Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 According to the manual trenches provide "considerably more cover and concealment". It is true that you have to get pretty close to a trench to see who is inside, but the trench itself is visible from 200m! Kind of defeats the purpose. Just try to conduct an ambush: who in their right mind is going walk up to a trench they spotted 200m away? Not without a lot of arty on it first, heheheh. What is interesting is that the trench is spotted as soon as any spotting unit is within 200m and has LOS, no matter how poor the LOS is. The trench can be 20 meters deep in woods and it is still instantly spotted by a unit walking towards it from 200m away. How about making the spotting distance the same as for foxholes? 100m for clear and light terrain (wheat, bushes, etc), 30m for scattered trees, 15m for woods and pines? Even so I am not sure why you can spot foxholes in tall wheat fromm 100m, but that is a different story... Something that would be very, very cool and historically accurate would be a trench type with overhead cover to reduce the effects of light arty, mortars, treebursts, etc. It was common for the Russians to build these very quickly, particularly after establishing a bridgehead across a river. The German tactical advice was to attack these bridgeheads ASAP, because within 24 hours the Russians would all be under overhead cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Try dropping a crapload of arty 155mm and smaller on trenches. It does not do that much damage. We went through a good debate on trenches during the beta, they simulate the very tough, well developed type with overhead cover, etc. Trench lines were spottable from distance, and are still reasonably tough to spot in the woods. If you want an ambush, dont put guys in trenches. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 I have easily routed infantry in trenches with onboard 81mm mortars. Trees have NO effect on spotting trenches as long as there is any LOS at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Bumping this because it seems to be a bug worthy of fixing in the patch. Trenches in woods should not be instantly spotted as soon as an enemy unit moves within 200 meters. As a comparison, a foxhole in woods is not spotted until the enemy unit is less than 15 meters away. Trenches are an important addition to CMBB. This instant spottability removes a great deal of their usefullness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beekeeper Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 According to various first person accounts from the American Civil War, trenches, particularly fresh trenches, were detectable at long range unless well within a woodline. In heavy woods, such as we have here in Georgia, Union troops very rarely just ran into or were ambushed from trenches. What usually tipped them off was that excavating a trench yields a huge quantity of dirt that is piled up in front of the trench toward the enemy. This dirt, depending on the geographical location, sometimes contrasts quite markedly with the surrounding flora and is very visible. Anyway, I've been fortunate in that my last two houses had Confederate trenches on the property so I've had alot of time to look at them while cutting wood or whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty's Double Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Isn't there a distinction between foxholes, which are dug by the troops occupying them, often just before a battle, and trenches, which are usully develped over time, and would likely be part of an attacking force's intel? Therefore, the attacking commander would be aware of the trenches before his troops had spotted them. Which is what I'm gueesing the game is representing. Or a meringue? (say it with a Glasgow accent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Russian field fortifications were considerably more sophisticated than those found in the American Civil War. German attack forces often did not locate Russian positions until they had walked past them and were shot in the back. Quite often the Germans would encounter Russian dugouts which were roofed over with thick logs, covered with earth, and camouflaged to the point where they were visible from only a few meters away. Some where constructed with rearward facing fields of fire and were invisible from the front. See "On Infantry", by J. English and B. Gudmundsson for some good accounts of Russian defensive techniques. Also "Panzer Battles" by Von Mellenthin, an officer who worked under Rommel before serving in Russia. He has a detailed "lessons learned" section on fighting the Russians, although tinged with a little racism. Although it may be too much to expect CMBB to model all of the fine details of field fortifications, it would be nice if the spotting rules were more acurate. Being able to spot a Russian trench of the WWII era from 200 meters when said trench is located 20 meters deep in woods terrain is contrary to any accounts that I am aware of. Spotting from 20 meters would be more accurate. As it is now, whether the trench is in woods or clear has no effect on spotting at all! CMBB is a giant step forward over CMBO in modelling infantry combat. Considering the incredible detail in the armoured combat simulation (all the way down to the Brinnel hardness of the alloys), field fortifications seem a little neglected. Fixing the bug in the trench spotting model seems relatively easy to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liebchen Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 What you are describing there sounds to me like bunkers, not trenches. The game certainly allows you to set up rear-facing bunkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Bunkers in the game can't be occupied by infantry. I am sorry if I confused things by bringing up historical examples of field fortifications. All I want is to have trenches fixed so they aren't a big neon sign telling the enemy "Hey, I'm over here!" [ October 10, 2002, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Broken! ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 I agree with broken (as usual, BTW). I don't think this can go into the patch, but I would really like to see, both for foxholes and trenches, two variants, tough ones which are easy to spot and hasty ones which are difficult to spot but offer few protection. The "trenches light" would still allow you to move under protection like a light foxhole. I didn't measure in CMBB yet but I assume that foxholes in the open still leave more than 50% exposure. I don't think this is a useful representation of a dug-in military force, I would like to have a decent foxhole with some stones or other cover dragged to. I don't have CMBB in front of me, could someone post the exposure percentages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Originally posted by Broken!: Bunkers in the game can't be occupied by infantry. I am sorry if I confused things by bringing up historical examples of field fortifications. All I want is to have trenches fixed so they aren't a big neon sign telling the enemy "Hey, I'm over here!"Or do they. Great way to soak off enemy ammo is to put an unoccupied trench system somewhere . . . Also, before bitching about spotting, play a few hotseat games against yourself to see what really happens. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Hi Redwolf, I haven't checked foxholes lately, but I think they provide the about same cover as craters; ie, exposure is about 44% for foxholes in clear terrain as opposed to 75% for clear with no foxhole. Exposure in trenches is in the 7% to 9% range, about the same as a heavy building. Unfortunately, trenches gain no terrain benefit for concealment purposes. It is as easy to spot trenches located in woods as it is in clear. Since foxholes are concealed better in woods, it seems there is a bug in the trench model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 WWB, I have hotseated this. That is exactly why I am "bitching" as you put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Originally posted by Broken!: I haven't checked foxholes lately, but I think they provide the about same cover as craters; ie, exposure is about 44% for foxholes in clear terrain as opposed to 75% for clear with no foxhole. Exposure in trenches is in the 7% to 9% range, about the same as a heavy building. This doesn't make sense. The foxholes in CMBO (the same as now in CMBB) has always been bashed for not offering enough cover. The explanation has always been that they model very shallow and hasty work, "15-minutes foxholes". How can a force have the time to build decent trenches (with 1/6th of the exposure) when they still don't get more than 15 minutes to work on the foxholes they actualy want to fight from. This is not at all realistic. Maybe I am oversimplifying but in my opinion trenches and foxholes could just be equaled out to offer the same protection (not the same concealment, though). Unfortunately, trenches gain no terrain benefit for concealment purposes. It is as easy to spot trenches located in woods as it is in clear. Since foxholes are concealed better in woods, it seems there is a bug in the trench model.I guess this bug is related to the transparent brush LOS bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 I agree with WWB -- I actually prefer it the way it is now, with trenches easily spotted. A couple of unoccupied trenches sited in the right place act as both an obstacle and a distraction for your opponent. "Is the trench occupied? Do I waste HE on it?" These kind of mind games help sap away enemy ammo, and provide an extra (needed) edge to the defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Zero Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Originally posted by Capt. Toleran: A couple of unoccupied trenches sited in the right place act as both an obstacle and a distraction for your opponent. "Is the trench occupied? Do I waste HE on it?" These kind of mind games help sap away enemy ammo, and provide an extra (needed) edge to the defender.Squad Leader - ´Hey guys, forget about resting when you´ve finished digging your own good-for-nothing foxholes and start working on some serious WWI-style threnches that we´re not actually going to use...´ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Redwolf: I agree with you that there seems to be no middle ground. Foxholes provide some concealment, but little cover (foxholes do almost nothing to improve cover in woods). Trenches provide good cover, but are way more easily spotted than than a totally unprepared position. Historically, defenders spent every spare moment digging themselves into the ground. This was a major factor in why attackers needed 3:1 odds or better to take a well dug-in position. Capt Toleran: that is a good use for trenches the way they are currently modelled, but it sure isn't an accurate reflection of how they were actually used. All I am asking for is that trenches be harder to spot in tree-covered terrain. How can it be as easy to spot a trench in woods as it is in clear!? That sure isn't the way foxholes are modelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 WWB and Toleran, I think you misunderstand what Broken and me want: 1) trenches in concealing terrain should be concealed the same way everythign else in the same woods 2) Foxholes in the open still offer as few protection as in CMBO, only that it now becomes a serious inbalance as trenches offer six times as much protection. No matter what you think about gameplay - for realism both should be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Just curious -- weren't anti-tank trenches used as obstacles frequently in WW2? I don't have the game in front of me, but I don't see "infantry trench" written anywhere on the QB screen. A trench is a trench, people do dig big long holes for reasons other than occupying them, and I don't really appreciate the sarcasm relating to my comment. I recall reading that civilians were extensively used in the defense of some Russian cities to help dig obstacles, so I really don't find this unrealistic at all to use trenches as obstacles. No one said it was a hasty defense -- prepared defenses require work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 I will grant the part of the argument about trenches being a bit too visible in covering terrain, they should be a bit harder to spot in the woods. I dont think foxholes should provide too much protection, if you want to be dug in buy trenches. It aint imbalance, it is by design. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 Capt Toleran: The manual describes trenches as being "similar to foxholes except they are much larger and provide considerably more cover and concealment for their occupants". Supposedly, they do have some anti-tank capability since tanks can cross trenches, "but do so very slowly and at great risk of bogging". I have driven three Stugs back and forth across some trenches and they do cross very slowly, but I haven't seen one bog yet, so the usefulness as a tank barrier isn't that great. This was on dry ground. [ October 10, 2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Broken! ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 To me, that proves their usefulness. Tanks were made to cross trenches, IIRC, in WWI, so it is no suprise that tanks can eventually get past them. However, slowing down a tank in the engaging arc of a well-sited and hidden anti-tank gun (or a hidden anti-tank team) makes that trench quite useful as an obstacle indeed, especially given the speed of some of the faster tanks on both sides. The fact that lighter vehicles can't cross them makes them even more useful IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted October 10, 2002 Author Share Posted October 10, 2002 WWB: I am glad we see eye-to-eye on trenches needing to be harder to spot in woods. Now if only we could get BFC to put it in a patch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Originally posted by wwb_99: I dont think foxholes should provide too much protection, if you want to be dug in buy trenches. It aint imbalance, it is by design. As I said, you are arguing from a gameplay standpoint and it might work out well in that regard. But it is not realistic, we have a defense with 15-minutes foxholes right next to 2-week trenches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 Fergit the trenches. All I wanna know is which one a you sumbiches is gonna dig some more latrines cause these one's is gettin' mighty full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts