I guess I was very much impressed with the latest screenshots I have seen that have certainly captured my attention and interest. Anyways, my simple question is one I have asked about ToW before. Will infantry/units be considerd to occupy "a" terrain tile like in CM and thereafter gain the "abstracted" cover/concealment benefits for occupying that terrain, or is it more like ToW where this does not apply and units physically are basically "always" considered to be in open terrain but gain cover from physically being "behind" solid objects physically represented graphically on the, like an individual solid tree trunk? How about movement speed? Bull [ February 20, 2007, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Good question. Is cover and concealment abstracted or WYSIWYG? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I think there some bones and hints about this somewhere this post does not really "cover" it but so far I can't find the comment or post by Steve that I am searching for. in my first search I found this: (the thread was called "Cover and concealment") Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted October 22, 2006 12:37 PM Hi all, Concealment in buildings is the main reason for being in there since, as discussed, a modern dismounted force can make Swiss Cheese out of most structures. However, one must remember that ammunition and colateral damage concerns do have a part to play in this too. In order to effectively engage an enemy in a structure you have to know roughly where that enemy is within the structure itself. Not just which room, but where in that room and in what stance (standing, kneeling, prone). Otherewise suppression is the more likely end result not destruction. Sure, there might be some bad guys in a building that your small arms can penetrate, but in a conventional MOUT setting how likely is it that a Rifle Squad will be able to put its full attention on that one building and fire until the structure is completely shot through? The situations like Saddam's sons' last stand are not that common in a high intensity fight, therefore buildings do offer quite a bit of practical protection. BTW, this is one of the advantages the Stryker guys have over Mech Infantry and certainly over Light Infantry. Strykers have a gun that is quite capable of punching through pretty much any structure the infantry is likely to come upon. Since the Strykers can approach faster and far more silently than a Bradely, and offer more defensive protection than a Humvee, the Strykers can get right into the thick of the firefight and have maximum impact on the enemy. Not that having a Bradley pumping rounds into a structure is a bad thing Just pointing out that the .50 Cal is generally good enough and therefore the "stealth" attributes of the Stryker probably give it more chances to catch the enemy unaware compared to a Bradley. Steve [ February 20, 2007, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 one more: 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 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 and cassh says: 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. posted August 21, 2006 01:44 AM Steve says: cassh, quote: Please tell me I am reading the above wrongly and you still have specific trench type engineering defences that can be placed end 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 Posts: 12938 | Registered: May 1999 | IP: Logged dan/california Member Member # 17776 posted August 21, 2006 02:21 AM 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? Posts: 205 | Registered: Jul 2005 | IP: Logged Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted August 21, 2006 02:45 AM 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 [Deleted - wrong topic thread. oops!] [ February 20, 2007, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 Thanks tom for bumping the Concealment thread. Unfortunately I can't find a definitive answer to my rather fundamanetal question. Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.