The Carillon Nose (137th Infantry) - Campaign In Progress

[Broadsword56]

Maybe too gamey, but you could always run a little barbed wire on heavy forest tiles through the brush along the banks -- it would stop vehicles entirely and channel infantry along the ditches unless they blow/breach the wire.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good thought, but I don't want them unable to exit.

A couple of more terrain playtest shots displaying my current obsession with ditches and small streams. Notice, BFC, how lush and "confined" (not to mention photorealistic) everything looks in these shots when there's dense chest-high+ undergrowth, as opposed to nothing between knee high bushes and mature trees allowing you to see right through all the woodlands in all directions. I've been using the "gapped" hedge and hedgerow tiles for this purpose but there's really no good reason you guys couldn't have included some proper thickets or LOS-inhibiting high brush (not those pathetic low scrub bushes from CMSF). On the plus side, you did a fantastic job with the bridges! I can't get enough of them.

Here too the pixelsadsacks refuse to wade along the stream in the nice "safe" gully, they keep leaving it to advance along the banks. Which is great for a route march but not when you're trying to infiltrate hostile terrain.

[Broadsword56]

This is too bad --- the pixeljoes should follow the waypoints you plot unless it's prohibited terrain. Why this disobedient and untactical behavior, BFC?

[LongLeftFlank]

There is a workaround -- see the separate thread I started.

[Erwin]

A big concern I have about the density of undergrowth you are trying to achieve is that BFC's effort was intended probably to make the game playable - since you have to see where you are going.

The still pictures look great and are wonderful - if you're making a movie, or pretty pictures But, even with BFC's version that has less undergrowth to restrict LOS, it is STILL too dense to play the game with trees set "ON".

I spend 90%+ of my time with only the "Tree Trucks" setting on, as otherwise I can't see my own men, or what is going on, let alone any enemy. And if I could turn some of the undergrowth off I would as well, as I often cannot locate WIA/KIA men to go issue buddy aid to them.

And it's a chore to locate gaps in bocage, which I often miss. Some bocage/hedges have small gaps in them that turn out to be impassible. Other passable gaps have to be found by going in Level 1 and laterally traversing the entire length of the bocage until one sees some sort of light thru to the other side.

The game indicates Fords better, why not Bocage gaps?

[Broadsword56]

Erwin,

Mapmakers can easily make bocage gaps more findable by marking them with dirt or mud tiles, if they choose to. But locating and exploiting gaps is part of the tactical challenge of the game.

The point you make about undergrowth foliage is a matter of taste and preference for how you want to play CMBN and what kind of experience you want from the game.

You find it a chore to go down to level 1, while I actually spend as much time as I possibly can down there, zooming out only as necessary. Also, this level of foliage isn't just there to look pretty -- if LongLeftFlank puts it on a map, you can be sure it's there because it really was there in that place, historically. Foliage = concealment, and a more realistic level of concealment = a more realistic game that allows infantry to operate closer to the way they actually did in the Normandy bocage.

[Erwin]

I DO spend most of my time at Level 1 or 2 as I love playback and seeing the cute graphics.

It was easy in CM1 to see what "concealment" one's troops were in thanks to the terrain bases. And what's with the icons hovering over all units and contacts? Unless you play with those turns off there is no "concealment."

You are correct that it all depends on the experience that one wants.

So, I do NOT want to play CM: TOPIARY MAZE in which a primary object and much game time is wasted examining every hedge to find the gaps - and also experiencing the fun of discovering that the small gaps one often sees are not actually gaps but graphical anomalies.

I also did not buy CM: SEARCH AND RESCUE where the object is to spend even more time locating WIA/MIA who are hidden by aforsaid dense foliage that cannot be turned off.

All of the above make a CMBN turn more arduous and time-consuming than the CM1 system, with little/no added pleasurable gameplay value.

Just because CMBN depicts something "that was really there" doesn't it more realistic, or better, just more hard work with no addded gameplay value. Just like a fantastically detailed model that looks great, but can't do anything is less fun to me than a less detailed model that moves and plays better and gives a better sense of verisimilude.

I prefer spending my leisure time enjoying the TACTICAL military challenges of the CM scale of combat rather than spending my time in a forest that while it LOOKS great gives a misleading sense of what can or cannot be seen (unless one uses the LOS tool).

Recently I discovered that I can teleport men throu bocage etc by simply backing up the truck to the bocage and have them dismount on the far side of the obstruction. And that is only one of the many, many weirdnesses and abstractions that the CM2 system is full of and will probably never get fixed as BF rushes towards CM3.

CMBN is an entertainment product that is fundementally not realistic, but justifying making it a chore in the pursuit of realism is merely a rationalization.

Added detail and complexity does NOT automatically = enhanced realism. Versimilitude, or creating the ILLUSION of reality should be the goal so that customers have fun and do NOT have to go thru the hell of real warfare.

[LongLeftFlank]

Erwin my old friend, you know how I operate. I'm more a historian than a gamer. I play this game to get in the boots of the men (infantry) who fought in Normandy. Not some artificially manicured parkland and Potemkin villages that look a little like Normandy. I have no doubt that playing battalion fights will be very demanding on this map, so I'll probably stick to company level. As with Ramadi, not every CMer is going to enjoy this kind of experience and that's just fine.

As to navigation problems, every single square on this map is gonna have infantry tromping (or sloshing) through it before I release the map. Cut throughs will be marked with dirt. And if you toggle off trees you should be able to spot units and casualties readily enough.

I have editor browsed many of the better maps that shipped with the game (and btw I'm not dissing them -- many were lovingly and carefully done, although some of the others are rubbish), and my major adds are

(1) most forest tiles have both trees and some kind of hedge or gapped bocage tile to inhibit LOS not into, but through, the woodland. Ranged weapons simply shouldn't have relatively unobstructed ground level LOS extending right through and hundreds of yards beyond these features. The Germans are going to have to work a lot harder to take advantage of their better ranged weapons.

(2) rural and village buildings mostly sit (even slightly sunk) within walled/hedgerow compounds (often further concealed by orchards), and rarely offer commanding fields of fire over their surroundings from the upper floors. I also eliminate a lot of the windows from the sides of the modular farmhouses... windows = heat loss which further reduces their value as platforms. You are going to have to work hard to find a decent vantage point for your artillery spotters -- if that's not fun, well sorry, but that ended up being the purpose of a lot of WWII infantry actions.

(3) close inspection of the maps and imagery reveals that natural folds in the countryside often contain -- surprise -- small watercourses, usually filled with trees and brush. These provide important avenues of advance and infiltration, canalize vehicle movement, and played a key tactical role in the operations I'm recreating. As I have been sharing though, there are certain characteristics of the game engine that make them tricky to implement.

None of the above represent to me a "cluttered" map -- in fact I'm using doodads sparingly.

[sburke]

Funny timing, I just posted over on the CMSF forum for your Ramadi scenario. One of the things you have driven me to do is actually read up on that battle and try to understand the unit and the setting. As someone who describes himself primarily as a historian, I thing you are achieving you goal. Please keep up the really excellent work.

[Erwin]

I hope you didn't think I was criticising your new work LLF, as I am a big fan and look forward to testing it out.

I simply believe that there are SO many abstractions and unrealistic features in this wonderful entertainment GAME that alleviate so much of the RL experience that I don't understand why there is a love for some other features that increase frustration/workload at the expense of playability in the name of enhanced "realism".

[LongLeftFlank]

Here's the final version of my streambed/irrigation ditch tiles: Heavy Forest (for vehicle uncrossability) plus a Hedge running along it to encourage infantry (with short waypoints) to stay down in the protective ditch rather than wandering back and forth in and out of it. The ditch itself is 2-3m deeper than the terrain on either side and provides excellent tactical concealment.

[LongLeftFlank]

At this point tree density on my 1.5 x 1 La Meauffe East "submap" has reached the point where my elderly PC has jumped the shark on redraw distance. But this view back up the 2/137 advance route through La Meauffe and Launay gives you some idea of how the map is shaping up. Note the deep railway cut on the left -- more good cover terrain, especially for armour.

I'm about 2/3 done at this point. Work schedule permitting, another week or so should finish up the bocage and orchards.

[LongLeftFlank]

Spotting is possible, just challenging. About 3/4 done at this point.

[LongLeftFlank]

And now, 90%.

Tell me this s**t ain't looking pretty photorealistic.

[Sgt Schultz]

very nice!

[Sublime]

dammit shultz get your ass back to our game!

[Sublime]

yeah it definitely is. LLF you want some playtesters for any of these maps? Im dying to fight on that ground. Me and Shultzie here would be open Im sure to fighting over this real estate. You could even try to give us a loose rundown of forces involved and we'll stick to the historical facts.

[LongLeftFlank]

Thanks for the offer, gents. I think we can do that soon. Unlike my Ramadi map which I jealously guarded it's my intent to make my maps and submaps available for QBs sooner rather than later. But I would definitely like some experienced players to give me feedback on how the high vegetation density and particularly, those streambeds, work for you tactically, gameplay-wise and PC performance wise, irrespective of the force mix and mission type.

Also, by cutting down most of the High Bocage to Low + more windbreak trees and reducing the number of orchards, these maps can easily be repurposed for non-bocage fights elsewhere in France.

One other note; I find it silly that Low Bocage cannot be crossed (with a delay). Therefore all stretches of Low Bocage have at least one Hedge + Mud tile inserted to allow men and AFVs to cross, at the risk of bogging. I'll be interested in seeing how that works or whether it gives non-Rhino AFVs too easy access to the interior fields.

[Erwin]

Looking forward to this. Loved the Joker 3 scenario. Wish you'd use that map for other scenarios as well.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, I will definitely get back to Ramadi in 2012.... probably do the Army/IA raid on the Saddam Mosque (a non-Marine scenario for those only owning basic CMSF).

While setting up a recon platoon for playtesting, I took this fun shot, capturing a classic "green troops" deployment error by the light mortar squad (in their defence, it's the map edge and there isn't much alternative parking).

(a) jeeps parked under trees close to the mortar position instead of behind bushes well back. The Luftwaffe ain't much of a threat these days (trigger happy Tactical Air Force fighter jocks are another matter), but Jerry's artillery spotters are sure going to wonder what's going on in and behind that house....

( parking right next to a bridge on a main road, a very likely spot for a German TRP.

[Sublime]

Yeah I find it silly that you cannot cross the hedges either. I think it was a good move on your part. I also find it silly how you cant seem to place foxholes or trenches right up on a hedge line. you have to either put the weapon on the hedge without the foxhole (for los) or give up the los for the foxhole.

[LongLeftFlank]

Got a workaround for that too. I lay out foxholes and wooden bunkers in various useful spots and then lay bocage on top. That way the deviish Huns have fortifications built right into the bocage, like in the real deal

[Broadsword56]

LLF, when you place those foxholes and bunkers and then lay bocage over them, do you "sink" them by forcing a single lower (1m? 2m?) action spot there and then locking ones around it? Or do you leave the elevation alone? Do you find shell craters placed under bocage have any effect that's better or worse cover than a foxhole? (When placed that way, craters certainly look a lot more like the wartime photos of bocage fighting positions than the CMBN foxholes do.)

[LongLeftFlank]

I don't sink them. I'll take a look at your crater idea though.

Btw, you're covering 320th operations north of St Lo, right? Check this paper out.

[Sublime]

yeah. Ive seen that workaround LLF. works great, and looks good too. I just wish it didnt have to be built in. like i could use it for an option in a qb if I needed to. oh well cant have it all.

Im really taken with your map and work on this. you picked an excellent area, and period. this thread has been nice and long running, with good solid info and reports taken from that time