Trenches, foxholes, and slit trenches

[c3k]

Gents,

I've been reading the various fortification threads and there seems to be different understandings as to the definitions of the various types of field fortifications. This is my attempt to clear them up.

A trench is a deep (shoulder height at least) linear dug out. It can be of any length from a few meters to a few kilometers (WWI). It does not offer overhead protection. The narrower the trench is, the better protection it offers (less chance of an artillery shell landing in it). Excavations offering overhead cover can be dug into the walls of a trench.

A shallow trench, say waist deep or less, is merely a ditch.

Slit trenches are shallow depressions scraped from the ground (sometimes called shell scrapes). They conform in shape to a prone human. This is what CMSF/BF.C is calling "foxholes". They only confer advantages to prone individuals.

Foxholes are dugouts which allow an individual (or pair) to, at least, crouch under the surrounding terrain. WWII Germans were trained, and proficient, in digging foxholes which had a surface hole snug to their shoulders and deep enough to get their heads below ground. This provides protection from any near hit by artillery up to medium caliber. The smaller the hole, the less chance of a shell joining you. Foxholes are not simulated in CMSF.

Fighting positions/dugouts are combinations of foxholes and short trenches. They provide a platform for a crew-served weapon with just enough clearance for the barrel above ground. A team can fit in the dugout. The ends can be excavated to provide overhead cover.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Ken

[Lanzfeld]

...and to summerize the FOW issue from the other thread:

Foxholes (shellscrapes) in CM:N will not be visible to the attacker during setup but will be as soon as the "Go" button is pressed (WEGO or RT).

Also, there will be fallback foxholes available and these, again, will be invisible during setup but visible when the action starts.

Depending on setup stance, as it is called, your defending troops do not always start in the foxholes/shellscrapes. The defender can decide.

[Lanzfeld]

My thoughts?

Well, Steve explained it in the other thread that he would love to have trenches/foxholes/shell scrapes (TFSS) only visible if the attacker gets LOS on them ala CMx1. It just will be too big a monster to code though.

I accept this but it is a very jagged pill to swallow for me because in CMx1 I loved to ambush a squad from a foxhole and then pull back immediatley to my fallback foxholes deeper in the woods/scattered/whatever and hit them again after they try to regroup and push forwards. In CM:N the attacker will see not only my initial foxholes but also my fallback so my secondary ambush will NEVER work. I worry that my initial ambush will never work if my opponant shells my seen foxholes. I guess I will have to come up with some new tricks unless they figure out a way in the future to correct this.

I think the message that people are not really hearing from Steve is that they WANT to do it but the investment of time and finite resources it would require is too high. I wish I could help them.

All I can do is join the club of guys that will shovel driveways for them if the "Hold" feature is added in CM:SF

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[hcrof]

It has to be said though that if the shell scrapes are the same as the ones as in CMSF, the attacker will never see them - They are always there but are so shallow that you have to know exactly where they are in order to have a chance of spotting them.

I have hope yet

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Lurker765]

But then they provide little protection if they are so shallow. Many bullet or artillery trajectories will kill the soldier in the shell scrape.

A soldier in a real foxhole gets decent protection and changes the entire dynamic of kicking someone out of a prepared position. You can't just throw more bullets at someone with their head down in a foxhole and kill them. More bullets just impact the dirt -- but in a shell scrape more bullets will eventually hit and kill the occupant since they are so shallow.

[Lanzfeld]

What is the upside of the tradeoff? i.e., we lose functionality of trenches/foxholes but gain... what? Why was the decision made?

I THINK that we gain a product that is actually sold to us in a reasonable timeframe. To make the TFSS fall under the FOW rules in this 3D landscape would require too much time and resources.

[Redwolf]

What is the upside of the tradeoff? i.e., we lose functionality of trenches/foxholes but gain... what? Why was the decision made?

In CMx2 cover and protection is actually 3D based.

In CMx1 foxholes and trenches were just 2D carpets on top of 3D ground and then you just mathematically played with the exposure setting - which controlled how likely you are do disabled infantry with fire.

In CMx2 there are two problems:

1) "carpet" 2D overlays like that are considered too ugly

2) there is no simple "exposure" variable that you can easily modify to simulate better cover. I don't think the infantry combat model in CMx2 is entirely 3D based either, BTW.

So to do it the natural way in CMx2 you would have to dig actual 3D holes into the "ground" 3D object. That's bad enough since the ground messes with LOS computations and modifications of the ground might invalidate previous computations.

But if you want to make this subject to FoW, to be spotted like vehicles are spotted, you would have to show one version of the ground (with foxholes) to the defender and a different version (without foxholes) to the attacker, except you modify the ground object shown to the attacker as his forces gain LOS. That's a nightmare coding-wise to boot, but it gets worse when you consider the attacker giving movement orders into a location where he sees flat ground but where there is a hole in the ground, actually. What do you show him for the waypoint? To keep the FoW you would have to let him plot into locations that don't exist. Nightmare^2.

Having said all this, in my opinion (nobody will be surprised here), the combat unrealism from lack of FoW on foxholes and trenches is severe enough that the "looks" hit for "2D carpet" foxholes and small trenches should be taken. That leaves the problem of firepower and cover, but I don't think that the infantry firepower model in CMx2 is purely 3D based anyway, so you could probably slap on a combat modifier for being in a foxhole moderately easily.

As a side note, I expect similar heated discussions about the treatment of thick woods for cover and concealment in the future.

[flamingknives]

It is my understanding that 2D carpets would need major recoding or additional coding in the engine in order to work, as it is not set up to work that way. While the firepower may not be entirely 3D based, I suspect that it is sufficiently dependent on the 3D model that carpets are not easily implemented.

There is a simple solution to the foxhole FOW issue and it too has to do with carpets. Stop flying around on your magic one.

[James Crowley]

Infantry combat in Normandy, especially but not confined to the bocage, was dominated to a great extent by the ability of the defending German forces to dig and prepare defensive positions of one form or another.

If, as would seem from the many threads and posts recently written, foxholes and trenches in CMN are going to be visible from the very first turn of the game (not, however, during setup), then this would seem to have major implications for the historical veracity of, at least, some aspects of the game.

Taking this at face value and assuming that no other features, as yet unidentified, come into play, the German player will have to play some sort of bluff/double bluff with his US opponent. He could leave his foxholes empty and deploy elsewhere, thus losing the protection afforded by them or man them and hope his opponent thinks he has done the opposite. Or some sort of mix and mash.

Either way, IMO, this is not going to provide a particularly historic representation of the actual battlefield where a significant proportion of the German forces were, in fact, in those foxholes and dugouts.

Ally this to the already well discussed area fire problem, together with the inescapable 'God' view, then the German defender is going to have a very much harder time than his historical counterpart and, unless artificially hobbled in some other way, the US player a much easier one.

I can understand that in CMSF this has not been a significant issue because of the nature of the combat, superior intelligence gathering etc. It does, on the face of it, appear to be a significant issue given the setting in CMN.

Again, on the face of it, this appears to be a fairly negative backward step from what was available in CMx1. That comment in no way seeks to diminish the coding issues inherent in the problem but, whereas the area-fire and God-view problems can be accepted to a large extent, this is a much more difficult compromise to have to swallow.

[Apocal]

What other game has FOW fortifications?

[stikkypixie]

I've found that trenches placed in woods are actually quite hard to see unless you go looking for it or turn tree view off. We'll just have to see when it comes out.

[Lanzfeld]

There is a simple solution to the foxhole FOW issue and it too has to do with carpets. Stop flying around on your magic one.

This is so true. But I do not have the willpower to not scout the battlefield from above.

[c3k]

Gents,

While all the concerns about CM:Normandy that have been posted have some level of validity, could we, err, ignore the game related aspects of these field fortification debates for a bit? Yeah, I know, trying to rein in a thread is well nigh impossible. But, there is a thread discussing these topics as they relate to gameplay.

My point in this is to try to break out of the ditch and slit trench paradigm which we seem to be stuck in.

What are the REAL field fortifications?

How long do they take to create? How often would they be encountered? Etc.

Bunkers vs. Pillboxes: who wants to take that on?

Does anyone have data regarding protection levels of specific fortifications vis a vis specific weapons?

Thanks,

Ken

[flamingknives]

Regarding real protection, it was my understanding that shell scrapes are not fighting positions, and that slit trenches are a different term to foxholes (British vs US, in that instance, I think.)

IIRC, John Salt was of the opinion that three feet of packed earth was adequate to protect the humble infantryman from unpleasant hostile fire. If anyone has his Snippets, those could be useful.

[Michael Emrys]

I've found that trenches placed in woods are actually quite hard to see unless you go looking for it or turn tree view off.

This is close to something in my own thought. I have not played CMSF, so I am wondering at the effect of putting field fortifications in concealing terrain. Would that prevent them from being spotted until an unfriendly unit is close enough to gain LOS, or am I whistling in the dark here?

Such a condition would be pretty realistic in my view. Foxholes, trenches, etc. were actually pretty easy to spot in open terrain unless the occupants had gone to considerable lengths to camouflage them. These measures would include carrying the spoil removed from the hole and scattering it some distance away. I think most soldiers did not do this. If foliage was used for camouflage, it would have to be replaced daily because it would dry out and change appearance. All these things would be visible in sufficient light to an enemy with a pair of field glasses, a bit of patience and a clue as to what to be looking for. In general, entrenchments of any sort tended to be hastily built by weary soldiers after a long day's marching or fighting and really weren't more than holes in the ground to provide some protection: "shell scrapes" as they have been called here. If the troops remained in the position for any length of time, these positions could be dramatically improved, especially if engineering talent and equipment was available. Selecting better locations for fighting positions; providing better cover, including overhead cover; clearing lines of sight and fire; improving concealment; all were things that could be done with enough time and resources.

Michael

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

Adam, the advantage of 3D is the rest of the game and the graphics engine.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[hcrof]

Adam

We don't track ballistics for soldiers like we do vehicles. When it comes to cover there is some "generosity" shown depending on the cover and the stance the soldier is in. For example, a soldier behind a vehicle might have his buttocks sticking a few pixels out from behind some form of cover. If there happens to be an intersection with his buttocks the system might not consider him hit (depends). This is because the amount of computational and TacAI stuff necessary to get down to that low level of detail isn't worth the cost.

What this means is the ballistics matter in the sense that where the round goes the round does in fact go. So if a round lands in the middle of a foxhole then it's in the foxhole. If it hits the edge then it isn't. If a soldier is prone within the foxhole, and the round hits the edge, then there is a low chance of getting hit. If the soldier is kneeling and shooting, then of course there is only partial cover available for the soldier.

It might be that the foxholes aren't deep enough. We've heard complaints before about this, but honestly we haven't looked into it ourselves and I don't think anybody has, as of yet, produced a "scientific" example to indicate if there is a problem or not.

One thing we do know is a problem is that angle matters to the system, but angle isn't necessarily something players think of. In other words, players sometimes think "I'm in a foxhole, therefore I am invincible" instead of thinking that if there is a shooter a few meters higher up then the foxhole isn't worth a damned. In CMx1 we didn't track angle like that so it is what people are used to.

Basically, although there is a bit of fudging, you can't have abstracted cover in CMx2 so as far as I know, there is no way to go back to the old system. What needs to be done is work within the limitations of the new engine rather than try to go back to the old. I personally thing that the CMSF foxholes would be fine if they were deeper. If they were not given a graphic, they would be still very hard to see and yet provide significant protection.

Now if you wanted a fighting position then it would be harder to do but I have suggested putting a low 'wall' around the foxhole to grant additional protection. This would conform to spotting rules and Steve has said thet he will be doing this for heavy weapons anyway.

[afreu]

I've found that trenches placed in woods are actually quite hard to see unless you go looking for it or turn tree view off. We'll just have to see when it comes out.

There are easy to detect by just zooming out. At some point trees will disappear and trenches will be visible as distinct textures sticking out from the landscape.

[flamingknives]

Adam, the 3D game engine requires the foxhole to be 3D as well. If the foxhole is 2D then the necessary abstraction would require an entirely new section of code. A new way of dealing with spotting, a new way of dealing with movement, a new way of dealing with small arms fire and a new way of dealing with HE weapons.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request