Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems

[Battlefront.com]

We've got basically two discussions going here that are loosely tied together. I'm trying to cover each separately instead of my normal "answer in the order received" method I generally use.

TRENCHES/FOW TERRAIN

SlapHappy,

As a comment on my own post above, I have witnessed on several occasions instances where troops behind a wall WILL displace to a better defensive position...say the building a few meters behind them. But I have never seen them choose to displace to a building (or position) behind them because the building they are currently in is being lit up by enemy fire. In other words it seem they can't separate the desirability of one building position to another building position that may be out of LOS from the enemy.

The standard logic is that a unit will not abandon good cover, even if under fire, for worse cover. In this case, a street. The logic here is that MOST of the time the unit is better off sticking to where it is instead of risking leaving. However, I agree that at some point the unit should say "feck it, we're out of here". That might be possible to do.

Further down W1||1am put it quite well:

All these cases can be checked for, but these checks typically involve a good amount of additional code, a large set of test-cases and the most expensive computation in the game: line-of-fire checks.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm looking forward to play with and against AI capable of everything you describe. Sadly, game AI doesn't automatically become easy because something looks obvious.

It seems that no matter how many times I go over this with gamers only those who program seem to appreciate what I'm saying. I'm always happy to hear one of you guys with first hand experience chime in

c3k,

How about allowing the defender (or scenario designer) to purchase "camo" slots?...Obviously this is just a quick brainstorming idea. I have no idea if it is feasible or desirable.

Not feasible even if it were desirable. Trust me, this was my first suggested work around to the necessity of having parallel terrain environments for each side. It's not practical and each of the 10 times I've asked Charles about this over the years he reminds me that his answer hasn't changed.

TheVulture,

You can only change that if all trenches are essentially mounds of earth on top of the landscape (like bunkers) that are high enough to act as trenches. And I don't see that as being a satisfactory solution at all. The unavoidable fact is that if you want trenches to be something that go in to the ground, then it has to cut through the terrain mesh, and that means a hole in the terrain mesh which under the current engine is always going to be visible.

Correct, and I'm not really sure why this is such a difficult concept to imagine. I'll cover this again further below.

Now I'd love to see 'terrain spotting' make an appearance (although following Steve's theme, the list of thing I'd love to see in the game is enough to keep them busy for a long time, never mind everyone else's wish lists ) - starting out with a 'low res' idea of the battlefield that improves as you actually get eyeballs on the terrain would be as much of a benefit as proper hiding of trenches etc. Not holding my breath on that one though...

Well, the thing is if we had spottable terrain what you've suggested would be possible. The reason is that all of this requires two different code versions of the map and a ton of code to reconcile the two together. That's why we are staying away from this like the plague. The number of problems that would erupt from such a design decision could easily chew up MONTHS of our time with NOTHING ELSE going on. It's not just coding, it's testing and bug fixing that we have to take into consideration. Having one "reality" in the game is difficult enough to keep in working order and to improve as we move along!

BTW for all the "you see a trench and immediately HE it" talk about CMx1, fairly people took advantage of that and stuck trenches around as target dummies, and put the actual unit in cover near the trench to hit whatever fell in to the trap. (Or the even more nasty (and rather gamey) trick of putting a stealthy firing unit in the trench near some trees... when your opponent gets a sound contact near the trees, he assumes that's where the unit is (being too far away to spot the trench - was it only visible under 192m or something?) and area-fires the trees, while you plink away from the safety and anonymity of the trench in the open).

Yes, I've brought that up before. Apparently it was too relevant because I've not seen it challenged

Salwon,

Going back to the CMx1 Trenches-are-units method isn't a good idea IMO.

And return to people bitching about how silly they look? No thanks The old trenches looked like crap and very few would be happy with a return to them. If it were put to a vote before we reverted I'd expect the 3D representation crowd would win. If we put them in anyway I think most of the people voting for the 2D ones would reverse their votes.

It's a dead issue. Not going to happen.

It's the visual aspect that's an abstraction, not the cover effects. As far as engine calculations go they're WAD. The trench needs to be part of the terrain so that the units inside get the correct depth, and therefore cover.

It's far more complicated than that. Everything in the game thinks in terms of 3D for almost everything that it does, while CMx2 rarely thought in 3D. I've gone through this a million times before... CMx2 is very close to being true between graphics and game mechanics, CMx1 was almost pure abstraction of the graphics. Putting abstractions into CMx2 is largely impossible if that abstraction is inherently 3D related.

Sergei,

I would love to have perfect FOW, just like you would and just like Steve would, but we must try to avoid underestimating Steve as a miserable doofus who knows nothing about making games, because he knows about making games. He (and Charles) is bound to have given this a bit more consideration, and from a more professional point of view as well, than me and you and your pet turtle together. If you don't have a pet turtle, you should get one, because turtles are cool.

As I said somewhere else recently... if Charles and I are really doofuses who miss the obvious, I really don't want to imagine what that makes people who have spent thousands of hours discussing and playing the games we make

Redwolf,

Still not getting why a trench is so different for modeling it than an APC. Both are containers that have infantry in it and provide protection for the soldiers inside. The only difference is that the trenches don't move.

No, that's not a difference at all. We have static tanks and you can immobilize any vehicle. The difference is one exists only because the terrain mesh is deformed, the other one exists without any interference with the terrain mesh. Bunkers are inbetween. They have a form but they may need to deform the terrain to avoid looking stupid. So we can hide the form, not the deformation.

You can just assume it's very narrow and don't let people look down into it. No need to break up the ground 3D model. Graphically model the soldiers as partially sticking out.

And what happens when they go prone? Rise up to ground level and then lie flat?

As I sated before, killing the graphical environment for this is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. We listened for years about how flat trenches and foxholes were a big problem for people. It's not acceptable for people to forget that, sorry.

The reason why players bombared trenches in CMBB was a pricing mistake. They were so scarce and expensive that they became an inappropriately high focus for both offensive action (nuke them) and defense deception. If scenarios had enough trenches available that wouldn't be an issue.

Pricing mistake? Not at all. The argument that the problem wouldn't exist if you had a whole map filled with trenches is ridiculous. Trench warfare in WWII was not like that at all. Even WW1 wasn't like that for the most part, and when it was the enemy knew so much about the trenches that the dummy ones weren't likely to fool the enemy.

Furthermore, CMBB's and CMAK's trenches had a bug in that they helped against casualties but not against suppression. You knew that soldiers inside the trench would be pinned by MG fire going over their heads the same way as if they wer ein the open. In reality they could move through the trench, falling back, without exposing their heads. In CMBB/CMAK you knew that any kind of fire would pin defenders in trenches, pretending them from falling back even if there is a contiguous line of trenches, so you just have some high-ammo MG blast away at them.

Ironically, this wasn't a bug at all but one of the problems with having an inherently 2D environment.

There's no reason to repeat that mistake in CMx2 WW2.

Exactly! I'm glad we agree to keep the current 3D trench simulation vs. the hack (and it was a hack) that CMx1 trenches were.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

WINDOWS/FORTIFICATIONS

LRC,

If the choice is between

#1 the platoon enter the building via the door that is on main street + main street is a sniper/mg alley

#2 the platoon enter (slowly) the building via the side/back windows + building side/back is safe

then forcing building entry via doors seriously modifies (diminishes?) the realism of MOUT tactics.

It theoretically modifies the realism, but our contention is that it doesn't amount to much within a game. The amount of times that it would be realistic isn't worth our time to code for. There are plenty of examples like this in all of our games and there always will be until someone invents a way to clone Charles and avoid having to pay the clone for any of the work he does. In short, we have to choose where to spend our overstretched and limited resources, and window egress is simply not on the priority list because it isn't that important.

URC,

so what could a basic Soviet small unit defence in urban area look like?

Most of the things in the article you quoted can be done in the game right now, no problems at all. The one major thing that can't be is designating a building "reinforced". That's something I've mentioned before that we do regret not having.

Of the major engineering tasks mentioned, I'll point out that the scenario designer can put them in. No, the player is unable to manipulate these things during Setup, but that doesn't mean they can't be simulated.

Some of the things mentioned here are the stuff of pure theory. Figure 2's description I could see evolving in a long, protracted urban conflict like Stalingrad... but that's about it.

However, I'll stress again... the thought that every time the Blue forces come upon a Red force this is the sort of defense they would encounter is pure fantasy. They have far too much country to cover with far too few forces for a large fight in depth. You can argue as much as you like that this sort of fight should be the norm, but you'll never be able to convince me that Syria is capable of such a defense now or in the near future.

CMx1 and CMx2 have never, ever been about simulating EVERYTHING possible. We simply have no capability to do this even if the wargaming market was big enough to support the additional costs (which it most definitely isn't).

The Vulture,

Coding the pixeltruppen to figure out which of two bits of equal protection is better for them to be in is a very different can of worms. Which directions are we taking fire from, and how much fire from each direction (and position). Do the known firing positions have LoS to other nearby buildings. What about known enemy units that aren't firing (or their last known positions). And don't forget about LoS along the route to take between buildings?

Exactly! And when the little pixeltruppen make the wrong choice, guess what kinds of threads we start to see? Still, I've asked Charles to think about expanding the "bugout" code to include abandoning buildings when things are bleak but not before the unit is wiped out.

Steve

[Big Poppa Pump]

Glad to hear you will look at the "bugout" code.

Any chance of increasing the size of the routing & casuality indicators? I know a previous patch lengthen the time they are visable but I never seem to notice them during game play. Particularily in real time.

[Scipio]

Here is a MOUT issue I've noticed in my running matches: when I give a view order to my men inside of a building, and the building has a balcony in the ordered direction, my men will take position on the balcony. (Interpost question: do balconys offer as much cover as if the soldiers are in the house?) Now, if the soldiers are on the ground floor, they leave the building and take position below the balcony. But I just want them to take position into view direction, but stay within the building. I'm not sure if it's qualified to be called a bug, but it seems to be close...

About trenches: I seem to be the only one who doesn't have a problem with visible trenches... I just would prefer if the current one would be modeled correct, and maybe extented with sensefull features such as shelters etc and what I have mentioned somewhere above. A visual problem I would like to add to my list is that trenches tend to switch between 3D and the distance-2D-lowquality graphics. Oh, and an idea: I understand that they are currently just a deformation within the surrounding landscape, but would it be possible to give trench walls/bottom seperate textures anyway?

[salwon]

Steve, I think you might be tired - I said going back to cm1 trenches ISN'T a good idea That seems to be what Redwolf wants, but...yeah. Terrible, terrible idea. Glad to hear it come from you :-)

It seems like we've reached an impass on this discussion - going through windows ain't going to happen, but a properly designed map can reproduce the effects. FOW terrain will happen, but is a big issue. Am I correct in assuming that we probably won't see hidden trenches/foxholes in Normandy?

[salwon]

Here is a MOUT issue I've noticed in my running matches: when I give a view order to my men inside of a building, and the building has a balcony in the ordered direction, my men will take position on the balcony. (Interpost question: do balconys offer as much cover as if the soldiers are in the house?) Now, if the soldiers are on the ground floor, they leave the building and take position below the balcony. But I just want them to take position into view direction, but stay within the building. I'm not sure if it's qualified to be called a bug, but it seems to be close...

Never noticed the ground-floor-facing-under-a-balcony thing (boy that rolls off the tongue!), but it sounds like a bug. I usually just go as high as possible, which mostly means guys on the balcony. Anecdotally, it seems like they're MORE exposed out there, at least to HE fire. The balcony will definitely cut down on LOS/LOF close to the building though.

[Redwolf]

Steve, I think you might be tired - I said going back to cm1 trenches ISN'T a good idea That seems to be what Redwolf wants, but...yeah. Terrible, terrible idea. Glad to hear it come from you :-)

But is it worse than no trenches with FoW?

Maybe. Maybe the looks are so important to you that you rather have no FoW trenches than flat ones.

But what about the foxholes? Are you also willing to get rid of FoW foxholes because they are too ugly?

How far are you willing to compromise realistic tactical challenges in the name of looks?

[salwon]

But is it worse than no trenches with FoW?

Yes. And not just because of the looks issue. In fact, I don't care about how it looks at all.

How far are you willing to compromise realistic tactical challenges in the name of looks?

This much, apparently. Although honestly I fail to see how knowing a trench is there is compromising any tactics. "I see a trench" is not the same thing as "I see the enemy." With foxholes I can see it being a bigger issue though - is the scenario designer going to be responsible for placing foxholes in every possible defensive location? But again, a strictly cosmetic solution is not the answer. For one thing, these trench units would need to be coded/tested/bug-fixed/Tac-AI fixed/etc etc etc, all of which takes away from more important work. For one thing, that's less time they're spending on true FOW terrain, which is On The List. No one wants Charles spending time on something that could lead to more problems and will only be replaced eventually anyway.

[Sergei]

With foxholes I can see it being a bigger issue though - is the scenario designer going to be responsible for placing foxholes in every possible defensive location?

Foxholes aren't placed by scenario designer, defenders get them automatically at the spot where they are placed in the setup. But they also look much shallower, hardly noticeable unless the map is mostly flat, so it's less of an issue.

[Redwolf]

Although honestly I fail to see how knowing a trench is there is compromising any tactics. "I see a trench" is not the same thing as "I see the enemy."

Really?

You can see the trenches from all over the map. The whole defense zone. You can see precisely, without even sending in an observer, all the fallback routes that have been planned by the defender. That's realistic? Maybe it is for the U.S. beating up Syria in 2008, with UAVs and thermal imaging. For the U.S. trying to beat up Germans dug in in Normandy? Not so much.

Of course one aspect hasn't been mentioned yet and that is that of course the trenches need to be placeable freely by the defender during setup. If not, there is not much to play as the defender.

In any case, there is no real difference between placeable foxholes subject to FoW and placeable trenches subject to FoW. If you implement foxholes you can use whatever you used there for trenches. Unless you are willing to live without either, which I really hope is not an option. Contrary to what Steve assumes I actually buy these games to play them, but who's going to play defender in Normandy if you can't place foxholes and trenches?

[Battlefront.com]

Salwon,

Steve, I think you might be tired - I said going back to cm1 trenches ISN'T a good idea That seems to be what Redwolf wants, but...yeah. Terrible, terrible idea. Glad to hear it come from you :-)

Heh... yeah, I cut and pasted things around at the last minute so they read more logically, so it looks like I messed that up a bit. Sorry

It seems like we've reached an impass on this discussion

It's never stopped one from going round and round and round a bit more

Am I correct in assuming that we probably won't see hidden trenches/foxholes in Normandy?

Correct. It's just not practical to have it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Maybe. Maybe the looks are so important to you that you rather have no FoW trenches than flat ones.

As I've said before, the reason why we don't have flat trenches has nothing to do with the visuals. The game system is inherently 3D so having flat trenches would mean special coding, all over the place, to have them behave like trenches. That was difficult enough to do in CMx1 where the game engine wasn't nearly as 3D dependent as CMx2 is. So from our perspective, as the guys who have to make and maintain the game, it's a no brainer to have 3D trenches.

The fact that they also look superior to the old flat ones, which people bitched a lot about, is basically icing on the cake for us. In other words, the goal for CMx2 wasn't to make better looking trenches, the goal was to make a better 3D environment. Better looking trenches just happened to be a desirable "side effect" of that goal.

You can see the trenches from all over the map. The whole defense zone. You can see precisely, without even sending in an observer, all the fallback routes that have been planned by the defender. That's realistic?

Not all the time, of course. And the less that is known about the enemy positions the less realistic it is, obviously. Bit this isn't an argument about what is more realistic or not, rather it's an argument over what is more practical or not. The cost to us, and ultimately to you the customer, for FOW terrain is simply too high for the benefits it would return.

Of course one aspect hasn't been mentioned yet and that is that of course the trenches need to be placeable freely by the defender during setup.

That's a completely separate issue. This is a matter of allowing the player to deform the terrain in Setup instead of only in the Editor. We are quite aware of the difference. It's a ton of coding and testing to get something like this to work, but it's definitely doable and has benefits for the game system beyond just foxholes/trenches.

In any case, there is no real difference between placeable foxholes subject to FoW and placeable trenches subject to FoW. If you implement foxholes you can use whatever you used there for trenches.

Not true at all. Shallow scoops out of the terrain mesh on the fly is a lot different than massive tears trenches entail. Trenches also affect movement in a very significant way, foxholes/craters do not. In short, trenches can't be generated on the fly, foxholes/craters can be. That means the two are not similar at all.

Contrary to what Steve assumes I actually buy these games to play them, but who's going to play defender in Normandy if you can't place foxholes and trenches?

How often did either side on the Western Front of WW2 fight from trenches? Not very much, so if you're so concerned about realism than play the game without trenches. That covers about 95% of the battles fought, therefore you would still be able to enjoy the game 95% as much as you could if there were FOW trenches/foxholes

And anyway, who said you wouldn't be able to place foxholes and/or trenches in Normandy?

Steve

[birdstrike]

IMHO, alot of FOW realism issues result from the free camera movement. If the camera would be restricted to a certain area around own units, you couldn't spot trenches on the other side of the map (or pinpoint dust clouds behind a mountain - as a related matter).

However, since such a thing would massively affect the player's general overview of a battle, there also could arise the need for interface aids, (like a clickable OOB to jump to units directly).

But perhaps such camera limitations could be incorporated in the selectable difficulty level of a future CM game?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

The camera movement is indeed a major reason why FoW is compromised. Not just in terms of trenches and what not, but in all senses. I mentioned a few pages back why it isn't good to argue about realism too much when objecting to something in CM. Sure, missiles that don't follow the right arcs, weapons that are too powerful compared to the real thing, guys armed with the wrong rifles, etc. are the sorts of realism arguments that can be made fairly cleanly. But when talking about things like FoW, Command & Control, intel gathering, etc... the realism arguments tend to fall apart quickly when compared to much larger things, some of which we can't fundamentally change.

The ultimate form of terrain FOW would be to have restricted camera behavior. This is why FPS games don't need FOW terrain It's just not practical for our sort of game, even in WeGo.

BTW, if someone can point me to a 3D game, any 3D game, that has FOW terrain where two players can see the same part of the terrain mesh but see different things, I'd love to know about it. For the life of me I can't think of a single one. The reason for that is, no doubt, a combo of lack of need and lack of practical ability. Especially multi-multi-player games... having 2 different worlds to keep track of and reconcile is bad enough, but 48 or so? I'd go so far as to say impossible.

Speaking of that, even if by some miracle we got FOW terrain into the game, we'd have to drop it when we got CoPlay put in. We would be much better spending our time putting in CoPlay, something people want and we know we'll keep forever, than something like FOW terrain which would be completed just in time for us to abandon it. Life is all about choices and priorities, whether the customer understands/accepts them or not.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I'm not doing the planning for CMx2:Normandy, so I can't speculate about whether placeable foxholes and placeable (lets call them slit) trenches are in.

I'm just making conversion in a discussion about what features people deem highly required for a Normandy game. Since this thread is mostly hardcore CMers and no "potential" customer who could be scared off will ever wander into it I don't think people should get too emotional. It's not that people posted a CAPS LOCK thread title with NORMANDY WITH NO FOW OMFG!!!111

Anyway, the point is, if they aren't planned for Normandy I urge to reconsider.

The backslash from semi-mainstream reviewers (those that now mostly fairly evaluate Marines) if you are missing placeable/FoW foxholes and some kind of "movement-enabled long foxhole" or whatever you want to call the small trenches would be bad. I don't think you want that kind of bad press. And as the transition from CM:SF 1.0 to Marine 1:10 has shown, you never shed the reputation built by the initial release.

In my wargame experience, playing and trolling forums, people will strictly expect that in a Normandy game the German defender can dig in so hard that the Allied player needs to be creative to get them out. It is absolutely required that the German player can place their units at will and not has to choose between always visible trenches he can't move and no protection from fortifications. You need placeable fortifications that are only revealed if the Allied player either gets out of his way to scout them out or of the occupants open fire.

The nastiness of a Pak40 hidden where you really didn't expect it is a major part of what made CMx1 a great game. You would ruin it if the defender cannot place it freely (pre-spotted trenches only) and/or if free placement has no fortification bonus.

It's about creativity. In a Normandy game the creativity initiative is on the German player in playing out some unexpected defensive setup freely, without unrealistic penalties for cover or FoW. Then the creativity of the attacker kicks in dealing with it.

And if I might say so, the lack of this kind of creativity when defending is what makes CM:SF so much less fun to play as Syrians. It's not that just the Syrians are weak. It's worse that the game doesn't allow you to get creative in setting up your defense.

[Sergei]

The nastiness of a Pak40 hidden where you really didn't expect it is a major part of what made CMx1 a great game. You would ruin it if the defender cannot place it freely (pre-spotted trenches only) and/or if free placement has no fortification bonus.

CMBO had no trenches at all.

[Sergei]

We would be much better spending our time putting in CoPlay, something people want and we know we'll keep forever, than something like FOW terrain which would be completed just in time for us to abandon it.

I, for one, welcome Cosplay.

[Scipio]

Instead of all this talking about hiding trenches, why doesn't ask anyone for sandbag positions/lines as replacement/workaround? Yes, I know it's not the same, maybe it even would look odd in some cases - but if it is obviously impossible to hide something that deforms the terrain mesh, why not take something that can be placed on the mesh like a normal unit? It doesn't even must be coded as some kind of container. But since vehicels offer both LOS/LOF cover in CMx2, the most simple 'unit' can be a wall of sandbags. Add as many as you want, place them as you like, hide them from the enemy...

Yes Steve, I know what you will say: if it just would be that simple...

[Sergei]

Scipio, the thing about trenches as terrain shapes is that units recognise them as cover, which is not something that flavor objects or vehicles do - so you'd still end up with having to create special rules.

[Scipio]

Scipio, the thing about trenches as terrain shapes is that units recognise them as cover, which is not something that flavor objects or vehicles do - so you'd still end up with having to create special rules.

Well, than is something fundamentally wrong with flavor objects and vehicel cover .

[birdstrike]

I, for one, welcome Cosplay.

I think I've seen her before. Is that from the upcoming JDF Module?

And are there any news on the unit list? Because, I won't buy it, if there's no Godzilla in it.

[birdstrike]

Instead of all this talking about hiding trenches, why doesn't ask anyone for sandbag positions/lines as replacement/workaround? Yes, I know it's not the same, maybe it even would look odd in some cases - but if it is obviously impossible to hide something that deforms the terrain mesh, why not take something that can be placed on the mesh like a normal unit? It doesn't even must be coded as some kind of container. But since vehicels offer both LOS/LOF cover in CMx2, the most simple 'unit' can be a wall of sandbags. Add as many as you want, place them as you like, hide them from the enemy...

Maybe sandbags positions could be modeled like currently bunkers or buildings but without a roof?

[Scipio]

Scipio, the thing about trenches as terrain shapes is that units recognise them as cover, which is not something that flavor objects or vehicles do - so you'd still end up with having to create special rules.

But seriously, my core idea is just, if it's imposible to hide something that's part of the terrain mesh, it's maybe possible to create some kind of replacement that's placed on the terrain mesh!

[Sergei]

I don't think it's impossible to do either. It's more a question of how much work, ie. how long time it will take from Charles to implement something.