Trenches v Foxholes

[Chappie]

What is the differences between trenches and foxholes in the game?

What are the advantages of trenches over foxholes?

Are they commonly employed, or should I say dug by human opponents.

Haven't come across them in QB with both human and computer opponents, so I wounder if they are worth the cost.

[nevermind]

You should play better opponents

Check the second post:

Percentages of Cover and Concealment

Also remember,units in trenches or foxholes located in scattered trees,woods,and tall pines are still susceptable to "tree burst" or "air burst" artillery.Which makes the trenches 9% exposure rating even while in open ground,very valuable

[JasonC]

Trenches are much, much better cover than foxholes. A foxhole in the open is 44% exposure. A trench is 10% exposure (9% with even a little concealment or a slightly degraded LOS). That means a unit in a trench is only taking 1/4 to 1/5 the incoming FP of a unit in a foxhole. A foxhole in trees is better, but still not as good as a trench.

Also, trenches are invisible until the enemy comes within about 175 yards. Because trenches are just as good in the open, they allow you to use bald hills, to avoid the most likely arty registration points, to set up on the exact reverse slope or military crest, and the like. Foxholes in these positions are very exposed, much worse than being in trees or buildings.

Try buying a couple of trenches and putting HMGs in them, then putting them far back in positions with very wide LOS. Far enough away, the MGs will remain mere sound contacts even while firing. Your forward units should keep the enemy more than 200 yards away, meaning he won't ID the trenches to shoot HE at them "area fire", either.

With no obvious aim point, he won't know where the sound contact actually is. (He may suspect it is that scattered tree tile - watch him plaster it and "hide" for a turn to make him think it worked). With great cover, he can call down arty from an FO and not phase the MG team. You can often expend the MGs entire ammo load with impunity, pinning everything that moves.

[Slappy]

I've used them (trenches) extremely successfully to beef up inexperienced units. On the defence, if you don't need to move them, green units in a trench have the staying power of regulars or veterans in foxholes in many situations. It is far cheaper to spend 10pts on the trenches than to buy up experience.

[Conscript Bagger]

Does anybody know if trenches are exposed to air-/treeburst arty, or do they include overhead cover?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Impudent Warwick:

Does anybody know if trenches are exposed to air-/treeburst arty, or do they include overhead cover?

They are open-topped. Treebursts do affect them. Thus I usually place them in brush, never in woods (not much of a bonus in woods or trees vs foxholes anyway).

[Conscript Bagger]

Duly noted. Thanks.

[nevermind]

Originally posted by nevermind:

You should play better opponents

Check the second post:

Percentages of Cover and Concealment

Also remember,units in trenches or foxholes located in scattered trees,woods,and tall pines are still susceptable to "tree burst" or "air burst" artillery.Which makes the trenches 9% exposure rating even while in open ground,very valuable

:eek:

I guess i need to work on my english.

[Conscript Bagger]

Well, if you're relying on that link for your treeburst statement, I couldn't find any confirmation that trenches are susceptible. Jason's post just says foxholes are.

[edit]

In fact, after a third reading, he says trenches are not susceptible to treeburst (relevant parts bolded below):

Trenches are quite powerful, incidentally. They do not have the direct HE weaknesses of even heavy buildings ... or the indirect HE weakness of wooded foxholes - which are vunerable to heavy artillery airbursts, though adequate against light mortar fire.

[ January 22, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Impudent Warwick ]

[JasonC]

Right, but that is because you don't have to put them in woods or pines. To get protection like a trench gives, a foxhole has to be in one of those forest types. Which makes treebursts an issue. A trench, on the other hand, can go in open ground, or wheat, or brush, and still give full protection. Without any tree bursts possible.

If you *do* put a trench inside trees - which is a bit of a waste usually - then treebursts can still hurt the guys in the trench. One way this can happen even with smart trench placement, though, is when you put the very end of a trench inside of woods, so you can move from one to the other (using the woods as a covered route out of the trench, e.g.).

[Conscript Bagger]

Thanks, that clears it up for me.

[Omi]

Do trenches also protect guns? It seems to be the case from what I have seen so far, but I'm not sure.

[JasonC]

Yes trenches also protect guns. But guns are most vulnerable to very close HE shots, from mortars or direct fire. And those are the things that work best against trenches too. A near enough hit by 75mm or larger HE will still take out the gun. A trench does provide excellent protection from FO delivered arty, however. (Anything that lands outside the trench is unlikely to do much). Another big benefit is stealth in otherwise open ground e.g. on a bald hill.

[Beta1]

I often entrench AT guns mainly to allow me to put them somewhere unexpected - eg between obvious bits of cover.

It works pretty nicely in a recent game my opponent fired what looked like a couple of on board 81mm mortars worth of rounds at one of my guns. I broke LOS with a smoke shell fired directly ahead of the gun and despite being bombarded for the best part of 5 minutes the gun crew were never even pinned. Eventually a T34-85 turned up and KOed the gun after another couple of minutes of fire (shortly afterwards a second AT opened up at 90 degrees to the first and KOed the T34).

Ditto with the MGs, you can blaze away for ever from a trench and not give away your position. And even if they do find you a HMG in a trench is probably more survivable than a MG bunker. Especially if you start one end of a trench and once the area fire starts up you sneak to the other end to get away.

[Redwolf]

In the early CMBB versions Trenches were extremely easy to spot, apparently there was a bug that LOS-breaking cover wasn't taken into account.

Trenches could be put to great use by being placed somewhere and then left empty. A human opponent would bomb the hell out of them while you are munching popcorn.

Nowadays you have to come close enough to spot them that you will also take them reasonably quickly

[ January 29, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Chappie]

Can trenches be linked?

That is creating a complex that would allow movement throughout a series of linked trenches without losing your cover.

[Redwolf]

I works but it is useless because CMBB and CMAK trenches do not shield you from the supressive impact of MG fire.

If somebody fire a MG area fire anywhere 25m from the trench, then troops will not move in that trench in that area. They don't get hit or spotted, but they get supressed.

[Sanok]

What's the reasoning behind making trenches so superior to foxholes? They're both essentially the same thing: a hole in the ground. We must remember, foxholes are abstracted anyway. There isn't one, huge hole containing every member of a squad. There could be ten different holes, each containing one man. Is this realistic or poor modeling?

[Redwolf]

I don't mind that you can buy extra-strong fortifications.

But what I would really like to know is why on earth a foxhole in CM in open ground has an exposure rate of 45% :confused:

Take a full-body picture of yourself and mark the upper 45%. Can you imagine you fight from a foxhole and leave that much of your body exposed?

In particular since even open ground is already supposed to have 25% cover "for free".

[Wisbech_lad]

I've always assumed that fox holes are small slit trenchs and scrapes, dug in a few hours with a spade. 2-4 feet deep

A trench would be deep enough to allow hidden movement, with a firing step. Timber reinforcement of the trench walls. 6-8 feet deep, maybe dugouts to ride out arty bombardments.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

I've always assumed that fox holes are small slit trenchs and scrapes, dug in a few hours with a spade. 2-4 feet deep

Can you point me to any photo showing so shallow foxholes for actual frontline use (not counting rear area mortar fire protection for the night).

Of course there are reasons like frozen ground, idioticy or lack of a spade but in general?

And even then, do you think your would show 45% of your body (that is pretty much from stomach on upwards when standing upright) when the hole is 2-4 inch deep? Check the photo or mirror again to validate how much that is.

I don't even expose that much behind a shooting range table.

[ February 16, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Sanok]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

I've always assumed that fox holes are small slit trenchs and scrapes, dug in a few hours with a spade. 2-4 feet deep

A trench would be deep enough to allow hidden movement, with a firing step. Timber reinforcement of the trench walls. 6-8 feet deep, maybe dugouts to ride out arty bombardments.

This makes sense, but the post directly above yours about foxholes in open ground being 45% exposure is an excellent point. Infantry has less exposure in a grain field. I think BFC just did a major flub job on how they modelled them.

[Wisbech_lad]

Bridge/Road = 100%

Wheatfield exposure - 60%

Wheatfield with fox hole = 44%

Open ground - 75%

Open ground with fox hole = 44%

Crater = 44%

Foxhole - about 40% less incoming FP than open ground, 26% than wheatfield

So in CM - foxhole = crater, thus my comment about 2-4 feet.

Remember CM abstracts different types of weapons as FP - so direct fire/ HE direct/ HE indirect all are given a FP number.

That 75% - 100% exposure for open ground/ roads is for stationary units. Prone/ seeking what cover they can, so only exposing a head/shoulders target anyway

So a foxhole wouldn't give much more protection against incoming bullets than open ground, assuming you are firing back. (target profile about the same), where it helps is against HE, especially indirect.

Maybe in the rewrite, FP and cover will be more detailed (e.g. smg less penetration than lmg) but at present it is trying to put a multitude of effects against different threats in one number - both the chance of seeing/ hitting the target, and then the likelihood of that hit penetrating the cover. I.e. 45% does not mean 55% of your body is visible, it is an abstract number reducing the FP received from any source

Redwolf - if you want to show troops heavily dug in (rather than hasty positions) then use trenches. I agree, most troops in place any length of time would be well dug in.

[DavidFields]

Perhaps the foxhole exposure number be a concession from BFC to allow for better play?

I would think that attacking very well dug in infantry would usually take more than the hour or so that most scenarios involve. Also, it would likely take a major artillery barrage--which BFC purposely avoids by stating the scenarios take place after the major barrages. (and I think many players find large artillery barrages less fun than infantry and tank tactics)

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

I.e. 45% does not mean 55% of your body is visible, it is an abstract number reducing the FP received from any source

You have the numbers reversed, it is 45% exposure.

So how would a FP reduction of 55% be different from 45% visible, model-wise?

Redwolf - if you want to show troops heavily dug in (rather than hasty positions) then use trenches. I agree, most troops in place any length of time would be well dug in.

Tell that to the scenario designers.

Also, a trench is expensive, if you shop yourself. And it should be, because it is much more than a foxhole (in reality and in CM). It allows movement (except against CMBB and CMAK machineguns) and slows down tanks. It is not as flexible as foxholes because you cannot spread it out. It is also more visible.

So a trench is not a good replacement for a bunch of foxholes.