Foxhole?

[weapon2010]

  Let me preface by saying I'm not posting these videos  to nit pick or be negative or to say this is a bug or it isn"t. I truly love this game system, but i have lots of questions and I want feedback to better understand what is going on and posting a video makes things so much easier.

Why isn't the entire team occupying the foxholes?

Do the team members not in the foxholes gain the cover bonus?

[slysniper]

This problem has been around for along time, Even during setup, I have had times where troops just don't want to enter the foxholes.

I have wondered the same thing. but the main concern is, are they getting any extra protection or not. I am also interested in what other think. 

With how I understand the game to work and from what I have seen, I think the guys out of the fox hole are not getting cover help and its frustrating.

 

but its sure is not a new issue

[weapon2010]

7 minutes ago, slysniper said:

This problem has been around for along time

why?is it unfixable?, an action spot limitation?

[domfluff]

If you give them a facing order, they'll usually reorient along the terrain piece, which includes fortifications. That's how to fix it, usually.

They're clearly taking up spots within the action spot, and finding a best fit for your move, rightly or wrongly.

It's hard to tell whether there are actual "cover bonuses" or "saving throws" in Combat mission.

In general, I think it's wise to assume that there isn't, and any bonus from cover is the physical interaction between projectile path and terrain piece, which includes tree trunks, rocks and foxholes. Since there's a lot of variability in flight path, you'd be able to produce a reasonable average with enough tests ("This terrain protects 80% of the time"), but that's all it would be.

That means that foxholes are going to offer good defence against direct fire unless you're some distance away (since geometry is a thing - same reason why halftrack gunners survival increases with distance, and it's not just the range of incoming fire), or you're hiding/cowering inside them them.

 

 

[George MC]

13 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

  Let me preface by saying I'm not posting these videos  to nit pick or be negative or to say this is a bug or it isn"t. I truly love this game system, but i have lots of questions and I want feedback to better understand what is going on and posting a video makes things so much easier.

Why isn't the entire team occupying the foxholes?

Do the team members not in the foxholes gain the cover bonus?

You seem to have five guys trying to fit into four holes. You get a better result if the number of guys fits the number of holes I've found.

[slysniper]

12 hours ago, domfluff said:

If you give them a facing order, they'll usually reorient along the terrain piece, which includes fortifications. That's how to fix it, usually.

 

Good suggestion, I have found the same at times, but no perfect answer.

The amount of men is also a factor as George  MC points out. But it does go beyond that and is a imperfection as to how well the game works here.

For I have seen this same issue with trenches also, which is a little harder to explain than having enough foxholes.

But again splitting your men into smaller groups does help and improves the units use of the terrain feature.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

Try placing a foxhole on top of a hill, and then order your men to enter it. See if all of them get into the foxholes then.

I find the vast majority of time men don't occupy foxholes, it's because there is some other terrain interaction, like going prone behind a slight rise in the ground (like the natural depression formed at the edge of that road), or the presence of bushes and trees in the space. It's just not readily apparent because the video you post is only from a top-down perspective.

Edited May 21, 2019 by General Jack Ripper

[General Jack Ripper]

Here's another possible test:

Try firing at that team until they become suppressed, then see if they all crawl into the foxholes after they become 'Pinned'.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd be willing to bet that the Foxhole unit just adds a cover value to the tile it occupies.....I might lose that bet of course. 

[slysniper]

Without testing its hard to say, I actually believe they are real cover, because I think the sand bags seem to help protect the men if they are behind them, if in front, they die pretty fast to any incoming fire. but that is speculation from what I have seen. I know hiding my men in fox holes pretty much make them immune to most attacks, which it should. So they work well when used with the hidden command.

If it matters to you, the only way to truly know is to come up with some test that can show what is likely really happening with them as to cover.

As to thinking it would change at this point in the programming, not likely. probably just best to get the game to work the best it can as it is presently.

[Erwin]

Not sure about sandbag walls, but IIRC from discussions on this topic from years ago, all troops get protection from the foxholes regardless whether graphically they are in them or not.  ie:  The whole tile gets the protection.

[StieliAlpha]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd be willing to bet that the Foxhole unit just adds a cover value to the tile it occupies.....I might lose that bet of course. 

That always was my understanding, too. The nice, pragmatic wargaming solution.

As an indicator: I do not think, it is specified anywhere

- what the effect on one, single foxhole is

- how many men a single foxhole can take

- how the „foxhole effect“ depends on the unit orientation

- do the pixel troopers lose the benefit, if they poke out their nose

- etc.

The system is just not going down to this level of detail. In the essence, it would require the introduction of „micro tiles“ and micro management of each pixel trooper. 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

I know hiding my men in fox holes pretty much make them immune to most attacks, which it should. So they work well when used with the hidden command. 

If it matters to you, the only way to truly know is to come up with some test that can show what is likely really happening with them as to cover.

And I think @slysniper has hit on a testing method - hide. If you have troops that are spilling out of the fox holes as in @weapon2010's OP and you give the a hide order and see how much cover they get. If the guys outside the fox hole are not getting the extra protection they will be the first casulties nearly all the time.

I too use @domfluff's suggestion of the face command to "fix" things. You, now I think this is one of those things that we have just been living. Perhaps we shouldn't.

[Sulomon]

I've heard that units get a cover bonus/saving throw with fortifications and cover.  Seems more likely to me than Battlefront putting more resources into a bullet physics engine.

[RockinHarry]

haven´t read through the thread or watched the vid but the first frame of it already shows that a road ditch is very near. There´s always troubles when there´s either road ditches, shellholes or small steep slopes in the same (or adjacent) AS as the FH´s. Seems the game engine considers these as at least same good cover than the FH themselves, so chooses for the best one appropiate for the single pixeltroopers individual situation (suspected or spotted enemy LOS/LOF).

Edit: just few more things coming in mind. Think the game engine also considers final positions for the team/squad leader in order for him to gain visual or voice contact to higher HQ if applicaple. Also found the squads lMG team combo having issues to deploy properly and in timely matter. This bugged me like hell in pre patch game version, as lots of precious time gets lost, before a team/squad gets itself sorted out for final deploy. With regard to FH´s it´s oftenly the leader and the assistant lMG gunner to leave a FH for the above mentioned reasons. Worst is some german squads that have 2 inherent lMG teams, like the Panzergrenadiers in my PBEM with HeirloomTomato. But that was not in FH´s, it was inability to deploy properly in houses. Really got to check the new patch now for a fix or improvement hopefully.

Edited May 21, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Kaunitz]

12 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

 There´s always troubles when there´s either road ditches, shellholes or small steep slopes in the same (or adjacent) AS as the FH´s. Seems the game engine considers these as at least same good cover than the FH themselves, so chooses for the best one appropiate for the single pixeltroopers individual situation (suspected or spotted enemy LOS/LOF).

I observed the same thing with trenches. Under an artillery barrage, some troopers would leave the safety of the trench to seek cover in a freshly created shellhole. Needless to say that running through an artillery barrage is not that clever. 

I had to put my Gerbini scenario on ice because of soldier-placement issues and the lack of protection provided by defensive structures. It was impossible for me to provide the attackers with proper cover against artillery:  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1748396 (also check out the links here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747999

My impression is also that the engine uses some rather refined method to simulate the effects of cover. My go-to story is that I once created a very sophisticated MG position in CM:BS that provided excellent protection from small arms fire and direct HE fire. The MG was placed on/close to a log (a prop placed on the map). The soldier firing it was in a shell-hole and behind the log (similar to the position you can see here: https://youtu.be/ke4SbGZ7LJE?t=337), the surrounding area rather flat (to prevent direct HE from hitting close). Even though his position took a lot of fire, the firing team survived. The slightly more exposed MG, however, got knocked out. Up to this point, i didn't even know that MGs could get knocked out like that. (In this snippet, the MG hot knocked out shortly after the firer: https://youtu.be/ke4SbGZ7LJE?t=484)

 

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by Kaunitz

[H1nd]

From quite a lot of experience on messing around with fortifications (I think i may have some sort of dug in troops fixation) I am pretty sure that the troops do need to be actually inside the foxholes to get the cover bonus. Most casualties seem to occur on men left outside the foxholes or moving out of the foxholes on their own  so I am pretty sure it is important to try to get the men actually in to the foxholes to give them any extra cover. What is happening in the picture: I would say that the road bank is overriding the foxholes as preferred position for the men. Much like the already mentioned elevation slopes and other terrain features. I have argued in the past that the problem seems to be the prioritization by which the pixel troops select their positions inside action squares. Number one priority is to place troops next to buildings or walls/hedges and this is why you need to be really careful when using foxholes or trenches close to buildings or walls. Second comes the priority to have troops lay down along any ridge or bank or such elevation feature inside the action square and this is why foxholes don't work well in steep terrain but rather need relatively flat action squares. Third comes the trees: foxholes and trees don't mix very well since the troops seem to prefer to seek shelter behind trees rather than in the foxholes, although this usually affects only some of the pixel troops in a group. And then there are the shell holes which might actually be on the top of this priority but i am not sure. So all in all any terrain feature that has a overriding effect on default troop placement inside any given action square usually has a higher priority than the foxholes which them selves seem to also have some overriding effect vs the default placement of troops.  The problem is that the foxholes should have higher priority than the other overrides.  So to sum up troops place them selves by: 1) walls/buildings 2) ridges/banks 3)trees (and maybe flavour objects) 4) shell holes (might actually be the no.1) 5) any fortifications 6) default placement. 

Using the facing command, as has been pointed out, does help in some cases but often the troops might still crawl back to the wrong positions on their own. 

[domfluff]

As before, even if terrain or fortifications do provide a "cover save", I think it's wise to assume that they don't. I've certainly had the impression that individual soldiers die faster out of foxholes than in, but can't confirm that.

CM's ballistics modelling is great. Individual bullets are modelled, and where they impact matters, on a 1:1 basis. This would imply that the physical representation of the soldier matters here.

Artillery seems to be an explosion, followed by a random number of  invisible projectiles that are drawn from that point. This means that whilst fortifications might offer little - or even zero - cover against the initial blast, they may offer cover against the fragmentation.

In foxholes and to a lesser extent in trenches, quite a large amount of a solider is exposed. This does mean that a 1:1 representation may result in higher casualties than expected. The AI targeting centre of mass will shift this somewhat in the other direction, but perhaps not enough to counter it.

Some more generic fortification thoughts:

• Tests I've run seem inconclusive as to how effective they are as direct-fire fighting positions, but they certainly provide good cover against indirect fire, when hiding.
• A 1:1 representation means that cowering or hiding soldiers will be hidden fairly well from direct fire, and nearby plunging fire.
• This representation also implies that foxholes are probably more protective at a higher relative altitude - since less of the man will be exposed. If you have to put them in an exposed position, stick them on a hill.
• Foxholes and trenches provide cover where there previously was none. Some cover is definitely an upgrade over an empty field, and allows you to shape the terrain, rather than letting the terrain shape you.
• Foxholes or trenches on a reverse slope defence make for a powerful position- they'll provide protection from indirect fire  (pre-battle or TRPs, probably), so they have a purpose there even if they provided no cover from direct fire at all.
• The lack of this kind of reverse slope position was one of the major flaws of the Argentinian army in the Falklands - the forward-slope trenches could be effectively reduced by HE and Milan ATGM fire with relative ease. 
• Split up your squads. 4-5 man teams find it a lot easier to make use of fortifications in general.

So. I think fortifications are primarily anti-artillery measures, or used in situations where they're better than nothing. Ideally on reverse slopes, or to shape the terrain to your advantage.

One thing I'm still unsure about is actually how best to use Wire, by doctrine or otherwise. 

[General Jack Ripper]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I had to put my Gerbini scenario on ice because of soldier-placement issues and the lack of protection provided by defensive structures. It was impossible for me to provide the attackers with proper cover against artillery

If you want to simulate a force being unaffected by a large artillery barrage, just put them on a reinforcement timer that makes them only show up after the barrage is over at a reduced headcount to simulate casualties.
Ithikial did the same thing in his 'Lions of Carpiquet' scenario, (spoiler highlight to reveal:) the majority of the defending force doesn't show up in their positions until after the barrage the player is told to conduct is over. (/spoiler)

OR: You can place a reduced strength attacking force in a deployment zone full of shell holes and simply place the start of the scenario after the barrage is over.

OR: You can place a fraction of the force, let it sit through the barrage, then have the remainder of the force 'come out of their shelters' and arrive as reinforcements in the trenches.

My point is there are many ways to address the problem, but throwing your hands up and saying, "Well trenches just aren't good enough so I'm taking my toys and going home," just isn't one of them.

Now get out there and finish that darned scenario!

[RockinHarry]

8 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I observed the same thing with trenches. Under an artillery barrage, some troopers would leave the safety of the trench to seek cover in a freshly created shellhole. Needless to say that running through an artillery barrage is not that clever. 

I had to put my Gerbini scenario on ice because of soldier-placement issues and the lack of protection provided by defensive structures. It was impossible for me to provide the attackers with proper cover against artillery:  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1748396 (also check out the links here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747999

My impression is also that the engine uses some rather refined method to simulate the effects of cover. My go-to story is that I once created a very sophisticated MG position in CM:BS that provided excellent protection from small arms fire and direct HE fire. The MG was placed on/close to a log (a prop placed on the map). The soldier firing it was in a shell-hole and behind the log (similar to the position you can see here: https://youtu.be/ke4SbGZ7LJE?t=337), the surrounding area rather flat (to prevent direct HE from hitting close). Even though his position took a lot of fire, the firing team survived. The slightly more exposed MG, however, got knocked out. Up to this point, i didn't even know that MGs could get knocked out like that. (In this snippet, the MG hot knocked out shortly after the firer: https://youtu.be/ke4SbGZ7LJE?t=484)

 

 

ah good you mention props (from the flavors). Actually they don´t do anything for cover or LOS. Are you sure? But what is of concern is that props all snap onto indivual 1m intersection points within the 8x8m AS. Where is one, there can´t be another. You´d likely noticed when placing multiple props into an AS, exiting 3D view in editor and go back to 3D. The props are now attached to the intersections, if there´s a "free" one left. Here comes the individual pixeltroopers into play. A prop normally prevents anything else (but vehicles etc.) from using that point on the grid. You can create a maze of props in an AS and get some infantry moved through there. You then see what I mean. BUT...a pixeltrooper can off course settle behind a prop, though without any benefit! So generally you can "influence" the game engines path finding by use of props, but unfortunately you can´t entirely "block_" a path. Tried that on building entrances, but single pixeltroopers get through nonetheless.

[IronCat60]

As far as how many pixeltruppen can you get in a foxhole? Well we could leave that up to a team of frat house college kids or use this example.

The Count says there is Four of them in this fighting position. One is laying down and firing from loop hole in the lower level while his comrades use him by his first name, Matt.

Matt actually stayed there the whole time. I think there was a plug in for his Heil Phone 7.

 

 

[Kaunitz]

2 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

My point is there are many ways to address the problem, but throwing your hands up and saying, "Well trenches just aren't good enough so I'm taking my toys and going home," just isn't one of them.

Thanks for the suggestions and the "motivation", I guess ;). But to be honest  I had more problems than just that one. For example there was no satisfying way to get anti tank ditches to work (unless you turned them into huge cliffs, which rendered them unusable as a position for infantry). Also, my pixeltruppen were unable to make proper use of sunken roads (soldier placement on the edge of slopes is a challenge) - either the soldiers positioned themselves in a way in which they had hardly any LOS (--> can't fire) or they overexposed themselves, not making any use of the cover provided by the sunken road. And in any case, they got horribly destroyed by a few mortar shells. I'm not refering to a giant artillery barrage. I just don't want a platoon that is supposed to seek cover in an irrigatin dtich be destroyed by a short mortar mission. For this scenario, "depressions in the ground" (AT ditches, irrigation ditches, sunken roads, and the Germans had a properly fortified position with trenches) are very important, also because the area is quite flat otherwise. Therefore, it is severely handicapped by soldier-placement/cover-related issues. I've explained the issues in a bit more detail in the linked topic. 

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

ah good you mention props (from the flavors). Actually they don´t do anything for cover or LOS. Are you sure? But what is of concern is that props all snap onto indivual 1m intersection points within the 8x8m AS. Where is one, there can´t be another. You´d likely noticed when placing multiple props into an AS, exiting 3D view in editor and go back to 3D. The props are now attached to the intersections, if there´s a "free" one left. Here comes the individual pixeltroopers into play. A prop normally prevents anything else (but vehicles etc.) from using that point on the grid. You can create a maze of props in an AS and get some infantry moved through there. You then see what I mean. BUT...a pixeltrooper can off course settle behind a prop, though without any benefit! So generally you can "influence" the game engines path finding by use of props, but unfortunately you can´t entirely "block_" a path. Tried that on building entrances, but single pixeltroopers get through nonetheless.

Of course I'm not sure. As so many other aspects, it's based on gut-feeling and limited experience. What makes you so certain that props don't provide cover? Interesting to note that props interdict movement. When I experimented with terrain, I used hedgerows/walls to split up action squares into several parts (to gain more control over soldier-placement/force soldiers into spots where they actually had a good LOS). It's very handy as the player can deliberately target a part of the action square with his movement orders. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

18 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

For example there was no satisfying way to get anti tank ditches to work (unless you turned them into huge cliffs, which rendered them unusable as a position for infantry).

Ditch lock a trench, then place a mixture of Marsh, Rocky, & Forest (no trees needed) tiles (or others that are passable to infantry & not vehicles) in the bottom.....Job done. 

[Wicky]

On 5/21/2019 at 4:44 PM, StieliAlpha said:

how many men a single foxhole can take

Don't think Guiness Book of Records has that...

[StieliAlpha]

6 hours ago, Wicky said:

Don't think Guiness Book of Records has that...

Hehehe, nice one. Chrrrr...

But still, when we complain, that not all men fit into a foxhole, it would be nice to know how many men should fit into it by design in the first place.

Otherwise, disgusting scenes like this one may result:

BTW, note how one guy is pushed out of the foxhole, when it becomes crowded.

Edited May 23, 2019 by StieliAlpha