CMX2 wall/fence suggestion

[legend42]

The current CM engine has a very limited simulation of walls and fences.I was wondering if this might be addressed in CMX2?There are many varying types of fences, walls, and gates.Fences vary from weak stockade to 8' high with no visibility through it.The walls in CM are all the same,in reality stone and concrete walls varied up to 8' high with no visibilty through them,you would find such a wall surrounding a palace or estate,while these walls were not the norm of the time they did exist. Another type of fence which would create many interesting dilemas would be a heavy wrought iron gate.It would have clear los throught it, but very difficult to scale it given the situation.Ive seen many pictures of these in WW2 books.Do you think these are valid points or am I suffering the effects of my 9th beer?

[stoat]

I agree. I don't know how many different walls there will be, but I would like to see a good number more, each with various heights and thicknesses.

I would also like to see wooden fence sections destroyed by artillery or other HE shells so that infantry can move through it unimpeded, or forming choke points, depending on your point of view.

[Pzman]

A wooden fence should also come down when a AFV drives over it.

[stoat]

Yeah, I forgot to mention that.

[JasonC]

I'd like to see a lot more linear terrain forms, wider variety, and placed without needing a line of "open" on either side. Low stone walls, higher than a man stone walls, walls with one side higher than the other, sunken roads, tree lined roads with more serious characteristics than the present type (which do not remotely block LOS - the real ones do), hedges thick and thin, hedgerows of course, iron fences and gates, wood fences, wire fences, ditches and gullies within a single terrain tile, etc.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'd like to see a lot more linear terrain forms, wider variety, and placed without needing a line of "open" on either side...

[...]

...ditches and gullies within a single terrain tile, etc.

I think so too. Not only will it make the terrain much more interesting to the eye, but hopefully function as cover and concealment.

[Michael Dorosh]

And doodad signs that say VERGES MINED or VERGES CLEARED as appropriate.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by JasonC:

...walls with one side higher than the other,

Is that anything like a one-way mirror?

[YankeeDog]

Don't forget earthen berms, such as the type that rail lines are often built upon, and also roads in some areas. And a better treatment of how such linear terrain features provide cover.

We're all very familiar with the problems that the current AI has recognizing the cover that a stone wall provides. . .

[JasonC]

Ace Pilot - they are quite common actually. A field that is 4 feet higher than a road, with a wall between that comes up to a level only about a foot or two higher than the field side, but 5-6 feet higher than the road side. Also along canals, various embankments, etc, where the wall is effectively operating as a "retaining" mechanism to prevent slides. Tactically they are important features because of their directional cover difference, as you presumably meant to point out.

[mrpwase]

I'd like to be able to place walls/hedges/fences at the edge of tiles, instead of the centre. It seems a bit more realistic, and means you can cram more wheat in your wheatfields.

[Sirocco]

I thought the new engine won't use tiles?

[mrpwase]

Really? Oh, that's even better. I didn't know that. What system's being used instead?

[MikeyD]

And for modern let's not forget the ubiquitous poured concrete Jersey barrier (should offer good protection) that can be found all over the world these days ...and its big brother in Iraq the "Bremmer wall".

BFC's been getting considerable experience doing "deformable terrain" with T72 and ...I think... Drop Team. I'd expect to see ditches, hull-down emplacements, berms, etc. etc. when CMx2 comes out.

This makes me wonder, considering that they DON'T have all the time and resources to do everything to perfection I wonder what they're going to chose to neglect if favor of more pressing issues. Maybe a functionally accurate chain link fence might not be in the cards, simply due to time constraints.

[juan_gigante]

I think the new map system might be a little like that in Warcraft III's map editor. In that, you paint on terrain using brushes that range from very big to very small. After you have painted grass here, trees here, etc., then you can raise & lower terrain with the brushes and add in fences and the like as doodads. Perhaps there would be a little fence brush that you just drag and you've got a fence along the path you dragged. This description isn't super clear, but it is a very intuitive way of creating maps.

[Gpig]

Yes. New wall features would be greatly appreciated.

I was just reading an account of Shermans in action from "No Holding Back. Operation Totalize. Normandy August 1944." written by Brian A. Reid.

On pg. 237,

"Here the crews moved their Shermans into concealed positions behind the wall, knocking down parts of it to create firing ports like the battlements of a medieval castle."

(This is also the troop that KO'd Wittman's tank.)

Gpig

[Xavier]

Originally posted by Gpig:

(This is also the troop that KO'd Wittman's tank.)

Gpig

Don't start again with that! :mad:

You should edit your post to

"One of the numerous troops and planes that KO'd

Wittman's tank."

Thank you

[Gpig]

Hee hee hee. I knew that would bring someone out to play.

This book does put forward a great case for the above being true (Canadian claim on Wittman's tank). But like the rest, it is no sure thing.

The important thing is that the counter attack was repulsed.

Great book, by the way.

Gpig

[MikeyD]

Huh! And I thought - foolishly, i suppose - it was 100% settled that he was done in by a Canadian Sherman. That the big Wittman debate - like evolution - is only an ongoing issue among the ignorant

[JonS]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Great book, by the way.

The forums latest favourite expensive book Mine arrives soon ...

[JonS]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Huh! And I thought - foolishly, i suppose - it was 100% settled that he was done in by a Canadian Sherman. That the big Wittman debate - like evolution - is only an ongoing issue among the ignorant

I doubt it'll every be 100%. But, AIUI, No Holding Back makes the case that it was one of the ice eaters.

Meh, it's a non-controversial diversion, with no real meaning. Non-controversial in the sense that the destruction of another Tiger had little effect on the campaign*. Given that, of even less moment is whether the Notts Yeo, the RAF, or the Canuckian unit (whichever it was), gets to paint the stripe on their hull. It certainly raises passions though Anyone remember Mr Mysterioso "P-51D". LOL.

Which reminds me: It's also sometimes used as a weak example of the effectiveness of CAS (if you happen to believe that theory), in much the same way that the attack that wounded Rommel is trotted out sometimes for the same reason. Dubious, accidental, and extremly outlier-ish, strikes that happen to have larger than intended - or realised - consequences aren't good points of validation.

There are some interesting discussions to be had around it though. Not least, to me, is that this stunning example of German tactical ineptness is often written up by the goose-stepping back-slappers as some sort of heroic Ride of the Valkyries, as if it was something to be emulated rather than ridiculed.

Regards

JonS

A similar, pointless but vaguely interesting, deiscussion can be had about the Bismark and who 'got it'.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

It certainly raises passions though Anyone remember Mr Mysterioso "P-51D". LOL.

Ho boy. I'll carry the memory of that one to my grave, I think.

There was another guy who showed up briefly. He said that we better not disagree with him because he was "a WW II history buff". I think the laughter that engendered blew him all the way back to wherever he came from. Assuming he was serious in the first place.

Michael

[Gpig]

Hell yeah! P-51D! Now that guy was an exceptional trickster.

The 1 Northhamptonshire Yeomanry of 33 British Armoured Brigade (with Tpr Elkins in a Firefly tank) was not the only unit that engaged Tiger tanks that afternoon.

Major Sydney Radley-Walters' A Sqn of the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment and the 144 Regiment Royal Armoured Corp were also within range and made claims on Tigers.

According to the research done by Mr. Reid, there was no CAS in the area during the counterattack by Wittman's unit. So yes, that would make the case for the effectiveness of CAS extremely weak in this example.

I agree with you about the tactical ineptness evident in the counterattack. The book makes note of it. Also, the double standard applied to german "mistakes" versus allied mistakes.

Very interesting stuff. All good for the continuation of my education.

Gpig

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Hell yeah! P-51D! Now that guy was an exceptional trickster.

Not really, I don't think. His story had huge holes in it that people weren't long in discovering and that he very ineptly tried to bluff his way through. A real trickster would have had us still believing him long after he was gone.

Michael

[JonS]

just for giggles, and old times sake. It seems his story hung together for all of ... oh, about 1 hour and 5 minutes to Johns post, and 2 hours and 20 minutes to Doroshs post

2 days and 2 hours later, he was gone for good. Never to be seen again. There are some very funny posts in there