Enter the Entmoot: Indestructible Trees

[c3k]

Gents,

I'm ecstatic about the discovery of the newest hardwoods! Yes, I'm talking about the ironwood - nay, the TITANIUMwood trees in CMSF.

What? You'd like to know more?

Well, we know that tanks can't knock over the simplest boles of Titaniumwood. They must pathfind around them. (Okay, sarcasm off/ I'm okay with not knocking them over. I understand the reluctance to get a track thrown by a tree when you're in contact. Sarcasm on/)

Even better than their deep-rooted immovability is their ability to shrug off repeated 120mm HE hits. I found out about this the hard way.

Imagine this:

Tank-----Trees(my men)Trees-----enemy soldier.

My Abrams fired a single 120mm HE at the solitary soldier. The round hit a tree directly over my men. 5 red-bases, 4 yellow-bases. Craptastic. But hey, that's life in a combat zone.

Then, the Abrams being motivated and well-trained, they noticed their round did not affect the enemy soldier. What did they do? Of course! They fired another round. Which, geometry being what it is, hit the same exact branch of the same exact tree.

Let me repeat that: the NEXT 120mm HE round hit the same exact branch of the same exact tree.

Fortunately, most of my men were already KIA/WIA, so this second round only caused 2 red-bases and 1 yellow-base.

In my dream world, trees would be destructible terrain. Of course, that takes time and effort and the odds of these things occurring is low. The benefit/cost equation is not in favor of changing the code.

Does anyone have a rule of thumb about which types of trees prohibit manuever? Or fire?

Thanks,

Ken

[Chainsaw]

ive seen the same with Bradleys 25mm... hitting same lone tree time after time... you think that after a little burst that poor small tree should just be a stump and the LOS would be clear. But instead 2 out of 3 rounds impact on that tree and only 1 out of 3 actually find its target...

In reallity a quick burst from a MG would cut down the tree (talking 20cm and smaller here), done it for own pleasure a few times, both 7.62 MG and 20mm autocannon.

so someone should really take a look on those titaniumtrees...

/Chain

[c3k]

How apropos! I am, of course, referring to your member name. Only someone calling themself "Chainsaw" would keep an eye out for a thread about trees.

I really don't know what a good solution (assuming the trees are seen as a problem) would be. Your thoughts?

Regards,

Ken

[Chainsaw]

ha! you got humor atleast

I dont know, I guess its gonna be pretty hard to start giving the trees damage limits,after X rounds of MG they fall down or X rounds of 25mm etc.

then again not all trees fall for fire like that...

But then again there is a reason why we arent programers but BF is =)

/Chain tree chopping-saw

[slug88]

Trees *are* destructable in the game. I've seen it happen many times. And they even have a very nice progressive damage model, with different graphics for different levels of damage. Try setting up a simple map to test it for yourself, it's rather neat. Of course, I completely agree that they take far too much firepower to actually become destroyed. Usually takes 3-4 direct hits from a high end ATGM in my experience.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

That seems odd. I've seen artillery fire and Javelins destroy trees before. Don't know why 120mm HE doesn't work.

-FMB

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by slug88:

Trees *are* destructable in the game. I've seen it happen many times. And they even have a very nice progressive damage model, with different graphics for different levels of damage. Try setting up a simple map to test it for yourself, it's rather neat. Of course, I completely agree that they take far too much firepower to actually become destroyed. Usually takes 3-4 direct hits from a high end ATGM in my experience.

This has been my experience as well

[Secondbrooks]

Oh jolly good, when my T-55 shot 100 HE-round at treeline behind which MY SF platoon was stalking... Merely half of them dead or wounded

Which is ofcourse realistic that round detonates when it hits something which makes it to detonate, but they are soooo dumb in it: Quite literally they try to hit targets behind leaves, branches and trunks. I've hardened myself for things like that, but there has been few droplets which have broken camels' backs and made me howl.

There could be something made to it. Maybe some A. 1/3 amount of shootingdistance or B. solid 50-100 meter shootingdistance under which (from gunner) projectile just won't hit trees and such. I don't' know would that be correct or even possible way of doing things, but i hope that something could be made.

To question how forest affects on mobility. It becomes very sloooow with tanks. Here some figures form back 80's (officers quidebook which i tend to carry on my pocket... I wanted to become officer you know )

Forest with low treecount and slim tree trunks: 5-10 kilometers per hour for tank and IFV with tracks. IFV/APC with wheels 5 kilometers (usually follows tank's tracks). I however think that these are tactical (or commonsense) speeds, not speeds what they could travel. I think i've seen few pissed truckdrives who drove quite fastly and didn't bother to evade trees, but just knocked them down. Mostly it was terrain features such as rougness which limited their speed (danger of truck falling on it's side), not trees.

Forest with high treecount and thick trunks: 2-5 kilometers per hour for tanks. IFVs with tracks and wheels usually follows tank's tracks.

Haven't watched speed of vehicles in CMSF, but could say that it goes along the lines.

LOS blocking of CMSF trees seems to be quite correct. About ability to hit trees... Well could be issue in real life if trajectory of round is so curved that gunner doesn't know that on it's way to target it will hit something or gun being inaccurate.

As rule of thumb with instructions i've had: On border of forest infantry is at most vulnereable place it can be for HE rounds. we got demonstration of this: Hit of 100 mm HE in tree (few meters high) just 10-20 meters infront of squad and whole squad in normal line formation got wiped out. Problem is that in CMSF infantry's AT-power is useless when used from inside forest. Two-three tiles (less than 30 meters) of forest seems to be maximum, but after that AT-rounds starts to hit trees quite frequently. Well tanks will hit trees as well, but usually they have better succes in killing infantry than infantry has in killing tanks.

Reduced accuracy is good, i have no objection against that, but it just seems to be so abnormal that gunner manages to hit tree just in front of him. For that there should be some sort "in-ability to hit trees at close distances from gunner"-feature introduced.

BTW. Heavy arty barrages can and will demolish trees, leaves and branches. I once withdrew form barraged area and i noticed that enemy could shoot my men form over 100 meters distances. Ofcourse i got intrested and when i zoomed in i noticed that there was BIG hole in forest (just trunks and possbily clear patches of forest). Syrian rocketlauchers combined with company of 120 mm mortars were involed.

EDIT: Brainfarts corrected. And well... I'm trying to be reasonible, so eventually it's not THAT big issue i quess. It's just down side, which would be nice to be fixed (The "tree hitting"-thing). But i can't play&enjoy CMSF as it is.

[ May 12, 2008, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[c3k]

Ahh, I've not noticed that trees can be destroyed. Chalk up another point of detail to BF.C's credit.

Now, about the FIDELITY of the tree damage model... (It's kind of nice to be at the point with this game when I can ask about a subject like that!) How difficult would it be to make trees easier to destroy?

I do not want to have trees get ignored for any reason. The 1 to 1 modelling aspect is a hallmark of CMSF; discounting trees would go against that.

Are branches counted the same as twigs, boles, limbs, and trunks? How is the damage model for trees set up?

Thanks,

Ken

[MikeyD]

If you REALLY hate your trees may I suggest 155mm artillery ground burst. You'll strip the leaves off the trees then eventually start destroying 'em as the craters accumulate. They're tough but 155mm is tougher

[Paper Tiger]

c3k,

you're surely not being serious now? Do you really feel that this game will be substantially improved by giving each individual tree in the game hit points? Is the performance hit really worth the extra detail? As already noted by other posters, they do get destroyed in the game anyway. they're just tough to destroy.

You seem to have extraordinarly high expectations of the fidelity of this simulation. I thinks we're all a bit more concerned about how accurately it models ballistics, firepower and other such things rather than have more easily destroyable trees. Personally, I'd prefer it if they gave more attention to buildings.

[Chainsaw]

but if they already are destroyable then it just needs a bit more tweaking so they dont live longer then anyone else on the battlefield.

[Michael Emrys]

Y'know, there's a reason why the oldest living things on the planet are trees.

Michael

[c3k]

Paper Tiger,

I am serious. In a nice relaxed way. How much better if the future iterations of this engine could replicate shattered tree trunks from bombardments? Or rows of pines cut down by miniguns? Or that 120mm HE shell that killed my men by TWICE hitting the same branch would instead blow the tree (still killing the first bunch), but not be able to hit it AGAIN?

Twig; branch; limb; bole; trunk. I would assign health points based on size. Obviously wood strength rises with the square of the average diameter.

Other factors would also need to be taken into account.

In hard winter, the sap freezes. That would lead to trees being more brittle, hence much more susceptible to damage.

Spring time is a time of great resiliency for trees for the same reasons. Have you ever tried to break off a green branch?

Obviously, the different wood species have different strengths. Oak is stronger than pine. Yet, the supple bamboo bends in a wind while the mighty oak breaks. That elasticity would come into play when simulating damage from overpressure rather than kinetic impacts.

Of course, a generic randomizer would be used to account for pests, diseases, poor soil, drought, or vandalism. A wood-borer infested pine should fall more readily than a strapping, healthy specimen.

I once had a 35 foot long, 9 inch diameter limb fall on my thigh. (Don't ever hold the ladder while someone over your head is using the chainsaw.) In game terms, I was immobilized and pinned for several turns. That should be simulated when large limbs and boles are hit (not for twigs or branches).

Splinter wounds? Of course.

It is not necessary to show the leaves of certain species furling or unfurling with the sunset or sunrise.

An added benefit of tweaking the fidelity of the tree damage model would be better simulation of split rail fences in an American Civil War version.

This would allow for better wood property simulation including realistic upper tree movement in a wind. Different for breeze, zephyr, gust, storm, hurricane, blizzard, etc.

That way LOF to/from snipers in trees would be more realistic. Especially for Japanese snipers tied into the tops of palm trees for the WWII PTO module.

Paper Tiger, how could you NOT be satisfied until the above are included?

Alright, jesting over; in a really serious vein, I do think the game allows for trees to be damaged. I am wondering if others feel they are too tough right now, just right, or too weak. I feel they are far too tough.

If there's a damage model present (which there seems to be based on the comments from those above) can it be easily tweaked? If so, should it?

Thanks,

Ken

[Paper Tiger]

Oh, I completely agree that if it were done it would be a nice bit of chrome. But Steve has stated often enough that there's only so much development time available to them so it's all a matter of priorities. Is this REALLY a priority for anybody?

The answer to that question isn't important to me. At least I've had a laugh reading your posts today for the right reasons. Thanks...

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Yesterday I took out a tree with 2 hits from a 115-mm gun from a T-62.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by c3k:

Oak is stronger than pine. Yet, the supple bamboo bends in a wind while the mighty oak breaks.

Actually, the oak doesn't so much break as become uprooted and topple over. I've had a few almost fall on me in storms.

Michael

[c3k]

Hmmm, which species of oak? Red or silver? (Obviously not scrub, black or swamp; they'll need their own damage/growth model.)

Ken

[JonS]

African, or European?

[dan/california]

Actually the right density of trees around a building are currently the most effective form of fortification in the game. They can soak up virtually any quantity of 25mm fire and a lot more main gun rounds than I want to spend.

I have seen this strongly in the process of getting my head handed to me in Hammertime.

The building seems to absorb the fragments and mitigate the air burst effect.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:

Yesterday I took out a tree with 2 hits from a 115-mm gun from a T-62.

Congratulation...???

[Thomm]

LOL!

[C'Rogers]

And now we have wood grogs.

[c3k]

Hmm, we also have tree huggers. At least, in game.

Why can't I area fire into trees? Sure, I can area target the GROUND amongst the trees, but once the LOS penetrates too far such that the cursor cannot touch the ground, area fire is prevented. In my situation there is a wooded slope. I cannot fire through the tree canopy into the slope.

Anyone else?

And, can we keep this on topic? We keep seeming to branch out and that will cause interested parties to leave this thread.

Thanks,

Ken

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by c3k:

Why can't I area fire into trees? Sure, I can area target the GROUND amongst the trees, but once the LOS penetrates too far such that the cursor cannot touch the ground, area fire is prevented. In my situation there is a wooded slope. I cannot fire through the tree canopy into the slope.

Same reason you can't area fire through smoke. a) it is extra work to code it to make it possible, and the number of legitimate uses it enables compared to the number of gamey ones probably weighs against it.

And, can we keep this on topic? We keep seeming to branch out and that will cause interested parties to leave this thread.

You're barking up the wrong tree with that kind of request.