Jarmo Posted July 17, 2001 Share Posted July 17, 2001 The thought hit because of the situation we're in in the Winter's Storm campaingn at the Band of Brothers club. We've been in a deadlock situation around a few rivercrossings for quite a long time. Mainly harassing the other side with arty and some direct fire. I feel in RL both sides would have dug in by now. And I believe there were quite a few cases in WWII, where the trenchlines&foxholes of the opposing parties were quite close together. (In finnish front it was the standard situation throughout the war.) So how about it? Pretty please. At least for the scenarios. How about a whole new kind of quick battle? Stationary fight! Both ends of the map have flags, both sides can dig in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted July 17, 2001 Share Posted July 17, 2001 American fortifications and even trenches were common in places like Bologna, Italy even after Overlord had already started. Giving the Allies the chance to dig in in Operations or defensive scenarios would be nice indeed. Too late for CMBO, but I'm sure it will be included in CMBB. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 17, 2001 Share Posted July 17, 2001 Somewhere I saw a comment that entrenching would be handled much differently, being purchased as if fortifications are now rather than automatic foxholes. Jarmo--there is a solution to your problem. Make the scenario a 2 battle OP, and have both sides hide out for the first battle, which must be night, then the forces will dig in as placed for the next battle. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 18, 2001 Author Share Posted July 18, 2001 WWB, that's a possible workaround, I hadn't thought about it. We might be able to use it in Winters Storm. But I'd still rather have the "real thing". Gyrene, the allies can dig in when defending. What I meant was both sides dug in at the same time. I haven't seen any mention of this being included in CM2. Purchaseable trenches will work differently, but surely wont be availlable for attacker. I'm looking for "both sides are defending" kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 One reason it probably hasn't been implemented is that it takes some time to dig a decent sized foxhole. Given that a scenario is relatively short (ie less than 1 hour), it's probably pointless IMHO to have the ability to dig defences. Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geier Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Given that a scenario is relatively short (ie less than 1 hour), it's probably pointless IMHO to have the ability to dig defences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He's talking about attacking from and into prepared positions. "Going over the top" you know. As he mentioned, parts of the Finnish line had a "fixed" frontline for long periods. Plus I can see battles were contact was made the previous night, both sides/one side deciding to wait until dawn to attack and meanwhile digging in for the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 Mace, You seem to have hold of the wrong end of the stick (suprise, suprise). Trust a public servant to sow confusion and misunderstanding. The question is not the ability to dig in during an scenario but before which makes perfect sense for scenarios where the attacker may have been in place for some time before launching their attack. The principle being that you would dig in your support weapons (eg mortars, MGs etc) if you had time. Geddit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Geddit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's the point, Mace won't geddit anyway? Now if Finns were such Ubersoldiers, why did they need trenches??? Seriously though, this is a good suggestion. Did BTS say anything regarding whether both sides could have trenches? Apparently the Red Army at least sometimes created emplacements very close to the German frontline, to shorten the distance the assault would have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 Well now we've had a jolly old time slagging off Mace you can send me a turn cos no one has bothered today and I'm sitting here playing the AI while a bunch of women are jabbering away in the kitchen. Help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Well now we've had a jolly old time slagging off Mace you can send me a turn cos no one has bothered today and I'm sitting here playing the AI while a bunch of women are jabbering away in the kitchen. Help!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, I leave you to the women's mercy (now there's an oxymoron). Have to wait until tonight matey. What do you figure is the probable scoreline for the Aussies at the next test? I predict 970:0 with two innings and nine wickets to go. Or somefink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 OK. Well at least go over to the general forum and agree with me that "Panzer" Meyer was a bumbling fool and the 12th SS were nancy boys. As for the cricket, who knows. I'm an Aussie you know not a septic. We only crow after we've won not before. Quietly confident though, the boys are in good form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I'm an Aussie you know not a septic. We only crow after we've won not before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lucky you, you might have to live in a septic tank otherwise... Heading over to the mysterious General Forum now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 18, 2001 Author Share Posted July 18, 2001 Well by all means. Let's leak a few metric tonnes of cess around the thread. A sure way as any to get the attention of the "authorities", exactly what I'm after... Maybe Madmatt will even glance at the suggestion before clicking the padlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 18, 2001 Author Share Posted July 18, 2001 Waaaahh! Come back boys, I was only kidding! My thread is sinking! :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 18, 2001 Share Posted July 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Waaaahh! Come back boys, I was only kidding! My thread is sinking! :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you were whinging, I took the liberty to email the suggestion to Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 Jarmo, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I meant was both sides dug in at the same time. I haven't seen any mention of this being included in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good suggestion Not sure if we can swing this, but in theory it should be fairly easy. I'll send it off to Charles. If you see it in CMBB then it got in For scenarios made in the Editor, this will of course be possible as it is with CMBO. However, both sides will have access to all sorts of defensive stuff, while in CMBO the Allies had a smaller batch of choices. Steve [ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 Jarmo and Steve, I think Jarmo's idea is first rate, one I'd love to see implemented in QBs as well as the terrain generator. Who am I kidding? I wish we had it now. For one, it would allow some exciting possibilities for patrols, raids, prisoner snatches, etc., especially at night and in reduced visibility. For another, you could do some exciting operations in which if things went well, you might drive out the enemy and start the next battle in his field positions. Alternately, your men might set out on a mission, get walloped, then come racing and stumbling back, perhaps hotly pursued by the victors, who might in turn encounter vigilant HMGs. The possibilities are vast. Patrols might clash in the few hundred or few tens of meters between the two sides. It might even be necessary to suppress part of the enemy's defenses long enough to pass through a patrol. Similarly, if we could do this now the mod types would almost instantly have an Anzio op for us, complete with tweaked British paras as SAS running around causing all sorts of mayhem. Great idea, Jarmo! Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 I'd like to see more of these one-side only things changed, for example - let both sides gain exit points, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 19, 2001 Author Share Posted July 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Good suggestion Not sure if we can swing this, but in theory it should be fairly easy. I'll send it off to Charles. If you see it in CMBB then it got in For scenarios made in the Editor, this will of course be possible as it is with CMBO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not possible in CMBO. :confused: Anyways, me happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 Hi John, Sorry, but no small unit stuff like that planned for any CM. The focus of the game must remain Company - Battalion. As fun as it might be, it is too low level to do. Jarmo, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's not possible in CMBO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I should have qualified that. You can have both sides use defensive things like mines, barbed wire, etc. In CMBB this will be true as well, but in this case both will be able to purchase trenches, bunkers, mines, wire, etc. So think of it like CMBO, but with a lot more options for both sides. As for foxholes, we are going to do these a little differently. They will not be automatic for the defender any more. Common, yes, but not manditory. This is a good thing for the defender as it allows units to not be dug in or to place their foxholes in a location other than where the unit is. I'm hoping it won't be too much trouble to extend this to both sides in the same sceanrio. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 Will the foxholes still be one size fits all? ie will the snipers still be digging 12 man foxholes (in an exterme case)? Just curious Cpl Carrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 19, 2001 Share Posted July 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Mace, The question is not the ability to dig in during an scenario but before which makes perfect sense for scenarios where the attacker may have been in place for some time before launching their attack. The principle being that you would dig in your support weapons (eg mortars, MGs etc) if you had time. Geddit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoops, me bad! I support established entrenchements, in fact, I argued for it some time back (do a search)! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 20, 2001 Share Posted July 20, 2001 Cpl Carrot: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will the foxholes still be one size fits all? ie will the snipers still be digging 12 man foxholes (in an exterme case)? Just curious<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, they will be. We felt this was an abstraction that needs to be kept in place for now. When we rewrite the game engine we will most likely have different sized foxholes. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted July 20, 2001 Share Posted July 20, 2001 I didn't really think it would be changed until an engine rewrite. But you never know until you ask (and get a reply) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 20, 2001 Share Posted July 20, 2001 You've done it now Steve. As pointed out by Mace this topic has been discussed before as I can recall advocating it too. Now I know it slipped through the BTS net last time I'm gonna have to dig out that great long dissertation of ideas I had that I thought you knew all about but now I'm not so sure. Look out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts