Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems

[Battlefront.com]

heh... yeah, that's generally the way things go around here and even a couple months away won't change that Nice to see you back.

As I've said for the last decade, it's all about choices and the balance of pros and cons coming from those choices. Overall the choice to move to a nearly completely 3D environment was the only right choice to make. People can rant all they want about all the things that were "sacrificed" for that, but it's the typical glass half empty line of argument. You know, focusing on the negative and completely ignoring the positives.

The one negative thing I can see about the 3D environment we have now is that it is much harder to abstract certain things. Mostly it doesn't matter since, in fact, people want LESS abstraction. Tons of things possible in CMx2 were impossible or "hacked" into CMx1. Trenches, in fact, weren't even in CMBO due to the difficulties of having them. CMBB introduced trenches, but they were hacks. Sure, I would love to have FOW trenches in CM:Normandy... but would I rather have them than the entirely new QB system? That's the sort of thing we'd have to give up in order to make FOW terrain, and I for one think it would be insane and irresponsible to make such a decision.

Oh, and that's another thing... anybody that thinks FOW trenches for the Normandy setting are mandatory obviously were unable to enjoy CMBO. Either that or their line of argument is emotional and not really grounded in reality.

Steve

[Sergei]

So will we have user-placeable foxholes?

Since v1.0.

[Scipio]

Steve, do you think it is difficult to give trenches seperate textures? I mean different textures as the surounding landscape?

[sfhand]

Steve,

I understand your position, but I must ask one question.

I'm using an 8800gtx video card (it seems some guy who works at BF said nvidia was the way to go...) and at a certain distance the trenches "bug" out and become invisible. I believe you've said it was an nvidia driver issue. So, not being a programmer, I'm wondering, is there a not-too-labor-intensive way to make this nvidia "bug" work for hiding terrain features until they are "spotted" (and at the same time fix the nvidia "bug" for people like me)?

Thanks,

sfhand

[Sergei]

sfhand, I experience the same. But I've also noticed that trenches (and road side ditches) become visible beyond that distance when they're in a shown objective (or setup) area. Action point highlighting does the same. Odd stuff. Btw. if you have 'better' or 'best' texture details, try setting it to 'balanced' or 'improved' and see if there's any difference for ya.

I doubt that would be much of a solution, though, unless you were willing to go with craptacular map detail levels until your units spot each and every map square well enough to 'clear the FOW'. Probably would still require just as much work as doing it the 'proper' way.

[stikkypixie]

Sure, I would love to have FOW trenches in CM:Normandy... but would I rather have them than the entirely new QB system? That's the sort of thing we'd have to give up in order to make FOW terrain, and I for one think it would be insane and irresponsible to make such a decision.

Steve

You do realize now, that we expect nothing less than perfection from the new QB system .

[GSX]

Man, Ive just read through this whole thread fest. Ive come to the conclusion that Im going to be disappointed with a lot of CM Normandy.

So the yanks will be able to see all of the Nazi entrenchments. No big deal!

However, its pretty fundamental to a Nazi defender not to have his positions shown to the enemy before the battle starts.

The US historically took a lot of horrendous casualties in Normandy, especially in the Bocage, through hidden Nazi positions, now of course we are going to be told that air recce has sourced all of these!

Ive been to Normandy a few times, most recently in March 2008, and I can tell you, in the surviving bits of the Bocage, you cant see **** from ground level at 100 yards, never mind air recce.

CM Normandy is all about the US versus dug in German regular infantry, I dont think the US even faced the SS for months, or ever saw a Tiger for ages too.

Unless BFC is planning a revisionist Normandy where the US faces the SS and Tigers in open terrain, where in reality the UK faced all the SS and most of the Tigers for most of the time, its all about small unit actions with a few tanks in very much closed terrain with hidden foxholes and trenches.

The Germans were good, but not that good and the hidden defences gave them an edge that they wont have now.

Still, its a game, not a simulation I suppose.

[Sergei]

Don't worry, GSX. In CMBO there weren't any trenches at all, and people still enjoyed it. So it's up to people whether they find the limited trenches useful or not. It shouldn't prevent enjoying the game. And in addition to hidden foxholes, bunkers and minefields there's still all the defensive benefits that the terrain, walls, bushes and buildings can offer. And water.

[c3k]

On the flip side, if the Germans are given an absolutely huge number of trenches, it won't matter if you know where the trenches are: the Germans could be anywhere within that system.

Just a thought....

Ken

[Redwolf]

Don't worry, GSX. In CMBO there weren't any trenches at all, and people still enjoyed it. So it's up to people whether they find the limited trenches useful or not. It shouldn't prevent enjoying the game. And in addition to hidden foxholes, bunkers and minefields there's still all the defensive benefits that the terrain, walls, bushes and buildings can offer. And water.

Well, in CMBO you could always fall back without trenches thanks to not being suppressed by MGs

Anyway, the main point about trenches (that CMBB only partially achieved, too) is that you can move. You can fall back, you can reinforce sectors, that kind of thing.

I guess another big question for CMx2:Normandy is how much cover woods, brush and hedges provide. In CMx1, dense woods even without foxholes were pretty defendable. I hope this doesn't break down because of the new LOS and 3D tree model.

[JonS]

Unless BFC is planning a revisionist Normandy where the US faces the SS ..., where in reality the UK faced all the SS ...

*cough* Das Reich *cough* Götz von Berlichingen *cough*

[Sergei]

On the flip side, if the Germans are given an absolutely huge number of trenches, it won't matter if you know where the trenches are: the Germans could be anywhere within that system.

Just a thought....

Ken

Especially if the Germans also have a couple of freely deployed MG bunkers and pillboxes in their setup. And they better do, because the CMx1 way of dropping ATG's into trenches was slightly strange, and it'd look even stranger with CMx2 graphics. Maybe there could also be some deployable open-top gun emplacements like this:

P.S. Sorry, I'm getting lost off topic. PaK38 is not something generally connected to MOUT warfare...

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I presume the colors of white and blue would be good for you?

white & blue is ok

the trade-off with physics etc is one that i myself would not have made, but then again i am me and you are a succesful business.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

regarding Normandy, what about giving defending "dug in" units a higher than reasonable bonuses regarding cover & concealment to compensate for lack of FOW trenches and such?

it wouldn't require any graphical stuff, just some under-the-hood calculations for "dug in" units that haven't moved (cover & concealment) or fired (concealment).

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Especially if the Germans also have a couple of freely deployed MG bunkers and pillboxes in their setup. And they better do, because the CMx1 way of dropping ATG's into trenches was slightly strange, and it'd look even stranger with CMx2 graphics. Maybe there could also be some deployable open-top gun emplacements like this:

without FOW terrain, don't you think seeing the emplacements would be a bit of a give away for the enemy, certainly begging for mortar shells etc? and then, imagine the horror for the grogs when the defender totally unrealistically doesn't setup his gun in the emplacement.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Still no good. What happens when you take fire from a location that only has LOS to one set of trenches? What about 155mm airburst with it's massive area of effect?

if you are speaking from the perspective of your campaign, i think you could calculate artillery effects before setting up the CMSF battle. only include some mortar & light arty fire in CMSF.

from artillery realism stand point you won't get very far with CMSF anyway. in real world the Stryker force would 90% of time just be some eyes on the ground, doing best to evade direct action, instead just calling down massed MRLS & PGM fires.

i think the bigger problem for the campaign would be all the missing equipment.

BTW have you thought about doing the ground battles of the campaign with some other game, like SPMBT for example?

[Sergei]

without FOW terrain, don't you think seeing the emplacements would be a bit of a give away for the enemy, certainly begging for mortar shells etc?

Not if it functioned similar to how bunkers work, ie. you placed it somewhere and then moved the gun team in position.

[Redwolf]

without FOW terrain, don't you think seeing the emplacements would be a bit of a give away for the enemy, certainly begging for mortar shells etc? and then, imagine the horror for the grogs when the defender totally unrealistically doesn't setup his gun in the emplacement.

Obviously there would be camouflage netting and all kinds of veggies on top of the gun and the logs.

[Secondbrooks]

Not if it functioned similar to how bunkers work, ie. you placed it somewhere and then moved the gun team in position.

When i decided to use this sneaky way that usually ended up gun-crew running in panic and leaving their gun behind after they were targeted by unfair (but yet sneaky) enemy. Well it's probably just me. :cool:

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

sfhand,

Yeah, we are actually already taking another look at the missing LODs (that's the stuff that's disappearing) for certain cards. It's fairly complex to track this down since Charles' card isn't doing it. Something hardware specific like that can often be worked around, but only if Charles has an idea what's going wrong in the first place.

As for the rest of the discussion...

There are some big differences to keep in mind between the modern US forces and those in WW2. Here's a quick list, in no particular order:

1. Artillery was FAR less accurate in WW2 and, generally, far less effective per shot. You could fire your whole load of ammo on a target and cause almost no damage. Sucks for the attacker if he planned with the assumption that the trenches were going to be taken care of by artillery

2. Communications sucked, which means longer delay times and greater chance of broken communications links.

3. Big guns could only be called in by dedicated FOs. If the FO isn't in the right spot at the right time, no chance of calling in something. Moving around an FO will take time and could result in the FO getting shot to pieces if it takes shortcuts within enemy positions (which might very well not be known).

4. Small tubes can not be called in by dedicated FOs, but rather very specific HQs. This further limits what you can do because those HQs may be needed for other tasks.

5. HQs and FOs who are engaged in targeting enemy positions with artillery can't move until Fire For Effect. Add this to some of the other problems and you've reduced tactical flexibility by having your spotting units stuck for fairly prolonged periods of time.

6. The forces in the trenches may not be all that important to the defense. Therefore, it's a very bad idea to use up all your artillery on blind faith that the trenches are the optimal target. When you have all your artillery engaged and/or empty, and you stumble upon a Pak40 dug into the woods overlooking a broad field, you may wish you had some artillery remaining.

Now, that's just looking at the case of artillery vs. trenches. It's not a lopsided pushover. Which is why any player that thinks he can rely upon artillery to overcome bad planning will likely be disappointed. Especially if the enemy force has no trenches

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Not if it functioned similar to how bunkers work, ie. you placed it somewhere and then moved the gun team in position.

but how do you do it without an automatical gag reaction?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

1. Artillery was FAR less accurate in WW2 and, generally, far less effective per shot. You could fire your whole load of ammo on a target and cause almost no damage. Sucks for the attacker if he planned with the assumption that the trenches were going to be taken care of by artillery

yeah, artillery should never be able to clear trenches, just cause pinns and an odd casualty. at least unless you have 100 batteries firing.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. Also, I'd have to check my dusty notes, but the Americans didn't have VT fuzes for the Normandy timeframe and those fuzes were only for bigger artillery (i.e. not 60mm mortars IIRC). The Germans, on the other hand, didn't have squat in that department. I can't remember what the Commonwealth had and when.

So not only is the artillery less accurate, but each shell coming down has far less capacity to cause harm to soldiers in trenches because the shells impact when they hit the ground. You basically have to get a shell into a trench (direct hit) in order to cause casualties OR get lucky to have a shell go off very close to a trench when a solider in it is in a firing position. Otherwise, it's mostly a suppression technique.

Now, if you aren't already in sight of the trenches conducting an assault or maneuver of some sort, what's the point of suppressing the trenches? Pretty much no reason. Therefore, you're likely only to use artillery on trenches you're about to engage with ground troops in some fashion. And if that's the case, you'd already know where they are and that means FoW would have no impact at that point.

Again, I'm not arguing that FoW trenches is an unnecessary thing for us to have. I totally agree with you guys that if we could get them in without major sacrifices to coding time and performance we would. What I'm instead arguing is that the lack of FoW trenches isn't nearly the sort of problem that some have made it out to be. It's a minor issue when the game as a whole is looked at. Which is why I always insist that you guys remember that the strength of CM is based on the totality of its simulation, not on the strength of any one particular feature. CMBO didn't fail as a simulation because it lacked trenches, CM:Normandy won't fail as a simulation because it lacks FoW trenches.

Steve

[Sergei]

What about those funky CMBO 14" naval guns? I'm fully expecting my US troops to have their support in every quick battle!

And with VT fuzes!!!