Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

CharlieB

Anti Tank Ditch

Using fortifications end to end, a reasonably effective A/Tk ditch can be created.  Have not yet tried bridging it... but the CGF were not impressed.

 

 

ATkDitch.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can have issues with the current terrain model where scrapes placed on ridges aren't always that deep. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

indeed, but until we get the ability to dig ditches etc and fill them in with AEVs then it is a starter for 10...  I am curious to see what will come in the future with the change of terrain

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure,

 

If it is too shallow, you can always make it a better obstacle by creating a zone and have vehicles allocated a X% chance of becoming immobile (say damage track) if they enter it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Why not place dragon teeth, really. This is crazy.

Heck, you could also use some of those concrete "Bremer walls". If you use half height, defenders can still shoot over them. Abusing emplacements for this is bad for the frame rate, bad for future compatibility of such scenarios, etc.

 

I understand that there is a need for excavated obstacles, and you'll get them, once that the new terrain engine has been successfully implemented. Once that it is there we'll start working on dynamic terrain, and that would include the ability to dig trenches of any size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not make a terrain item as a wadi. Make your "Moat" Then put Dragons teeth at the bottom of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I think CharlieB was trying for a Mission Editor based solution, rather than a Map Editor based one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

You are indeed correct - I will need to remind myself with respect to which obstacles can be effected by what.  I seem to recall that Dragons teeth cannot be budged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing stopping you from doing it in both the terrain map and a scenario.  Just make a copy of the terrain map in question and do the wadi on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

10 minutes ago, CharlieB said:

You are indeed correct - I will need to remind myself with respect to which obstacles can be effected by what.  I seem to recall that Dragons teeth cannot be budged. 

 

Yep they aren't cleared by miclic, roller, plough, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

5 minutes ago, CharlieB said:

good point.  the Maps are now embedded into the scenario are they not?

 

Yes, but it will mean the scenario file is bigger than a purely Mission Editor based implementation.

 

This will be more evident in the new terrain model - at least as its currently planned to be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

26 minutes ago, CharlieB said:

Nuc?

 

Well unless its a massive fortification (West Wall, etc.) then the amount of engineering effort would limit the length of the obstacle belt.

 

So you should be able to go around - of course that might be the intent of the obstacle though. :) 

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

it will mean the scenario file is bigger than a purely Mission Editor based implementation.

 

This will be more evident in the new terrain model - at least as its currently planned to be implemented.

 

a) currently, it's not. A "wadi" terrain type is only that, a tile like water, except that no water surface is rendered (and that vehicle engines don't stall by driving into them. As each terrain map is ALWAYS embedded in the scenario, this doesn't make a scenario larger.

 

b) Wadis will be discontinued in future versions. We'll still support them when importing legacy scenarios and legacy maps of course, but the option to mark a terrain type as a wadi will be replaced by a functionality to simply dig them into the terrain profile. Functionally they are then identical to any other trench, except a different cross-section profile, of course. For the moment however they would be a quite legitimate way to visualize an anti- tank trench.

 

What you lose however is the ability for the exercising students to set the trench during the planning stage. Rather, the mission designer needs to create a scenario based on a copy of the intended map (in anticipation of the students later setting the location of the obstacle); then adjust the terrain map according to where the students indicate that they want to have the AT ditch; then perform a map refresh on the scenario, and finally distributing/publishing the scenario file for the exercise. So, you lose a bit of flexibility

 

c) The new terrain model will be implemented in a way to retain this flexibility in map adjustment for scenarios by introducing "delta maps"; maps will be organized in folders, "map packages", which contain the immutable base map ("immutable" as in you'd need to save it as a different base map before you can make major changes to it), and files that describe just the modifications to the original map; in addition there would be other files that belong to the map data preprocessing (computationally/memory intensive operations that are stored, so that they need not be done every time that you load a map - like navmesh generation).

You could have several different of these delta maps in a single map package (but no deltas of deltas; that would quickly become a recursive nightmare). The scenario would then specify WHICH delta map were to be applied to the base map; if the local copy of the map package doesn't contain the required delta map, the host could then pass on just the missing delta map to the client. That way the amount of data transfer can be minimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like progress to me.  Many thanks SSnake

Edited by CharlieB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow Snake , you just gave us peasants hope , now we expect greatness in future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2016 at 8:47 AM, Ssnake said:

I understand that there is a need for excavated obstacles, and you'll get them, once that the new terrain engine has been successfully implemented. Once that it is there we'll start working on dynamic terrain, and that would include the ability to dig trenches of any size.

Sweet, spider holes, trenches and improved positions for the foot mobiles will be an awesome addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now