Bug? Orchards and cover/concealment

[SteveP]

I finally got around to doing a little testing on this one because of problems I ran into creating a scenario (orchards are important in Normandy).

The test was an orchard (single trees in a grid pattern) on dirt vs dense forest on heavy forest terrain. Flat elevation in both cases. What I found was that the orchard provided more concealment than the dense forest. Essentially, units in an orchard could easily get to within 30-40 meters without being spotted. Units in the dense forest were often spotted within 50-60 meters. A spotter looking down into an orchard from an elevated position could see nothing.

Differences in cover are hard to detect at those ranges, but it seemed like the orchard on dirt provided cover that was just as good as the dense forest. In fact, an orchard on dirt would provide a more realistic Hurtgen forest than the dense forest would.

I have been seeing this for some time, so I don't think it's a fluke of my test.

[Michael Emrys]

Bad news if that turns up as consistently as you say.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

What I found was that the orchard provided more concealment than the dense forest.

Interesting. If it's not a bug, then one reason I could imagine for this to happen:

Trees in an orchard typically are lower and bushier, so the mass of densest foliage (trunks + foliage) is closer to human and vehicle height.

In a forest, the canopy of densest foliage is up high. So in a forest, soldiers would tend to see along ground level more easily than in an orchard, since the only thing blocking their LOS are the tree trunks and any lower branches -- unless there's also a lot of underbrush, or the tree trunks are very closely spaced.

[G B Scurlock]

When I think about the Peach and Apple orchards I have seen this doesn't seem so odd.

[Michael Emrys]

I can see that at some point I am going to have to get into map building just to find out what the effects of different terrain types actually are, as well as to be able to recognize them when I see them. This is an area that the manual has sadly neglected.

Michael

[SteveP]

When I think about the Peach and Apple orchards I have seen this doesn't seem so odd.

Well, I have been around orchards as well. I am pretty sure that if I deployed an MG on a tripod at one end of an orchard on dirt ground, I'd be cutting off the legs of an awful lot of infantry at some distance. Not to mention sending AT rockets into the lower hull of any tanks moving thru there. I also don't think an elevated spotter would miss anyone advancing thru an orchard, though I'd be willing to live with some level of concealment in that situation.

IOW, as an attacker, I wouldn't feel too protected crossing an orchard.

[SteveP]

As another comparison:

Low density (single trees, no grid) on dirt: attackers getting spotted at around 100m. IMHO, orchards would provide even less concealment because of the regularity of the tree lines. However, I could live with 100m.

[Pete Wenman]

SteveP while I have no idea about whether the concelment is correct for orchards, it is worth remembering that the Norman ochards of 1944 will have very little in common with the tidy intensive farming orchards of today.

Not really the tidy rows and neatly pruned trees we are used to, but more a collection of fruit trees in a meadow with no real mechanical tools available to keep the grass down or the trees cut back, and in June/Aug all would be in full leaf.

P

[Pak40]

The first time I laid out an orchard in the editor I did 1 tree per 8m grid but found it to be way too cluttered. You need to spread out the trees more, try 1 tree every other grid and stagger the rows. You might even want to skip a row if you're doing big trees.

@ GB Scurlock: Did a google image search for Normandy Orchards and got a mix of photos showing both cases - some show low hanging branches but others are trimmed and very visible straight through the field. Interesting enough, there were also screen grabs from other wargames in the search result :-)

[Golani]

I finally got around to doing a little testing on this one because of problems I ran into creating a scenario (orchards are important in Normandy).

The test was an orchard (single trees in a grid pattern) on dirt vs dense forest on heavy forest terrain. Flat elevation in both cases. What I found was that the orchard provided more concealment than the dense forest. Essentially, units in an orchard could easily get to within 30-40 meters without being spotted. Units in the dense forest were often spotted within 50-60 meters. A spotter looking down into an orchard from an elevated position could see nothing.

Differences in cover are hard to detect at those ranges, but it seemed like the orchard on dirt provided cover that was just as good as the dense forest. In fact, an orchard on dirt would provide a more realistic Hurtgen forest than the dense forest would.

I have been seeing this for some time, so I don't think it's a fluke of my test.

An orchard tree is usually significantly shorter then that of a forest, with it's foliage smack in the face of a standing average height man.

A forest tree will have a much longer (taller?) trunk to a point where it's foliage would usually be considerably above the average man.

In 9 out of 10 times, in real life, an orchard would provide better concealment then a full fledged forest.

As for observing from outside-in, again- due to the foliage if someone is looking into an orchard from a vantage point it's reasonable he won't see much, if he's lying flat on the ground at the same height as the orchard- he should be able to easily spot the bottom half of people inside.

[SteveP]

It appears that my last test - single trees, no grid, dirt terrain - was a fluke. My observation now is that all tree terrain provides about the same degree of concealment/cover in CMBN, regardless of the density of the foliage being used or the ground cover (I don't think ground cover matters at all when you have trees).

So: an orchard is as protective (or dangerous) as a Hurtgen style forest would be (unless, of course, BFC comes up with new terrain options by then ). That seems counter-intuitive to me, but I have seen what I needed to see as far as how CMBN seems to model these things.

Perhaps the only reason to choose one style over another would be cosmetic rather than tactical.

[SteveP]

The first time I laid out an orchard in the editor I did 1 tree per 8m grid but found it to be way too cluttered. You need to spread out the trees more, try 1 tree every other grid and stagger the rows. You might even want to skip a row if you're doing big trees.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will try experimenting along those lines.

Edit: That does make a huge difference. Makes for a lot more work, but you definitely can shape the tactical value of tree terrain by thinning out or concentrating the foliage. I still don't understand why an apple tree every 8 meters provides the same concealment/cover as 3 forest trees every 8 meters, but as long as there are workarounds I won't lose sleep over it.

[Pak40]

In 9 out of 10 times, in real life, an orchard would provide better concealment then a full fledged forest.

This is a VERY generalized statement. I've been in many forests where you can't see more than 20 feet in any direction. Also have been in other forests that didn't have much undergrowth at all and could see for well over 100 meters.

The same can be said for orchards. It depends on the crop, time of year, and spacing of the trees. Do the Google image search I mention in my previous post.

[SteveP]

SteveP while I have no idea about whether the concelment is correct for orchards, it is worth remembering that the Norman ochards of 1944 will have very little in common with the tidy intensive farming orchards of today.

What is important to me is the consequences for a German defense. In CMBN, the Americans are able to use an orchard quite safely to advance. So, these are the possibilities:

1. That is realistic, and the Germans just worked their defensive schemes around that fact.

2. The Germans chopped down the orchards.

3. There just weren't enough orchards to make a difference (seems counter-intuitive, but possible, I guess).

4. The Germans booby trapped the orchards (mines, etc.) rather than defend them.

Those are the ideas that occur to me.

[nik mond]

The fact remains the graphical representation of orchards in the game can be somewhat misleading at one small foliage bush type A (or B or C) per grid.

[akd]

"Heavy forest" is a terrain tile type, upon which can be placed any density of foliage you wish. Orchard is not a terrain tile type, and there are several ways you could arrive at on-map terrain that would be considered an orchard.

I have no idea what is actually being compared here.

[SteveP]

"Heavy forest" is a terrain tile type, upon which can be placed any density of foliage you wish. Orchard is not a terrain tile type, and there are several ways you could arrive at on-map terrain that would be considered an orchard.

I have no idea what is actually being compared here.

My test was an orchard (one tree in the center of each tile) on dirt vs dense forest (3 trees per tile) on heavy forest terrain. The results were that concealment/cover was about the same. My other experiments indicated that terrain tile type had no effect if there were trees of any kind on the tile. It also appears that it doesn't matter how many trees you have on each tile: the effect on concealment/cover is the same. The only workaround is to spread the trees out so that some percentage of the tiles contain no trees.

I don't believe that one tree centered on a dirt tile should provide the same level of concealment/cover as multiple trees scattered on a heavy forest tile. But I'm not sure I'm winning any converts to this view.

[LemuelG]

My test was an orchard (one tree in the center of each tile) on dirt vs dense forest (3 trees per tile) on heavy forest terrain. The results were that concealment/cover was about the same. My other experiments indicated that terrain tile type had no effect if there were trees of any kind on the tile. It also appears that it doesn't matter how many trees you have on each tile: the effect on concealment/cover is the same. The only workaround is to spread the trees out so that some percentage of the tiles contain no trees.

I don't believe that one tree centered on a dirt tile should provide the same level of concealment/cover as multiple trees scattered on a heavy forest tile. But I'm not sure I'm winning any converts to this view.

I have found that a grouping of even one single tree of smallest variety per-square will pretty much totally obscure an area from an elevated observer. I would be lobbying BFC for some smaller trees (and 'medium' wall/bocage), but fortunately for them I'm lazy.

I think one needs to be careful when placing trees, particularly for cosmetic/realism purposes, sometimes a tall bush is more appropriate than the smallest tree. As others say, have one every other tile, looks good and saves resources.

Smaller trees please BFC

[akd]

Well, isolate the factors: is the issue "heavy forest" v. "dirt" tiles or 3 trees per tile versus 1 tree per tile?

A quick test on my end shows that "heavy forest" on its own offers much better concealment than "dirt" on its own, so I think what we are actually comparing here is the effects of per-tile tree density.

Also, I'm pretty sure The "gridded" tree button is just a placement tool and doesn't confer any benefits or penalties to the underlying terrain.

[SteveP]

Also, I'm pretty sure The "gridded" tree button is just a placement tool and doesn't confer any benefits or penalties to the underlying terrain.

The underlying terrain doesn't matter if you have trees. This is true for other "combinations": for example, hedgerows and any other underlying terrain tile.

Also, I am not interested in an explanation of how things work in CMBN. I am only interested in whether they work in a way that is realistic.

[akd]

The underlying terrain doesn't matter if you have trees.

Yes it does.

Ran more tests using "Tree D":

1. no trees/hvy forest vs. no trees/dirt - dirt offers far worse concealment

2. 3-tree density/hvy forest vs. orchard density/dirt - units at edge of orchard consistently spotted, units in forest never spotted

3. orchard density/hvy forest vs. orchard density/dirt - units at edge of both orchard and forest consistently spotted, with perhaps a slight concealment edge in the forest (many more tests would have to be run to say if there is a significant difference)

[SteveP]

1. no trees/hvy forest vs. no trees/dirt - dirt offers far worse concealment

[JonS]

The orchard in that situation is just as strong a concealment as the Hurtgen forest.

Sounds reasonable.

vs.

[Battlefront.com]

The underlying terrain doesn't matter if you have trees. This is true for other "combinations": for example, hedgerows and any other underlying terrain tile.

As AKD just said, this is not true.

Also, I am not interested in an explanation of how things work in CMBN. I am only interested in whether they work in a way that is realistic.

Which is the way we look at it too. That's reason why we didn't pre-combine certain elements together and call it something generic like "Light Woods", "Tall Pines", etc. as we did in CMx1 games.

In real life conditions are quite varied depending on a large range of factors. I live in a forest which was formed on top of a glacial slide. It's some of the toughest terrain in North America. But there are parts which are so worked over by Humans that they remind me of city parks. In other instances "Tree Farms", where trees are the crop instead of fruits/nuts, can vary from being worse than the thickest natural forest all the way to clear LOS for dozens of meters. Depends on tree species, age of the stand (group of trees), and if it has been well maintained or left to grow wild.

All of this can be easily simulated in CM:BN through combining 2 or 3 different types of terrain on the same Action Spot. How accurate the game results are depends heavily on if the map maker combined the "correct" elements for whatever the intention was.

Steve

[SteveP]

Sounds reasonable.

vs.

As I said, I understand people are OK with the way it works. My conclusion is that the choice of foliage is solely cosmetic. It doesn't make any difference tactically. That isn't what I expected, so I thought there might be a bug involved.