pritzl Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Hey Guys, I set up a little test scenario today solely for the purpose of testing various types of cover against incoming rifle fire. The results (of a hotseat game against myself) were a little odd. Accorinding to exposure percentage, woods and tall pines offer nearly identicle protection at around 15% exposure. Being in a foxhole in the woods yeilds roughly the same 15%. However, if you're units are in a foxhole in tall pines, the percentage climbs way up to around 38%. Is there a reason for this that I'm missing, or is it some sort of bug? Also, do foxholes offer protection in addition to any terrain modifiers, or is it a case of using only the modifier for the foxhole or the terrain tile, whichever is better? Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted June 27, 2000 Author Share Posted June 27, 2000 This one has me really curious, so I'm just punting it back to the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Good question. Is there anything in the manual about concealment and cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbaldwin Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 No answer to your original question, just an observation/tip. While playing a demo game I placed troops in an open area just short of a wooded area so they would be digging in a fall back position. In the first turn they evacuated their freshly dug foxholes and moved into primary positions in the woods. Turn two the enemy clearly identified the foxhole positions and rained all morter ammunition onto empty foxholes. All the while my soldiers kept their precious little heads down until the enemy advanced to be annihilated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Have you ever walked in a forest of tall pines? There is practically no ground cover whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Cute trick, macbaldwin! I have a couple of questions. Do troops automatically dig foxholes whenever stationary, or is there an order for this? The only foxholes I've seen so far seem to be mandated by the scenario designer before the start of the game. The other thing is, did your troops move into the trees on their own (Tac AI) initiative, or did you order them in? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Cute trick, macbaldwin! I have a couple of questions. Do troops automatically dig foxholes whenever stationary, or is there an order for this? The only foxholes I've seen so far seem to be mandated by the scenario designer before the start of the game. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Troops on the 'defensive' (i.e. the other side is 'assaulting', 'attacking', or 'probing) automatically begin a scenario dug in (as long as they're placed where they can actually dig). Given the time frame of the game, there is no 'dig in' command once you're into it. Makes sense since every first hand account I've ever read indicated that the first thing troops (who knew any better, and wanted to live) did when they took up new positions was either started looking around for the foxholes and bunkers of the previous occupiers, or started digging their own. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted June 27, 2000 Author Share Posted June 27, 2000 Babra's comment about lack of ground cover in tall pines is exactly what has me curious. It seems odd that woods and tall pines offer the same level of protection until you dig in. At that point woods are still pretty good, but tall pines become, by comparison, a very unsafe place to be. Also, I think it would be nice to be able to tell your troops NOT to dig foxholes at the beginning of a scenario. Too often it's the (empty) holes that are spotted before the men and are an indicator that enemy troops are in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Yes it does indeed make sense that there would be no dig-in command. And I too have wondered about the rating for tall pines. Seems that they should be intermediate between scattered trees and woods. And the anomaly of woods losing (relative) cover compared to pines when foxholes are in place should be fixed (or at least justified). Michael [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 06-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Ya, it was my understanding that the tall pines were supposed to represent old growth forest, with very little ground level cover. My vague (12 years ago) memories of europe were that these old forests were pretty common. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I don’t have the Manual here to confirm it but I thought I read that “tall pines have thick undergrowth” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemo2 Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Have you ever walked in a forest of tall pines? There is practically no ground cover whatsoever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would have to say this would depend on the forest. I hunt in the Black Hills of South Dakota every fall, and it's full of pines and has a lot of ground cover. I understand what your saying and agree to a point, but I don't think it's applicable in all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 The manual does in fact say that Tall Pine tiles have thick undergrowth. I don't have the manual with me at the moment, but I recall reading it. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Ever try to dig a hole in the woods? Your gonna bust your ass and give up, especialy in older forests. Its the roots, they make it very difficult to get to any depth at all. Im betting that Steve once again used common sense here, and simulated something as mundane as roots effecting your foxhole quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Im betting that Steve once again used common sense here, and simulated something as mundane as roots effecting your foxhole quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I VERY much doubt it. The difficultiy in DIGGING the foxhole would have no effect on the protection it provided AFTER it was complete. And to suggest that infantry would not dig in as deeply or as well because of pine tree roots, is a bit much (and I have read many cases where troops dug in inspite of the roots or rocky terrain). ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 pritzl - I'm not sure how your numbers came up like that but protection-wise, woods and tall pines are about equivalent. And digging a foxhole improves both further (though only to a point). Remember that clearness-of-LOS also affects exposure. So even if you're in open ground, but BEHIND some trees, your exposure rating will drop. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted June 28, 2000 Author Share Posted June 28, 2000 Thank you for responding Charles. I looked at it again and it does indeed seem to be some sort of a bug. It appears that foxholes in tall pine terrain are being treated as though they are foxholes in open terrain instead. This seems to be true for both spotting and firing effectiveness. The percentage exposure for being in a foxhole in open terrain or in tall pines is identicle. I would be happy to send you the little test scenario I threw together to show better what I'm talking about. I'll also happily say I'm wrong if somebody can explain otherwise to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Yep - there was a bug with foxholes in tall pines acting as if they're in the open. I just fixed it. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weta_nz Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Charles, you da man! I know I would have never picked up a small bug like that, but what great service BTS give us. cheers ------------------ "Ka mate, ka mate! Ka ora , ka ora!"("Tis death, tis death, tis life, tis life!") Maori war cry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Hemo2 posted: " I would have to say this would depend on the forest. I hunt in the Black Hills of South Dakota every fall, and it's full of pines and has a lot of ground cover." You shouldn't compare European forests with American or other 'original' forests. In Europe, and especially western Europe, all forests are production forests since the 16th century. The demand for wood (for ships among others) in those times was so great it completely de-forested England, Ireland, The Netherlands, and most of France and Germany. The remaining woods were at the time of WW2 mostly pine (fast growing) with a little or no undergrowth (it was actively cleared to get the pines growing faster and straighter). Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacAuliff Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Bertram made a good point here! in Western Europe you will find hardly nature in it's orignal state, maybe in the alps you'll find some patches. Look at the bocage, it was manmade. So are the forests in the Ardennes or Huertgenwald. Even the nowadays natural reserve on the Elsenborn ridge (Ardennes) is, besides the moors, not original. It were all "production" forests delivering the wood in support of the nearby coalmining industry. Trees were even planted in patterns, in order to extract wood more easily. Only Caesar may have seen the Ardennes woods in their original state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts