Tanks and AFV's in heavy woods....

[viper827]

I play SD 2 and one of the things I like is that armour or other vehicles cannot enter heavily wooded areas. This means you have to use infantry to clear and secure such areas giving the game a bit more depth I feel.
In WARNO it seems tanks and AFV's can roll through a heavily wooded area no problem and still be a major problem to infantry in that area even if they are armed with AT kit. I think where your tanks and AFV's can be deployed should be more realistic and inline with SD2. I think restricting this movement of armour and support vehicles would bring more tactical depth to the game overall. Hope Eugen sort it out.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Origineel geplaatst door panter:

In the trees i think they're fine, I don't like them driving right up the hills and steep mountainsides though

Have you ever seen a tank zig and zag through a forest? It's slow.

[busboy999]

Origineel geplaatst door BlackFoxSamaki:

Origineel geplaatst door busboy999:

Tanks don’t literally drive through trees. A tank can knock over a tree. Driving straight through a forest is not feasible.

If the forests in the game had unimproved roads, and vehicles could only move down them, that would be fine. However, when you have an infantry squad 4KM deep in a forest and they just stumble across a T80 or a KUB, it’s really jarring breaking of the immersion the game otherwise provides.

Tanks can use tracks to turn in place and traverse rough terrain. If the trees are not too tightly packed tanks can slowly and carefully move through wooded areas. The Japanese and Allies both used light and medium tanks even in the jungles of south-east Asia. The Germans used even King Tigers in lightly wooded areas in the battle of the bulge. Your inflexible assumption that vehicles will just somehow be magically unable to traverse rough terrain is the same sort of complacent thinking that the Germans took advantage of to catch the Allies off-guard in the same area twice over.

It isn't magic, and my inflexible opinion is from experience. Part of everyone's misunderstanding here is an implied assumption that standing trees blocking the tank from moving forward is the issue. It isn't the main issue at all.

The issue is called throwing or breaking track and it SUCKS. Pivot steering in uneven terrain that is full of loose soil, rock, underbrush, fallen timber, etc. is highly likely to break an end connector or gum up the drive sprocket. This causes the track to either break due to a failure of a part, or the track to pop off of the drive sprocket. Either way, it immobilizes the tank. Fixing track in the motorpool is bad enough. Having to fix your track in rough terrain where a recovery vehicle is going to struggle to reach you and you're in enemy contact is dangerous as ****.

You can absolutely drive a main battle tank through some of Europe's planted forests. The ground is level, there's no underbrush, the trees are spaced pretty evenly, and there's a ton of logging trails. That would be doctrinally considered "restrictive" terrain. What I'm saying is dense wood is so much of a risk to mounted maneuver, even tracked vehicles, that it is rightly considered "severely restrictive terrain."

I recommend looking up "Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield" and "Modified Combined Obstacle Overlays" (MCOO) if you're interested in learning how military intelligence and infantry/armor/engineer types put their heads together in planning where forces can and should go on the battlefield.

Thick woods are the infantry's domain for good reason.

[Thewood]

The best of example of heavy woods where actual battles were fought and armor only had a limited support capability is Hürtgen Forest in WW2. That was an infantry meat grinder and tanks were limited to roads/towns, shelling from a distance, or having infantry teams slowly lead them through lighter woods and clearings. Heavy woods were a no go. And not just because of trees. The heavy brush and growth at ground level significantly impeded armor movement.

[busboy999]

Origineel geplaatst door Nero:

Get used to it, it stays how it is. Spiritual successor to Wargame end of story.

Until the devs weigh in on the subject, it isn't the end of the story. The insinuation that tanks driving through forests is someone part of Wargame's spirit isn't logical.

[Mother's Best Boy]

ive been in the military over a decade as an infantryman and ima tell you all right now a tank is not going through the thick forest this game displays at anything other than a crawl, if at all

[Raven]

Regarding Battle of the Bulge please check the map
Map [upload.wikimedia.org]

As you can see their axis of progression was along roads not forest.

[Shriker]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door The Best Boy:

ive been in the military over a decade as an infantryman and ima tell you all right now a tank is not going through the thick forest this game displays at anything other than a crawl, if at all

Battle of Sedan 1940 (Ardennes forest).
Battle of the Bulge 1944 (Ardennes Forest).
Battle of Chernobyl 2022 (Red forest).

That is all

Taking a look at the map and Google 'street view' of the Red Forest and Chernobyl reveals there are some roads and a not very thick forest - or at least not the dense forest that is displayed in Warno - with large areas very lightly forested, if at all.

And, interestingly, related to the 1940 Battle of Sedan:

In 1938, French General André-Gaston Prételat took command of a military exercise with a scenario where the German Army launched an assault through the Ardennes–Sedan sector.

The "French" side's defences collapsed and the defeat was so decisive that "the wisdom of publishing it was questioned lest morale be damaged."

Prételat had correctly identified the landscape as relatively easy terrain for armour to cross and concluded the Germans would take 60 hours, at most, to reach the Meuse and take one day to cross it. It actually ended up taking the Germans only 57 hours to cross the Meuse after moving through the Ardennes.

Another case where the results of a prophetic 'war game' were ignored.

[busboy999]

If there were roads/trails through heavy forests in the game that vehicles were confined to (allowing easier infantry ambush) I'd be perfectly fine with that. That would be accurate and enhance gameplay to boot.

However, there's still a lot of people here who just don't get how tank track works I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbFh8lY_z5U

This video shows US tank crews breaking track for competition. In a motorpool.

Watch this video, then imagine trying to do this surrounded by dense trees. In uneven terrain. Without the ability for a recovery vehicle to get to you and help. Under enemy overwatch.

Breaking track sucks even under ideal circumstances.

If your tanks became immobilized every couple hundred meters of movement through heavy forest in game, and it took 20-30 minutes minimum for them to move again, and they immobilized again and again and again...would you continue to try to move your tanks through the woods?

[busboy999]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door Shriker:

Taking a look at the map and Google 'street view' of the Red Forest and Chernobyl reveals there are some roads and a not very thick forest - or at least not the dense forest that is displayed in Warno - with large areas very lightly forested, if at all.

And, interestingly, related to the 1940 Battle of Sedan:

In 1938, French General André-Gaston Prételat took command of a military exercise with a scenario where the German Army launched an assault through the Ardennes–Sedan sector.

The "French" side's defences collapsed and the defeat was so decisive that "the wisdom of publishing it was questioned lest morale be damaged."

Prételat had correctly identified the landscape as relatively easy terrain for armour to cross and concluded the Germans would take 60 hours, at most, to reach the Meuse and take one day to cross it. It actually ended up taking the Germans only 57 hours to cross the Meuse after moving through the Ardennes.

Another case where the results of a prophetic 'war game' were ignored.

I don't want to discuss it any further because it is a sensitive issue, but the areas are interest are to the north on either side of the Pripyat river. They are thicky forested or swampy terrain and the few roads were obstructed with felled tree obstacles.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Red+Forest/@51.4687338,29.9065237,6052m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x472a7cfcd2def3bb:0xb57024d2f2631365!8m2!3d51.3877368!4d30.0627974

Obstacles can be breached. However, "tanks don't go where the cat tails grow."

The former is a tactical problem that can be overcome. The latter is a technical limitation that can't be overcome with motivation and violence of action.

[busboy999]

Lack of more detailed combat engineer replication and game modes with deliberate defenses has long been a weakness and lost opportunity in the series in my opinion. I'd love to see minefields, explosive breaching, battle positions, etc.

However, I still believe that Steel Division's system of light versus heavy wooded areas was much more realistic. Every time I see a heavy anti-aircraft missile fire from a heavily wooded mountaintop, and its defended by tanks when I send infantry to destroy it, its an immersion breaker. I can't make myself believe "oh, yea, well, there's little tank trails leading up there that I just can't see."

If the devs decide to keep this system, I'll live. However, until they weigh in on it, I think it remains worth discussing as with the unrealistic unit speeds.

[Jackelrush]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door The Best Boy:

ive been in the military over a decade as an infantryman and ima tell you all right now a tank is not going through the thick forest this game displays at anything other than a crawl, if at all

Battle of Sedan 1940 (Ardennes forest).
Battle of the Bulge 1944 (Ardennes Forest).
Battle of Chernobyl 2022 (Red forest).

That is all

LMAO BRUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH they used roads and paths have any of you ever been in thick woods

[Jackelrush]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door Jackelrush:

LMAO BRUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH they used roads and paths have any of you ever been in thick woods

https://youtu.be/D4roHOw6hkc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fReXK_ntOYg

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Those two videos look like
a) A tank would need to be guided through the forest with it's gun turned rearwards for fear of warping the barrel.
b) That each tree knocked down needs special attention from the tank and would consume a tonne of fuel.

Add to that that I really just don't like tanks primary method of movment in WARNO being through forest. Even if it is possible it should be rare. NOT the first thing the AI does. The reason that people choose forest for tanks is because their is very little real negative to doing it. Unlike in real life. Like people are saying with paratroopers, just because they can be used and their is even a dedicated unit trained to use them, does not mean it isnot ill advised to do so.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door Vexillatio ⳩:

Those two videos look like
a) A tank would need to be guided through the forest with it's gun turned rearwards for fear of warping the barrel.
b) That each tree knocked down needs special attention from the tank and would consume a tonne of fuel.

Add to that that I really just don't like tanks primary method of movment in WARNO being through forest. Even if it is possible it should be rare. NOT the first thing the AI does. The reason that people choose forest for tanks is because their is very little real negative to doing it. Unlike in real life. Like people are saying with paratroopers, just because they can be used and their is even a dedicated unit trained to use them, does not mean it isnot ill advised to do so.

In the second video they only went slowly because they were out of the top hatch and didn't want the tree to kill them. Modern tanks have way more HP than a lot of construction equipment designed to remove trees. Forests should not stop them unless it's the redwood forest in California.

But do they choose to go through forests as a matter of course? Or do they consider them an obstacle still? Because the WARNO AI seems not to be able to tell the difference between forest and roads. I think the AI uses the same order system as our. It just does not mind going through forest and why should it.

You also have that old chestnut of infantry going to ground in heavy terrain and a tank never being able to see them. It's the 80s. In closed terrain I still expect that a tank should not see a lot.

[Jackelrush]

Origineel geplaatst door Friendo:

Origineel geplaatst door Vexillatio ⳩:

Those two videos look like
a) A tank would need to be guided through the forest with it's gun turned rearwards for fear of warping the barrel.
b) That each tree knocked down needs special attention from the tank and would consume a tonne of fuel.

Add to that that I really just don't like tanks primary method of movment in WARNO being through forest. Even if it is possible it should be rare. NOT the first thing the AI does. The reason that people choose forest for tanks is because their is very little real negative to doing it. Unlike in real life. Like people are saying with paratroopers, just because they can be used and their is even a dedicated unit trained to use them, does not mean it isnot ill advised to do so.

In the second video they only went slowly because they were out of the top hatch and didn't want the tree to kill them. Modern tanks have way more HP than a lot of construction equipment designed to remove trees. Forests should not stop them unless it's the redwood forest in California.

75% movement speed,visibility and turret rotation penalties,with chances of random tracked happening then you have your realistic tanks going through woods. not to mention the brain damage and whiplash you'll give to your guys. also your examples of battles especially Chernobyl are poor examples knowing full well they utilised roads and paths as much as possible. Ukraine is a quagmire of mud anything that goes off the road just gets stuck nobody's going through woods and marshes