Can’t see the forest cuz of the trees...

[Hub6Actual]

I’ve never been across the water and seen for myself the areas represented by the maps included in the game. I have had numerous people over the years from some of those same places tell me about the “Old Country” and one thing many said was that the forests here where I live reminded them of the ones back home. I don’t have the game in front of me at the moment, so I can’t recall the value ranges involved exactly, but the maps seem to generally allow restricted vehicular movement through forests/woods, but I don’t recall experiencing any treed areas completely impassible to vehicles (not to say they aren’t there, just don’t remember running into any). The forests where I live are extensive and thick - I would estimate that over 80% of their area are not passible for any type of vehicle, beyond perhaps moving one vehicle length before grinding to a halt. Much of them are so dense, filled with undergrowth, deadfalls, etc, that simply trying to walk through parts of them is extremely difficult. Is it actually possible in those areas covered by the game maps for so much of the forested areas to be traversed by vehicles, albeit with difficulty? This is not an indictment or complaint, this is a great game, and I just want to be enlightened. For the record, I’ve played many games besides this one where this same question has come to my mind. Also, I am just framing the question around the density of the vegetation, not to include other mitigating trafficability concerns such as ground conditions, slope, etc that might also affect vehicle movement.

Not being able to get off roads and trails with heavy eqpt in certain spots would make these areas tactically much more significant. I think a lot of games use a scenario time limit as a means to offset the fact that although they let you drive through thick woods, it would take more time than you’ve been allowed, so it isn’t really an option. AB is more open-ended with regards to what parameters ends a scenario, where time isn’t necessarily the only consideration, so maybe there is time to drive around the obstacle in the road, as opposed to either being forced to breach it, or backing up and trying to find another route. More onus on good recon, where part of it’s function, as in reality, would be to determine route trafficability.

[Veitikka]

I recall a military person saying that if you can put your arms around a tree then it's not an obstacle to a tank. Wheeled vehicles are certainly different, and rocks are probably more dangerous than trees.

[Hub6Actual]

And, I expect he was right. However, one tree, no matter how mighty, is not a forest. Excuse me for a moment while I go tell the platoon of BTR’s that are attacking me in my current game, after traversing 2 km of forest, that they have to go back and start over, lol. And to watch out for moose on the road.

EDIT - According to US Army FM 5-15 Field Fortifications, Obstacles, trees 20 cm (8”) or larger are sufficient to stop a tank in a forest environment. Trees as small as 10 cm (4”) can seriously impede or stop tanks on a 20 deg slope. Reading onwards, although individual trees may be knocked over, once they become entangled with each other is when forward movement will be stopped.

[echo9c]

When I was serving in West Germany, in the 80's the German forests were kept very clean with little or no undergrowth. That being said we believed they were an obstacle to tanks and accordingly, we would tie our obstacles into the woods. Then we saw a film made by, if I remember correctly the German Army but it may have been US, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. The tanks pushed through the woods even up hill, not fast but they were able to do it without much difficulty. The only way they were able to stop the tanks was to wrap steel wire rope through the woods from tree to tree. I don't remember the diameter of the trees in the woods but they looked like a typical forest found all over the part of Germany I trained in, which was mostly in Bavaria.

[Hub6Actual]

Excellent and thanks - this answers my original question about what the forests over there look like. My only other query would be: Given then that tanks in fact could maneuver through them, is it still realistic to expect an armoured formation to be able to batter it’s way through many hundreds of metres of forest? This is what happens in the game at times, and I do it as well when needed. It doesn’t feel quite right to me doing it though, from a realism perspective. Not just for mobility reasons, but others as well. And there is the issue of doing it with wheeled vehicles also..

[npsergio]

Remember the Ardennes... That "impassable obstacle" that was lightly defended during the WWII.
Probably it is not the best terrain for armored combat, but if tanks can drive through a forest, they probably will do it if there is an operational advantage...

Just guesing here, but based on history.

[zacklaws]

ORIGINAL: npsergio

Remember the Ardennes... That "impassable obstacle" that was lightly defended during the WWII.
Probably it is not the best terrain for armored combat, but if tanks can drive through a forest, they probably will do it if there is an operational advantage...

Just guesing here, but based on history.

If you read into it, For example, Kampfgruppe Peiper was stuck to only being able to travel on the narrow roads and tracks with his armour and if the leading vehicles where destroyed, they could not be bypassed by going through the forest and the roads had to be cleared or alternate roads found.

The Huertgen Forrest was similar.

Likewise when I was BAOR, some forests you could drive through in wheeled vehicles but others you had no chance. Armour would only reverse in a few yards between the gaps in the trees. It would only take naturally fallen trees to bring things to a halt. On one occasion when we was in a hide location in a forest, their was strong winds and many trees fell across the tracks and we was stuck. We had to get the emergency service out with chainsaws to cut a way through for us. But, that type of scenario in a war setting, engineers, asasault pioneers etc could blow a way through using PE4 etc. On another occasion, we got so far through a forest following a track which suddenly ended, but not according to the map, the forest had become very dense and the only way out was reverse out the way we had gone in.

[Hub6Actual]

I spent some time mousing over the forest in the scenario I generated, and the percentage for vehicle movement is 17 for all forest types. I thought at first that 17 was a little on the high side, but now having heard from some veterans who experienced the conditions for themselves (and thank you for both your service and your input), I am more comfortable with that number, especially in conjunction with ground condition and relief.

[exsonic01]

This will really depends on what type of the tree.

ROKA Korean tanks maneuver through the 'forest'. Korean webpage but you could use google translator.
https://demaclub.tistory.com/3303

YT vids for the same contents.
https://youtu.be/w34zWOQQebg

Aussie M1 vs Aussie tree
https://youtu.be/fReXK_ntOYg

Not sure about what is that tanks, but looks like it is pushing through multiple trees.
https://youtu.be/D4roHOw6hkc

Meanwhile, there are some videos like
https://youtu.be/wiX4RbvGko8

I guess weak, small trees are no problem to tanks. (less then 30cm~40cm diameter) But more then that will make a problem.

We could search for more vids or data for M60s or T72s or 64/80s. Or we could search for tank unit FM for operation / maneuvering in the forest (no road) There should be a hint for possible maximum size of trees for tanks to run over.

In AB, it might be OK to assume there are small and weak trees in each of the tree tile, and drivers are look for weak trees and maneuver through them. It would be great if AB introduce "wood density" or "wood size" variable for forest tiles but that would mot be an easy work...

[Hub6Actual]

Thank you for those links. I had actually watched all but the Korean ones yesterday. FM 5-15 gives some coverage to maneuvering through forests and how to try and prevent that from happening. Having read the salient parts of 5-15 and other literature, watched videos, and reading the responses from the two veterans who replied to my post, I feel now that the way the movement currently works in the game is ok and I am comfortable with it. In the real world, I think there would have to be a significant tactical advantage involved before I would risk the attempt though.

I’ve also noted that in the database, each unit is assigned an offRoadMobility rating out of 100, so I assume it’s a percentage. Random sampling seems to show leg infantry and teams generally are 100, tracked vehicles around 80ish (Chieftain MBT was 60), BTR-60/70/80 was 70, Jeep was 65, Ferret AC was 75. Leg units that are encumbered by heavier weapons also show 100, and equipment that can’t move on it’s own also shows 100, like the 100mm AT Gun. There is no Help tooltip when the value is clicked on in the database, so I don’t know what this is a percentage of, can only assume smaller number equals less of ?

The manual says,”Both vehicles and non-vehicle units can become immobilized. A vehicle can be immobilized due to damage or traveling on terrain other than roads. Terrain-based immobilization depends on the temperature and the unit’s off-road attribute.”

[DoubleDeuce]

If you push tanks through forest you will have thrown tracks all over the place. Sure you can knock a few down at first but as you drive over them you get bogged down as they get caught up in your tracks, breaking torsion bars, sprockets the throwing tracks. There is also a high chance of getting bellied out where you ride up on a stump/fallen tree and one or both sides of the tracks is raise up enough off of the ground that you have no traction. Then in order to recover that vehicle it would involve other vehicles coming in over the same paths and then trying to drag you back out to open ground you can work on the track. IMHO, there needs to be a defined light (passable with some degree of immobilization) and heavy woods (with extremely high chance of immobilization).

[Hub6Actual]

I did some testing to see what happens when the offRoadMobility setting is changed in the unit database. The test subject was a troop of Centurion Mk 12's Advancing, Tight-Spacing in Free Formation, back and forth in approx. 1 km legs through a mix of Coniferous and Mixed Tree tiles, both whose vehicle mobility was listed as 20. SOP was Shortest. Relief was 25, the ground was not quite flat, but very close, no other terrain features involved. Conditions were Day, Warm, Good ground, Good viz. Each run-through lasted for one hour (60:00) over the same identical patch of ground:

ORM set to 85 (original setting) - 1 tank immob at 33:10
ORM set to 43 - 1 tank immob at 12:25
ORM set to 22 - 1 tank immob at 48:08
ORM set to 11 - 3 tanks immob at 08:20, 33:05, 42:55
ORM set to 0 - 4 tanks immob at 00:40, 00:41, 00:41, 00:44

Speed through this terrain at Advance was 3 kph. I have to check other non-road terrain to see what relevance this has, if any.

[exsonic01]

That makes sense, I think I usually experience around 3~5 immobilized vehicles per a game even from good ground condition game (I usually play 37000pt ~ 50000pt game from 15km x 15km map, typical number of vehicles are 70 ~ 100)

I cannot expect how many tanks will be downed due to immobilization if I set poor ground condition...

If "wood density" or "light/heavy woods" are implemented, then I guess this should be involved with some RNG per each tile. Because it is not possible to check wood density or tree size from satellite images, and this means we cannot implement "light/heavy woods" authentically during map editing process. I remember that I saw tree / forest analyze map data for academic purpose, but I'm not sure if that data contains tree size or density of tree... So I guess it would not be possible to depict wood density based on satellite image, but it should be introduced by some sort of RNG for each forest tile, if it is implemented.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Hub6Actual

I did some testing to see what happens when the offRoadMobility setting is changed in the unit database. The test subject was a troop of Centurion Mk 12's Advancing, Tight-Spacing in Free Formation, back and forth in approx. 1 km legs through a mix of Coniferous and Mixed Tree tiles, both whose vehicle mobility was listed as 20. SOP was Shortest. Relief was 25, the ground was not quite flat, but very close, no other terrain features involved. Conditions were Day, Warm, Good ground, Good viz. Each run-through lasted for one hour (60:00) over the same identical patch of ground:

ORM set to 85 (original setting) - 1 tank immob at 33:10
ORM set to 43 - 1 tank immob at 12:25
ORM set to 22 - 1 tank immob at 48:08
ORM set to 11 - 3 tanks immob at 08:20, 33:05, 42:55
ORM set to 0 - 4 tanks immob at 00:40, 00:41, 00:41, 00:44

Speed through this terrain at Advance was 3 kph. I have to check other non-road terrain to see what relevance this has, if any.

Thanks for the testing. I can see clear relation with ORM and immob. I think poorer ground condition will bring similar effect with reduced ORM.

[thewood1]

I consider myself the resident expert on any wood discussion.

[Hub6Actual]

Test 2 - Barren Terrain, Plain tiles with Vehicle Trafficability of 80. Relief is 25, almost flat but again not quite. All other parameters are the same as the first test. Speed at Advance was 14 kph:

ORM set to 85 - no casualties
ORM set to 43 - no casualties
ORM set to 22 - no casualties
ORM set to 11 - no casualties
ORM set to 0 - 4 tanks immob at 00:17, 00:17, 00:17, 00:17

Probably no real surprise, but I wanted a baseline for comparison.

[Hub6Actual]

Test 3 - Parameters as for Test 2, except Ground Condition is changed to Bad. This drops Vehicle Trafficability down from 80 to 44 in the terrain info box, and unit speed drops to 7 kph:

ORM set to 85 - no casualties
ORM set to 43 - 2 tanks immob at 11:01, 36:17
ORM set to 22 - no casualties
ORM set to 11 - no casualties
ORM set to 0 - 4 tanks immob at 00:19, 00:19, 00:20, 00:22

[Hub6Actual]

Test 4 - Back to the forest from the first test. All parameters the same except ground condition is Bad. This drops the Vehicle Trafficability from 20 down to 11 on the Terrain info menu. Unit speed was 0-1 kph.

ORM set to 85 - no casualties
ORM set to 43 - 4 tanks immob at 05:53, 08:41, 17:01, 35:31
ORM set to 22 - 2 tanks immob at 08:35, 14:10
ORM set to 11 - 4 tanks immob at 03:05, 04:55, 12:21, 29:59
ORM set to 0 - 4 tanks immob all at 01:48

[Hub6Actual]

Tests done on original section of forest in setting Winter, Cold, Good, and then repeated as Winter, Cold, Bad yielded up roughly the same results as Summer, Warm, Good, and Summer, Warm, Bad, respectively. Vehicle mobility dropped the same amounts in the Terrain info menu, and unit speeds were the same.

If you feel that forests should be more of an impediment to vehicles, then I guess the easiest thing to do would be to generate scenarios with poorer ground conditions. I played through a quick scenario last night with all other conditions optimal, but with Bad ground conditions. I had Canadians defend vs Soviets. I chose a choke point where the highway ran between two decently sized forests, but also had fairly large areas of brush/fields/open on both sides of those forests, to see what the AI would do. The highway was barricaded and mined, as well as a couple of dirt side roads running through the woods. The Canadians were on foot and supported by M113 TOWs (US M150s), the Soviets all mechanized in BMP-1s supported by T-62s. The AI Soviets avoided both the woods and the barricade and made strenuous efforts to take the objectives from the rear using the clear areas and what side roads there were to advance. Prior to this, most of the time I was playing with ground conditions set to good or fair, and noted the AI had no fear of running vehicles through the woods in those scenarios. I didn’t notice the Soviets suffering any apparent mobility casualties when moving through the more accessible terrain. I was wondering if that might be a problem because of the ground conditions being globally bad, the idea being that the forests should be more of an obstacle, but not necessarily everything else to the same degree. I would make note that running through the forest in these bad conditions, even without breaking down, you are only doing ~ 1 kph, which, unless it is a very short distance, is impractical at best, and at worst, you are putting your assets out of the fight.

Then again, it was only one scenario done on the fly, so maybe it doesn’t mean anything.

It seems like it might be a “well, duh” moment by saying make the ground conditions worse, but for me words like good, fair, poor, bad, without any context, don’t mean anything, which is why I had to run the tests. If I’m lying in the hospital with two broken legs, but the fellow next to me has terminal cancer, then comparatively speaking, my condition can be considered as “good.”

[zacklaws]

And also do not forget the effect of slopes in forests, in steep terrain, I would presume its harder for an MBT to push trees down going up hill and even worse when the ground is softer.

And there is also the factor of tactical night moves in thick forested areas where lights are forbidden. If you do not have night vision equipment, then it can be chaos. From experience the nights in forests in Germany can be that black, you cannot see your hands in front of your face, so movement is very slow and very easy to get disorientated. One of the recommendations and was in the infantry pamphlet was that during night fighting in woods and forests, you wore your respirator with canister removed to protect your eyes from branches etc. These days though you use goggles instead. But, shooting in a respirator is not easy so that would affect something in the game.

Another thing which forests should also affect something in the game is stealth and surprise as it would be compromised and positions given away, an MBT is not quiet out in the open and can be heard from a distance away, but crashing through a forest and pushing trees down, engines revving for the extra power, branches cracking etc, then multiply that by the amount of MBT's etc approaching the enemy position, it could affect their morale as it would sound like the devils or unseen monster is coming through the forest putting their nerves on edge and on a night, even worse.

In fact, based on the last paragraph, I recall reading about something like that the Russians did on the Eastern Front, they used a movement like that as a feint attack but also used it to drown out the sound of the real attack. Similar may even have been done by the Germans in the Bulge as well I may have read to hide troop movements.