Those darn scary fox lairs in the woods?

[Kavy]

Or foxholes, whichever.

Lets say you find your infantry in some nice woods(or tall pines or similar covered area) and in the woods you also see a nice big crater or similar pit, where do you park your infantry to get best cover from incoming enemy(hopefully enemy) fire? Choises being 'just the woods' or 'in the crater in the woods'.

Of course any dip in the ground should be an obvious choise, but is it so in the game? So is a crater in the woods better than just the woods? And the different sized craters in the game do have different defensive values? I mean you 'can' put a squad of over 10 men in those tiny small little craters...

And to not to make myself sound too intelligent, is it better to have trenches in open, or in woods? Woods provide visual cover, but also those whatchamacallits... treebursts from artillery. I would say woods, but havent really seen much difference from placed in the open.

[Aco4bn187inf]

As I recall- foxhole, crater or trench in the woods is better than just woods. You can test it by designing a scenario with enemy units in all such types of cover, then have have your unit point it's fire command at each of them and see what percentage it tells you.

As for tree bursts, I think units in foxholes and craters in woods are probably more vulnerable to artillery, but the trench seems to protect from tree bursts (and everything else) pretty well.

I have just been shelling a pair of guns in a trench in scattered trees with a fair amount of 105 mm arty, and all I achieved was to injure one crew member.

Of course, the concealment provided by trees is an important factor in survivability anyway.

[Leprechaun]

Foxholes and craters (basically the same as regards cover and concealment) increase cover and concealment in woods' tiles so they are good choices for unit placement.

Trenches, interestingly enough, offer the same cover and concealment and are spotted at 200m regardless of the type of terrain they are placed in. Because of this, and wanting to negate the possibility of a tree burst exacerbating damage, I don't like to place trenches in woods/pines.

[JasonC]

This contradicts mine own experience. Craters and foxholes are not equivalent in this respect.

In open, a crater is as good as a foxhole. Making it one of the better forms of "open ground cover" - also it is all "cover" rather than "concealment", unlike wheat or brush.

But crater is a terrain type - and overrides the other terrain type present. Foxholes in woods are dramatically better because they don't override the woods. Instead, foxholes in woods are better than woods - though only marginally better in the case of full woods or pines, against infantry type fire. Scattered trees, the improvement is more significant. It is also more significant against HE, because more of it is cover rather than concealment.

But it is the excellent woods cover that is being marginally improved by the foxhole, not the other way around. Woods of any kind are better than a foxhole in the open - and that is what a crater is. So in woods, stay out of the craters, but use the foxholes. I'm not saying that is realistic, just the gamey way to use best, how the concealment factors appear to work.

As for trenches, they are better than even full woods or pines. Even when placed in the open. In woods is something of a waste and overkill, cover-wise. Everyone in woods is also more vulnerable to mortar fire and FO artillery fire, since it gets occasional treebursts.

Normally that would mean a trench without woods is better than one with them. There is only one quibble, though. Units moving while in a trench will draw fire as though moving in the open, and can experience "cover panic" despite being in 9% cover. Realistically infantry should be able to move at upright rates through trenches without serious exposure. But in the game they cannot.

Because of this, it is often useful to have at least some form of concealment type cover for a trench, especially if you intend to use it to reposition units, rather than as a one time, stand and die, fighting position.

FWIW...

[Kavy]

Sounds like you guys know what youre talking about. So I'll have to believe you.

Doing offensive maneuvers I've come to conclusion that when going thru woods(or similar, but especially woods) your troops can do better just advancing thru the woods than going thru possible craters and foxholes for added cover. Slows and tires them. To have a mg or similar take 'better' positions during offensive in a crater in the woods is too something that I dont like to do. Takes time to get there, and to get out. And like said, doest really add that much defence. But its all quite...umm, case sensitive.

[Leprechaun]

Never realized there was a difference between craters and foxholes and didn't know about the movement in the trench either, thanks.