CMx2 and the NEED for deformable terrain

[c3k]

Gents (and BF.C),

As the subject suggests, there is a NEED for CMx2 to include deformable terrain. Here are just a few examples and reasons, off the top of my head. (Remember, this does not have to be WW2 specific.)

Fields of corn or sunflowers should have swathes leveled by sustained small-arms fire: this would reduce the concealment afforded by these avenues.

Wooden structures should produce wounding splinters when penetratrated.

Trees should fall, creating movement obstacles.

Tanks should plow wet fields into morasses.

Heavy artillery should produce terrain effects similar to Flanders.

I'm sure others will come up with better examples, however, these show that the interaction of weapons and units with the environment needs to be modelled.

If a better portrayel of cover, concealment, weapons' penetration and kinematics is part of CMx2, then terrain (natural and man-made) needs to be portrayed with a higher fidelity.

Thank you,

Ken

[General Bolt]

Large buildings create rubble in adjcent areas(i.e. block roads).

[Battlefront.com]

While we have to be careful about not going overboard with deformable terrain, we can in theory deform anything.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Hey. maybe they'll give us Shermans with plough attachments and 'Aunt Jemima' mine rollers!

[c3k]

Oooooh, Steve, that sounds VERY nice...

Thanks,

Ken

[GreenAsJade]

Right, but the cornfields things still isn't going to work ... at least not by deforming the terrain.

The concealment/cover properties of cornfields aren't conferred by the shape of the terrain, they're a property of the terrain, right? You won't be able make cornfields give less cover by "deforming them downwards due to fire". Either units are standing in a cornfield or they aren't based on their position. If they are, they get cover, if they are not then they don't.

To have sustained fire change the properties of cornfield, you need mutable terrain properties rather than deformable terrain of the same property...

GaJ

[c3k]

GaJ,

Well done! Mutable it is!

We NEED mutable terrain. (As well as deformable terrain.)

Ken

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

While we have to be careful about not going overboard ..., we can in theory deform anything.

I suggest starting with Seanachai.

[Barrold]

Now exactly how would this be discernable?

BFS5

[JonS]

Have faith in BFC, Unbeliever. Perhaps they could start by deforming his legs to a normal length.

[Barrold]

On the same theory though, I should be able to hit potholes in the street to put my car back into alignment.

How likely is this? A sack of mush deformed through repeated kickings is hardly likely to be made better through additional kickings.

On the other hand though, you have an interesting hypothesis and it is worth investigation. I demand Seanachai be made available for extended kicking!

BFS5

[JonS]

Entropy sez no. Actually, entropy sez it's possible, but extremely unlikely. So, you're right - extensive testing needed.

[dalem]

Seanachai is already fairly deformed.

-dale

[Nicdain]

Deforming terrain will mean real 3D trenches and foxholes?

[Barrold]

Seanachai is already fairly deformed.

-dale

Do pay attention dale, this fact has been well established.

BFS5

[Paul AU]

With the smaller-sized terrain 'tile', maybe this would be possible:

Vehicles that drive over deep snow, create 'paths' of compressed (light) snow behind them that other units can follow with less effort.

I've read of real-life examples of this happening in combat.

[Barrold]

This feature is also going to be interesting to experiment with when creating a map or scenario as any effect possible for destruction during the game should be able to be pre-set in a similar fashion before to represent a well-fought-over landscape.

BDH

[flamingknives]

Infantry taking cover in tank tracks? It apparently took the sting out of artillery barrages when attacking.

[stoat]

Yes, but if one man of the squad is in the tracks, do they all get the protection? We don't even know if there will BE tracks.