Foxholes

[Hiram Sedai]

Questions-A-Plenty

1. How long does a unit need to be doing "nothing" before they dig a foxhole?

2. Can I move someone out of a foxhole forward and have them dig another foxhole forward?

3. Is Setup the only time they dig?

4. Does a foxhole provide any kind of concealment?

5. How many people can fit into a foxhole? ie one squad, one team +1 bazooka etc

6. How do you effectively use foxholes in an ME when both are the attackers?

7. Does a foxhole provide better cover (if any) vs a heavy building vs infantry?

8. Does a bazooka have a better chance vs a tank when he is in a foxhole vs hiding in some trees? ie does he have a longer life expectancy vs moving and sneaking etc.

9. Do foxholes give the defender any kind of bonus vs Arty?

*************

thanks in advance

------------------

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Kingfish]

1) Foxholes are dug only during the setup phase, so you don't need a unit sitting around doing nothing. They are automatically dug by both sides (unless terrain prohibits it)

2)No, see #1

3)Yes, see #1

4)Yes, but I'm not sure of the amount. A test will confirm it.

5)A foxhole will hold one unit, so you can't have 2 zooks or 1 team and one zook inside the same foxhole. However, foxholes are a generic size, so a foxhole dug by a two man zook team and later abandoned can be used by a 12-man rifle squad with no restrictions.

6)Good fortified positions for units normally held behind the FLOT, such as MG and Mortar teams.

7)IMO a foxhole is better. No matter how much you shell it a foxhole won't come crashing down on your men. However, bldgs do have one advantage over foxholes - overhead cover. A unit in a foxhole can be suppressed by a 2" mortar, while inside a bldg they just laugh it off.

8)?

9)Against regular arty - yes. Against VT rounds - no (lack of overhead cover)

Hope this helps

------------------

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[BeWary]

I'll do my best:

1-3) Foxholes can only be dug during the setup phase. However, if you split your squads, you can get twice as many foxholes to start. Just rejoin them later.

4) I believe so. The manual probably says.

5) Unsure, but I've had more than one unit in a foxhole before. I think it was a platoon HQ unit and a bazooka. You may be able to fit even more, but a single unit (squads included) will always fit in them.

6) I don't think the computer digs foxholes in ME's, and even if it did, I can't see much of a use unless you have a nice hill you want to keep some of your troops on near your side of the map.

7) Don't know, but logically, I would think not. If you're in a heavy building, I would imagine the only thing you're exposing would be your head and arms to fire your weapon through a window, which would be the same case in a foxhole.

8) I would think so, as less of the Bazooka team would be exposed to HE and bullets.

9) For shells landing nearby, I would think yes, but for shells landing in or exploding above, almost certainly NO.

Hope that helped. Maybe someone else can tie up the loose ends.

BeWary

------------------

"Liberty or Death?" Make it "Victory or Pretty Damned Badly Wounded", and I'm yours. - a prospective recruit during the American Revolution.

[Holman]

A quick test reveals that my response was in error. I withdraw it...

[Actually, I think one side will get to have foxholes in a meeting engagement...]

[This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 02-02-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Others have already answered the questions about when you get them - defenders in probe and above, every starting location of a unit except inside buildings, or vehicles, creates a foxhole. (Actually, they may not be created in "rough" = rocky terrain either - I just haven't checked - pavement might be an exception too). The split-squad idea can let you dig some alternate positions, rejoining the men in the first couple minutes of the fight.

Foxholes are good cover but not as good concealment. A foxhole in woods or pines terrain will give as good cover and concealment overall, against infantry fire, as stone buildings. But if they aren't in woods they will not be as good cover as buildings are, because of the relative lack of concealment. Foxholes in scattered trees or brush are pretty good cover too, not much worse than foxhole in woods.

But foxholes and buildings have different characteristics against HE fire. Against direct fire HE, foxholes are decent cover, and unlike buildings (light ones especially) they will not fall down on your head.

Buildings are better cover against indirect fire artillery, though, especially the stone ones. The reasons are #1 those are innaccurate enough they will rarely hit the same building repeatedly, and buildings are quite good cover against the near-misses that are the rule with indirect fire. And #2, the foxholes provide reduced cover against overhead bursts, tree-bursts or VT fuses.

Generally speaking, foxholes in woods are better against direct HE, worse against indirect HE, and equal against infantry fire, to stone buildings.

Foxholes in brush may provide a way to avoid tree-bursts and still get concealment. Scattered trees might be a partial version of that. Avoid putting them in the open - without terrain concealment of any kind, they are inadequate protection against direct HE and small arms fire.

As for the question about the bazooka, your chances are better ambushing from a foxhole and stationary. Not because the shot will be more accurate in itself, but because you are less likely to be spotted than if you are moving (even on "sneak"), and you are less likely to be suppressed by fire if you are seen, because the foxhole-n-woods is far better cover than woods alone.

If you are worried about backblast effects, don't worry in foxholes there aren't any, just like in the open. Backblast effects will only suppress a firing bazooka, schreck, or faust if fired from inside of buildings. Then it will suppress the shooter and make a second shot difficult and longer. But foxholes do not have this problem.

Fine questions, BTW...

[Hiram Sedai]

Thank you gentlemen. The idea of splitting up squads during setup is an awesome way to double the amount of foxholes. I like moving forward and backward during a defense. I can be passive/aggressive.

------------------

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Schugger]

4) I've experienced several times that I spot the foxholes more easily than any hidden troops in it. That was not just in open terrain but also true for foxholes in scattered trees.

The magic foxhole doubling during setup by splitting squads has a drawback though:

Splitting squads does lower your global morale and so you should use this option with care. Check jasoncawley@ameritech.nets ( what a handle, btw ) excellent OP thread on this forum. It is a motha- beautiful topic and it is there.

[Vinci]

is there any particular reason that foxholes cannot be dug during the game?

[Buckeye]

It isn't realistic to have troops digging foxholes in the middle of a battle. Also, there is some question as to whether it would even be possible to dig a foxhole (as opposed to a small trench) in the time frame encompassed by most CM battles.

------------------

"Don't lie to me, Gustav! You're a stinkin' Mac user!"