billcarey Posted January 1, 2000 Share Posted January 1, 2000 I am curious as to how CM models foxholes. Specifically, I am wondering if eaach squad digs into *one* foxhole or into 2,4,6,8,10,or 12 foxholes. The reason I ask is that I would think twelve guys in one hole would be extra susceptible to mortars and artillery (one hit and boom). Anyone have the info on this or what WWII SOP was? - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pham Posted January 1, 2000 Share Posted January 1, 2000 This is not a definitive answer, but I'd call a foxhole holding 12 men a trench. I believe it's usually each member digs his foxhole(which don't have to be that deep, really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kid Posted January 1, 2000 Share Posted January 1, 2000 In the US Army during WW2, two or sometimes even three men would share a foxhole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 1, 2000 Share Posted January 1, 2000 In CM a "foxhole" is parcelled out one per unit. No it doesn't actually represent one huge foxhole with ten guys in it or does it represent a trench system for twelve guys, it's basically fighting positions (foxholes) for a sqaud which is probably indivdual or buddy-team sized holes but this is all abstracted into one (visual)foxhole. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stabsfeldwebel Posted January 2, 2000 Share Posted January 2, 2000 ok how about this then, in last defese I've stormed the mortars killed one then have a squad in the mortars foxhole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 2, 2000 Share Posted January 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ok how about this then, in last defese I've stormed the mortars killed one then have a squad in the mortars foxhole<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen the same thing. I figure its just a case of it being easier to write the code for a foxhole for "a unit" rather than different foxholes depending on who started in them. ------------------ --- Dan Brown dbrown@owc.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 2, 2000 Share Posted January 2, 2000 I'm pretty sure a foxhole is a foxhole is a foxhole whether it's built by a squad, a crew or a spotter. AN abstraction. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted January 4, 2000 Share Posted January 4, 2000 Although it's definitely "gamey," I'm getting the impression that you should set up a defense by splitting all your squads and placing them around to maximize the number of foxholes in the area you're defending. After the situation starts, you can reunite the squads in the buildings you want to occupy, and the foxholes outside can provide you with useful cover if you want to (or are forced to) redeploy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 4, 2000 Share Posted January 4, 2000 Same would be true for the opponent, though - i.e. the foxholes would provide some nice cover for him when he assaults your position... BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the "foxhole" for a mortar team can indeed take a whole squad. Don't forget that a mortar unit consists of quite a few men (the 81mm mortar has 6 crewmembers for example), AND they need extra space for ammo storage, setting up the tube etc. It IS an abstraction, but not by as far as could appear at first sight, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 4, 2000 Share Posted January 4, 2000 On a related theme: how are foxholes handled during operations? Are foxholes dug during the first battle still there - and usable - during the last battles? Similar questions apply to shellholes, wrecks, and rubble. Or, does the map start 'fresh' with each new battle? I understand that the used portion of a map 'moves' with each sequential battle, but you could easily(?) end up on a portion of the field used during earlier stages of the operation. Regards JonS ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 4, 2000 Share Posted January 4, 2000 Anything left over from previous battles, foxholes, shellholes, burned out vehicles (if they were not recovered), pillboxes etc. remains on the battlefield during the operation. So if you happen to fight over the same territory more than once, or if you only make slow progress as the attacker, you will be able to use "old" foxholes and shellholes for cover. I've seen some areas of intense bombing (in the particular case I'm thinking about a hill) turn into a real nightmare fortress in subsequent battles - there were overlapping shellholes, providing excellent cover for the defender (who happened to be an attacker facing a counterattack ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Same would be true for the opponent, though - i.e. the foxholes would provide some nice cover for him when he assaults your position... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but only if the attacker's start line is near the areas the defender is trying to protect. I see no value in German foxholes in the Last Defense situation. All the flagged objectives are well away from the German start area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although it's definitely "gamey," I'm getting the impression that you should set up a defense by splitting all your squads and placing them around to maximize the number of foxholes in the area you're defending.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actully MOS, I don't even think that this is all that "gamey" since when I was in the army we always spent time building primary and secondary fighting positions based on where we thought an attack would come from. you've given me a new way to survive in Last Defence. ------------------ desert rat wannabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 Yes actally I was gonnna say, but didn't, that the foxhole thing is an expedient way of making a second line of defense. It comes in real handy during operations. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 In Last Defense, every US leg unit with a start position outside of a building is defined to be in a foxhole. Thus, to maximize the number of foxholes available, the US player should split all squads and place every unit outside of a building. On the first turn, the squads can be moved to their really desired locations and reunited. I consider this somewhat gamey, because a leg unit inside a building could have spent its time there improving its position in the building by placing sandbags, moving furniture around, and so on. The unit set up outside gets a foxhole -- in real life, the result of laborious digging; the unit inside (as far as I can tell) is no better protected for having prepared the building than a unit just having entered. My conclusion: start all leg units outside and get the free foxholes. Perhaps I'm wrong. Is the defensive value of a building occupied at the start of a scenario greater than that of a building entered during a scenario? ------------------ Airborne Combat Engineer Troop Leader (1966-1968) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 I am pretty sure that many people have independently come of with this idea. It is really logical. After noticing that troops dug in inside of forests fare much better against a combined enemy than hiding in a house, one tend's to set up as many of these positions as possible, even when you want certain units inside of houses. For Last Defense I even went as far as placing MMG and Command units in places to make reserve foxholes. Since you know that one line of defence is not going to stop the Germans, you have to have a reserve. I have learned to love foxholes and hate buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 I love my enemy's artillery. In a game I was playing today called " A Cold, Long Day" in which the deep snow makes any movements hell... (took me 7 minutes to charge a Fusilier platoon about 250 metres across a frozen river and some deep snow... My damn guys simply got weary after running 20 metres or so and had to find cover, rest up for a minute and then charge a little bit more etc..)... anyways, in this game the US had two FOs IIRC and they simply plastered my initial defensive line ( 1 Sturmgruppe platoon, a couple of HMG 42s an LMG 42 and a schreck) with arty for close to 20 minutes... By the time they were done firing at my troops I was down to half strength (due to the arty) and had two platoons of men hiding in houses just 40 metres back from the barrage zone.... Once the shelling stop they ran forward and occupied ALL the craters the Allied bombardment had caused . By the time the Allies were done they had just created a whole host of defensive positions for me... You can use the crater trick to actually provide cover for your troops if they are advancing over an open area.. Simply bombard the open field to make craters and hey presto your men will be able to use lot of cover to leapfrog their way across at little cost. Houses are great for protection but most people open fire too early. Once a house is known to have guys in it will be brought down if the enemy has tanks... My advice is to let the enemy get really close and then fire on him. You'll cause a lot of casualties and then you can quickly run away to the next defensive position... Opening fire at anything over 100 metres with a rifle squad is simply a waste of ammo IMO. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted April 8, 2001 Share Posted April 8, 2001 I was reviewing some of my earlier posts on the bulletin board and was surprised by Fionn's last post, made over a year ago. Maybe he was discussing an aspect of the prototype game that didn't make it into the final release. When I've tried to move units into shell holes, CM always tells me that the terrain is open ground. CM will let me direct men into foxholes but not into shell holes. Does CM consider a squad on open ground with shell holes less exposed than it would be if there were no shell holes? Or are the shell holes just decorations with no other function in the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted April 8, 2001 Share Posted April 8, 2001 Strange... When my units are in shellholes it says located in crater on my screen. And it does give the correct cover. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted April 8, 2001 Share Posted April 8, 2001 Well, my experience is, there are two types of shell holes, small and large. Infantry can occupy the large ones (and it will say "located in crater" or something, but not the small ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted April 8, 2001 Share Posted April 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Well, my experience is, there are two types of shell holes, small and large. Infantry can occupy the large ones (and it will say "located in crater" or something, but not the small ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are most probably right. As a matter of fact I don't even think I ever tried to move a unit into a small crater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts