BTS - request foxholes in Meeting Engagements

[Juardis]

Here's what I'm doing. Havermeyer and I are playing a simulataneous attack and defend scenario. Custom made. We have flags that we must defend and flags that we must capture (i.e., capture the flags). This simulates a simultaneous attack along a static front. I would like the ability to dig in. I know that meeting engagements are supposed to simulate two forces suddenly meeting and hence no foxholes. Fine. This is coded as both sides on the attack. Fine. Since both sides are on the attack, neither side can dig in. Again, fine. If you're defending, you can dig in, but that currently only applies to one side.

I would like the option where both sides can dig in. Perhaps meeting engagements can be changed such that both sides are on the defense (thus allowing digging in) or a new battle type be created - static front. What you say? Hmmmm? Pretty please?

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

Jeff Abbott

[Brer Pinkey]

Sounds tasty. I like it.

Since it is a custom scenario could you do the same thing by buying and placeing foxholes/defences explictly in the setup screen? Yes, I know you can't BUY foxholes... Maybe you could get one 'free' foxhole per squad/team and place them manually. Then you could actually have a unit start somewhere and not leave a hole behind when they move out. That's rather a giveaway for scouting sharpshooters and AT teams. And you could not split a squad to get an extra dugout... Hmmm.

[Juardis]

LOL. I have this vision of a yellow submarine, 4 animated british speaking chaps, and one hole. In my vision, one of them says, "I ave a ole in me pocket". Then he takes said hole out and places it in the ground and voila, a hole.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Brer Pinkey]

D'oh

Should have spotted that one.

T'was thinking about it though. How about purchasable earthworks. i.e. a connected series of dugouts and foxholes. bought in set lengths like roadblocks. Place them end to end, zigzag, whatever. Units 'in' them would recieve the standard foxhole bonus. The same spacing of units for stacking would apply, and if a unit was moving 'along' the earthworks they would continue to recieve the foxhole bonus of cover and concealment (whatever that actually may be). You could even link two or more buildings together and move between them .

Also. IMHO, a unit in a foxhole should consider that as good a cover as any type of woods when under heavy bombardment.

Anyone have thoughts to add? Pro or Con?

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

"What are we going to do tonight Brain?"

"The same thing we do every night Pinkey... We're going to take over Europe!"

[Juardis]

No, no, no. Nothing wrong with your suggestion. The Yellow Submarine image just popped into my head and I was LMAO. However, on a more serious note, I don't think you should have to purchase foxholes or earthworks. That should be an option when you create a scenario IMO. Trenches (or earthworks if you will) were discussed previously here and I only say this because, well, because they were. I don't remember who posted to it or what the conclusion was (if any), but search on trenches and see what comes up. It might actually be planned for CM2. I mean, there were trenches in the movie Iron Cross so they had to be there on the Ostfront, right?

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

Jeff Abbott

[Clubfoot]

Not only were there trenches on the east front, but the Russians were accomplished builders of such earthworks. I've seen photographs of intricate (and deep) defensive positions dug by the Reds (as well as pictures of the poor, frostbitten German pioneers whose job it was to defeat these fortifications with handgrenades and trenching tools).

Clubfoot.

[-Havermeyer-]

bttt