Impenetrable bocage.

[hoolaman]

The Germans had very substantial dugouts tunneled under the bocage making both a fighting position, an escape route and a bunker very well protected from artillery.

In CMBN you can't even place a foxhole in the same tile as a bocage piece.

I also get the impression that concealment or LOS restriction both ways through bocage is too little.

If those are all heavy hedgerows that can't be crawled through, the guys deployed along it should be almost impossible to see unless they fire for a decent period of time. The spotting out by the guys along the bocage should also be pretty obscured.

[sburke]

The Germans had very substantial dugouts tunneled under the bocage making both a fighting position, an escape route and a bunker very well protected from artillery.

In CMBN you can't even place a foxhole in the same tile as a bocage piece.

I also get the impression that concealment or LOS restriction both ways through bocage is too little.

If those are all heavy hedgerows that can't be crawled through, the guys deployed along it should be almost impossible to see unless they fire for a decent period of time. The spotting out by the guys along the bocage should also be pretty obscured.

Cool pic, but in this case is the argument that the Hedgerows themselves aren't good enough or is it the interaction with other defensive constructions that isn't working? Surely every piece of hedgerow should not be treated as if it had a dugin bunker with double RR ties for a roof. Just trying to clarify what is being suggested.

[hoolaman]

I think COVER provided by plain hedgerows is currently pretty much right. I think concealment and LOS degradation through hedgerows is too low.

The point about fortifications was in answer to your previous post: "It might help this discussion if we delved into exactly how the Germans used the hedgerows." They had very well prepared entrenchments that are not even remotely simulated in the game. You have to place foxholes or trenches in the middle of a field where they cannot get LOS through the hedge.

The tunnels also allowed passage through the hedgerows for both sides boobytraps not withstanding.

The best match in the game with what I think the german positions look like would be to put a foxhole on the forward side of a bocage tile, directly in front of a gap in the hedge. That allows firing positions across the field to the next hedgerow with a quick escape route.

[sburke]

I think COVER provided by plain hedgerows is currently pretty much right. I think concealment and LOS degradation through hedgerows is too low.

The tunnels also allowed passage through the hedgerows for both sides boobytraps not withstanding.

The best match in the game with what I think the german positions look like would be to put a foxhole on the forward side of a bocage tile, directly in front of a gap in the hedge. That allows firing positions across the field to the next hedgerow with a quick escape route.

Got it. Gonna have to beg off this one for the moment otherwise I may tip my hand to my opponent. It may also just turn out my theory is a complete bust- stay tuned for "Secrets of the Bocage- a German memoir" or "What the heck were the Krauts thinking? by Band of Broadsword".

[YankeeDog]

The Germans had very substantial dugouts tunneled under the bocage making both a fighting position, an escape route and a bunker very well protected from artillery.

In CMBN you can't even place a foxhole in the same tile as a bocage piece.

I also get the impression that concealment or LOS restriction both ways through bocage is too little.

If those are all heavy hedgerows that can't be crawled through, the guys deployed along it should be almost impossible to see unless they fire for a decent period of time. The spotting out by the guys along the bocage should also be pretty obscured.

I'm sure this is not be the case for all German defensive works dug into the bocage, but the position of the dugout in that particular picture actually looks very similar to where CM lets you place a foxhole or trench -- several meters behind the actual bocage line, without LOS through the bocage.

That dugout is clearly intended as a shelter against artillery, not a position you'd use to actually fire your MG or rifle at something on the other side of the bocage - you'd have to get out of the dugout and climb up the bank to do that. It does appear to offer much more protection than what seems to be offered by a CM foxhole or trench, but that's kind of a different subject... one wonders if a wood bunker placed one action spot behind the bocage line would be a better representation of that kind of dugout, even if the graphical representation in-game wouldn't match very well.

The LOS through bocage thing is an interesting one. Often, it does seem that LOS and spotting through the bocage is a too easy, so I see your point. Other times, though, it seems nearly impossible to locate an enemy unit firing on me from behind bocage line.

In talking about this subject and CMx2 in general, I do think it's important to be specific about what level you're playing the game on, as the more I play, the more I've come to suspect that there are some subtle, but pretty important differences in spotting behavior and other aspects of the game modeling between "Warrior" and "Iron" that are not specifically described in the manual.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, on the side of "Spotting through bocage can be pretty f'n hard sometimes", playing in Iron mode, I currently have a game going where I've had a BAR team in a position where it is firing through bocage at 2-3 german units for two minutes now from 100-200m away, and the Germans have as of yet failed to spot the BAR team and take it under fire. In the same game, I have a full squad that's being fired upon intermittently by an MG42 only about 75m away for about a minute and a half, and while this squad has registered the MG42's location as a bright "?", it still hasn't actually fully spotted the MG (I spotted the MG with another unit so I know where it is).

So spotting enemy units through the bocage clearly isn't *always* easy, even if the enemy units are nearby and firing.

[Broadsword56]

@YankeeDog: I had avoided Iron mode because I thought it merely made an annoying change in C2 (letting you lose track of even friendly units). If it has those other realism enhancements about LOS and bocage, maybe I should start using Iron mode instead of Elite.

@sburke: Sounds like I've got some tactical surprises to "look forward" to. The Engineer platoon that somes with the vanilla infantry battalion provides plenty of demolition power. But Recon platoons also carry demo charges too. That, plus a (censored) number of Rhino vehicles, can let you dig another Channel Tunnel if you've got the time. Still this particular bocage map has such limited advance routes that it doesn't take a genius to guess where the chokepoints will be -- and if Fritz happens to have TRPs preregistered on them, it will be Bois de Baugin all over again...

[YankeeDog]

@YankeeDog: I had avoided Iron mode because I thought it merely made an annoying change in C2 (letting you lose track of even friendly units). If it has those other realism enhancements about LOS and bocage, maybe I should start using Iron mode instead of Elite.

I can't say for sure... I switched to playing Iron from Elite 2-3 weeks after I got the game. Initially, I made the switch because I discovered that spotting rules applying to friendly units can actually be helpful -- it makes it easier to tell who is in good C2 because I can click on an HQ and immediately tell which subordinate units it can see.

But I have also noticed that LOS and spotting in general seem to be behaving a little differently in Iron... I dunno; it might be just selection bias on my part. I don't have enough time right now to actually play the game *and* do any kind of systematic testing, and if I have to choose one of the other, it's going to be the former.

When and if my schedule opens up, and/or I need a break from playing, maybe I'll try to set up something that can test the the differences in LOS/Spotting behavior in various skill levels.

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick comments having only skimmed this thread:

1. There are no mechanics differences in the spotting model at all on any level. Spotting is spotting is spotting. However, the way spotting information is passed around the C2 chain is determined by the difficulty level. This can have a profound effect on the reaction to spotting information, but the spotting information itself is always the same.

2. I also agree that scenario designers should never make a field completely "boxed in" by hedgerows. That would never, ever happen in real life. There's nothing that we, Battlefront, can do about that though. This sort of thing fits into the same category as many other ways a designer can churn out an unrealistic map feature. Map makers need to really imagine themselves interacting with the map features as an every day farmer, driver, family, etc. Think of what things would be there in real life for the given type of environment. Think of what would not be there too. What would not be there, in this case, is a field that would require a farmer to use a parachute to get into and then die there because he can't get out

3. Spotting through bocage is a tricky thing. In real life it would be vastly more variable than we have in the game now. Small breaks, patches of sparser leafy vegetation, sporadic areas that are dead, etc. all exit in these hedgerows. And those differences would make spot specific places where spotting/shooting would be more or less difficult. But how can we do that in the game?

Imagine yourself playing the game where explicit micro spots are available to see through. How are you going to know which section of hedgerow has a fair amount and which has few? Are there enough spots for 12 men to space themselves out well, or is there only enough spots for 3 guys? Imagine the frustration of not knowing this in advance of your planning, not to mention when you have your guys sitting in Ambush and you find that only 1 in 12 can actually see through it!

Which means we have a situation where real life can not be simulated in the game and still have a playable game.

The other option is to presume that there can be NO spotting through bocage, at all ever, without some sort of "prep" Command to knock holes through for observation and firing slits. This was contemplated but rejected as being too cumbersome for the player. Plus, it breaks with reality in the other extreme because most sections of hedgerows would have at least SOME naturally occurring spots that could be seen through by at least one or two soldiers.

4. Borrowing into hedgerows for shelter should be allowed. Unfortunately it's complicated. Such positions would have to be made ahead of time (i.e. never within a game) and they should be placeable by the player during Setup. We simply did not have time to special code the ability to transform terrain like this. It's a function that does not exist in the game anywhere else and it is what is needed from a mechanics standpoint.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

When and if my schedule opens up, and/or I need a break from playing, maybe I'll try to set up something that can test the the differences in LOS/Spotting behavior in various skill levels.

You can save your time for something else, because there's nothing there to test

I suspect the variability people see has a lot to do with circumstantial conditions. For example, the number of individual Soldiers looking in the direction of a hedgerow directly affects the ability to spot something on the other side. If you advance a full US Rifle Platoon, abreast, that's a LOT of eyes compared to using a 3 man scout detachment. Experience, Morale, Suppression, etc. have an affect on both the ability to be spotted and the ability to be spotted. Firing ups the ante quite a bit. Distance, weather, time of day, intervening terrain, etc. all have an effect as well.

One of the best features of CMx2 is the wide range of factors involved. Real life is hardly predictable, so it is the same in the game.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Some quick comments having only skimmed this thread:

1. There are no mechanics differences in the spotting model at all on any level. Spotting is spotting is spotting. However, the way spotting information is passed around the C2 chain is determined by the difficulty level. This can have a profound effect on the reaction to spotting information, but the spotting information itself is always the same.

Interesting. If the difference I think I am seeing in Iron mode are legit, then they may have do with the rate at which nearby units are able to share spotting information, and especially "?" contacts -- it seems like enemy units remain as a partial "?" spot for longer in Iron. If individual soldiers still spot the same way in Iron vs. Warrior or Elite, but information is shared more slowly between teams, then it may mean that, on average, getting at least one unit to resolve an enemy from a "?" to a full spot usually takes longer because it takes longer for the information to be shared, and therefore longer for there to be more eyes with a good idea of where the enemy is, trying to resolve the "?" spot to a full spot.

3. Spotting through bocage is a tricky thing. In real life it would be vastly more variable than we have in the game now. Small breaks, patches of sparser leafy vegetation, sporadic areas that are dead, etc. all exit in these hedgerows. And those differences would make spot specific places where spotting/shooting would be more or less difficult. But how can we do that in the game?

Imagine yourself playing the game where explicit micro spots are available to see through. How are you going to know which section of hedgerow has a fair amount and which has few? Are there enough spots for 12 men to space themselves out well, or is there only enough spots for 3 guys? Imagine the frustration of not knowing this in advance of your planning, not to mention when you have your guys sitting in Ambush and you find that only 1 in 12 can actually see through it!

Issues of just how realistic the game engine can (and should) be aside, I have noticed that some maps do a much better job of modeling the variable nature of sighting through a natural obstacle like bocage than others.

LOS in the game through absolutely straight, uniform lines of bocage without variances like trees, etc. is very predictable - it's like looking through a thick, but very carefully groomed and uniform hedgewall on the grounds of some French mansion er sumfink.

But if the scenario designer constructs his bocage with significant numbers of trees, small variations in the line of the bocage so it's not completely straight, occasional sudden small changes in elevation along the line, small patches of brush in a few spots along the edge of the bocage, etc. suddenly LOS conditions along the same bocage line become quite variable. I think this is actually a good thing and dramatically prefer maps constructed in the this manner. If I have to send my squad groping along a bocage line, testing for an area with the best LOS across the next field, then that's part of the game to me.

[SteveP]

So spotting enemy units through the bocage clearly isn't *always* easy, even if the enemy units are nearby and firing.

What raised my interest in this question was one of the scenarios that came with the game. I discovered from repeated experiments that if you put a couple of guys with binocs on your side of a hedgerow, facing an enemy held hedgerow about 125-130m away, they would start to spot the defensive positions within about 30 seconds (nobody is firing at anybody). Over the course of 2-3 minutes they would spot at least half of the defensive positions, including several that were full IDs.

Since I knew that would happen, I simply waited and dropped mortars on them as they appeared.

The only way for the defense to prevent that is to use Hiding -- but that means they don't spot anything advancing against them. I tried that test, as well, and discovered that the attackers could easily get right on top of the defenders before being spotted.

The fact that guys who are already in the bocage field, and getting shot at by unsuppressed fire, have a harder time getting accurate spots/IDs on units behind a hedgerow doesn't surprise me. IRL, they would be hugging the ground, hoping not to hear the sound of mortars dropping on them.

[YankeeDog]

What raised my interest in this question was one of the scenarios that came with the game. I discovered from repeated experiments that if you put a couple of guys with binocs on your side of a hedgerow, facing an enemy held hedgerow about 125-130m away, they would start to spot the defensive positions within about 30 seconds (nobody is firing at anybody). Over the course of 2-3 minutes they would spot at least half of the defensive positions, including several that were full IDs.

Well, the question then becomes: Did the defenders have any guys looking out over the hedgerow with binocs, and if so, why didn't they spot your team with binocs first, and drop a couple of mortar shells on them? Presumably, since the defender gets to start already in place, and the attacker has to move into position, assuming equal conditions and technology, the defender should have the spotting advantage.

You know, good for the goose, good for the gander, etc....

[sburke]

Well, the question then becomes: Did the defenders have any guys looking out over the hedgerow with binocs, and if so, why didn't they spot your team with binocs first, and drop a couple of mortar shells on them? Presumably, since the defender gets to start already in place, and the attacker has to move into position, assuming equal conditions and technology, the defender should have the spotting advantage.

You know, good for the goose, good for the gander, etc....

Same thing I was wondering, and you better look around and see if you are sitting on a TRP..oh wait you don't get to see those

[SteveP]

Well, the question then becomes: Did the defenders have any guys looking out over the hedgerow with binocs, and if so, why didn't they spot your team with binocs first, and drop a couple of mortar shells on them? Presumably, since the defender gets to start already in place, and the attacker has to move into position, assuming equal conditions and technology, the defender should have the spotting advantage.

You know, good for the goose, good for the gander, etc....

The AI Plan for the scenario didn't give the defenders that option. The Plan set up for ambushes. Otherwise, they would have. Presumably this is because the mortars would have been landing in the setup zone, which would be considered tacky.

The American army commanders regarded the bocage country as being among the worst terrain to attack in that they had ever encountered, and they found their normal tactics didn't work. For the most part in CMBN scenarios/QBs, the bocage terrain doesn't do too much more than slow things down. All it requires to defeat a defense in this terrain is a little patience. My point about spotting was to suggest one of the reasons why this is the case.

[YankeeDog]

The AI Plan for the scenario didn't give the defenders that option. The Plan set up for ambushes. Otherwise, they would have. Presumably this is because the mortars would have been landing in the setup zone, which would be considered tacky.

The American army commanders regarded the bocage country as being among the worst terrain to attack in that they had ever encountered, and they found their normal tactics didn't work. For the most part in CMBN scenarios/QBs, the bocage terrain doesn't do too much more than slow things down. All it requires to defeat a defense in this terrain is a little patience. My point about spotting was to suggest one of the reasons why this is the case.

Yes; I get your point. What I wonder is whether the issue is not exclusively the game engine spotting mechanics as such, but rather the limitations in the ability of the Computer Player engage in sophisticated tactics that leverage the realities of LOS and spotting in the bocage.

It doesn't really strike me as that unrealistic that a trained observer peeking through a hedge, left unharassed and free to spot to the best of his ability with a pair of binoculars, can get some pretty strong clues that there are a bunch of enemy are sitting in another hedge looking at him only a soccer pitch away, given the leisure of 2-3 minutes' time to peer through his lenses and study the scene.

So I wonder if the difference between the game situation you describe and the Real Life difficulties experienced in bocage fighting may not be the in-game spotting mechanics as such, but rather the fact that an American Lieutenant in Normandy probably usually couldn't poke his binoculars out of a hedgeline and study the (German-occupied) hedgeline 120 meters away, without a high risk of getting targeted by a sniper, an LMG and/or a mortar. After all, as I've previously intimated, if he can see the Germans, then the Germans should certainly be able to see him. Guys with binocs are high priority targets -- probably at least a squad leader, maybe a higher officer or even an FO...

Human players in CM can pull off sophisticated tricks like keeping the bulk of their infantry off the bocage line and out of immediate LOS, and selectively engaging enemy forward spotters/scouts with just a couple of small units like snipers or LMG teams. Then the main body of infantry can be moved up to react to any large show of force by the enemy infantry. But it's extremely difficult to get the computer player to pull off sophisticated tactics like this.

So perhaps, the deviance between your in-game observations, and what the historical record suggests, has at least partially to do with what the Computer Player AI is capable of, and not just the game spotting mechanics.

This leads to another point -- A significant part of the advantage that the Germans had in the bocage was that many of their units had been stationed in it for quite some time, so they had time to consider and practice how to fight in it. The Americans did not. To really realistically depict bocage battles in CMBN, and especially the early engagements in the bocage before the Americans began to apply lessons learned and adjust their tactics, the American player, as the squad/platoon/company commander needs to "dumb down" his play, and make some poor tactical decisions, just like a junior-level officer who had never seen bocage in his life until a few days prior. The German player conversely needs to be savvy and smart about his play.

Needless to say, I don't think most human players playing as Americans are actually doing to deliberately play poorly to give a realistic impression of the tactical realities of June, 1944. When playing Americans, we all like to play the role of the one American Lieutenant or Captain who somehow magically landed in Normandy with a thorough knowledge of bocage fighting tactics. And if we're playing against the Computer AI, we're generally playing against a German unit whose officers happen to be a little slow, unimaginative and poor at reacting to changing tactical situations...

[Vark]

German units used to tunnel into the earthen walls of the bocage, allowing individual riflemen to create mini bunkers, which were invulnerable to most fire, unless a direct hit was scored. One of the reasons the Crocodile was so effective was the flame rod did not need to hit these emplacements, just nearby, so the air was sucked from them.

Would it ever be possible to have a future CM where attacker and defender are given different maps, especially if the defender has had time to recce and enhance the natural defences? the true nature of the terrain would then be revealed, rather like spotting an enemy unit. There was a thread about a Panther hitting an ATG through a forest, defenders often remove blocking vegitation, small trees etc to create just these lines of sight, which to an attacker looked blocked, it would be nice if this could be simulated.

[SteveP]

realistically depict bocage battles in CMBN, and especially the early engagements in the bocage before the Americans began to apply lessons learned and adjust their tactics, the American player, as the squad/platoon/company commander needs to "dumb down" his play, and make some poor tactical decisions, just like a junior-level officer who had never seen bocage in his life until a few days prior. The German player conversely needs to be savvy and smart about his play.

The Germans knew they were in ideal defensive terrain before the Americans seriously started to attack in the bocage. They were surprised that the Americans didn't risk high casualties to attack the positions more aggressively, but they knew the Americans would end up taking very high casualties if they did -- regardless of how astute the company/platoon leaders were. They also knew they slow down the American advance to a crawl.

In any event, I wasn't posting to this thread to complain about how BFC modeled the hedgerows. I think if hedgerow concealment/cover were realistic, these boards would be inundated with complaints. The guys who fought in the bocage had no choice. Game players do. That's all anyone needs to know.

[YankeeDog]

In any event, I wasn't posting to this thread to complain about how BFC modeled the hedgerows. I think if hedgerow concealment/cover were realistic, these boards would be inundated with complaints. The guys who fought in the bocage had no choice. Game players do. That's all anyone needs to know.

And I'm not convinced that hedgerow concelment/cover is as far off reality as you seem to think it is, at least with regards to infantry vs. infantry situations. I think especially playing or testing against a Computer AI defender can lead to some conclusions that don't hold up in play against a competent a human opponent.

I do have some other issues with the way bocage is modeled in the game, but nothing I can't live with as-is. But for what its worth, I do think it's a little too easy for tanks to just drive up to bocage and shoot through it, that the addition of more extensive (and protective) earthworks to the game would be necessary to depict the better prepared German defensive positions, and that breaching bocage (whether by demo charge or Rhino) is a little too quick and easy.

[Peach Operations]

But for what its worth, I do think it's a little too easy for tanks to just drive up to bocage and shoot through it

I've noticed this, too. The mission briefing for one of the CMBN Demo missions mentioned RL tanks poking their guns through the bocage and shooting, but it's not clear to me whether the tank gunners could actually see what they were shooting at in such situations. Wouldn't the gunner's sight still be on one side of the bocage?

The game presently seems to prohibit firing when you don't have LOS -- making it impossible to fire blindly -- so perhaps that might explain why tanks in the game are allowed to spot enemies on the other side of the bocage. If this is the case, though, then I'd suggest modifying area fire to allow firing at areas that you don't have LOS to (perhaps with a significant reduction in accuracy).

[SteveP]

What the Sherman tanks did was drive into the hedgerow, knocking down enough of it to fire across the bocage field, but they were unable to knock enough down to allow them to get thru the hedgerow safely. Using a tank this way was a key element of an early tactical adaptation by the American infantry (it's the basis for Bocage aux Folles 2 - Pas de trois Scenario). The Sherman tank would drive into the bocage and help suppress the German defenses across the field. Then it would pull back and the engineers would take advantage of the damage to the hedgerow to plant demolition charges, so the tank could then get thru the hedgerow and help close assault the German defensive positions.

In the game, of course, the ability of engineers to blast a tank-sized opening in the hedgerow anywhere, any time, safely and quickly, is completely unrealistic. But even worse when it is possible to have this capability in mid June.

[John1966]

Just spent the day in the English countryside (Gloucetershire). Couldn't help but look at the hedgerows and see how impenetrable they really are. I would say that, for the most part, English hedgerows are, for all practical puposes, impenetrable to infantry. The only places you could cross them, no matter how desperate you are, is where there are gaps, usually man-made ones with gates across them. Might be different in the winter, of course. And I've never had a good look at a French one (that are apparently more impenetrable).

[Holien]

Just spent the day in the English countryside (Gloucetershire). English hedgerows are, for all practical puposes, impenetrable to infantry. The only places you could cross them, no matter how desperate you are, is where there are gaps,

I would disagree with this assessment. You can go through any hedge, it needs some time but with the tools a soldier has it is possible. Not going to be possible if enemy firing at you but do able if you have a few minutes...

A hedge is wood and can be taken apart / a hole made...

It is not some sort of magic material that can not be worked with! Yes soldiers might get minor nicks and wounds and not be too happy but they would find a way over under or through!!!

[dieseltaylor]

I would disagree with your assessment Holien : )

A lot comes down to the hedge type and what you are equipped with. I have not actually done any hedge laying but I have cleared scrub of hazels/hawthorn etc using billhooks and hedge slashers and whilst standing up it is not a trivial task to consider trying to destroy it on your knes of belly - even with the right implements - fills me with doubt.

Going back pre-war all hedges would be laid and interwoven to be stock proof so fairly thick if they included a ditch and bank layout. I am not saying on a thinner hedge you might not be able to worm your way through but you would be totally at the mercy of the enemy whilst in that position.

I wonder when the first hedge trimmer attachment for tractors appeared - post war at a guess. : )

I have seen skinny headges on arable farms but then it is not 1944.

[John1966]

Well possibly with the "tools" a soldier has which, after all, can include demo charges (if not hedge trimmers ).

I suppose what I mean is that you aren't going to just dive through. Even with a few minutes. Hence the "practical" bit. There is no practical way through most of them (or at least the ones I would describe as "hedgerows" rather than just hedges) without doing some serious gardening.

Actually, other than the HE or the support of a tank with a cullen(?) device, I'm not sure what tools would make it possible. A spade isn't going to help much in the context of a few minutes. More landscape gardening than obstacle clearance...

[SteveP]

In game terms, there is no practical difference if the opening in a hedgerow was created by farmers in bygone times, or by soldiers that day. The opening is there -- you can't tell how it got there.

If the scenario designer did not create an opening, that is because it serves the purpose of the scenario design. The design may be a good one or not. Presumably a good scenario design allows for a reasonable number of openings where there is no tactical reason to do otherwise.

If the Germans were defending a particular bocage field, they targeted the existing openings. They would never have allowed the American infantry to hack out a new opening without hitting them with mortars and MG fire. In fact, the Americans had to be very cautious about anything they did in the vicinity of their own hedgerow (including setting demolition charges, deploying MGs, etc.) that might give away their positions. So, unless the Americans could hack their way thru a hedgerow very quickly, it was pointless to try. That all changed when the Americans could deploy tanks in the attack, since the tanks could suppress the German defenses. Even then, the American did not bother hacking out new openings on their side of a defended field.