Too easy to spot trenches

[Winterhawk]

Sorry. Lost it there for a minute. That's what happens when you read Peng posts for 2 hours straight.

[Snarker]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>

[Redwolf]

Again - this is for gameplay.

What is the purpose to give the defender foxholes in first place when those are 15-minutes foxholes besides 2-weeks trenches? In what way does that resemble anything a real military unit would do?

[tabpub]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Again - this is for gameplay.

What is the purpose to give the defender foxholes in first place when those are 15-minutes foxholes besides 2-weeks trenches? In what way does that resemble anything a real military unit would do?

So you could say, start in the foxholes, fight a bit, then retire to your trench line? Or vice versa? Or, better yet, facing an assault go from foxhole to foxhole to trench? could make attacking that sector a bit sticky, eh?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by tabpub:

So you could say, start in the foxholes, fight a bit, then retire to your trench line?

Did you actually try that? Everytime I move infantry in CMBB within enemy fire they die (as they should), especially when turning their back to the enemy units. Besides, this kinda defeats my original point since foxholes offer so few cover that they are likely to be pinned if not dead anyway.

Or vice versa?

That would require to place them in the secondary positions first (otherwise you don't get the foxholes). Moving them forward to a first battle line will likely have them seen by the enemy.

Or, better yet, facing an assault go from foxhole to foxhole to trench? could make attacking that sector a bit sticky, eh?

No, for the reasons given. This will only work if your initial blow hurts the initial enemy units enough so that they don't fire at you when falling back. And on top of that you must go through this initial clash without being supressed afterwards.

This makes us complete the turn: if at all possible, it will be possible with decent foxholes.

So, having said all of this I have to mention that you completely ignored my former posting. You started on gameplay again, not in any way addressing the question whether it is realistic to dig foxholes where only 56% of you body is in cover (get in front of a mirror and draw a line where that would be), right beside the trench you worked on for two weeks?

[Priest]

Uhm RedWolf,

What exactly are you proposing? So either I cannot have trenches in foxholes on the same map. Or the foxholes have to get better (more prepared). Or what?

We need a solution for both hasty defenses and lengthy defenses. In a perfect world we would have more choices but we do not and added options for such probably are not going to be coming in patch form.

So far this is only an issue in a QB, as scenarios and ops are controlled environs. As far as a realistic scenario goes try this one.

Company A is in their nice MLR trench network. The captain receives a phone call from HQ, recce forces have spotted enemy troops imbound from the East. Damn the commander thinks, that is behind us! Richardson take platoon A into the copse of woods over there and dig in, the enemy will be here in less than an hour.

See trenches and hastily made foxholes realistically on the same map.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Winterhawk:

Sorry. Lost it there for a minute. That's what happens when you read Peng posts for 2 hours straight.

I hope you've been slowly building up tolerance to that level of idiocy.

Jumping right in can cause permanent emotional damage and some loss of motor coordination.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Priest:

What exactly are you proposing? So either I cannot have trenches in foxholes on the same map. Or the foxholes have to get better (more prepared). Or what?

Well, so I propose that a defense which had enough time to contruct sophisticated trenches is assumed to dig foxholes which do not leave the whole upper body exposed.

Get in front of a mirror, and make an estimation of what 46% of your body is. Would you dig a foxhole that leaves that much of your body exposed?

The assumption is an insult to any professional soldier.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Count Zero:

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...´

Actually, one German defensive tactic when they had intel that a major Russian attack was coming was to quite visibily and noisily occupy the forward trenches, then withdraw quietly under cover of darkness to positions 100-300m to the rear the night before the attack. The Soviets would waste most of their preparatory bombardment on the empty forward trenches,and the Germans would then use their nearly intact defensive force to disrupt the Russian assault.

Steve

[ October 11, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Priest]

Redwolf

Uhm did you read my example? It is feasible in some situations.

Also as said earlier in this thread, it is not likely they are going to add new foxholes or something in a patch.

As far as being insulting to a soldier, not sure what you mean, the foxhole is appropriate for the type is supposed to be portraying. Even more importantly you are forgetting that your complaints only hold merit on a randomly generated QB.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

But it is not realistic, we have a defense with 15-minutes foxholes right next to 2-week trenches.

Begging your pardon, sir, but could you fill me in on what is unrealistic about that? In your opinion, sir.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Sorry for getting heated yesterday, guys.

I'll post a more tame and better thought out notice later today.

In general I agree to the notice that we need to model both hasty and well prepared defense, but I don't see that the 15-minutes foxholes fit into the good defense. As I said it works for gameplay - but for realism?

[Broken]

This thread was started because of a bug in the spotting of trenches: trenches are always spotted from about 200 meters, regardless of what sort of terrain they are in. Whether you have a bright blue LOS line to a trench in clear terrain or a very dark blue LOS line to a trench deep in woods makes no difference in spotting the trench. Since LOS quality and terrain effect the spotting of virtually everything else in CMBB, this seems to be a bug that is easy to fix.

Redwolf has raised some interesting points on the modelling of foxholes. Foxholes in CMBB and CMBO are modelled as "hasty" foxholes, shallow holes with no better protection than a shell crater. In CMBB, foxholes and indeed all defensive positions where the occupant has not moved, have been improved by making their occupants harder to spot due to the defenders camouflaging their positions (again, the one notable exception to this is trenches!).

CMBB does not model the sort of foxholes that would be dug if the defenders were in place for a day or so. These foxholes would be deep enough so only the defender's head and weapon would be exposed. The foxholes would often have a grenade sump (a deep hole in the floor of the foxhole into which the defender can kick any grenades that land in the foxhole), small elbow pits in which the defender can rest his elbows so that the muzzle of his weapon is barely above gound level, and, given the time and materials, overhead cover.

Even without the overhead cover, a defender in a prepared foxhole would be much better protected than in a crater. A defender crouching at the bottom of his foxhole (hiding, pinned or "taking cover") would be immune to smallarms fire (except at point blank range) and highly protected against artillery (with the exception of a direct hit or nearby treebursts).

As it now stands in CMBB, a defender can employ a number of improvements which would take considerable time to emplace: minefields, barbed wire barriers, TRPs, wooden MG bunkers, even concrete pillboxes. Some of these emplacements require the services of specialized troops such as engineers and construction crews. When it comes to foxholes however, the defender's only option is the 15 minute, no-better-than-a-crater variety.

Considering the very high quality and incredible detail Charles and the gang have built into the rest of CMBB, the representation of simple field fortifications seems a little neglected. Although BFC has stated that CMBB patches will be used solely for bug fixes, I hope the engine re-write can be used to bring more detail and realism to this area which had such a significant effect on historical battles.