Demo Live

[Quellist]

We betas have been asking you non-betas for days what the frequency was of the move in question. You non-betas have failed to give us betas an answer. Us betas were not asking you non-betas as a test. Us betas were asking you non-betas because us betas were trying to get a feel for the relevance and, in turn, the larger effect that modeling tanks driving over bocage would be. But none of you non-betas have answered that question to us betas. That would lead us betas to think that you non-betas, at the end of the day, don't know any more about it than us betas. And that perhaps leaving out the ability for tanks to drive through bocage was the right choice that The Creators made.

My statement was more in general about the climate over at BFC, I don't know who is right when it comes to the bocage. But when people do present sources in support of their position the get more or less the same answer as if they didn't. And if I knew something about the bocage question and had sources supporting that I sure as hell wouldn't spend hours digging the sources up and typing something up for the expected responses right now. It is my belief that others might share that stance and I also believe that knowledgeable people like Rexford et al. wouldn't touch this iteration of the forum with a ten-foot pole.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Isn't the inability to crash a hedgerow by a tank without cullins or dozer implements a very insignificant but very groggy point?

I think the real point is that Normandy was picked for the kick off of the new WW2 CMx2 game and that many have already pointed out that the hedgerow battle enactments may not provide the type of gaming that many of us (who loved the freewheeling mobile style) would like?

There are definately tactics that must be adhered to in the bocage, but it is also rather limiting in what can be done and how you may approach a map, especially on small maps (go straight down the road, or down one or two other possible avenues).

I am sure that scenarios will not consist mainly of bocage, as that would be a complete deathknell for the game's playability and interest right of the bat.

Normandy was notable from the American perspective for three things:

a) the amphibious landings (marked by special fortifications, landing craft, and "funny" tanks - specialized armor)
b) the airborne landings, the largest in history until surprassed by the MARKET operation in September, marked by mass parachute landings in the dark
c) fighting in the bocage

Two of these three aspects are ignored completely in CM:BN. The remaining one is depicted in a level of detail open to the discussion we are now having.

My guess is that the Battle of Normandy was selected because it is a convenient chronological beginning to the northwest European campaign for the US Army, and more saleable than Italy or North Africa. I'm sure BFC's demographics gathering - and they have reported this - has told them that CMBO was more popular than the follow up games depicting other theatres. We've discussed this in the past. I'm not a fan of that logic but can't argue with it on grounds of data.

Your post is internally inconsistent. You decry a lack of mobility - in other words, options for movement - in one sentence, and then in another say that providing options for movement - vast options, actually, if a tank were given the ability to operate through the hedges that will presumably cover large tracts of any reasonably accurate map (or even ones that anything close to resemble those created for CMBO) - is a minor point of trivia.

Which is it?

I just look at that Cuneo painting and think it is a missed opportunity - put it into stark game terms if you like and forget historical accuracy. The image of a tank teetering on the brink like that looks like something dramatic and fun, to me. Pictured in the context of a 60 second turn, wondering if an enemy infantry unit will break its suppression and get a shot off on the vulnerable underbelly - isn't that the whole reason people play this thing in 1:1, zoomed in, with replay capability to begin with?

And in historical terms - the painting depicts an actual incident - so the story goes. A future Archbishop of Canterbury is purportedly commanding one of the tanks. Cuneo's bonafides are well known. One imagines he has done his homework.

I can't quibble with your conclusion about the number of bocage scenarios we are likely to see in future. We have seen blessed few desert scenarios for CM:SF - or any scenarios. How much "fun" bocage becomes remains to be seen. I don't know that giving tanks the ability to drive over a hedge makes it any more enjoyable to claw through bocage - probably not. But that's an entirely different issue. Given that bocage is depicted, I would think that the desire is to get the modelling as close to complete as possible.

I don't doubt this was discussed among the beta team - or at least, one hopes. I also know that hundreds if not thousands of issues can come up in the course of a four year development cycle. If it is something that can be discussed again and even adjusted - why not? BFC has been open to change in the past. This would be a major change, though, and I disagree with your assertion that it would be trivial.

The ability for tanks to traverse terrain only along roads and through passageways, as opposed to over hedges, would have a large impact on how scenarios were played. I have to believe this was seriously considered when the terrain effects on movement were designed in the planning stage. This is what game designers do. Perhaps there was even a beta build in which tanks did have the ability and the scenarios were felt to be too unbalanced. I could respect that, if it were the decision. But we don't know. It may be too soon to be discussing this. Maybe they'll even rethink it before the game releases based on feedback from the demo. I think it unlikely at this point, but who knows.

Anyway, to sum up - if the game really wants to be representative of anything about the Battle of Normandy in anything besides the dates on the scenario briefing files, it should endeavour to capture at least one or two things that were unique about the fighting there. They've actively passed on amphibious landings and landing craft. They've said "no" to DD tanks and specialized fortifications. Parachute landings and gliders and anti-aircraft units are out. So they're left with bocage, which made up the majority of the terrain they fought through. Now you can have bocage to look at and fight around, or deal with. Part of the dealing was knowing when you could drive over it - take a risk - or expend the energy on the demo charges and dozer tanks and whatever.

Otherwise, as you point out, just call it Quick Battle 2.0 and fight your vanilla Germans vs. your vanilla Americans - and when the Ardennes module comes out, call it Quick Battle 2.1 (Snow Module). My criticism of the Marines mod was that it was just GIs in different colour clothes. Normandy may well turn out to be CM:SF with leafy trees if you can't do enough different things with the terrain to make it unique. Given a choice between "more" stuff to do, and "less", my choice is always going to be more, variety being the spice of life. For the life of me, I don't understand those who turn noses up at more. As if they are paying the bills for Charles' coding time.

As I stated before, I'll reserve full judgement until the actual game comes out. But I'm not buying the game based on how the little movies look. I'm fully on record as not being that type of player; I am concerned with how the tactical decision making is modelled. All I can tell you is that this is definitely a much different feel from other well-respected depictions of bocage fighting. That includes CMBO, too, for what it is worth. I would expect it not to be a carbon copy of what others have done, but the feel needs to be based on solid research, and decision trees need to be suitably rich and complex, interspersed with the vagaries of fate and chance.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Normandy was notable from the American perspective for three things:

a) the amphibious landings (marked by special fortifications, landing craft, and "funny" tanks - specialized armor)
b) the airborne landings, the largest in history until surprassed by the MARKET operation in September, marked by mass parachute landings in the dark
c) fighting in the bocage

Two of these three aspects are ignored completely in CM:BN. The remaining one is depicted in a level of detail open to the discussion we are now having.

My guess is that the Battle of Normandy was selected because it is a convenient chronological beginning to the northwest European campaign for the US Army, and more saleable than Italy or North Africa. I'm sure BFC's demographics gathering - and they have reported this - has told them that CMBO was more popular than the follow up games depicting other theatres. We've discussed this in the past. I'm not a fan of that logic but can't argue with it on grounds of data.

Your post is internally inconsistent. You decry a lack of mobility - in other words, options for movement - in one sentence, and then in another say that providing options for movement - vast options, actually, if a tank were given the ability to operate through the hedges that will presumably cover large tracts of any reasonably accurate map (or even ones that anything close to resemble those created for CMBO) - is a minor point of trivia.

Which is it?

I just look at that Cuneo painting and think it is a missed opportunity - put it into stark game terms if you like and forget historical accuracy. The image of a tank teetering on the brink like that looks like something dramatic and fun, to me. Pictured in the context of a 60 second turn, wondering if an enemy infantry unit will break its suppression and get a shot off on the vulnerable underbelly - isn't that the whole reason people play this thing in 1:1, zoomed in, with replay capability to begin with?

And in historical terms - the painting depicts an actual incident - so the story goes. A future Archbishop of Canterbury is purportedly commanding one of the tanks. Cuneo's bonafides are well known. One imagines he has done his homework.

I can't quibble with your conclusion about the number of bocage scenarios we are likely to see in future. We have seen blessed few desert scenarios for CM:SF - or any scenarios. How much "fun" bocage becomes remains to be seen. I don't know that giving tanks the ability to drive over a hedge makes it any more enjoyable to claw through bocage - probably not. But that's an entirely different issue. Given that bocage is depicted, I would think that the desire is to get the modelling as close to complete as possible.

I don't doubt this was discussed among the beta team - or at least, one hopes. I also know that hundreds if not thousands of issues can come up in the course of a four year development cycle. If it is something that can be discussed again and even adjusted - why not? BFC has been open to change in the past. This would be a major change, though, and I disagree with your assertion that it would be trivial.

The ability for tanks to traverse terrain only along roads and through passageways, as opposed to over hedges, would have a large impact on how scenarios were played. I have to believe this was seriously considered when the terrain effects on movement were designed in the planning stage. This is what game designers do. Perhaps there was even a beta build in which tanks did have the ability and the scenarios were felt to be too unbalanced. We don't know. It may be too soon to be discussing this. Maybe they'll even rethink it before the game releases based on feedback from the demo. I think it unlikely at this point, but who knows.

Anyway, to sum up - if the game really wants to be representative of anything about the Battle of Normandy in anything besides the dates on the scenario briefing files, it should endeavour to capture at least one or two things that were unique about the fighting there. They've actively passed on amphibious landings and landing craft. They've said "no" to DD tanks and specialized fortifications. Parachute landings and gliders and anti-aircraft units are out. So they're left with bocage, which made up the majority of the terrain they fought through. Now you can have bocage to look at and fight around, or deal with. Part of the dealing was knowing when you could drive over it - take a risk - or expend the energy on the demo charges and dozer tanks and whatever.

Otherwise, as you point out, just call it Quick Battle 2.0 and fight your vanilla Germans vs. your vanilla Americans - and when the Ardennes module comes out, call it Quick Battle 2.1 (Snow Module). My criticism of the Marines mod was that it was just GIs in different colour clothes. Normandy may well turn out to be CM:SF with leafy trees if you can't do enough different things with the terrain to make it unique. Given a choice between "more" stuff to do, and "less", my choice is always going to be more, variety being the spice of life. For the life of me, I don't understand those who turn noses up at more. As if they are paying the bills for Charles' coding time.

I'll just make the quick point on what you inferred as internal inconsistency: in no way do I accept your premise that giving tanks the ability to move through bocage (which I suspect, would take a good deal of time, sans cullins implements), in any way, shape or form represents my conceptualization of a type of game play that one might experience external to the bocage areas of Normandy (where there would be greater room for manuever in countryside roads and fields let's say).

Because I have no information on how long it might take for a tank to crash through a 9 foot tall earth dammed hedge, I cannot say how long it would take for a tank to do this... but I suspect it would take a great portion of one turn.

Now, from a point of analogy, why is there not greater uproar over the fact that tanks cannot crash through buildings, even though we know that there are hundreds of documented stories of this happening in one shape or form? I would argue that the bocage issue is less important to the realism of world war 2 battle than the ability of tanks to enter buildings.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Geordie]

Im not particularly bothered about the Bocage. It looks OK to me and I didnt expect any vehicles to be really climbing it. Yes I know armour did, but that wasnt too smart really and they learned from that mistake. And so CMBN for me is kind of representative of mistakes learned. I know climbing over Bocage is inherently dangerous and so Im not going to try it.

In reality, and honestly, its a trivial aspect of the game.

Now, whats more important is the shooting ability of those Tanks in the closing the pocket scenario. Im seeing results in armour duels at over 800 meters that I wasnt expecting to see. Panthers turning through 50 or more degrees to land a first shot hit on a moving Sherman.

Now thats more worrysome than a few bushes!

 

[BlitzCanuck]

Im not particularly bothered about the Bocage. It looks OK to me and I didnt expect any vehicles to be really climbing it. Yes I know armour did, but that wasnt too smart really and they learned from that mistake. And so CMBN for me is kind of representative of mistakes learned. I know climbing over Bocage is inherently dangerous and so Im not going to try it.

In reality, and honestly, its a trivial aspect of the game.

Now, whats more important is the shooting ability of those Tanks in the closing the pocket scenario. Im seeing results in armour duels at over 800 meters that I wasnt expecting to see. Panthers turning through 50 or more degrees to land a first shot hit on a moving Sherman.

Now thats more worrysome than a few bushes!

I agree on all points.
Although i was less concerned with the Panthers abilities than i am with the fact that most times i can't even tell wtf is doing the shooting.

 

[vetacon]

I agree on all points.
Although i was less concerned with the Panthers abilities than i am with the fact that most times i can't even tell wtf is doing the shooting.

I like the occasional uncertainty over what's shooting at you - it accords with my understanding of realism (though doubtless someone here will be along any minute to tell me it's not realistic, and Steve's a liar etc). However, if you don't like that aspect can't you play on a lower FOW setting?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'll just make the quick point on what you inferred as internal inconsistency: in no way do I accept your premise that giving tanks the ability to move through bocage (which I suspect, would take a good deal of time, sans cullins implements)

Why do you say this? Reread my earlier post. All the elements to do this are already coded. Tanks already have ability to move through regular hedges, up and over hills, through fences, etc. Frankly, you're being ridiculous. It's a COT calculation.

, in any way, shape or form represents my conceptualization of a type of game play that one might experience external to the bocage areas of Normandy (where there would be greater room for manuever in countryside roads and fields let's say).

If you read the accounts of combat in places like the Carentan-Périers isthmus, you'll find that there were no roads to speak of.

Because I have no information on how long it might take for a tank to crash through a 9 foot tall earth dammed hedge, I cannot say how long it would take for a tank to do this... but I suspect it would take a great portion of one turn.

So? I'm saying the same thing.

Now, from a point of analogy, why is there not greater uproar over the fact that tanks cannot crash through buildings, even though we know that there are hundreds of documented stories of this happening in one shape or form?

Why indeed. Tank drivers were under standard orders not to do this because of the likelihood of danger to optics and gun barrels.

FWIW, I think this should be included in the game also. FWIW, ASL also allows it, with the possibility of falling into the cellar. Again, I would love to see more options, rather than less. I would be surprised if it isn't on the "to do" list at BFC.

I would argue that the bocage issue is less important to the realism of world war 2 battle than the ability of tanks to enter buildings.

You keep steering the conversation away to other topics. I'm not sure why. We're discussing one specific aspect. You could argue for all kinds of things that are in, or not. I think barbed wire is pretty significant but haven't seen it yet. But the conversation isn't about that. What we're talking about is the fact that bocage is included, and ways in which it is modelled.

 

[Geordie]

I agree on all points.
Although i was less concerned with the Panthers abilities than i am with the fact that most times i can't even tell wtf is doing the shooting.

I find that in the Cm-2 games your units have to sit still for a wee bit before they see anything. Of course the down side is that if they are being shot at, then theyre not going to see anything!

Try hunting your units into the woods, armour seems to do better just inside a treeline.

And of course, the gamey, sit behind an indestructible tree tactic will be prevalent no doubt. I had an M-10 sit just behind a tree and the tree took 5 hits from a Panther. No damage. Either to the tree or M-10.

 

[Tanker]

I'll just make the quick point on what you inferred as internal inconsistency: in no way do I accept your premise that giving tanks the ability to move through bocage (which I suspect, would take a good deal of time, sans cullins implements), in any way, shape or form represents my conceptualization of a type of game play that one might experience external to the bocage areas of Normandy (where there would be greater room for manuever in countryside roads and fields let's say).

Because I have no information on how long it might take for a tank to crash through a 9 foot tall earth dammed hedge, I cannot say how long it would take for a tank to do this... but I suspect it would take a great portion of one turn.

Now, from a point of analogy, why is there not greater uproar over the fact that tanks cannot crash through buildings, even though we know that there are hundreds of documented stories of this happening in one shape or form? I would argue that the bocage issue is less important to the realism of world war 2 battle than the ability of tanks to enter buildings.

Cheers!

Leto

Leto, Leto, no one (except you) has said that tanks should be able to crash through a 9 foot tall earth dammed hedge. We are talking about a tank being able to go OVER a 1-3 foot hedgerow. Any tank in the world could do that. In the demo there are minor and major versions of hedgerows depicted. At least it looks that way to me.

Now that you bring it up, tanks destroying houses or entering through the back wall and hiding inside would be a nice touch.

 

[thewood]

Any game should let me do anything I want with a tank. Just make me pay a hellish penalty for doing it. Just like in real life, there are unique situations where, as bad as it sounds, it may be better than an alternative. The whole point of wargames is to make decisions that a real world commander might make with all the consequences that result, including breaking equipment and killing your virtual soldiers.

 

[Elvis]

Any game should let me do anything I want with a tank. Just make me pay a hellish penalty for doing it. .

From a programming point of view doesn't that seem like a tall order?

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Leto, Leto, no one (except you) has said that tanks should be able to crash through a 9 foot tall earth dammed hedge. We are talking about a tank being able to go OVER a 1-3 foot hedgerow. Any tank in the world could do that. In the demo there are minor and major versions of hedgerows depicted. At least it looks that way to me.

Now that you bring it up, tanks destroying houses or entering through the back wall and hiding inside would be a nice touch.

Oh okay. Sorry if I misunderstood. Still not a deal breaker though.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[wengart]

From a programming point of view doesn't that seem like a tall order?

If you have to program new features for it. For example moving through a house might be a bit much, because there are a lot of unanswered how will this work type questions there. But for a lot of things, such as bocage, the coding is already there, parameters just need to be made.

 

[Tanker]

From a programming point of view doesn't that seem like a tall order?

Not if you are selling yourself as a Normandy sim/game. The bocage was more than half the battle for the Americans after the beaches.

Elvis, how much programming would it take? That issue has been raised several time in this conversation but no one has quantified it.

And there would be no need for a "hellish" penalty for climbing over moderate hedgerow. If I scout out the field and find no enemy, there is no reason my tank can't safely climb over the hedgerow.
You guys are all talking like ALL the hedgerows were like the Great Wall of China combined with the Everglades. If you were lucky enough to make it up the sheer cliff of them you'd surely get bogged on the other side. I'm sure some of them were impassible, especially the ones bordered by sunken roads, but not all.

 

[KG_Jag]

I'd first rather have tank riders and AA guns than death defying tanks.

 

[dalem]

Very true, that is the real bottom line here.

Which part?

Originally Posted by dalem
See why I didn't bother to go look up any references? Because it doesn't matter to anyone. Either you're okay with tanks not being able to drive over anything called "Bocage" or you're not. We know they could do it, at times, with difficulty and risk; and we know the game doesn't allow that. Whether it's a big deal or not is personal preference, but it's certainly not accurate.

-dale

 

[wengart]

I wonder how flexible the code is for obstacle crossing/crushing. From what I can tell everything slows down a tank the same amount and does the same amount of track damage. When in reality a number of the objects, like the wire/wood fence, wouldn't cause any damage at all or slow the tank down.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I wonder how flexible the code is for obstacle crossing/crushing. From what I can tell everything slows down a tank the same amount and does the same amount of track damage. When in reality a number of the objects, like the wire/wood fence, wouldn't cause any damage at all or slow the tank down.

I posted a short video showing a Sherman crushing a wood fence. It does slow the tank down, which seems odd.

 

[Tanker]

I'd first rather have tank riders and AA guns than death defying tanks.

Defying death by crossing a hedgerow that has no enemy on the other side? Do they have a force field now?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Defying death by crossing a hedgerow that has no enemy on the other side? Do they have a force field now?

Exactly.

As I said before, we all have lists of things we would like to see included. So does BFC. I understand that Steve has even mentioned tank riders are on their list. Understandably, they have to prioritize that list. I certainly don't take issue with that. I don't think any reasonable person would.

What is at issue with is that the bocage treatment has been presented in full. The good news is that this is "just" a demo. We presume the game is days away from release. I would think they are soliciting feedback at this point anyway. So it is worth discussing. Everyone up in arms about how it is "not a big deal" - fine, you are free to go on and discuss other things. See paragraph two.

All these issues are certainly open to wide latitude and interpretation. In 2001, I think BFC would have gotten a much easier pass on many of these issues, based on firstly their reputation, and secondly the higher abstraction of the game system and the way information was presented to the player. After the underperformance of CM:SF, there is now - and this is unfortunate for them - a greater level of scrutiny, fairly or unfairly. It will form part of their burden for some time to come.

The 1:1 modelling and photo-realistic graphics are intended to draw us into the game; well and good. It has always been challenging to reconcile that with high levels of abstraction, and we are now told to accept the sight of a 30 ton tank stopped cold by a two-foot tall mound of rocks and dirt, or worse, prompted to turn its vulnerable flank to the obstacle, and go hunting, sometimes dozens or hundreds of metres, to the flank for an open passage. It defies logic.

Big deal? It's all a matter of perspective. I'll call it an identified issue. Anyone else may call it what they like.