Foxholes and Area Fire

[Jeff Duquette]

Foxholes and Area Fire

I have noticed in several past games that I can locate enemy foxholes long before I ever get close to these foxholes. I suppose this has been discussed before…oh well…be that as it may. It's new to me.

This little cheat makes it quite easy to locate the bad guys without expending precious troops on pesky reconnaissance. Look closely at those woods in front of you. You may be surprised by the presence of what appear to be shell holes in areas where you could swear you or your opponent have not shelled. These are foxholes concealing MG's or infantry or bazooka teams. Blast'um with long range area fire from your tanks...or sprinkle some steel rain on these areas. It's great fun because your opponent won't be able to figure out how you're spotting his troops and tripping his well-considered ambush locations. Course it isn't quite as much fun when your opponent figures out this little cheat.

[FFE]

I would not consider this a cheat. Experienced players will tend to split squads into teams to create empty and/or double line foxholes. This sort of ruse happens quite a bit.; an opponent seeing three foxholes all lined up in what appears to be a defensive line. How often this transpires in game ultimately depends on the terrain. I have used this technique in an attempt to drain my opponent's artillery assets. It works well, and better yet if the foxholes are nestled right at the edge of woods so their discovery occurs quickly.

[Sergei]

Calling it as a cheat is sort of like saying that it's cheating that if you see enemy running into a building and disappearing from sight, you then open fire at the building. The only reason why it should be cheating or abusing a "feature", is if we presume that one shouldn't be able to spot foxholes from a distance. Now, this of course varies on how well the foxholes are camoed.

Though, I'd like to know that is it harder to spot foxholes crewed by men who are under command of a "stealth" ability HQ?

[Stoffel]

I think its very normal to spot a foxhole from a distance

Normally you dont have much time to dig that,so traces of your digging always are visible

If you do have time it isnt a foxhole but turns into a fortified position with sandbags and camouflage

So a good commander with a binoculars can spot these things from some distance

Though I remember from my time in Germany,I saw a british tank dug in and camouflaged in grassland

we only saw it when we were close by,too late

[Redwolf]

I am sure that is intended behaviour. Long before you spot enemy units, you spot some sort of fortifications in the terrain.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"Experienced players will tend to split squads into teams to create empty and/or double line foxholes."<hr></blockquote>

Good idea. Gamey...but what the hay its a game after all.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"The only reason why it should be cheating or abusing a "feature", is if we presume that one shouldn't be able to spot foxholes from a distance."<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. I think it is safe to assume that in the Real World holes in the ground will always be spotted long before living, breathing, moving, coughing, whispering, equipment-rattling soldiers would be. Than again maybe well disciplined, well-trained folks might hide the spoils from their recent excavation work, or cover the fresh earth with duff of foliage (or snow during those Christmas scenarios). I dunno. Do foxholes always appear before troops occupying them appear?

Out of curiosity was this feature included on purpose? (I'll use "feature" since there is obviously some hyper sensitivity to the words "little cheat" ) .

One last question: Is there a unique *.bmp for foxholes or do foxholes share a common *.bmp with shell holes?

Why not include fake foxholes in the game. Sort of like the perpetual limited intelligence Tiger I that you always seem to spot when playing the Allied side. Ghost foxholes you think are there when you do your knap-of-the-earth, omnipresent flying TV-drone search for enemy positions, but they really aren't there. And when you get your own folks on the position the things disappear like….uhh….dust in the wind.

[Viceroy]

Jeff,

what's gamey about digging two sets of foxholes :confused:

[Herr_B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Viceroy:

what's gamey about digging two sets of foxholes :confused: <hr></blockquote>

It's gamey in more then one way:

it's gamey that you'll have to split your squads to do it (you have the time to place barbeire and mines but not to dig a second line of defence)

it's gamey since you can't dig them without troops they are not ment to exist without troops (not exactly what I meen but I hope you understand anyway)

on the otherhand foxholes are gamey since you always get them.

and if it's not gamey then I also want dummy guns, tanks, mines, pillboxes and the werry usefull make noise to sound like a company order

[Viceroy]

Patrik,

I think I get what you mean

But I'm afraid I can't agree that two sets of foxholes is gamey. IIRC the Germans did this an awful lot. Don't know about the Allies, but then they didn't have as much practice at being on the defensive.

[Herr_B]

It's just that a foxholes here is probably someting you don't realy dig more like move some wooden things and toss some dirt on it so it doesn't realy qualify as a prepered defense.

you can buy them for 9pts IIRC and get a lmg or a tiny mortar with it aint that a bargain!!!

edited for being tired so I cant whrite

Q: Do foxholes varry in size??

Q2: what cind of prepared defences we have in CMBB

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Patrik ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> IIRC the Germans did this an awful lot.<hr></blockquote>

No offence Viceroy old boy, but I never believe anything posted on Internet forums unless it’s specifically referenced along with several examples. If you’ll elaborate a bit on the above it might be interesting.

Two sets of foxholes imply a fair amount of preparation time. If you are bothering to dig two sets of fighting positions as a method of tricking the enemy maybe you might think about camouflaging one fighting position instead. Just a thought.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But I'm afraid I can't agree that two sets of foxholes is gamey. IIRC the Germans did this an awful lot. Don't know about the Allies, but then they didn't have as much practice at being on the defensive.<hr></blockquote>

I agree that it isn't gamey, since it is historical and a logical way to defend in close terrain. As soon as the enemy attack starts to develop well you move back to the next foxhole line and shell the position where you just were.

Another trick along those lines is to give an HQ or a split squad to an MG or an AT gun so that you can have two foxholes very near each other. If your AT gun is in some woods with a very keyholed LOF, then a nearby alternate foxhole with a different narrow LOF can be useful in case the bad guys go the other way. So assign a half squad to do some digging up there for the gun crew. It's not gamey at all, IMO, since the half squad ends up stuck there when the attack starts, and has to find its way back to its parent platoon during the initial fighting.

(if the distance between the two firing positions isn't too long, you can even make a tight line of foxholes so that the AT gun will be sheltered while moving. Kind of a trench.)

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>

[Leta]

Jeff Duquette says:

"No offence Viceroy old boy, but I never believe anything posted on Internet forums unless it’s specifically referenced along with several examples. If you’ll elaborate a bit on the above it might be interesting"

Well, one man who often use this tactic was Generaloberst Gotthard Heinrici, the last defender of Berlin. He won a reputation on defensive actions in the Eastern Front. He normally sets a double defense line. Before the russian massive artillery barrages, Heinrici ordered his soldiers back to the second defensive line (he had a real instinct to know when the russians were preparing an attack). Once the barrage finished, the germans returns to the front line.

You can read something about this tactic in Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle".

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Two sets of foxholes imply a fair amount of preparation time. If you are bothering to dig two sets of fighting positions as a method of tricking the enemy maybe you might think about camouflaging one fighting position instead. Just a thought.<hr></blockquote>

The point isn't that the front line of foxholes is just for deception. You fight from them first, and then fall back. Here is the tactic described from the point of view of an Ami platoon commander (and soon to be a company commander due to the high rate of officer casualties) who had to face it in the Huertgen Forest:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> ...the Germans had two additional advantages. They always knew exactly where we were, having just left there themselves, and thus easily called down shelling on us. They also had prepared in advance a series of defensive positions. After they had made our attack as costly as possible, they simply pulled back a few hundred yards to their next emplacements--and bombarded the ones left to us.<hr></blockquote>

Wilson, George If You Survive page 132

[Dan Robertson]

I'm not of the opinion that digging double fox holes are gamey. In combat leaders are often create extra tasks to get me ocupied, digging a second line of defence would be one of them.

In the game you do suffer a penalty of the second line of trenches since you mst split your reasources to build them. At the start of the game you must bring your troops out of one set of fox holes to get the full effect.

In CMBB will we be getting dugouts, where troops can move to become imune (to casualties not moral penalties) to all but the largest artilery? At the expense of not being able to fire.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

In combat leaders are often create extra tasks to get me ocupied, digging a second line of defence would be one of them.

<hr></blockquote>

No way! Get out! Were YOU in combat? Where, when?

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Leta Said: Well, one man who often use this tactic was Generaloberst Gotthard Heinrici, the last defender of Berlin.<hr></blockquote>

Leta:

While I appreciate the fact that you have actually gone to the trouble to provide what you feel is actual evidence, I think you have somewhat misrepresented Heinrici's use of an operational level withdrawal to support an argument that German Infantry consistently dug two foxholes.

From: BH Liddell Hart’s “The German Generals Talk” (also known to some folks as “The Other Side of the Hill”)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In this later stage, he said, he had further developed the defensive methods which he had already described. "When the Russians were found to be concentrating for an attack, I withdrew my troops from the first line under cover of night, to the second line—-usually about 2 kilometres behind. The result was that the Russian blow hit the air, and its further attack did not have the same impetus. Of course, a necessary condition of success was to discover the actual intended day of the assault, which I sought to do by using patrols to secure prisoners. After the Russian attack had been broken, I continued to hold the second line as my new forward position, while on the sectors that had not been attacked the troops moved forward again to re-occupy the first line. This system worked very well in the battle of the Oder—the only drawback was our scanty strength, after so much had been wasted needlessly by the rigid defense of positions impossible to hold.

"I never suffered defeat during three years of defensive battles when I could base my plan on such methods—and I was proud that I never had to call on the Higher Command to spare me any of its reserves. I found self-propelled guns were of the greatest value in applying these defensive tactics. "In the light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence that has a reasonable frontage to cover. There were times when my troops held their own against odds of 12 to 1 or even 18 to 1.

"The German defeat in the East was, in my opinion, due to one main reason—that our troops were compelled to cover immense spaces without the flexibility, in the command, that would have enabled them to concentrate on holding decisive points. Thus they lost the initiative permanently. I doubt whether we could have worn down the Russians by pure defense, but might well have been able to turn the balance by a more mobile kind of warfare, and by shortening our front so as to release forces that could be used for effective counter-strokes.<hr></blockquote>

Heinrici is really talking about something on a somewhat grander scale than foxhole digging. If your looking for proper ammunition look at Depuy regarding a Green Rifle Platoon of GI’s digging in on a forward slope and leaving their digging spoils around the outsides of their foxholes. The brown dirt over white snow made these poor fellows easy pickings for a nearby German Stug.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[Herr_B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

I'm not of the opinion that digging double fox holes are gamey. In combat leaders are often create extra tasks to get me ocupied, digging a second line of defence would be one of them.<hr></blockquote>

A second line of defence aint gamey. But do the foxholes represent the thing you dig when you have spare time, dont think so. I think it's the thing you dig when you've been orderd to hold a position and the enemy is soon to be there say 1-5 min of digging.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

In the game you do suffer a penalty of the second line of trenches since you mst split your reasources to build them. At the start of the game you must bring your troops out of one set of fox holes to get the full effect.<hr></blockquote>

This is away to do it, simulate the missing dugged out defences. I sometimes use the fast move order to simulate the missing assault order, some pepole thinks this is gamey.

It is but since we cant get everything in game like this we are some times forced to use a combination of other things to reach the aproximate same goal

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

In CMBB will we be getting dugouts, where troops can move to become imune (to casualties not moral penalties) to all but the largest artilery? At the expense of not being able to fire.<hr></blockquote>

Now we're talking

[Galatine]

You know, personally I've experimented with split-squad double foxhole's and found it overall to be a bit of a waste of effort for the amount of effect.

- Foxholes in scattered trees are worth a moderate cover bonus but in most woods or tall pines it's relatively small.

- Generally, while on the defensive, I keep fairly deep in woods and pretty well dispersed. I hardly have room for a single line of foxholes, let alone two. I like to force a fire fight in the trees with my squads using MG's teams for any long to mid-range suppression.

- I prefer to keep any movement to a minimum on the defensive. Even using only 'sneak', moving units are quite a bit easier to spot.

- Many assaults are preluded by artillery. If my defenders survive, those craters make fine foxholes and plenty o' them.

- Split squads reduce global morale. Many split squads reduce morale alot. I find that the lower global morale, the more likely one of my defenders will get nervous and open fire prematurely.

- Finally all that manuvering to get the splits back together can be a real pain! I'd need to see a pretty good pay off for all that effort.

[OGSF]

An interesting thread. An aspect of foxholes as depicted in CM that might have been overlooked is the perennial CM issue of abstraction.

Historically, or any other way I thnk, full squads did not hunker down in a single foxhole as depicted in CM. That is to say, excluding trench warfare et al, in the ETO in '44/'45 a squad of 12 G.I.s' would dig between 4 and 12 foxholes, depending on the time available, type of defence etc. They would then distribute themselves amongst these foxholes. (Feel free to quote references which dispute this practice as the norm).

Given this abstraction, the "gamey" part is that squads cannot be split more than once to create even more foxholes!

But despite the excellent 3D graphical representaion of the game we all love, it is replete with abstractions, and infantry squads and their foxholes are a clear example. One squad in one foxhole in CM represents 8 to 13 guys in multiple foxholes in a general vicinity.

As for the practice of creating extra foxholes by splitting squads, then leaving the front ones empty until the arty is finished with, that is probably as good an aproximation as we can currently get of the "hiding in a bunker till the shelling stops then reoccupy the defences to repel the attack" tactic.

Whether using "dummy" foxholes to draw fire is "gamey" or not, I don't care. An opponent using such a tactic wouldn't faze me. It's the lack of tripod mounts for bren guns that really pisses me off!

May the sores of a thousand lepers etc etc.

OGSF

[Galatine]

One other point on foxholes..

Many players have complained that foxholes defensive advantage has been under-modelled.

Personally, I don't particularly get the why, they seem to work just fine for me.

However I've been thinking- If the effect of defensive enplacements were increased significantly I see this creating a few problems.

Most obviously, the attacker would need a much higher numerical force advantage. That means either:

- The defender would have VERY few units to operate in comparison to the attacker and his major function would be staying still and pressing 'GO'. Sounds kinda boring to me.

/Or/

- The attacker would have to have far more units than the defender. So, even a'probe' game against a small defensive force would be a very large battle.

- Positions would tend to become far more fixed, with defenders remaining stationary and attackers advance quickly grinding to a halt. Attackers would have to spend extended periods softening the target before ever considering an assualt.

In total, I worry the game would lose much of it's dynamic feel and it's scope would be forced to change from squad level to platoon level (or even battalion!) sized operational units.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Galatine ]</p>

[Redwolf]

I second the comment that the current "weak" foxholes in CMBO are the right thing.

Because it doesn't make sense to assume the guys had time to dig good foxholes, but no alternate positions, no trenches, no extra dugout, no overhead cover. And that assumes we could even get proper fortifications "for free", but in reality they are a major effort to program and to make them realistic, and make assumptions how much better elite foxholes are etc.

I'd rather take the 15 minutes foxholes as they are now and a 1:1.5 attack ratio instead of 1:3 as would be required with proper fortifications.

Still, buying foxholes and placing them seperately (as in Tacops) would make more sense than the current "wherever you are" policy.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Patrik Said: A second line of defence aint gamey. But do the foxholes represent the thing you dig when you have spare time, dont think so. I think it's the thing you dig when you've been orderd to hold a position and the enemy is soon to be there say 1-5 min of digging.<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. It is not uncommon to have a lightly held outpost or listening post line in front of your MLR. The folks on OP duty would in theory "holler" in the event of an impending attack. It gave the folks in the MLR time to stand to.

I don't think this was the intent of the original poster "FFE" regarding the two foxhole per squad trick. He was not presenting us with a historical dissertation on infantry defensive tactics as much as he was giving us his own approach to dealing with the games foibles….i.e. the player practice of hunting for foxholes and shooting them up with area fire. I think he was implying that the second foxhole was a dummy foxhole. The dummy foxhole makes the art of looking for foxholes on the map a tougher prospect. I like his approach, aside from the potential for assaulting infantry to now have a convenient ready made fighting position to occupy during a firefight with friendlies occupying non-dummy foxholes.

Although this tangent discussion on gamey\not-gamey or one foxhole or two foxhole is interesting, it really does not addresses any of my original questions. In CMBO foxholes are typically visible long before the troops occupying these foxholes become visible.

1) Was this an intentional design feature of CMBO or is it a quirk in the game engine?

2) Are the BMPs employed for foxholes shared BMP's of shell holes?

This same issue came up with ATOMIC's Close Combat IV and the designers were forth right enough to indicate that it was a programing bust...the neon beacon foxholes that telegraphed ones MLR to the opposition were eventually dealt with in a series of patches as I recall.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[Galatine]

Jeff, I'm not sure I follow you.

Are you implying foxholes are spotted easier than just infantry /or/ that foxholes are spotted first before the infantry in them?

If the first; I'm not certain. I don't think I've noticed infantry in foxholes are be spotted easier than just infantry.

Perhaps if you mainly notice foxholes dug on the edge of tree lines, it could be the dug-in unit is located so close to the open ground that some of the squad actually dug foxholes outside the forest.

If the second; Maybe the reason the foxholes are being seen well before the infantry in them is that the occuping soldiers have there heads down, (hiding) and can't really be seen at all?

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Galatine ]</p>

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I like his approach, aside from the potential for assaulting infantry to now have a convenient ready made fighting position to occupy during a firefight with friendlies occupying non-dummy foxholes.

<hr></blockquote>

That's the sort of detail that distinguishes an expert defender in CM from the masses of mediocre ones.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>