Lack of Impassable Terrain

[Roter Stern]

Is it just me or does the game currently lack virtually any form of impassable terrain? After a rather extensive testing in the Editor, the only ways to block movement that I found is either with a “marsh” tile or with an elevation difference of 5m or more, which produces a “cliff”.

However an even bigger problem I have is that there doesn’t seem to be a way to limit terrain access to infantry only. As it stands right now both vehicles and infantry can’t pass though marshes and >5m elevations, however they both can pass though everything else. The “3-tree” foliage tiles seem to almost be able to block vehicle movement, however I’ve had several vehicles – including a T-72 - navigate their way though an entire 3-tree forest.

What I’m referring to is the way it was done in CMAK, where elevations could be set to produce a “slope” - which would prevent vehicle access, yet allow infantry to climb though, albeit very slowly. Same effect could also be accomplished with the “rough” terrain tile. Neither “slopes” nor “rough” seem to have made it into CMSF.

I guess my question is two fold – has anyone figured out a way to reproduce this “limited access” effect, with out reducing to such silliness as using collapsed buildings to simulate the good-old “rough” terrain? And also, has the decision to leave out the “limited access” been a conscious design move or a feature which simply wasn’t high enough on the priority list to make it into v1.0?

[Renaud]

Don't buildings block vehicles?

But yea, blocking vehicles but allowing infantry is an important designer tool. once water gets added in that'll be another impassable terrain, if not in this release then in a future add-on or expansion.

A 'rough/boulder' terrain impassible to all vehicles is not that uncommon in arid terrains and would be a nice addition. Like the rough in CMx1. Also, some type of desert soft sand terrain which is impassible to all vehicles would be nice (or simply bogs vehicles). Deep mud is important in desert environments, depending on the season, and can bog any vehicle known to man (especially the Abrams).

[Pandur]

i had a BMP driving trough a building once. but it entered it through a blasted wall

[Roter Stern]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Don't buildings block vehicles?

Well, like I was saying - the only thing even remotely close to "rough" terrain is the rubbled building tile ... but I'm sure you'll agree this look quite fugly, especially with the elevation leveling effect buildings have.

(That's me trying to make a "river" bank impassible to vehicles... )

[LarsS]

In an urban enviroment I guess you can use rows of those upright pole thingies. They are a bit of a hassle to place, though. And would look silly out in the open

[MarkEzra]

I am keen on impassable terrain...to me an important scen design tool. Not that excited about big, goofy boulders though. The 5m "cliff" should stop vehicles but allow troops. Anything steeper should stop all movement types. I wonder if this type of change would be possible

[Roter Stern]

Well, I’m sure you’ll agree what even “big goofy boulders” have their applications in the correct context – much like rubbled buildings, while not inherently goofy, sure look goofy blocking vehicles access to the riverbed in my example above.

But on-foot movement only slopes are a must as well. Ideally it'd be nice to see different slope movement characteristics depending on terrain... i.e. it's a lot harder to climb a 45-degree sand dune than a wooded slope, and completely impossible on a mud covered slope.

Although I'd be willing to settle for <5m elevation allowing veh and inf though, 5~8m allowing only inf though, and anything >8m blocking all movement ... sort of thing.

That and an "inf access only" terrain tile would be nice as well... i.e. "rough"

But again, the real question is whether this was left out on purpose or just didn't make it in for initial release.

[Roter Stern]

I'd like to revive this topic I started quite some time ago with the hopes that the Greater Powers will comment on the issue this time around.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[the Fighting Seabee]

Syria and all other places on Earth have terrain impassable to tanks and very difficult for infantry.

Deep water is a good example. As well as rock cliffs, dense forests, swamps and bogs, large walls, large ditches, large burms, buildings, boulders, certain types of fences, etc.

[Secondbrooks]

Tank drive in forests and wood in northern (un-arid) heights. Forest is not obstacle, tanks are using it to gain upper hand in many things, like enemy tanks and ATGMs and AT-launchers. Basic thing what i've heard is that tank in forest wins tank in open.

I use mud to simulate swamp where infantry i able to walk, but vehicles can find to be in trouble quite fast -> bogged down and then imobilized. I usually set ground to wet (has worked pretty well)

Maybe infantry should be able to cross steep hills slowly and with curses, but why has that been left out?

[Hev]

Yeah, why are there no hedges either?

[Roter Stern]

Well again, my biggest gripe is not with the vegetation, but rather with the hill gradients.

Currently the game only makes a distinction between two types of terrain elevations - one that allows all traffic though, and another really steep one which blocks all traffic.

What I'd like to see is exactly as it was done in CMAK (possibly even CMBB/CMBO, cant remember now) - a third type of gradient: one that blocks vehicles access, yet allows infantry to move though.

Personally I see that as an invaluable tool for a scenario designer, especially in CMSF where we predominately deal with mech forces.

Also we're missing CMAK's rough tile - again, when used properly it was an invaluable tool that allowed the scenario designer to bottle-neck one side's vehicles.

Secondbrooks, I tried using mud as well, but it's no where as reliable at stopping vehicles as some scenarios would require. As a matter of fact I tried covering the entire map in mud and setting the weather to 'wet', yet my BMPs and BTRs were still ok for the most part even when driven 'quick'.

[ February 03, 2008, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

[Secondbrooks]

I ran some tests and it sure seems to be that effect isn't that powerful. It seems that i've been on bad luck when trying to get thru mud forexample when evading mines in road.

Or can there be some "unknown" factors effecting to this besides ground wetness. I had one self made scenario (don't have it anymore) which seemed to be poisonious to vehicles, but just minute ago i couldn't get even closely same results in muddy&wet conditions.

[Cpl Steiner]

I would like to see dense woods and scattered trees just like in CMx1. I don't like the way vehicles just detour right through forested areas as is the case at the moment. This would seem to me to be an easy thing to program. Just make single-tree tiles the only ones that vehicles can get through. At a pinch I suppose I'd accept 1 and 2 tree tiles being navigable by vehicles but I'd definitely draw the line at 3.

[JasonC]

The reality is tank accessible terrain is limited. Flat lowlands and human used, developed areas only. Mountain terrain especially, regularly contains grades that AFVs find far too difficult to maneuver on in any sustained fashion, and both undeveloped wooded areas and unleveled rocky ground that they cannot cross. There are usually passes or roads that allow armor columns to cross such terrain and to reach inhabited areas beyond them - but precisely those chokepoints are the preferred ambush sites for an infantry-heavy or guerilla force trying to fight a capital intensive one. Ask an Afghan.

[Hev]

I agree with jason, especialy about the woods. ive known i few tankies in my life so far and none of them ever expresed a liking of trees. Obviously it not to much of an issue for a 60 ton tank to push trees down, but the turret wouldnt be able to traverse if they got bumped whilst surrounded by trees.

[Secondbrooks]

Our tankers do work in woods, some even thinks that it's safe way of doing things (expacely in tall pines) By them tank in woods wins tank in open. It also gives them better camo and cover against infantry ATGMs and such. this is purely in combatsituations, marches are ofcourse another thing.

Ofcourse there is difference between defence and attack. But also during attacks tanks can go off from road to woods and work closely with infantry and close in enemy infantry (tanks in front of own infantry). This can be done, it's not best way to use tank but many times it's the only way to give support to infantry, if there is no high hills to give possibility to fire from longer distances.

In CMSF 3 trees per tile there's basically just 3 trees 8x8 meters area (bit more than 300 trees per hectare), that is not much. It's like scattered trees in CMx1.

EDIT: My squads Nasu (like Bandvang) moved alot in forests. It's not tank sized, but it doesn't weight 60 tons either. Every time we hauled ATGM into firingposition we drove deep into forest. same applies when we were given alert that "enemy" airforces are in area (better to get in cover and do it fast). This was daily routine for us.

[ February 04, 2008, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Hev]

The barrel length of the abrams main cannon is around 12 feet, that means the trees would have to be at least 25 feet apart for the turret to turn fully and therefore be fully effective.

Now then, i dont mind the idea of tanks being able to drive into "denser" woodland than that but if they do they should suffer the same effects as in real life.

Other than using the trees as a temporary "roof" to offer some degree of cover i dont think any tank crew would take thier tank into a wood where they couldnt swing thier boom stick round.

[Secondbrooks]

I know tankers who thinks that woods offer cover and upper hand. Roll your tank forward and then backward, that already clears quite open angle for cannon to move. Flanks can be vulnereable (if enemy can manuver there) and for that infantry sticks close to tanks. And besides enemy manuver and fire usually is as restricted if it enters flanks (=forest). Same reason why we seek our positions mainly inside forests: Forests brings some problems when operating ATGMs (mostly with wires), but same time it gives us better camoflage and survivality from enemy's spotting and fire. Same idea with tanks.

It would be nice if tank's cannon can't turn more than trees allow, but that would require that trees can be pushed down and TacAI knows how to "prepare" firingpositions by using forward and backwards movement. I'm quite happy with current situation.

[ February 04, 2008, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[MikeyD]

I thought the editor had a 'bog' or 'swamp' terrain tile or whatever its called to inhibit armor. I do know a couple scenarios use these as impassable soggy river bottoms. At least they used to be impassable. Not much call for swamps in July Syria scenarios so we don't get to test that particular terrain tile out much. Try wet weather and muddy ground too, along with dirt roads. Your tanks will bog/immobilize in short order. Putting wet mud under your trees might make 'em think twice about taking that shortcut too

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Don't buildings block vehicles?

Most of the time, but I 've had Strykers drive inside buildings at times.

[Roter Stern]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I thought the editor had a 'bog' or 'swamp' terrain tile or whatever its called to inhibit armor. I do know a couple scenarios use these as impassable soggy river bottoms. At least they used to be impassable. Not much call for swamps in July Syria scenarios so we don't get to test that particular terrain tile out much. Try wet weather and muddy ground too, along with dirt roads. Your tanks will bog/immobilize in short order. Putting wet mud under your trees might make 'em think twice about taking that shortcut too

Yes there is in fact a “swamp” tile, however it’s completely impassable - even to infantry. And that's not what I'm trying to establish with this thread ... perhaps I should even rename it to something more appropriate?

As for the wet-muddy conditions – like I and Secondbrook mentioned above – those are hardly reliable at stopping vehicles. In a quick test I’ve done I had three T-72s traverse wet mud until immobolized – one was able to cross nearly 3km, second went for well over 4km, and I got bored of watching the third one chug along after it crossed the 7km marker.

Also it seems that those little UAZ jeeps are completely immune to getting stuck - all three of the ones I tested kept up with the last T-72 at the 7km marker just fine.

Although I'll admit that mud and dense trees is a pretty good idea - even if it won't stop the vehicles completely it might hold them back long enough to miss the battle

[ February 05, 2008, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

[JasonC]

Parking in the trees just off a German road net is not the point. Look at the relief west of the Bekkaa valley in MS Virtual Earth for examples of what I am talking about.

You get canyon seams miles long with sides that rise 2000 feet in 500 yards lateral distance on either side. You can't run any kind of vehicle up and down those slopes. The valley floor mebe, really only where improved roads cross the ranges.

Put infantry with ATGMs up on those heights, overlooking that sort of canyon. Now try to get them out by razzling and dazzling with a Stryker battalion...

[Secondbrooks]

That is true. I don't know why CMSF forbids infatry to move slopes. Their waypoint can be positioned in slope tile (vehicles can not have waypoints there), but they can not enter slope tile.