foxholes, trenches, and terrain

[walpurgis nacht]

The exposure percentages for units in trenches are the same in and out of natural cover. Why is this? I would think a trench placed deep in the woods would be much more "defensible", and certainly aid the already exceptional exposure ratings of the trench. But it doesn't.

In fact, entrenching in trees actually seems to be a disadvantage because of potential treebursts, right?!? same with foxholes.

So why use the cover of terrain at all on defense? concealment? you still get concealment in a trench (not very mobile, but you can hide).

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

So why use the cover of terrain at all on defense? concealment? you still get concealment in a trench (not very mobile, but you can hide).

Your troopers might get concealment from a trench, but the trench itself is easier to spot than troops hiding out in the open.

Aaron

[Tigrii]

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Aaron:

?

If I understand what you mean. . . . Have you ever run a hotseat test on it? trenches are hidden in open terrain just as long as trenches hidden in thick woods. But even if this weren't the case, this is only a very subtle benefit. I would think there would be an exposure benefit or something.

[ January 23, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[JasonC]

Foxholes are different from trenches in this regard. Trenches already give the best cover in the game, except heads down behind a stone wall. Foxholes in woods or pines are a close third (intact stone buildings come in second). Whereas foxholes in the open are mediocre cover at best, worse than scattered trees and not much better than brush. Craters are like foxholes in the open, whatever the old terrain was - because the old terrain is in the air.

Putting trenches in terrain that gives some concealment may make them a bit harder to spot, but the protection certainly comes from the trench, not bushes etc. You should appreciate just how good trench cover is compared to the other types. The reduction in "incoming" compared to being is scattered trees is a factor of 3. Trenchs are about as much better than typical forms of decent cover as those forms of cover are better than open ground (rough, deep in scattered trees, rubble e.g.). They certainly don't need any additional boosting to be extremely effective.

As for tree bursts, yes trenches are less effective when they are possible than when they aren't. Overhead is about the only place they are vunerable. Vs. infantry fire or direct HE, foxholes on the other hand are considerably more effective in woods or pines, because those forms of terrain on their own are better cover than foxholes are on their own.

Compared to being in woods or pines without a foxhole, the improvement against small arms from adding the foxhole is marginal. But foxholes provide "cover" rather than mere "concealment", which means foxholes do protect against HE, significantly more than trees or pines alone. If you think airbursts are bad when you have the foxholes, try them when you don't.

[ January 23, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]