weapon2010 Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Ive tried everything to get my squads,halfsquads, teams, to fully occupy foxholes but they will not, like a 6 man unit, 4 will occupy the foxholes and 2 will stay out, and there is plenty of room, a 4unit foxhole should hold 8 men, this is only the Russians I am seeing this so far.Change facing, remove them back into the foxhole area, doesn't work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Now that raises the question if each mole hill's graphic representaion gives the indiduals benefit or does the action square the foxholes are placed wether the indivual is in or out his hole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 I always thought the mound, itself, gave cover. Sometimes you'll see pixeltruppen who are taking incoming fire crawl behind a foxhole and be protected. (In fact, being behind it may be better protection from incoming than being IN it...if the fire is coming from a single direction. That way there are two mound walls between the pixeltruppen and the fire, not just one.) Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 This very questions was debated a few weeks ago. IIRC, the guys in the foxhole get the protection, the ones outside do not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Was there ever a real test, or just a debate? I'd be interested in the results of a test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The obvious reply is "go ahead and do a test". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I think that foxholes could use a little love. I don't like how clustered together they are. I think there should only be 2 foxholes per action square. With 2 men per hole, that would give a pretty decent/realistic spacing for a unit dug in in foxholes. Currently, even if you spread the foxholes as they are, they tend to still suffer high casualties. I think the two holes per action square would also solve your issue of soldiers not occupying the holes. Instead of trying to cram 6-8 soldiers in a few foxholes per action square, 4 soldiers per square seems much more doable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 29 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: I think that foxholes could use a little love. I don't like how clustered together they are. I think there should only be 2 foxholes per action square. With 2 men per hole, that would give a pretty decent/realistic spacing for a unit dug in in foxholes. Currently, even if you spread the foxholes as they are, they tend to still suffer high casualties. I think the two holes per action square would also solve your issue of soldiers not occupying the holes. Instead of trying to cram 6-8 soldiers in a few foxholes per action square, 4 soldiers per square seems much more doable. you have to take into account team size as the factor that allows splitting across AS as the determining factor, not the preference for numbers of foxholes. There are few instances of 4 member teams in CM. More typically it is 5-6. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, sburke said: you have to take into account team size as the factor that allows splitting across AS as the determining factor, not the preference for numbers of foxholes. There are few instances of 4 member teams in CM. More typically it is 5-6. Good point. Although isn't it possible to break down most units to sizes of at least 4 men or smaller? I know for the Germans split teams tend to be no more than 4. Or better yet, maybe add a 3rd foxhole per action square instead of the current amount? My main point with the current way foxholes are depicted is that there are too many too close together. Even if all the soldiers are able to occupy a hole, all it takes are a few well placed mortar rounds to wipe everyone out. If things were more spread out, it would provide better protection from being blasted away by direct/indirect heavy weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 On 10/2/2016 at 9:47 AM, Erwin said: The obvious reply is "go ahead and do a test". Not interested. I was drawing a line between the results of a test, which would interest me, and the results of a debate, which wouldn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 There is no way to order infantry teams to spread out over multiple action spots so it's not just a matter of making fewer foxholes per AS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 On October 2, 2016 at 2:31 PM, sburke said: you have to take into account team size as the factor that allows splitting across AS as the determining factor, not the preference for numbers of foxholes. There are few instances of 4 member teams in CM. More typically it is 5-6. Or 3. Or 2. Or sometimes just 1. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Michael Emrys said: Or 3. Or 2. Or sometimes just 1. Michael No not really. The standard team size which has to be your starting point for game design is either two teams in a squad or 3. can you cite an example of a full squad having a team in it's default structure that has 1 or 2 members? You can't count splitting off scouts etc as the AI will not do that and the game has to account for that. Leave it to to a Peng thread denizen to be unable to count. Edited October 7, 2016 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 10:44 PM, Jammersix said: Was there ever a real test, or just a debate? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 What were (or where are) the results of the test? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 his intern burned the results when piqued about his not sharing his brandy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Test Results were tested by yours untruly...You have more cover in the Open, then you do in Rat Holes...err, I mean Fox Holes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, JoMc67 said: Test Results were tested by yours untruly...You have more cover in the Open, then you do in Rat Holes...err, I mean Fox Holes. Wait... are you saying that foxholes reduce cover? Because that would not be true. Edited October 8, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 This is why I'm not interested in the debate results. 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.