Idea Regarding QB Foxholes

[Tux]

I was thinking the other day about the way CM handles light fortifications (i.e. foxholes, sandbags, etc.) and wondering why I so rarely purchase them for a defense (basically never) and I think I had quite a good idea. Usually, when I have 'good' ideas, it takes someone else to point out the glaringly obvious flaw, so I thought I'd run it past you lot and see if you thought it would work well.

The idea is this: On the fortifications purchase screen, instead of foxholes, the item you buy could read simply 'light fortifications'. Then, when you are on the map and into setup, the fortifications would vary depending on where you placed them. For example, placing one 'light fortification' on open ground would give you the cluster of foxholes that we currently have, but placing one on concrete or a rocky or paved area would, instead, appear as a small barricade made of furniture, rubble, or rocks, etc., which would provide cover for troops to hide behind during street combat and when situated in rough ground. The effect it has needn't be any different to a foxhole, but it would allow placement on hard surfaces (currently not possible) and would add some flavour to the scene at the same time.

Then, we can extend the idea to buildings. Instead of an action spot on the ground, the player could place the 'light fortification' in a building, allowing them to fortify a single floor, of their choice, with sandbags around the insides of the walls and planks of wood, etc., to produce firing slits at the windows. Again, the effect would basically be identical to the added protection given by foxholes in open ground; the building walls would become more resistant to small arms penetration and shrapnel and the windows would be less likely to be penetrated. We could even go so far as to assume that the 'fortified' floor of a building has been properly prepared so as to allow an AT team to fire Bazookas, Panzerschrecks or Panzerfausts from inside it (perhaps with the small risk of injury to other personnel on the floor)!

All fortifications would, of course, be as readily visible as foxholes currently are, so that fortified building floors, for example, would be fairly obvious to the attacker. However I imagine that that is fairly realistic and that it would just become part of the game of double-bluff being played by the defender.

Of course this could, as far as I know, be impossible to code satisfactorily. However, barring that, I can't see any reasons why it wouldn't be a huge improvement to the game at the moment. Please, what am I missing?!

[Baneman]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm all for eye candy and in this case, it would be more than that.

It remains, of course, for "the word from on high" re. the possibility ( including time, naturally ) of coding it. Certainly sounds workable.

[YankeeDog]

Yes; I have had similar ideas along these lines and I don't think it needs to be limited to QBs; its a good idea for designed scenarios as well.

Basically, rather than buying "foxholes", you buy "fortification points". Each "fortification point" buys the ability to fortify one action spot, whether that action spot be open ground, a building, etc. Fortification of different types of terrain could provide different benefits. For example, an improvised street barricade is probably less protective than a foxhole (it's almost always better to be in the ground than above it), but the protection value could be adjusted accordingly, leaving it up to the player to decide where and when it's worth spending fortification points.

You could even extend the idea. If one point on an action square gets you foxholes, maybe two points on the same square gets you a section of trench, and three gets you a bunker. If scenario designers could, if they so desired, limit the number of points that could be spent on any given action spot if they didn't want a defender having access to heavier fortifications.

Probably the biggest issue to getting such a system in the game would be graphical representations for fortification for all of the various terrain types coded up. Instead of just "Earth Pimples" for foxholes, the game would also need "Rock Sanger Pimples" for hard ground, "Debris Pimples" for street barricades, some sort of graphical representation for a fortified building, etc.

So I'm not expecting an improvement like this anytime soon. Still, 'twould be cool... be especially great to see something like this before the East Front family gets to Stalingrad.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well I am not sure if this is a glaring hole but we already have multiple types of fortifications: sandbag walls, fox holes, trenches, wire etc. So I am not sure how adding fortifying buildings and barricades would be prevented by the current system - they just aren't there at the moment.

Or are you saying you don't buy fortifications because of the setup experience where you have to think a head and purchase the right amount of each type?

I am not sure if redoing the system of purchasing fortifications really buys us end users much. It certainly would require significant programming effort.

I would rather BFC add barricades and building fortifications to their current list. Even that would be far from free.

[Apocal]

If I'm defending and forgot fortifications, it is either because I'm in a village/town or I simply forgot.

[YankeeDog]

Well I am not sure if this is a glaring hole but we already have multiple types of fortifications: sandbag walls, fox holes, trenches, wire etc. So I am not sure how adding fortifying buildings and barricades would be prevented by the current system - they just aren't there at the moment.

Or are you saying you don't buy fortifications because of the setup experience where you have to think a head and purchase the right amount of each type?

I am not sure if redoing the system of purchasing fortifications really buys us end users much. It certainly would require significant programming effort.

I would rather BFC add barricades and building fortifications to their current list. Even that would be far from free.

Primary benefit to this system over simply adding more types of fortifications would be allowing the player to choose where to fortify, rather than being stuck with whatever mix of fortifications the scenario designer gives you -- rather than being given 5 sets of foxholes and 5 sets of fortified building, you get 10 fortification points, which you can use to establish any mix of foxholes, fortified buildings, etc., as fits your personal defense plan.

For QB'ers, this system would mean not having to really investigate the map in detail before deciding on fortification purchase; just figure out how much of your budget you want to spend on fortification points, and then deal with the details of whether you need foxholes, fortified buildings, barricades, etc. once you get down to the details of unit placement.

But I agree it's not an essential, high-priority improvement. It would be nice to have, but not essential.

[Tux]

It doesn't seem clear to me that BFC would have to go to the effort of coding new fortification types (graphical variations aside). Rather, I imagine they could simply allow the current 'foxholes' to be used in any terrain type, or building floor, to which it would provide the same protective benefit as a foxhole does to an open ground action spot. It would also make it easier to purchase the number of fortifications that you want if you don't have to purchase each type separately.

I realise there are several fortification types already available but thought that the above would be a relatively neat way to increase their potential usefulness with minimal coding effort. However, knowing little about coding in general, I am prepared for the fact that it may mean more work than I imagine.

How about the ability to use AT from inside fortified buildings, having paid for the privilege? Surely that would be a useful perk which would resolve a few issues that people have with the current game mechanics?

I like Yankeedog's 'Fortification Points' idea, but I think that would amount to a more labour-intensive overhaul of the fortification system.

Either way I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

[c3k]

Hmm,

Has ANYONE tried to put foxholes in the upper floors of a building? That could be interesting...

Ken

[Baneman]

Hmm,

Has ANYONE tried to put foxholes in the upper floors of a building? That could be interesting...

Ken

Well, obviously you haven't since I don't think you've spent any longer than the first turn in a foxhole.

When you're attacking, you're not cowering in a foxhole, right ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think foxholes in QBs should be free for the defender, as they were in CMx1.

[kensal]

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this but I've seen it in a H2H game I'm playing of the Bloody Buron scenario. My oppo laid a number of trench positions in cornfields and they were visible by me as a terrain feature from the deployment phase and before I had spotted the areas, not as trenches, but as normal ground (i.e. grass green) outlines in the yellow corn.

I didn't realise what I was looking at trenches when I made my dispositions and ordered my pre-planned artillery, so it didn't impact on this game but if saw the effect again, I would certainly appreciate that I was looking at a trench system.

Is this intended?

[Michael Emrys]

Basically, rather than buying "foxholes", you buy "fortification points".

[Remainder snipped for brevity.]

I like this whole idea. I don't know how workable it is from a coding point of view, but if it can be done reasonably easily, I'd like to see it.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Quick comment.

What we should probably have is a Dig In command, like we had in CMx1, which would create foxholes for the unit. This would be available in QBs for "free" if it's checked off during game setup. In exchange some points would be given to the attacker.

It's not quite as simple as it might seem to you, as we have to code some new stuff to prevent cheating by the defender. Like having the entire map full of foxholes We had restrictions in CMx1 to 2x foxholes per unit, for example.

Steve

[Pak40]

Well, since foxholes are typically dead giveaways as to where the enemy is, the number of foxholes should be increased to at least twice the number of action spots required for the unit. ie, a German squad might get 4 foxholes and an American squad 6 foxholes. This would also allow for fall back positions to be fortified as well.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Would love to see Dig In reinstated. The "two foxhole" limit was reasonable, in that it allowed for a fallback position. Of course, the Germans should have a free mortar TRP (see my request for same in the CMBO Fire On The Mountain ROW AAR) to simulate standard German tactical practice. Greatly facilitates counterattack!

Pak40,

Would those be in-game foxholes, in which case I agree, or real foxholes, in which your assertion might or might not be true?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Borriks]

Hi,

Speaking of fortifications and defenses, how about give trenches and barbed wire a face command like sandbags and bunkers?

[General Lee Irked]

Dig in command was my first inclination. It should IMO have a "deploy" time and also a situational awareness penalty while in dig in mode. Also the mentioned limit of how many digs a unit gets is right on IMO.

[YankeeDog]

Dig in command was my first inclination. It should IMO have a "deploy" time and also a situational awareness penalty while in dig in mode. Also the mentioned limit of how many digs a unit gets is right on IMO.

I don't think Steve was referring to units actually digging foxholes *during* CM scenarios, but rather placing foxholes that defending units have presumably prepared sometime prior to the start of the scenario. So I don't think a "deploy" time would really apply as the time required would put digging foxholes largely out of CM context.

Even a shallow, hasty scrape would probably take at least a half hour to prepare, and this is very optimistic -- an hour plus is more realistic (Ever used a WWII entrenching tool? I used to have one. They're better than nothing, but still a far cry from a proper pick & shovel.)

[Pak40]

Steve,

Would those be in-game foxholes, in which case I agree, or real foxholes, in which your assertion might or might not be true?

In-game, of course.

[c3k]

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this but I've seen it in a H2H game I'm playing of the Bloody Buron scenario. My oppo laid a number of trench positions in cornfields and they were visible by me as a terrain feature from the deployment phase and before I had spotted the areas, not as trenches, but as normal ground (i.e. grass green) outlines in the yellow corn.

I didn't realise what I was looking at trenches when I made my dispositions and ordered my pre-planned artillery, so it didn't impact on this game but if saw the effect again, I would certainly appreciate that I was looking at a trench system.

Is this intended?

Is is known, and not intended.