Does different terrain add any protection from small arms at all?

[skelley]

On a scenario that I designed I had rocky terrain on a hill with scattered trees. Yet the second my infantry got to the top of the hill they were mowed down seemingly as quick as if it were open terrain. One of the biggest problems I have designing scenarios is that the only true cover I can make are buildings. Is there any chance that we can get a breakdown of how cover works. In CMX1 I knew that if I had infantry in woods I could take a lot of fire, in tall pines a little less and so on and so forth. CMX2 I have no clue if I am moving or still in rocky or wooded areas how easily spotted or covered if at all my troops are. I think there should be much more cover and concealment in certain types of terrain.

[Sarjen]

TheLouch did some testing here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000042#000000

Some foliage and brushes and grass dont seem to give cover at all.

[Battlefront.com]

The terrain in CMx1 was quite simplistic and therefore easier to understand and explain. In CMx2 the terrain is vastly more complex and therefore much harder to explain. However, I would say it is actually easier to understand because it mimics the real world a lot better than CMx1.

Rocky terrain offers slightly better cover than open terrain because we're not talking about man sized rocks. To get that cover the unit has to be prone, otherwise it offers nada Again, that should be intuitive because a soldier walking in such terrain only has his ankles better protected, and not even that much.

Trees offer cover if the unit is in amongst them and attempting to use them as such. On the move, standing upright, they don't offer all that much. Especially if the tree density is low and the tree type isn't all that "bushy". This too should make sense when you think about it.

Adding rocky terrain and trees offer compounded improvements to the degree of cover in that spot, but the generalities I mentioned above still apply.

Lastly, you have to keep in mind that CMx1 terrain was so greatly abstracted that many types of terrain were rolled into one. Tall Pines, for example, was presumed to have a certain degree of underbrush, fallen trees, undulating and rough forrest floor, etc. In CMx2 that isn't the case. If you want to simulate that you need to put down trees, brush, and boulders (or some combo like that) to get a similar effect.

Hopefully that helps!

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

The ability to assign more than one terrain type to a square is something I really enjoy in the editor.

[c3k]

This is some very illuminating information about, not just terrain in game, but how to use the editor.

(edited to add this) So the amount of "bushiness" in growth adds _cover_? I ask this to differentiate between cover and concealment. Is there a blending of cover and concealment? I.e., does the game give a bit of physical protection (cover) to units which should be difficult to see (concealment) in real life?

(end edit)

Quick! Someone step forward and start collating all this information into some sort of guide.

Thanks,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sarjen:

TheLouch did some testing here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000042#000000

Some foliage and brushes and grass dont seem to give cover at all.

Thanks!

for those that are interested that is a VERY informative thread.

[Sixxkiller]

I dont think anyone is an expert with the editor yet. (Sorry Mark and your team ) I think there are still lots of ways to improve it and I am sure the BFC guys have more they would like to put into it. I think its the main reason why when most of the glaring bugs are fixed with the engine, it will be worth the price you paid for the game by itself.

Hell I think the elevation component makes the editor one of the best all around editors of any game, not to mention the standard for wargames up until now. Guess we shall see if they plan on anymore stuff in it.

Originally posted by c3k:

This is some very illuminating information about, not just terrain in game, but how to use the editor.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, I should be more careful when using the terms "cover" and "concealment" since, like CMx1, they are different concepts. Brush adds "concealment", not "cover". What I was getting at is to simulate the all-in-one terrain of CMx1 you sometimes have to mix different bits of CMx2 terrain together to achieve the same end.

The benefit of the new system is you can choose NOT to do this or to mix things in ways that were not possible in CMx1. For example, a tree lined street with tall grass, or a grove of trees surrounding a house with a wall running through it.

So, as I said, the terrain in CMx2 is a lot more complex and harder to explain than CMx1, but there is a lot less need to explain it because the visuals in game are far less abstract than in CMx1. In CMx1 you had to be told that Tall Pines simulated rough terrain and thick underbrush, in CMx2 you can actually see it (if it is there) so you don't need a text description.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

sort of like WYSIWYG terrain for CMx2

Everything is 1:1 so Boulders (Man Size) will provide cover, while Rocky will only give you something really hard to crawl over using a "slow" move order (and only very very low cover while prone)

That makes sense.

[thewood]

Be careful using the term WYSIWYG, even CMSF seems to be pretty far from that. It is just a lot closer than CM1. Using WYSIWYG will lead to screams of soldiers animations not matching actions and bullets passing through trees.

[Battlefront.com]

Very true. But what I think TomW was getting at is that the terrain effects are, pretty much, WYSIWYG ("what you see is what you get" for you young whippersnappers and old coots ). Meaning, if you don't see brush in a given spot, there is no brush there. If you do, there is. Man sized boulders mean man sized objects for cover, tiny little rocks means no real extra cover. So on and so forth.

Your point, thewood, is correct that there is still some abstraction within these visual representations. For example, the interiors of houses don't have walls, furnishings, stairs, etc. but they are simulated. That's probably the only significant abstraction that still remains in CMx2 vs. CMx1, and remain it will because it's a framerate killer and development nightmare to do otherwise

Steve

[Guest]

Mmmm, interior walls. It would be awesome to watch house-clearing in buildings with walls. Of course, I'm not sure how many people (like myself) actually get down at eyeball level with each infantry squad they've got and watch them do their thing.

Perhaps this is why I lose.

[skelley]

Thanks for the reply Steve. I am still concerned about how much cover and concealment you get. The enemy was 200 meters away and spotted them right away (my infantry were in hunt mode at the time so I assume they were using cover and concealment to the best of their ability). Does this mean that we will have to add fallen trees, tree stumps, brush, rocks and the kitchen sink in there to achieve the same cover that we got from CMX1. My primary concern is with the WWII version when it comes out, seeing that woodland played a larger part than does modern combat. It seems very time consuming to add all that stuff in, in a way that it doesn't look contrived. Also with terrain tiles being confined to 8m X 8m there is no way to put in small terrain changes that can add cover even in open ground. I am assuming there is no abstraction of this type of thing.

[Battlefront.com]

Keep in mind that you can't compare the terrain in CM:SF to any terrain in CMx1 games except for SOME of the terrain in CMAK. There is a huge difference between a forest in northwestern Europe and one in Syria, even if the tree density is fairly similar.

There will always be some degree of abstraction with terrain, which is what Thewood was talking about. What that probably means, in terms of woods, is that NW European trees will add proportionally more cover/concealment to the tile it occupies than the tree types found in CM:SF. We might also introduce a new terrain type, oh... like "Deep Forest" that would embody a bunch of different elements instead of requiring people to put down a whole bunch of stuff individually. Personally, I think this is a good way to go.

I don't understand your last point about the issues with 8x8m tiles. You'll have to come around again on that one

Steve

[skelley]

My last point was about small dips and terrain differences that can happen in smaller than 8m squares that could provide additional cover. my concern is when you said if you don't see it, it ain't there.

I figured it had to do with the environment. My interest really lies in the WWII tactical sim. I really bought CMSF to get a look at the game engine. The deep forest tile is the exact answer i was hoping for.

Thanks for the quick reply

[skelley]

It may be that I am just not used to the amount of lead flying at my guys. Lot more than the Kar98 threw downrange. I must be clueless about how to close with the enemy while dismounted because I get shredded every time (even when having my vehicles providing cover)

[Aacooper]

I get the impression that buildings don't offer enough cover - small arms fire can quickly chew up an entire squad. I'm thinking if CMSF lined up with reality in that regard, the Black Hawk Down battle would have been over in 30 minutes, not a whole night.

Is there anyone with practical experience in the cover provided by ME buildings who has an opinion about CMSF's buildings?

[C'Rogers]

I'm thinking if CMSF lined up with reality in that regard, the Black Hawk Down battle would have been over in 30 minutes, not a whole night.

I think the issue, which has been brought up before I think, is how we as players use the troops. In an actual battle, to my understanding, engagements are often quick, high intensity, and then one side will back off/take cover. In wargames players are likely to continue to order their men forward and the bullets flying.

[skelley]

"I think the issue, which has been brought up before I think, is how we as players use the troops. In an actual battle, to my understanding, engagements are often quick, high intensity, and then one side will back off/take cover. In wargames players are likely to continue to order their men forward and the bullets flying".

I don't really think that is the case. Most of the time infantry become pinned and pushing forward becomes impossible.

[DaveDash]

I think the lethality of weapons against units in building and out HAS in fact been way over-modelled, but perhaps for a game sake point of view. It was one of my biggest beefs with games like OFP too.

I don't think players have the time to go through 4 hour battles, although the option on a 'Super-Realism' difficultly level would be nice for those of us who do want to see this kind of thing.

Mind you I'm only talking about battles with cover or long distance involved. House clearing operations seem to be about right, based on what I've read in Iraq. They are highly lethal and unless one side backs out usually over pretty quick.

[Cpl Steiner]

I've seen ballistic test footage of various weapons being fired at a building on the web and it looked pretty lethal to me! Even basic rifle ammunition was quite capable of passing through the outer wall plus one or more internal walls. Heavier weapons just shredded the building and everything in it like it was paper.

I think the more important point is that in real life, troops don't all huddle at the windows to make themselves obvious targets like they seem to do in CM:SF. They take shots from further back in the room where they are concealed in shadow, then reposition within the building and hide behind heavy furniture and the like to avoid return fire.

[DaveDash]

Well yes. The lethality is probably correct, but our little AI guys don't have much in the way of self-presevation.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I think the more important point is that in real life, troops don't all huddle at the windows to make themselves obvious targets like they seem to do in CM:SF.

Excellent point! Balconies are even worse!

There should be an option for keeping a squad in the center of the building, perhaps guarding the abstracted "staircase" as a blocking force.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

I get the impression that buildings don't offer enough cover - small arms fire can quickly chew up an entire squad. I'm thinking if CMSF lined up with reality in that regard, the Black Hawk Down battle would have been over in 30 minutes, not a whole night.

Is there anyone with practical experience in the cover provided by ME buildings who has an opinion about CMSF's buildings?

I'd say the small arms like the M4 and M240B are just about right. I think the M2 should be more effective in regards to wall penetration. Every unit I saw in Baghdad had AP .50 rounds and those suckers will go through concrete like paper!

[Battlefront.com]

Splinty,

That's interesting, but tell me... could the AP .50 cut through the stink coming from the cesspool next to your FOB? I think we have undermodeled open sewage

Back to the terrain... as I said, there is a smaller degree of abstraction than CMx1, not that there is no abstraction at all. Open terrain, especially in an arid environment, tends to offer little practical means of cover or concealment. Toss some grass in and you at least get some better concealment.

And yes, the amount of lead flying around in CM:SF is leaps and bounds above what you'd see in WW2. Remember those gamey bastages who would only play with late war German squads that contained high numbers of MP40s or MP44s? Now think of everybody being a gamey bastage in CM:SF because pretty much all squads are even MORE powerful The way to break deadlocks is to use combined arms, not through frontal infantry assaults.

Check out the footage of small arms battles in Iraq. Although not comparable in many ways, it can be seen quite often that soldiers will expend a rather large amount of ammo while waiting for something else, like a Bradley or Stryker, to move up and put fire on the target. Then the infantry moves. It's like leap frogging squads. This is why, from what I've seen, that even the US "Light" forces (Airborne, Rangers, etc) in effect now resemble "Medium" forces more than not. For them, however, they rely upon Humvees when they aren't cross attached. I presume part of the reason for the change is a bit of an adjustment to reality. I welcome comments from the Iraq (thanks Splinty!) and Afghanistan vets about this, one way or another.

Steve