A plea for maps with cover...

[GreenAsJade]

... I just read about how trees need an appropriate ground tile to go with them to provide decent cover.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100109

This adds up with the experience that I'd had that lots and lots of the time, maps have trees with no cover-giving-ground-tile, making the treed area really poor for cover. Combine that with the fact that there isn't much other cover either, and it makes life really hard!

So if you're making a map with trees, please give some cover

GaJ

[Erwin]

It would be great to have tree terrain mods that have more/higher trunks and less undergrowth that hide everything at level 1 making it impossible to see anything unless one has the "Tree trunks Only" option, or "Remove all tree graphics" - which is a shame considering how nice the graphics are starting to look.

[RockinHarry]

Lets see. I go into the next forest around here (500m or so). I see: trees, brush, fern, some grass, paths, holloways and...now comes the interesting and oftenly neglected thing: Forest do seldomly grow on plain ground. I also see ditches, small depressions, pits, overgrown earth mounds/heaps of various sizes and an occational WW2 bomb crater. So there´s a lot of small gound contours within a forest and this applies to most I did see when going outdoors.

Map makers can approximate these various ground contours by raising/lowering the forest ground by +-1m at irregularly spaced intervals on otherwise more or less plain ground. This creates the only two versions of forest cover in the game, trees and ground contours (FHs & trenches excluded). Everything else just helps with concealment.

If using the FACE command on an infantry unit in such type of forest (trees & irregular +-1m height alterations), then dependent on action spot chosen for the FACE command, individual soldiers will seek "cover" exactly vs. THAT chosen action spot and the game routine will not just chose the trees, it will also take the small 1m dips and rises well into account.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I´d always wished for CMX1 to have terrain contours better used for cover purposes and also to have them smaller. Now in CMBN we have full 3D LOS and LOF tracking with "contours" and while 8m compared to CMX1 20m is still large, the small, smoothed out 1m height variations provide even good cover in otherwise just grassy terrain. Even a single action spot +-1m can provide better "cover" for several soldiers, than a single tree.

So it´s mainly up to map makers, also thinking of small contours and not just amount of trees, objects and ground tile types, when it comes to true cover. It´s more work and it has been said that "locking" single tiles has negative effects on frame rates, but at last it pays off. Overall a map provides more cover spots (at least for infantry) and it also looks more natural with purposely scattered +-1m height alterations.

This also counts for shellholes and it´s a viable tactic to create cover, by shelling an otherwise coverless map area with some medium to heavy artillery, when available.

[Broadsword56]

Great how-to, rockinharry. But I thought the existing abstracted "microterrain" feature of CMBN action spots is already supposed to give some variation in cover on even plain flat ground, even though it's "under the hood" and not represented graphically. I wonder if the abstracted variations are any different from one tile type to another (such as lt forest to heavy forest to grass)?

[RockinHarry]

Great how-to, rockinharry. But I thought the existing abstracted "microterrain" feature of CMBN action spots is already supposed to give some variation in cover on even plain flat ground, even though it's "under the hood" and not represented graphically. I wonder if the abstracted variations are any different from one tile type to another (such as lt forest to heavy forest to grass)?

Would like to know about specifics of abstracted micro terrain too, but at least one can "work" with the +-1 m height variations and receives foreseeable results.

I could think of plowed fields offering more "abstracted" micro cover, than grass, but what would a forest offer, beside trees (mentioned in my initial post)? I see oftentimes large, old trees having lots of thick roots near the ground, having pulled some the surrounding earth upwards over time. So the tree base would offer a lying soldier more (broader) cover than when just standing behind the trunk.

Other "abstracted" micro cover within a forest could be numbers of branches lying on the ground, even single fallen trees. Single small arms shots also might be slightly deflected from brushes, branches, or even grass, so that they prevent an otherwise safe hit. This also goes otherway around, a safe miss would be deflected to a random hit.

So really would like to know, if things like that are considered for modelling micro terrain abstraction.

[LongLeftFlank]

As I noted in the other thread, in populated areas like Normandy, except for a few dedicated game preserves, the only reason most forest exists is because the underlying ground is unsuitable for farming (too uneven and/or wet). So RockinHarry is quite right to recommend building in irregularities.

Also, the thicker the tree canopy the lower the ground vegetation will be underneath; only pine forests are normally so dense that the forest floor is bare (needles). But densely spaced stands of mature deciduous trees will have ferns etc. growing up to knee- or waist-height, while less dense stands will allow taller bushes and saplings to grow up to man-height or taller, with corresponding LOS effects.

As to non-tree sources of hard cover, fallen tree trunks and stumps would be major. There's also boulders (in farm fields these have been cleared but not in forests). But as RockinHarry suggests, the major source of decent cover is irregularities in the ground itself.

[RockinHarry]

Another example, that the game has a likely preference for contour based cover, vs. object based cover is a dirt road through a forest edge. The split squad in the pic is given a distant "seek cover" vs action spot FACE command. Soldiers almost always align at the road ditches or in shellholes, when present, but less often or not at all behind trees. Off course depends what exact action spot you click after FACE, but if the FACE command is applied correctly ("seek cover vs." and not "look at"), things start to make sense.

Also the stance of each soldier after FACE indicates whether they will shoot accurately from prone position (at selected action spot after FACE), or rather inaccurately from kneeling or standing position.

It´s quite interesting to experiment with FACE in the editor or in a games setup phase. :eek:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[RockinHarry]

... I just read about how trees need an appropriate ground tile to go with them to provide decent cover.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100109

This adds up with the experience that I'd had that lots and lots of the time, maps have trees with no cover-giving-ground-tile, making the treed area really poor for cover. Combine that with the fact that there isn't much other cover either, and it makes life really hard!

So if you're making a map with trees, please give some cover

GaJ

Just realized, that you was rather speaking of "concealment" or "Cover vs enemy spotting" ...not shooting. Never mind.

[GreenAsJade]

No, no!

The opposite.

I was making a plea for more _cover_ from _fire_.

Concealment is OK, I think.

The really missing thing, often, seems to be cover from fire.

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

The really missing thing, often, seems to be cover from fire.

Then what RH said about irregularities in the ground would seem to be your best bet. Search for those and try to use them. I have done so ever since CMBO, and even in open terrain they help to keep your troops alive.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

Beside adding small height variations, I also found that "thickening up" forest interiors with occasional hedges, low and high bocage (gaped and irregular patterns look best), does much to add additional cover and concealment. This also can be combined with the technique of thickening up forest edges in another thread here. So far, I think you can make any kind of forests with the means available in CMBN.

There´s just few visual limitations with stuff combined with trees in ONE tile, as not all objects appear to "receive" shadows from these trees. This effect is less pronounced in non clear, sunny weather, where ambient light is more evenly distributed within shadowy areas.

[Michael Emrys]

Mentioning shadow reminds me of a question that has been plaguing me: everything else being equal, does anybody know off-hand whether troops in the shade are less likely to be spotted? Seems like they should, but I don't know if the game takes that into account.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

I would strongly doubt that's the case; I suspect there's a uniform map-wide modifier for light/darkness.

[Sgt Schultz]

Shadows mean nothing other than eye-candy.

Time of day and other changing environmental conditions do most assuredly affect spotting.

The concealment modifier of the tile in question is added to the general lighting conditions and state of unit on that tile to achieve the 'spotting quotient". Forest tiles have a built in 'shade' modifier, that may be adjusted according to amount and type of foliage.

-

[Michael Emrys]

Well that's worth knowing at any rate. I can stop making a special effort to have my troops end their movement in shadow.

Michael

[Erwin]

One can also make ones men crawl SLOW for a while so their clean uniforms get dirty and are thus better camouflaged.

[GreenAsJade]

Beside adding small height variations, I also found that "thickening up" forest interiors with occasional hedges, low and high bocage (gaped and irregular patterns look best), does much to add additional cover and concealment. This also can be combined with the technique of thickening up forest edges in another thread here. So far, I think you can make any kind of forests with the means available in CMBN.

Bring 'em on! (maps/scenarios with this stuff in!)

[Sgt Schultz]

I did just that in my latest offering.

Gated Hedge and gated Low Bocage along forest edges and inside treelines.

As long as no Bocage tiles touch each other, movement is just hindered, not prohibited.