Trenches Rule, Bunkers Suck

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Now hold on - has anyone tried pushing an AT gun into a trench?

Well I tried placing them in trenches, works fine.

I could find that they are that much more robust, though, certainly not much better than foxholes in woods. And of course you know that the trench gets instantly spotted when any enemy unit gets within 200 meters of it. A single half-squad ruins your day.

However, guns in trenches are good f you find that only open ground offers good firing positions for guns. Foxholes in the open totally suck (see above), so the trench in the open allows you to shape the terrain a little. </font>

[Juju]

Now hold on - Has anyone just put a couple of cheap trenches in a location just to make it look an area is defended? Seems like a simple trick to slow down an attacker for a few crucial minutes. Gamey, perhaps.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Not really the point I was trying to make, sorry - the discussion revolved around "in the case of an anti-tank gun, think of it less as a trench than as a predug gun pit" - I am just wondering if it is possible (without opening up CMBB and doing a test scenario) to push an AT gun into a "trench", as this would seem to invalidate that line of thought...or was BTS way ahead of us on that one....

I did it once by accident. I thought my AT gun was in the trench but it started in a foxhole just next too it (the Place function in the setup mode doesn't actually say TRENCH). I pushed it in no problemo.

Aaron

[ January 28, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

[simply: foxholes represent hasty fortifications. The troops simply didn't had time to dig a proper trench or didn't expect heavy enemy attacks in their area.

If you want to simulate well dug-in troops, don't use foxholes.

I wish you could dig in in real time and create foxholes or least some form of shell scrape

Boris

london

[Gutshot]

I use one of the "zig-zag" trench mods,beautiful-looking!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Not really the point I was trying to make, sorry - the discussion revolved around "in the case of an anti-tank gun, think of it less as a trench than as a predug gun pit" - I am just wondering if it is possible (without opening up CMBB and doing a test scenario) to push an AT gun into a "trench", as this would seem to invalidate that line of thought...or was BTS way ahead of us on that one....

I did it once by accident. I thought my AT gun was in the trench but it started in a foxhole just next too it (the Place function in the setup mode doesn't actually say TRENCH). I pushed it in no problemo.

Aaron </font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Juju:

Now hold on - Has anyone just put a couple of cheap trenches in a location just to make it look an area is defended? Seems like a simple trick to slow down an attacker for a few crucial minutes. Gamey, perhaps.

For best results, have one empty trench in front. Enemy will shot it up, waste ammo and time.

The next trench is 201 meters behind it. Also empty. After a close look he will cheerfuly rush it.

25 meters behind that are your flamethrowers.

If you can, build the whole thing so that the second trench is in woods. It doesn't help against spotting of the trench, but depending on terrain you may be able to set up your flamethrowers so that they barely have LOS to your trench, but not to the open ground in front of the trench (no return fire from AFVs which didn't rush into the trench, obviously).

[KursruK]

Using a trench as a half-assed road-block is also a useful tool. Especially against *uber* german armor with high PSI ratings. It can also slow down AFV speed at critical "g-spots" in your fire-lanes, giving you more time to wax those t-34s with AT guns.

[WWB]

Hehe redwolf, still remember that game eh.

One big thing has been missed in this discussion. Trenches are great at holding out against Arty. They are not nearly as much protection against direct fire HE. Start tossing 75mm or better shells at a unit in one and it will break.

WWB

[xerxes]

Log Bunkers are excellent tank magnets. With a log bunker on the board you just know a tank is going to show up. That's why your AT gun covers the firing positions on the bunker. That's also why your AT mines are setup on top of the firing positions on the bunker.

Everything has it's value.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Log Bunkers are excellent tank magnets. With a log bunker on the board you just know a tank is going to show up. That's why your AT gun covers the firing positions on the bunker. That's also why your AT mines are setup on top of the firing positions on the bunker.

Everything has it's value.

I agree with the general trend to favor trenches with HMGs over log bunkers (which also sucked in CMBO) but there is ONE good use for them I've found, which is to place them in a position where they cover rough or sloping terrain where tanks cannot go. I just had a battle (vs. AI, admittedly) where such an MG bunker watching my otherwise unguarded flank held up an enemy inf attack long enough for reinforcements to get over and stop the attack cold.

So, if you get an MG bunker in a scenario, place it to cover terrain where tanks will not be a factor.

[JasonC]

Wbb is right that the only cost effective way to clock the guys in a trench is to hit 'em with accurate direct HE. The problem is, where the heck are they?

You don't get the trench ID until close. And if the defender is smart, when he sees a tank pull up once people are that close, he goes all quiet like and vanishes. Then you see empty trench.

You can still chuck in the HE, but you have to pick the right *part* of the trench. Seriously, if you aim at the center of it with 76mm HE and he is off at one end, you will push him to "alerted" but nothing further.

You can proceed systematically, left right and center, and in three minutes plaster each part. That works, and will pin whoever is in there. Of course, only getting "visited" once every three minutes, they will rally.

So, bring a platoon and HE the whole trench at once. Kaboom! 15 shells go in, and yep you will pin or perhaps break whoever is in there. Two minutes, 30 shells, you'll break 'em. If, that is, anybody still is in there.

You get to do this clear across the map. Oh joy. That'll be fast, and the HE loads are sure to hold out. (Incidentally, it also shows that the same solution is needed for trenches as for bunkers. But with bunkers it works in under 2 minutes at 500 yards).

OK so no, maybe it is better to send a half squad to see if anyone is in there, while the tank(s) overwatch. Then at least you get full ID, and can break them in one minute with accurate fire.

Of course, it also means that after slaving through 300 yards of fire lanes, you still get to lose a half squad just to find out if the buggers are still there.

Then the half squad gets pinned by ranged MG fire from an unlocated sound contact 300m off to the right. Loverly. Change route, try again. Found a covered way. And the mines. Joy.

As for the 2 trenches and 2 FTs game, not even close to the right way to play it. I mean, if the 2 FTs ambush an SMG squad that just entered the wonderful cover of a trench, the FTs are likely to lose. Quite seriously.

And after the traps is sprung, if it all works perfectly you roasted one squad, at the cost of 70 points on teams and fortifications. And are left with a little FT "minefield" holding a small wood. It covers perhaps 60m of width against close infantry attack, maybe, if unsuppressed.

Instead, spend the same on 2 trenches and 2 HMG teams. Put the defending HMGs in the trenches instead of putting the attacking infantry in the trenches. Cross arcs of the HMGs in open ground ahead of the little wood, instead of waiting inside it with the FTs.

You will clobber about 10 times the stuff. Without being spotted. Same cost. You will cover not 60m against close infantry movements by single squads or at most a platoon, but more like 600m, against whole companies.

2 is good. 4 is better. Now, it is still too easy for him to get MG sound contacts and maneuver against them. So put 2-4 LMG "outposts" in the mix. Similar sound, similarly annoying pins at medium range, no trench, cost pennies. But don't seem so dangerous.

Now, it gets really fun. Turn the firing on and off in different places. Relocate a few of the LMGs (only), while the enemy is still at 250 yards. You place them to begin with in the middle of cover.

Sneak to the backside, then move, using slopes or woods as LOS blocks. Move about 150 yards; counting the delay it will take you 2 minutes. Don't try this with the slow HMGs, just the expendable and medium speed LMG "dummies".

Now, sprinkle AP mines in the available cover on the approach routes. Steer him with wired off areas of cover, to keep him 250 yards from the HMG trenches, while letting him get closer to the LMG "dummies". "Herd" him with fire lanes, not set to the limits of LOS fields of view so he can't deduce firing positions just from where he gets shot and where he doesn't.

That is the cake, now the icing. Pick a place along the approach march where he can actually fit a lot of men, where he will want to send all of the busted sorry saps the MGs pin and break, to reform them. A large wood, wheatfield, big spot of brush in dead ground. Put a TRP there, and be very patient. Wait until the flag markers in that area reach epic proportions. Do not disturb the peaceful war-weary blighters with direct fire, until the actual barrage.

Defense scheme opportunities in CMBB are so good it is nearly criminal...

[Monty's Double]

I set up a game against the AI to try out trench effectiveness, with a load of light guns, AT rifles and MGs against lots of light armour and infantry (steppe and open, small hills). Just my observation, but it looked like the guns didn't get quite as much cover as the MGs, and I had 2 guns KOed without crew casualties. I'm guessing the AI was modelling damage to the guns in these cases (morale was no worse than Shaken, I'm sure). Also, although things started well, suddenly the AI withdrew, put down smoke and blow me if he didn't do a flank charge. Now that made me think; trenches look straight, but are they coded to include zig-zags, to prevent enfilading (correct me if that's not the right term) fire?

[Hans]

I have found that placing a bunker inside a trench makes it much harder for the tank to hit.

[Eden Smallwood]

One sophistication which I suspect is unfortunately not in the game: Has anyone ever witnessed a unit in a trench, who breaks and runs, (or crawls!), take an available *trench avenue* to safety?

Id est, he could run through the trench maze I've set up back to the safe factory, but he doesn't- he always starts crawling or running out of the trench back to the map edge, over open ground...

Eden

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Hans:

I have found that placing a bunker inside a trench makes it much harder for the tank to hit.

Are you sure about that Hans? I have played many games where I place the bunker inside a trench. They seem to get knocked out just as quickly, and (from hotseat tests,)it does absolutly nothing to aid the exposure rating.

I will still place bunkers in trenches sometimes, but that is so I can protect the bunker in different way, usually by throwing an MG or an AT gun it, right on top of the pillbox. The biggest weakness of the pillbox is its lack of flexibility, if you place a mobile 75mm AT gun right on top of a 75mm pillbox, you not only double your forward AT capability, which is extremely useful if your opponent decides to "rush" the pillbox with armor from different directions, but you have the flexibility in case enemy AFVs find a way around the pillbox firing radius.

Originally posted by redwolf:

First they are spotted at 200m no matter what, even if a shocked vehicle goes backwards though fog towards a trench deep in heavy woods.

You have said this to be true for sometime now. It is not. I just played another game last night where I was unable to spot the trench until roughly 30 meters away from it!

[ January 29, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Apache]

Interesting posts, some good ideas here. On the FOW front I must admit I always use EFOW but I sometimes wonder whether the setting is a little too extreme. Some of those I play are starting to move towards the FULL rather than EXTREME. Any views in the context of this topic?

[Sergei]

Personally, I'd much rather see MG bunkers implemented not as units but as structures that infantry can enter to get bonuses, like trenches or foxholes are. That's how it is done in Talonsoft's West/East Front, although I can see deficiencies with that as well.

I would be happy to have some more information on log and concrete bunkers. So far it has been told that IRL digging a section of trench would take six man-hours (2x3h). I take this figure means on unfrozen soil.

How long does it take to build a bunker, then?

Are CMBB trenches log-reinforced?

[JasonC]

With the right tools and materials, a squad of men can build a log bunker in a day's work. They typically used 2 layers of trees laid crisscross fashion, a layer or two of sandbags between and on top, then topped with looser earth to help camo them (and hide the dirt moved making them, somewhat - some goes in the sandbag) and for an added layer of protection.

They were meant to provide overhead cover against artillery up to 105mm, as well as stopping bullets naturally. A direct hit by 150s and up would take them out, but not below that. Armor piercing stuff could get through, unless small caliber. Whether it did anything inside is another question. Yes with a large enough burster or just a high enough energy shell, little for low caliber solid shot.

Concrete pillboxes were meant to withstand direct hits by artillery up to 8 inch caliber. It would take a battleship gun or a 1000 lb armor piercing bomb to take one out. The easier way was to put HE through the firing slit, but that wasn't easy. Some had seperate rooms to contain smaller blasts. Some were just dugouts, meant to shelter troops during barrages rather than to be manned as fighting positions. They required large formations of engineers with industrial equipment, and plenty of time (in practice, months working in an area).

The primary problem the bunkers have in CM right now is that they are too easy to spot, the log ones in particular. They are modeled as vehicles, which makes them virtually impossible to hide. In reality, log bunkers were often built nearly flush with the earth, with most of their "height" below ground, and in places where the rise in the ground made them look natural. And they were well camoed. The spotting range once firing might be farther than a HMG in a trench, but something like twice as far, not to infinity and even before they open fire.

A secondary problem is that the vehicle model used for damage to them is one of "once broken, never used again". Which is reasonably accurate on CM time scales for penetrated medium tanks. But not for an MG nest. If the men inside took casualties or bailed out or were completely KOed, it did not make the hole in the ground go away. If they did bail out, they could rally like anyone else.

Sure, a KOed gun bunker could only be re-manned as an MG one, and a big enough penetrating hit might destroy the thing completely, leaving effectively rubble. But a 37mm AA round through the firing slit did not break it like an egg for the rest of a battle. Unlike medium tanks, bunkers have no working parts besides the men inside them, who can rally or be replaced.

A trench MG reflects this. Down a man and temporarily broken, they are back in a few minutes, unless they remain under continuous fire or somebody closes with them to finish them off. Not so with a bunker MG. It is a limitation of the "vehicle" model of their characteristics.

[MikeyD]

Juju asked:

"Has anyone just put a couple of cheap trenches in a location just to make it look an area is defended?"

I'm reminded of a piece of reference the Beta group got to see, a diagram from an official Russian manual showing a 'fake' trench system placed ahead of the true trench system specifically designed to absorb artillery fire and exhaust the assaulting Germans. So your gamey trench tactic is actually offficial Russian doctrine!

Gamey Bolchevics.

[SgtMuhammed]

The earlier discussion about foxholes has the order of construction backwards. First you build hasty positions which are the ones modelled in the game. Second you make them into real fighting positions with overhead cover and such. Then you connect them with communication trenches and then those get expanded into fighting trenches.

If you start trying to build trenches you leave yourself open to a sudden attack which you will have to defend with a short stretch of half dug trenchline.

There needs to be a defensive option for fighting positions to come between trenches and foxholes. Of course these would only be availible to a force on the defensive but it would more realistally reflect the way troops dig in.

Also, using trenches as a road block is a decent way of sumulating a hasty tank ditch. Fortifications in general seems to be something that deserves a good look in future CM engines.

[ January 29, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

[tar]

Although I haven't done any detailed testing, I was always annoyed in CMBO that HMGs in foxholes seemed to last longer against tank fire than bunker MGs. If anything, one would expect the opposite results.

As JasonC notes, that is because of the modeling of MG bunkers are being more vehicle like rather than foxhole like.

[Sidewinder]

In a recent TCP game with Pillar i had a gun on the reverse slope of a ridge with los across my left side, and it was in a trench. Now, the fact that it was on a ridgeline played some part in this equation but i can't help but feel the trench played an important role as well. The gun took a few direct hits which would have otherwise caused it to abandon, and the gun was able to force 4 out of 5 panthers to bail, as well as one StuG.

In another game, my guards rifle platoon was assaulting a single panzergrenadier squad in a trench and i took 6 or 7 casualties, and at the end all of my squads had low ammo. You have to be right up beside and usually in the trench to do anything with infantry, and the cost can sometimes be too high. Trenches are definetly awsome for stopping infantry.

[Sidewinder]

Whoops, double post

[ January 29, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Sidewinder ]

[JasonC]

Sgt Goody said "There needs to be a defensive option for fighting positions to come between trenches and foxholes."

I must say I don't think so. I think the stuff they've already given us is fine, with the drawbacks of bunkers already mentioned the exception to that.

A hasty position can be simulated by allowing foxholes with no fall back positions, a few TRPs, and no trenches, wire, or mines. Give the attacker only "probe" odds. The defender will use the woods he gets along with his foxholes, buildings or rubble, etc. He will get cover varying from 10% to 25% or so, with 15% normal.

A somewhat more prepared position can be simulated by adding fall backs, slightly more TRPs, and limit numbers of trenches, wire and mines. Give the attacker "attack" odds. A few seperated trenches adequately simulates gun pits, dugouts, a few overhead cover sandbag nests, etc. It won't put everyone in 10% cover, but the more important bits of the defense can be. Everyone else gets decent cover and alternate fighting positions. I'd allow log bunkers at this level but not concrete.

Full blown "anything goes" use of trenches, wire and mines should be saved for "assault" odds situations, meant to simulate well prepared defenses. Pillboxes may be allowed in those or not, as desired. Everybody will have good artillery cover, and obstacles will protect most of the defense. Foxhole positions will be used for outposts, reserve or intermediate lines, etc.

You don't need an intermediate fortification type, because you get the mixed effect by mixing the two you already have. Besides, the cover difference in infantry fighting between a trench and a wooded foxhole is only about 50% (it is admittedly more like double if you don't have woods, or avoid them to dodge airbursts etc).

To me the only reforms that would seriously help are "stealthier" bunkers, treated more like infantry for spotting purposes, and more use of "vehicle morale" and "crew casualties" to model hit effects on bunkers, rather than "shocked" and "knocked out" results.

On the latter subject, you can resolve the effects as they are now, but then "code" the outcome differently, in terms of the damage the bunker and crew sustain. A "knocked out" becomes an automatic "broken" on the crew. Crew losses plus 1, perhaps. The vehicle morale system was substantially improved for CMBB - use it.

Large caliber rounds can truly "knock out" over and above this, but make it a second determination, and rare for anything under 75mm, common only for stuff over 100mm, middling for the tank main gun calibers. Small AP through the wall or the firing slits should cause "shaken" (worse if that is how they react, but that as a minimum) and a crew loss, but not a permanent KO.

It'd be great if a "knocked out" result on a gun bunker "downgraded" it into an MG one, but that may be too much to ask. Because sure, the gun inside is a breakable and not easily replaced mechanical working part.

Then instead of any tank KOing the thing forever inside of a minute, your hit them and they'd break. To kill all of them off, beyond possibility of rally aka remanning, would take a big gun or repeated pounding by medium ones. Small ones might bleed a bunker crew to nothing one man at a time.

What you wouldn't see is the present "oh, the outside cracked, this reinforced hole in the ground is now gone" behavior. The men inside could rally from prior "damage" if left alone long enough. That, and not seeing them instantly clear across the battlefield, and people would use them.