Infantry Firefights in Forested terrain.

[von Kleist]

Thought I would open a discussion about fighting in forests. Artillery can't be brought to bear effectively, and quickmoving reduces spotting to the point that you will almost always be spotted first and suffer the consequences. Walking doesn't get enough guys in spotting range quick enough before the unit drops prone, nor does hunting. The only tactic I have thought of that might have any success when you are the attacker, is using the pop smoke command for unit leaders. This obviously works only if the wind is blowing toward the enemy and even then the fight is only reduced to one of attrition and confusion. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[GreenAsJade]

Add to that the problem that forests often seem to provide suprisingly little cover. I'm not sure if this experience is just because I haven't encountered a "proper forest" yet, but any treed area I've had forces in has trees quite widely spaced apart, to the extent where the cover they provide seems incidental: bullets whiz around and guys die all over the place!

[womble]

Add to that the problem that forests often seem to provide suprisingly little cover. I'm not sure if this experience is just because I haven't encountered a "proper forest" yet, but any treed area I've had forces in has trees quite widely spaced apart, to the extent where the cover they provide seems incidental: bullets whiz around and guys die all over the place!

Once again this comes down to map design. Trees only give cover where they actually are. If a scenario designer wants the undergrowth to give cover they have to put the appropriate ground type in as well. I think this fact has been disregarded in a lot of map designs. Then again, once you're under the canopy of a european forest in mostly-inhabited areas like Normandy, you probably don't have much in the way of undergrowth most of the time, so perhaps 'disregarded' is a bit strong.

[G. Smiley]

Once again this comes down to map design. Trees only give cover where they actually are. If a scenario designer wants the undergrowth to give cover they have to put the appropriate ground type in as well. I think this fact has been disregarded in a lot of map designs. Then again, once you're under the canopy of a european forest in mostly-inhabited areas like Normandy, you probably don't have much in the way of undergrowth most of the time, so perhaps 'disregarded' is a bit strong.

The 'appropriate' ground cover in a 'normal' forest should be 'light forest' or 'heavy forest', right?

[GreenAsJade]

Man, I'm glad to hear this sort of explanation.

If this is really the case, it'd be great to have a decent post explaining it in the Scenario Design forum.

It's so wierd having "forests" that provide cover only where the visible tree trunks are, and yet only one tree trunk per action tile. How is a squad supposed to take cover all behind one tree??

GaJ

[womble]

Man, I'm glad to hear this sort of explanation.

If this is really the case, it'd be great to have a decent post explaining it in the Scenario Design forum.

It's so wierd having "forests" that provide cover only where the visible tree trunks are, and yet only one tree trunk per action tile. How is a squad supposed to take cover all behind one tree??

GaJ

I don't think they are. It's been made pretty clear that cover/concealment depends heavily on the ground type. It's a CMx1 atavism to expect an area which has trees to provide cover/concealment as a matter of course. The new way is an improvement in modelling fidelity, as it means orchards (with human-cleared underbrush) can be different to choked second-growth forests can be different to plantations, can be different to climax growth canopy with light-starved groundcover etc and they can all vary within a clump.

[GreenAsJade]

Yeah - its great.

It's just that it seems that there's a _lot_ of maps out there with trees and no cover providing undergrowth...

... how easy is it to recognise the "good cover" stuff?

GaJ

[womble]

Yeah - its great.

It's just that it seems that there's a _lot_ of maps out there with trees and no cover providing undergrowth...

I think you're right, and to an extent, this is actually probably a Good Thing as the incidence of choked forest in Normandy '44 is probably pretty small, so at least the interior of even 'wild' (not that the adjective really applies to a very large area at all) forests should be largely clear of serious undergrowth.

... how easy is it to recognise the "good cover" stuff?

GaJ

Heh Now there, my friend is an entirely other can of worms, all wriggling in the unexpected light... Many contend that it is straightforward to see the differences. Generally, those folk have conceded that they've some extensive experience in the map editor, so have seen the terrain types labelled up and adjacent to each other often enough to be able to distinguish them when they're unlabelled and standalone. I certainly couldn't reliably distinguish between some 'scrub' and forest ground types. The only engine-based hint is to select a vehicle, begin giving it a movement order and mouseover the tile. If it's impassable, it's swamp or heavy forest (or a deep ford... ). This is one area where the new way is deficient in comparison to x1: the system is sufficiently complicated that it is considered that displaying the terrain type at the cursor as CMx1 did would lead to information and program overload.

Edit: Ooo. Thought of another hinter: if you plonk a waypoint in the suspected dense stuff, and start setting up a target order from there, you'll get a reasonable idea of how much concealment the terrain around about will provide by how long your LOS is. Which segues neatly into a way of getting back to the core of the topic, namely tactics for infantry firefights in forests. I have found (against the AI, at least) that moving into contact with short Slow moves, with pauses at each waypoint, and with alternate teams moving and watching allows advance with tolerable casualties. It's slow, but it gets you there. I set the bounds at about half the expected LOS from the forward teams (or 1 AP at a time), so the teams moving up through the line and past them are only 'alone' for half their move distance.

[GreenAsJade]

Great post, full of gems. Thanks!

[John1966]

Fighting through forests is an exercise in frustration, I find. Certainly one of the best places to defend from is inside a forest in CMx2 (if the attacker can't just ignore and go round).

"Hunt" seems to be a fairly good move when approaching contact but the only thing I seem to make any progress with after that is "assault". I seem to lose an entire platoon everytime I go through an occupied forest. There just seems to be an endless supply of grenades coming my way with two men going down every time one goes off. Even trying to outflank seems to result in endless casualties.

Oddly enough, if there is no undergrowth, I find shoving a tank in among the infantry works wonders. Not convinced this is realistic though. I once managed to have a Sherman surprise an anti-tank gun by going up to its flank in the trees it was defending from. You'd have thought they'd hear it coming...

[GreenAsJade]

Yeah, this is one bizarre thing... pushing tanks through trees in CMBN is a total winner, where you can do it. It's hard to target those beggars with all the foliage around, yet they can do a lot of harm from there. A far cry from the old CMx1 experience, where trees were a no-go zone for AFVs (mobility being dramatically reduces, concealment not significantly improved).

I have no idea which is more realistic.

GaJ

[BletchleyGeek]

I think you're right, and to an extent, this is actually probably a Good Thing as the incidence of choked forest in Normandy '44 is probably pretty small, so at least the interior of even 'wild' (not that the adjective really applies to a very large area at all) forests should be largely clear of serious undergrowth.

Just took a look at present-day Fôret de Cerisy

http://g.co/maps/hh47

it's not a jungle, but there's "some" undergrowth. And nowadays proper forest management prescribes clearing undergrowth, to make fires more difficult.

The only places in Europe I have seen forests(*) without some meaningful undergrowth have been those in parks, backyards, orchards and rocky hills on the coastline (northern coast of Minorca, for a concrete example).

EDIT: (*) I'd rather say, trees.

[G. Smiley]

So how do we give a CMBN forest enough ground cover? Is using 'heavy forest' as ground type enough? Or how else could one achieve it?

[Sublime]

To be honest I dont think its that hard to figure out how dense the undergrowth is.

When you lower your view level to about ground level, you'll notice forests with no undergrowth are just a bunch of trees with.. grass under it. When you see the different terrain type under the trees, primarily the dark greenish mush looking grass bitmap under the trees- thats heavy forest.

Its a difficult thing, as it should be, to attack in a heavily forested area. First of all, you should split your squads. You're going to take casualties, and its best if that grenade or burst of automatic fire only has three bodies to hit, rather than 8-12. I dont just mean scout squads, I mean split the squad completely.

Dispersal is important too - not too much though, because its easy to miss things as it is if the forest is dense enough.

Then you need scouts to advance... etc. Smoke IMHO doesnt do much except if you run into a trap and want to bug out. Otherwise it just confuses things more and its down to attrition. If you want to fight attrition, just hunt all your squads into the forest as is and you'll get attrition without the smoke. And if you're gonna fight attrition that means you've got heavily superior numbers anyways or you're an idiot.

Otherwise the options as I see it are - leapfrogging split squads WITH LMG/HMG support. Slow, careful, bloody. If you have arty, stop for a few and let them blast the woods. Unfortunately for the defenders the woods are a downside to defense if theres artillery coming in. You want to saturate a good amount of the woods though, because if you just blast a path you can get killed on the flanks.

My favorite, if at all possible, is isolating the said woods as much as possible. And giving any defenders who have LOS out of the woods a taste of something to shoot at. Once I ID any positions I blast the hell out of them. If I can avoid the woods entirely I will - but keep some guns on it. Once the defenders realize the front lines have moved way behind them, they'll prolly try to bug out themselves - and get gunned down. This is where its tricky too. Is it one AT gun and a squad in those trees? Or a platoon? A platoon in your rear can do some bad damage, especially if you think the woods are empty and bypass them. On the other hand you dont want your offensive to lose its 'tip' by encircling suspected enemy positions.

All of that however, is more of a case by case basis

[Fredrock1957]

I think if the terrain is built proper it shouldn't be an issue... in playtests on this Scenario (Hide n Seek), contact is quick and brutal and 'ambush' is the key word, but in the forest with small arms firing from open areas the troops seem to have excellent protection...

[BletchleyGeek]

I think if the terrain is built proper it shouldn't be an issue... in playtests on this Scenario (Hide n Seek), contact is quick and brutal and 'ambush' is the key word, but in the forest with small arms firing from open areas the troops seem to have excellent protection...

Nice, and scary, forest Fredrock. The canopy is quite thick, which rules out effects as "having the sun in the eyes" or possible "reflections" (I don't have a clue whether CMx2 takes into account these for spotting purposes).

[Sublime]

ok now see pix one and three

See the terrain type? thats the heavy undergrowth forest, at least in my experience

[John1966]

Because of the short ranges in forest, it is very hard to get superior firepower when attacking. It only seems to be one or two guys at a time who have something to shoot at. As the defenders inevitably saw them first then the attacker is always at a disadvantage in what ultimately becomes a series of one to one(ish) firefights. Its the individual modelling of trees/soldiers in CMx2 that makes forest such a difficult terrain. Individual soldiers are revealed to each other one at a time rather than squads. In CMx1 there was just a fixed range and firepower (with modifiers) to consider. Ultimately, it was easy to manage an attack as it wan't very different to anything else, it was just done with shorter ranges. Now its one of the biggest challenges (to me, anyway) in the game.

(I like to think "challenge" was a good thing here but, in actual fact, I just dread having to do any attacking through a forest)

[Erwin]

I love the forest graphics, but I find it virtually impossible to fight/view at level 1 as I can't see anything thanks to the dense cover.

I mentioned this in another thread... is is possible to have trees with longer bare trucks, or less ground level foliage, so one can see better where one's units are in forests? I recall a CM1 mod that did that, and it meant that one didn't have to always turn off trees as I now do in CM2.

[Fredrock1957]

ok now see pix one and three

See the terrain type? thats the heavy undergrowth forest, at least in my experience

Sorta

1 is Light Forest Tiles

2 is Tall Grass looking into Light Forest

3 is Heavy Forest Tiles

4 is Road through a mix of Light and Heavy Forest Tiles

[mjkerner]

I love the forest graphics, but I find it virtually impossible to fight/view at level 1 as I can't see anything thanks to the dense cover.

I mentioned this in another thread... is is possible to have trees with longer bare trucks, or less ground level foliage, so one can see better where one's units are in forests? I recall a CM1 mod that did that, and it meant that one didn't have to always turn off trees as I now do in CM2.

+1 to that. I think Take Command (Civil War sim) had the trees just fade when you zoomed in, just like CMBN does with buildings, so you still get the foliage effect, but can see your troops. I hope BFC fixes or sumfink by the time we get to the Bulge game, since we will be fighting in the Huertgen Forest and the Reichswald.

[Fredrock1957]

I love the forest graphics, but I find it virtually impossible to fight/view at level 1 as I can't see anything thanks to the dense cover.

This is a problem I have too, as seen below... Find the Trooper

Oh there he is... and his buddy is prone in front of him

[LongLeftFlank]

Aside from a few game preserves (dating from medieval times), the vast majority of "forest" terrain in 1944 Normandy is not going to be large kilometer-sized swathes of unbroken forest canopy, but smaller patches marking locations where the ground is either too wet or too uneven to be cleared for farmland. For the latter, the most tactically significant part is going to be the edge, whose dense thickets of young trees and bushes effectively mask the interior from the exterior but which provide little in the way of substantial cover.

See this thread for more information.

As I work with the Editor (yes, I'm working on my La Meauffe-Le Carillon monster map again after a long absence), I continue to believe that the most critical terrain tile that remains absent is a "thicket", which is to say a dense stand of young trees, tall bushes and shrubbery (*nee!*) that, at least in summertime:

(a) is useless from a cover standpoint, and

( creates little hindrance to infantry or vehicle movement, BUT

© provides excellent concealment to both men and vehicles and -- most important --

(d) is tall enough to largely mask the interior of a forest or wooded area from the adjacent open ground (field, road) for spotting purposes, and vice versa

At present, the deciduous woodlands on nearly all maps look like Central Park, which is to say, some busy soul has been pruning away the new growth that would normally crowd the margin between forest shade and (sunny) open ground. In reality, that labour is only undertaken in parks and orchards -- certainly not on the margin of farm fields where farmers want as full a windbreak as possible shielding their crops and pastures. In a combat situation, a lot of cleared underbrush should be a dead giveaway that someone has created a field of fire for his weapons.

Thickets are very important tactically, as they effectively (~90% in summer) separate units in forests visually from units outside them, even when they are in quite close proximity. They are also tall enough to hide AFVs (ever wonder why those StuGs in period photos are all covered with brush? -- btw it would be super cool to get a underbrush "over-skin" layer for StuGs and PzIVs analogous to the Stryker "slat cage" in CMSF, with no game effects)

Pine or mixed forests are a little different -- thickets are still present on the margin but they tend to present more gaps into the interior, but that isn't what we are mainly dealing with in Normandy.

Anyway, rather than (only) whine and plead for a new terrain tile, I figured I'd play around a little to see if I could approximate a reasonably dense forest margin using the tools available. The following is what I came up with, with a couple of StuGs sitting in ambush for colour:

Head-on view (5 8x8m tiles across)

Side (cutaway) view:

From left to right, here is the terrain I used:

Tiles 1 and 2: Big deciduous trees (type A and C) alternating x3 and x2, with "heavy forest" undergrowth (I don't want tanks going back there)

Tile 3: Small deciduous trees (orchard type D) x 3, with "light forest"

Tile 4: My ersatz thicket, which is a combination of:

(a) the tallest bushes type C x 3

( "gapped" hedge tiles alternating between diagonal and straight-across angles so as to look random and not man-made.

© "light forest" undergrowth.

Tile 5. Weeds or tall grass.

I also tried adding "brush" to the thicket, but it looks like a straight carryover from CMSF desert scrub and doesn't seem to provide much incremental concealment, at least visually. But if there's a game advantage, perhaps it should be added -- let me know SVP.

I also like RockinHarry's suggestions for varying the terrain mesh in the interior -- after all, a flat dry expanse would probably have been cleared for farmland.

[sburke]

As the person currently engaged in Bois de Baugin with the OP one should note the map was designed using the forest tiles. Both the flanking hills have an area prescribed by those tiles preventing armor from just moving across the hills thus forcing an infantry battle in dense terrain for the flanks. Inside that prescribed area the terrain does vary a bit both in elevation and in types of cover making it a pretty tricky battlefield. It is this kind of attention that both creates tactically challenging situations as well as a very natural feeling map. I am sure folks are probably tired of my comments, but I think this particular map is a gem and the force balance is very good. The map and it's victory conditions will reward a player that can master forest fighting if that is possible. As it is I think Von Kleist and I are both feeling the pain as Broadsword and I did last time I visited this stretch of virtual Normandy.

I find it interesting and very helpful that this discussion has included map design as an integral component to understanding the tactical issues of forest combat. The variations possible in map creation can mean significant differences in tactics - the simple question of whether you are going to be able to have a tank behind you to soften up an enemy position for example.

To reprise my comments from the PBEM thread that this discussion originated on:

I think the issue of who spots who first is a major contributor as the grenades start flying fast. I have found that on the defense, having your units hide can mean giving up that opportunity to spot your opponent first.

Smg and mp units can swing the balance due to the short range firepower they can throw out.

Foxholes can help but you have to try and position them so that the range they can be spotted from is within the range you want to set your target arcs for. Having them close to the edge of the treeline generally means they don't hold up well as fighting positions. They can be targeted by artillery and suppressed far too easily.

Speaking of target arcs, I generally set a 360 degree arc, otherwise I usually end up getting surprised.

Slope positions can be tricky as they can make it difficult to grenade your opponent. Being above your opponent can frequently mean your grenades go sailing past them - sometimes that works to hit the follow on forces, but don't count on it.

As in most tactical situations if you can somehow find a way to flank your opponents position it can pay off real well. The problem with woods is that while you are flanking them you may well be walking into an ambush.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

I think that much depends on the forest in question. Evergreen forest tends to have little to no undergrowth, and as described earlier in this thread, offers next to no cover, air attacks usually excepted. Deciduous forest of course is an altogether different proposition, featuring different types and size of trees growing at random - no orderly forestry plantation here - and often including uneven ground plus heavy undergrowth. Clearing such a forest via infantry assault is usually a cast-iron bitch, as any grunt will confirm.

SLR