Trenches for CM2?

[kunzler]

This is from a thread of a similar name on the tech support board. I am reposting it here because I would really like to see this issue addressed and don't want this topic overlooked because it is on the other board. I did a search and didn't see a lot of discussion on the matter. About the most I found was a discussion in which the lack of trenches was defended by the fact trenches were not that common on the West Front. There did appear to be a concensus that trenches would be a good addition to CM2 for the East Front. I suppose the difference in use of extensive trenches is due to the faster pace of attack and a more fluid battleground?

Snip

Trenches were common, at least on the Eastern front. See Soldat, Unkown Soldier, etc.

Sometimes, fox holes just don't cut it. For instance, it would be nice to be able to place lateral trenches, as well as communications trenches for allowing movement between fortified positions. This would allow retreat from a breached line to a rear line in a defense in depth when the front line is out in the open.

Additionally, trenches between bunkers and front lines would be realistic, as from what I have read, (and seen, ala Winter War and Cross of Iron) bombardments were often weathered in covered bunkers and at the end of the bombardment, it was a race through the trenches to get to the fighting positions before the enemy could advance to them.

I believe allowing the placement of trenches, whether by the scenario editor, or by purchase as mentioned above would add another level of depth to certain aspects of the game. Maybe in CM2?

snip

And hoperfully, retrofitted to CMBO?

[killmore]

Now is the enemy suppose to see you trenches?

(But not being able to see your troops until you are close?)

[Formerly Babra]

If not trenches, then at least anti-tank ditches. Practically every battle map of useful scale that I've looked at has them shown, and I'm still trying to figure out how to model them for a scenario.

------------------

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Mace]

I agree.

Fieldworks on the Eastern Front are a lot more extensive, and a greater set of terraing features modelled in CM2.

Mace

[kunzler]

I would think that trenches would be like foxholes, and would show up when they are spotted. IIRC, the logic behind having geographical features appear without having to see them is that they are marked on maps. Trenches would not be marked on maps belonging to the enemy and therefore would not show up on the map.

[This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Fuse]

I'm not sure how many people here would be interested in fighting a war of attrition. I know that I would get way too frusterated by that.

------------------

Upon the fields of friendly strife, are sown the seeds of Victory.

---Douglas McArthur

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

From what I have read, trenches were pretty uncommon on the West Front of the ETO. It is probably appropriate for CMBO.

[ncounio]

Well you can simulate anti-tank ditches by using some kid of impassable terrain for AFVs

rough for exemple (low LOS impact).

------------------

Nicolas

http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html

"Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche"

Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk

[IntelWeenie]

Some folks in the past have made the assertion that trenches "weren't used that much" or "aren't that common in the ETO". While I agree with this in part, I must point out that concrete pillboxes were even rarer, but they are in CM.

I would definitely like to see trenches included in all future releases of CM.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Sergei]

I think a long trench work is quite easy to recognice, especially from air. However it's a totally different story to tell how the enemy is using them and where do they lead to, so maybe they shouldn't be completely visible.

It certainly would be desirable to get the trenches, and include rolling-up tactics for the attacker.

[tss]

kunzler wrote:

Trenches would not be marked on maps belonging to the enemy and therefore would not show up on the map.

That depends on the situation. If the front line had been at the same position for some time, the enemy would certainly know the position of the trenches wery accurately. The firing positions for MGs and AT guns (and infantry guns) might also be marked on the attackers maps.

- Tommi

[Jarmo]

Trenches could be modeled as purchaseable objects, like roadblocks.

That would bypass the problem of terrain squares being too big

for a "trench terrain".

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[kunzler]

I would think that making trenches purchasable would be the way to go. I would especially like to see them on the scenario editor. That would give us the freedom to model a lot more scenarios from history, books, movies, etc. And it would IMO make the game more realistic,which is, after all, what distinguishes CM from the other games.

[This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 08-04-2000).]

[marcusm]

Well if trenches makes it then we'll have 99% of a WW 1 CM included .

I'm pretty sure Cavalry would make it btw. Can't do a EF CM without Cavalry.

Marcus