Additional fortifications?

[Kaunitz]

By the way, in case you haven't seen it, here is an interesting video on Soviet fortifications (starting at ca. 42:35): https://youtu.be/44KzYWq_3gw?t=2555

 

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Apart from a lack of properly working fortifications, map design plays a large part here too. A realistic map offers lots of small options for cover. It's hard to model that on maps, as the smallest height increment at your disposal is 1 meter and it also affects the neighbouring tiles. 

1m is not much and well sufficient, considering that all neighboring tiles are getting smoothed in various degrees. Then depends on units placed in such an AS, their range and angle to potential targets. Also there´s high variance for individual pixeltroopers, with some benefitting from full 1m while others do not, seeking LOS/LOF to potential enemies or preserving C2 to any viable friendlies. What´s somewhat hard though is calculating all of this for own and enemy unit placements. Hide and Face offer lots of opportunities to adapt and realistic risks always remain. There´s no safe place on an active battlefield.

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I'm sorry but the main problem with trenches remains that they hardly provide any protection, especially against artillery. Also, as they protrude from the ground, they tend to "catch" direct fire HE shells which would otherwise pass harmlessly above a well placed trench (no wall/hill immediately behind it)? This is also where low velocity guns (infantry support tanks/howitzers) should have a slight edge over high velocity guns.

While I´d tend to agree I´d rather wait for BFC to check on possible ground mesh adaption bugs caused by forts (bunkers, FH and trenches) altering the ground mesh at game start. Otherwise I´d live with the fact that the games given forts are rather of the "hasty types" and not elaborately built deep slit trenches/spider holes. Elaborately built defenses you´d imagine include dugouts and shelters, which then were used in cases of (heavy) bombardment. So when attempt  relying on trenches/FH for sufficient protection I´d pair them with (log) bunkers in QB instead. But first some bug needs to be squashed.

[General Liederkranz]

9 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Generally speaking, I think the game would profit a lot if you actually had to suppress enemy positions and assault them, rather than sit it out while your FO calls pinpoint arty on them and knock them out.

It may be that trenches don't provide enough protection (especially since we can't get overhead cover), but I think there are two other things going on here too. First, artillery is too flexible in the WW2 games and (as others have suggested on the forum) it would be more realistic not to allow Point or Linear missions, instead requiring Area with a minimum of 50m or so. I've started doing this in single-player games and the results feel much more realistic to me. Artillery will suppress and cause casualties but it rarely annihilates. Second, in my experience it makes a huge difference if infantry in trenches Hide. The problem of course is that the AI will never do this.

[RockinHarry]

19 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

It may be that trenches don't provide enough protection (especially since we can't get overhead cover), but I think there are two other things going on here too. First, artillery is too flexible in the WW2 games and (as others have suggested on the forum) it would be more realistic not to allow Point or Linear missions, instead requiring Area with a minimum of 50m or so. I've started doing this in single-player games and the results feel much more realistic to me. Artillery will suppress and cause casualties but it rarely annihilates. Second, in my experience it makes a huge difference if infantry in trenches Hide. The problem of course is that the AI will never do this.

Hm... as pointed out in the other thread, taking away point (or linear) fire capability wouldn´t be much realistic either IMO. If I had concerns I´d likely experiment with low Qty. FO´s or HQ and such instead. Maybe Arty as well (low experience setting). Not providing any TRP might be another option or combined with what mentioned beforehand. Non open terrain and denying the enemy proper observation locations might be worth to try "tactically".

Yep..trenches and FH. Only way I know to help the AIP would be to bury the trenches in ditch locked AS (1-2m) and/or keeping morale setting low enough that the hide would be replaced with cower more oftenly. Found my animation tweaks (cower, go low for reloads etc), help on infantry in cover locations better than original as well. Yet off course would prefer deep trenches and spider holes added to the game nonetheless.

[Pelican Pal]

I think a lot of it comes back to the animation system not being paid enough attention to when dealing with how it effects combat losses.

Load up a halftrack and you have the entire complement of men sitting bolt upright in the back allowing much of their upperchest and head to appear above the protective sides of the hull. The result being that relatively light fire will start to accrue casualties on the men ostensibly using it as protection. With trenches we have much the same issue in that the men when crouching expose a large portion of their body to fire. Additionally the trenches themselves are quite wide and relatively shallow making it easier for artillery to "clear" the line as it were. 

If trenchers were slightly taller and not so wide their protection would likely increase. Infantry survivability would also increase if their animations weren't so "parade ground" suited. 


---

What I did find useful for trenches was to build a ditch and then place a trench line within the ditch. Effectively giving the men better protection from both direct and indirect fire. As they are now forced to stand to fire and their basic crouching position is generally safer.