permanent666 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 just played the second mission of courage and fortitude and after a few turns i could see all the foxholes at the map. even those behind stone walls. it only took some more turns to spot the trenches placed at forest tiles. i think they should be harder to spot otherwise it does not make much sense to use them for the defenders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindlewolf Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Spotting isn't the problem.Once you find out what's in them-that's the problem.Even with the amount of arty available,those foxholes are deadly.I've played this scenario a few times and always get severely mauled.Be glad you have spotted them because if you don't deal with them,you're toast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Spotting isn't the problem.Once you find out what's in them-that's the problem.Even with the amount of arty available,those foxholes are deadly.I've played this scenario a few times and always get severely mauled.Be glad you have spotted them because if you don't deal with them,you're toast. Spotting them easily is a big problem because it reveals the defender's positions in head-to-head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Perhaps the problem is that they're supposed to represent so many different types of fortifications - from shallow foxholes to more prepared. If they added two new types - and split it to shallow unprepared foxhole (cheaper) deep camouflaged foxhole (more expensive) and then the same with trenches. Maybe a type of bunker that shows up and is covered up and entrenched could be had for several more points in qb's like tanks with a cullins device attached. The positions that had the camo bonus would be harder to spot than fortifications without them. Just a thought... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 One way around the easy spotting is to have more than what you use. I find it very enjoyable to only man a small portion of them and watch the enemy place fire on them all. I also like to sneak units into ones after the enemy fires on them. or fire a few turns and sneak out and watch the enemy waste arty on them holes while I slither into some others. Its a game of wack the mole, you can even program the AI to do it, but they dont sneak in or out well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Foxhole and foxhole with overhead cover? That'd probably be the best place to divide the two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It should fall down to sandbag and no sandbag types of foxholes. The whole sandbag thing is really overblown in CMBN. Except in very static conditions, foxholes were quickly dug, then the unit soon moves to another location, then they dig more foxholes. If the unit was in the same place for more than a day then I'm sure they'd start improving the conditions of the holes and dressing with camo, but even then sandbags were probably a luxury. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It should fall down to sandbag and no sandbag types of foxholes. The whole sandbag thing is really overblown in CMBN. Except in very static conditions, foxholes were quickly dug, then the unit soon moves to another location, then they dig more foxholes. If the unit was in the same place for more than a day then I'm sure they'd start improving the conditions of the holes and dressing with camo, but even then sandbags were probably a luxury. ^^^THIS^^^ I always thought you could spot the holes too easily. I prefered CMBB style where you had to get within 20-30 (?) meters or so to see the foxholes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 The sandbag thing has been introduced prominently in CMBN because it is too difficult to cut holes into the 3D ground mesh, but you can pile things on top of the ground mesh easily. The donuts you see above ground are more of a graphical oddity than representing the "foxholes". It is unclear whether the problem of spotting the foxholes too easily is rooted in the 3D model for the donut being used for line-of-sight spotting or whether there is an abstraction going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 The sandbag thing has been introduced prominently in CMBN because it is too difficult to cut holes into the 3D ground mesh, but you can pile things on top of the ground mesh easily. The donuts you see above ground are more of a graphical oddity than representing the "foxholes". It is unclear whether the problem of spotting the foxholes too easily is rooted in the 3D model for the donut being used for line-of-sight spotting or whether there is an abstraction going on. True but the fact remains that it is incredibly easy to spot foxholes. I think BF should add a new purchasable defensive item called "camouflage". It would be a separate item from foxholes so that you can camouflage other things as well (sandbag walls, pillboxes, etc.). You would place it in the same 8x8 action spot as the object you wish to conceal and it would add make the object about 50-75% harder to spot. To the opposing player it would look like the same in game shrubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 True but the fact remains that it is incredibly easy to spot foxholes. I think BF should add a new purchasable defensive item called "camouflage". It would be a separate item from foxholes so that you can camouflage other things as well (sandbag walls, pillboxes, etc.). You would place it in the same 8x8 action spot as the object you wish to conceal and it would add make the object about 50-75% harder to spot. To the opposing player it would look like the same in game shrubs. No, I think the spottability of the existing foxholes simply needs to be fixed. Piling up more code complexity is not the way to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yea, I agree with fixing the foxhole spottability but it would be nice and realistic to add the camo item. I'm sure it'll never happen but I can dream, can't I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yea, I agree with fixing the foxhole spottability but it would be nice and realistic to add the camo item. I'm sure it'll never happen but I can dream, can't I? The camo would just be an abstracted form of spotting (as opposed to using the 3D model, assuming that is what's used right now). I don't see the benefit. If you want to go down that route you can just use an abstraction for the existing foxholes and you are done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 after doing some testing with 2.0 made test maps i got strange results: foxholes in 2.0 are only spotable from about 100 meters away no matter if they are in heavy woods or on pavement. foxholes do not give much concealment. for example: if the foxholes are on pavement the units inside will be spotted first and then the foxhole. if they are on heavy woods foxhole will be spotted first (so heavy wood foxhole spotting about 100 meters away unit spotting about 75 meters away - (empty) pavement foxhole spotting about 100 meters - units inside pavement foxhole about 300 meters and more) my experience with the old courage and fortitude scenario played in 2.0 did not match with my tests 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 foxholes do not give much concealment. for example: if the foxholes are on pavement the units inside will be spotted first and then the foxhole. Kinda hard to dig a foxhole on pavement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Kinda hard to dig a foxhole on pavement. yes this is what i thought but if you put an empty foxhole on pavement, then it is not easier to spot than a foxhole on a forest tile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 after doing some testing with 2.0 made test maps i got strange results: foxholes in 2.0 are only spotable from about 100 meters away no matter if they are in heavy woods or on pavement. foxholes do not give much concealment. for example: if the foxholes are on pavement the units inside will be spotted first and then the foxhole. if they are on heavy woods foxhole will be spotted first (so heavy wood foxhole spotting about 100 meters away unit spotting about 75 meters away - (empty) pavement foxhole spotting about 100 meters - units inside pavement foxhole about 300 meters and more) my experience with the old courage and fortitude scenario played in 2.0 did not match with my tests It's not clear to me from this post what the different to 1.x is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 It's not clear to me from this post what the different to 1.x is. I have to confess my post is a bit confusing. i did not compare it to 1.x and i do not know if they changed anything but the results i got during testing were a bit strange. I try to write it in a more structured way: in my test i placed several foxholes on a map. Then i took a US-Rifle-Platoon and put them on a slightly elevated position (22). Then i did several test without any germans where i changed the ground type of the map. In another test the US Platoon moved towards the foxhole. My result: unmanned foxhole (at any groundtype including pavement) - only spotable from about 100 meters Then i repeated the test but placed german troops inside the foxholes and let them hide. result: manned foxhole at pavement tile - units hiding inside and foxholes are spotted easily distance to spotter increases spotting-time. unit is spotted first then foxhole manned foxhole at heavy forest tile - foxhole spotable from about 100 meters hiding units inside are spotted from about 75meters So my conclusion is that foxhole spotting is not influenced by terrain type. What worries me is that in the Courage and Fortitude Scenario (played with 2.0) foxhole spotting did not match with my tests because after several minutes my troops could see every foxhole on the map. So I think there could be a bug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What worries me is that in the Courage and Fortitude Scenario (played with 2.0) foxhole spotting did not match with my tests because after several minutes my troops could see every foxhole on the map. And at the same time a gun or a mortar in LOS at 200m is not in contact Sorry couldn't resist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I thing some stuff is missing the mix here; a.) In the real world troops take real care to conceal where they will fight and/or shelter from. How well they are concealed is mostly dependant on time. Both cover and concealment improve. b.) "Foxholes" or trenches dug into wood lines would be almost impossible to spot until you were within a few meters. The same in an open field would be observable from quite a distance. In the real world, if you can accurately identify an enemy fighting position, it is comparatively easy to target and at least suppress - BUT fact is most well constructed positions are VERY hard to see or locate, especially when you are being shot at - which degrades your "spotting" ability 100%. EG: an OP in a wood line or similar feature should be near impossible to spot. In CMBN I have laid out defensive positions based on what I know works for real, and have been somewhat surprised at how easily they got spotted. As the first core function is FIND, everything usually unravels from there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 ok did the same test with trenches and they are spotted from great distances regardless of terrain. i even put the spotting units on the same height level as the trenches here you can see the result after one minute in heavy forest: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 here is another situation: Bloody Omaha Map created with 1.x opened and saved in scenario editor with 2.0 1 second after the tanks arrived all fortifications in LOS appeared. here you can watch the turn: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha%20spotting.bts and here is a screenshot (the foxhole is on forest tile and behind the hedge there are trenches): 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Stop it, you are depressing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 That does not look right does it. Do we have confirmation from a tester that this is an issue yet? Or is there something we are missing that would explain that this is expected result? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 here is another situation: Bloody Omaha Map created with 1.x opened and saved in scenario editor with 2.0 1 second after the tanks arrived all fortifications in LOS appeared. here you can watch the turn: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha%20spotting.bts and here is a screenshot (the foxhole is on forest tile and behind the hedge there are trenches): Thanks for the save. Can you also upload the command phase turn save from before the replay and the scenario (.btt) file? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.