Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

Should I turn in my Grog Society membership card now, do you think?

No need, the self appointed God of Grogs will do it for you since he alone determines if you are Groggy enough to be a Grog, or despicable enough to be considered a Fanboy (apparently it has to be one or the other). God help you, Michael Emrys

Steve

[Sequoia]

I remember in CMX 1 multi-player games some players would use a "Honor" system of play called Iron mode (not to be confused with the Iron mode available currently in CMSF ). They would agree to only use ground level views from behind thier units.

Wouldn't an optional "extreme Iron" mode which locked this into play (i.e, no honor system required) effectively hide any foxholes or any other terrain not in LOS due to the way the graphics rendering works ?

[Thomm]

More often than not, I "stumble" into trenches on CM:SF maps, because I do not actively look for them. Terrain LOD does the rest. I would also never use airburst arty on a trench before I made sure that it is occupied.

Of course I can imagine that in competitive multi-player this is much greater issue.

Best regards,

Thomm

[akd]

Excellent read, thanks! OK, so my dusty memory was partially correct... practically speaking, the explosives didn't work without the aid of a vehicle (which was probably not all that common, by the sounds of it). So it looks like hedgerow cutters only.

They worked fine, but it took a long time to prep the hedgerow for demolition without the help of heavy equipment. Tanks capable of cutting through the hedgerows on their own weren't available in any numbers at D-day, and even when they became available, combat engineers were still essential to hedgerow tactics (and sometimes the only resource available). The development of these tactics took time. Much of these techniques and their necessary equipment weren't developed until the end of June and beginning of July, and dissimination took even longer, so for the beginning of the campaign engineers with a long "blast" timer when breaching hedgerows would be appropiate.

The leaders within First Army realized they had to find ways to smash through the German defenses. Unable to outflank enemy positions, American soldiers had to find ways to restore tactical mobility and to bring more heavy-caliber weapons to bear against the Germans. As they tried to develop techniques that would succeed within the confined spaces of the Bocage, commanders gleaned little help from Army doctrine or standard tactical procedures. Nonetheless, as early as 9 June, First Army headquarters began to grapple with the problem of how to get through the hedgerows. In a conversation with an armor officer on First Army's staff, General Bradley wondered whether tanks could blow their way through the hedgerows with main-gun and machine-gun fires. Throughout First Army during June and July, officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted men contemplated methods to overcome the German defense.21

...

Early experience in Normandy showed that a dozer tank could push its way through the most formidable hedgerow. Dozer tanks could also widen natural gaps in hedgerows that were too narrow for Shermans to drive through.23

However, there were too few dozer tanks in First Army to support large-scale operations on wide frontages. A tank battalion was usually equipped with only four dozer tanks. These tanks were too few in number to support divisional attacks effectively where each infantry regiment might encounter dozens of hedgerows. To alleviate the situation, armor leaders recommended that one tank in each armor platoon be equipped with a blade device. First Army made frantic efforts to increase the number of its dozer tanks. In July 1944, First Army requisitioned 278 dozer blades. However, units could not sit idly by while waiting for supply channels to produce the badly needed dozer blades. Weeks might pass before enough dozer tanks became available to allow widespread armor operations through the hedgerows.24

...

By late June, many units throughout First Army had developed a variety of means to breach the hedgerows. The 83d Infantry Division in VII Corps used two 25-pound explosive charges. Engineers packed the explosives in a sandbag, buried them by hand two feet into the hedgerow embankment, and then tamped the hole full of dirt to increase the effectiveness of the charge. Other units copied the techniques developed in the 29th Division. The 703d Tank Battalion, attached to the 4th Infantry Division in VII Corps, adopted the 747th's hedgerowbusting techniques and found them "highly successful." In VIII Corps, the 79th Infantry Division also developed another type of hedgerow cutter for use on its Sherman tanks.31

...

In a prodigious effort between 14-25 July, the First Army Ordnance Section produced over 500 hedgerow cutters and distributed them to subordinate commands for installation. By late July, 60 percent of First Army's Shermans mounted the hedgerow-cutting devices.34

[sfhand]

Steve,

Forgive me if this has been submitted before. In all likelyhood it's not a practicable solution to the foxhole/fow discussion, but I've got to throw it out there none the less.

I know you are against foxholes as 2d objects as they were in CMx1 (as am I). My question is whether or not a destructable 2d object - a texture tile? - could be used to conceal the 3d foxhole?

[Battlefront.com]

akd,

They worked fine, but it took a long time to prep the hedgerow for demolition without the help of heavy equipment.

If it ain't practical, then it doesn't matter how well it works on an individual basis That was my point... the circumstances that allowed the demos to work required a LOT of TNT to do without a vehicle, so much so that the logistics guys told the frontline guys to "git stuffed!" So in the end it didn't matter that it worked on an individual basis because it wasn't practical for the overall situation.

The delay of getting the cutters into place is well noted. We are going to introduce a rarity system into CM: Normandy (it really wasn't necessary for CM:SF) and that means we can make hedgerow cutting tanks very rare at the beginning, then becoming much more likely to have later on.

sfhand,

What you're asking about are "lids". This was covered a page or two back. Short answer is that it's technically impractical.

Steve

[GSX]

One of the practices on breaching a hedgerow was for a Sherman to fire WP into the corners of the field. Will WP rounds be modelled?

Incidentally the same tactic was sometimes used on German armour, fire a WP round onto the Tiger etc and the crew got rattled enough to bail. Im not saying this should be included in CMN though as its more of a morale thing than an actual physical effect.

[kevinkin]

Wow. I guess as expected WWII rocks with the BF fans. This thread expanded really fast. Oh gee ... can we go to the East Front first?

[Sequoia]

Wow. I guess as expected WWII rocks with the BF fans. This thread expanded really fast. Oh gee ... can we go to the East Front first?

Sorry the plan is France 44 then Bulge and then East Front Bagration, though CMSF II modern combat in a temperate setting may sneak in there somplace too.

[Bannon DC]

So to recap for everybody..., here goes...

In CM: Normandy there will be no FoW applied to trenches or foxholes EXCEPT during Setup. Meaning, when the attacker sets up his forces he will not see the enemy's trenches, foxholes, bunkers, barbed wire, or any other defensive works. But as soon as the first second of the game starts to play out, foxholes and trenches will be immediately visible. Spotting is required for other forms of defenses (at least that is the plan now, which hopefully will not be forced to change). The reasons why are listed in the above mentioned linked thread and others. It's been discussed to death, ...

....

Steve

I’m not a CMSF player, so this is all news to me. As Steve mention, this may not be a “game killer,” but is certainly kills part of the game. I’m pretty surprised to learn this is how fortifications are going to work.

And “gamey” situations were mentioned as well. I can see this leading to completely “gamey” situations so as not to use foxholes or trenches at all unless in AI-only scenarios.

What this situation “kills” is the element of surprise. Hmmm… where is the enemy? Maybe over there in those foxholes? Where is the element of suspense and surprise for the player as he advances his infantry company toward a concealed enemy? Where is the suspense for the ambusher watching as the infantry company advances on his position? Did you set your men right? Which unit should fire first? Tense! But if the advancing infantry company can see foxholes in front of them… why not lay down some suppression fire? Why not call in smoke? Why not have some tanks blast the hell out of the foxholes? Well, that sure would be a hell of a lot easier… and it would get a bit boring after a while from rarely being ambushed or being able to effectively ambush anyone else.

Unless I’m missing something here, let me know how this system is going to allow me to play using basic infantry ambush tactics or design a decent fighting position as with CMX1.

OK, you can still ambush without foxholes, but it makes it easier for the defender to survive. What about the ability to conduct… or prevent… the player from conducting in-game recon? In a scenario, what if I want to flank an enemy position… or find a weak spot in an enemy defensive line? A defensive line will need foxholes and trenches. Well, it is not too hard to know EXACTLY where the enemy positions are and aren’t. So much for the fun of conducting your own recon. The surprise is killed again.

If I understand correctly, foxholes will be placed under your units during the set up phase in the same way they appear on the map in CMX1. So your foxholes are placed by default. You sometimes have the ability to set fallback foxholes if allowed by the scenario designer, again similar to CMX1.

It strikes my as critical for most hedgerow type scenarios that the defender would have at least some concealed positions.

So, if I were designing a scenario, I would simply avoid using trenches and foxholes to avoid this problem. Unless, I wanted the attacker to know exactly where the enemy strong points are.

This will breed many “gamey” and counter-realistic situations…

· shelling trenches and foxholes on turn one or as pre-set bombardment. Why not, the foxholes are a sure shot. Boom.

· To counter this, the player could set decoy positions. This itself was mentioned as “gamey” earlier in this thread. In some cases, I would agree with this. But it is 100% gamey if you HAVE TO do it in order to avoid the gamey use of pre-set artillery!

· You can also counter this as the defender by dashing from his foxholes on turn one. Gamey.

· What about guns? They can’t dash away from foxholes to avoid bombardment. If they start the game dug in as they should be in many cases, the attacker will always be able to narrow down their location to spot-able foxhole/trench locations. Too easy.

This is similar to the sandbag tiles in CMAK. Almost not worth using from a scenario design perspective unless for looks. Not really a viable fighting location unless for the AI.

I don't buy the arguement that 'foxholes and trenches quickly became visable anyway.' Even the figure of them becoming visable at 200m is the extreme when set on open ground. I have played CMX1 quite a bit in the last 4 years and designed a few scenarios. I think I know a little about the value and enjoyment of defensive positions remaining concealed for as long as possible. Believe me, not knowing when and where the first shot is going to come from is a lot of the fun in this game.

I see the result of this as foxholes and trenches usable only under certain situations. I think many players would not want to give away their positions on turn one and avoid them, especially when playing H2H games. Might as well play with no fog of war on at all.

I understand how deeply coded into the game this is. Maybe not a game killer, but certainly takes away some of the fun. But, I do hope that this can be corrected with a future release because it has obvious effects on the enjoyment and realism of the game.

Cheers,

Bannon

[Sequoia]

Bannon, Steve temporarily locked the other thread on this subject until he could get back to addressing this when he had time. Let's not encourage others to resume the discussion in this thread.

[Bannon DC]

Thanks for the advice. I took it he locked the other tread down because it was duplicative and did not want to jump back and forth between threads. I'll post here when it is convenient to me. I'm a busy guy myself and I don't need a green light.

I've seen Steve in action and I don't think he will have any trouble keeping up or discourage converation on our own.

[JasonC]

To the question "let me know how this system is going to allow me to play using basic infantry ambush tactics", I can see one answer that could work. Of course I'd rather have hidden field fortifications and such, but there is a workable way to live without them and still have ambushes and such.

Just give the defender about 8 times as many of the things as he actually needs.

Then seeing a foxhole won't mean it is occupied.

Simple.

[akd]

akd,

If it ain't practical, then it doesn't matter how well it works on an individual basis That was my point... the circumstances that allowed the demos to work required a LOT of TNT to do without a vehicle, so much so that the logistics guys told the frontline guys to "git stuffed!" So in the end it didn't matter that it worked on an individual basis because it wasn't practical for the overall situation.

The delay of getting the cutters into place is well noted. We are going to introduce a rarity system into CM: Normandy (it really wasn't necessary for CM:SF) and that means we can make hedgerow cutting tanks very rare at the beginning, then becoming much more likely to have later on.

sfhand,

What you're asking about are "lids". This was covered a page or two back. Short answer is that it's technically impractical.

Steve

Steve,

I know you are loath to go back on a statement once made (in this case "cutting only"), but please read the entire source from which I was quoting. I think you are taking away something that is not there (or maybe I gave a faulty impression earlier). This source does not in any way suggest that breaching via demolitions was impractical or that combat engineering was not viable in hedgerow combat. Again, the 83rd ID experience:

By late June, many units throughout First Army had developed a variety of means to breach the hedgerows. The 83d Infantry Division in VII Corps used two 25-pound explosive charges. Engineers packed the explosives in a sandbag, buried them by hand two feet into the hedgerow embankment, and then tamped the hole full of dirt to increase the effectiveness of the charge.

Practicality and efficiency are not the same thing, and where a more efficient method is not available, then the one available is both the most practical and most efficient.

Remember that there was little if any standardization until the end of the campaign, and still not total adoption even then. Each unit developed its own solutions and techniques, and if using hedgerow cutting tanks was more effective, then that was because it suited the tactical approach of the unit in question and the resources they had available, but all units seem to have developed practical techniques to assault hedgerows in concert with demolitions. Note that the bulk of my first quote from that source concerns one single tank battalion. You could at best characterize tactics at the divisional level, as the source above does:

29th ID:

83rd ID:

3rd AD:

Maybe "one or the other" is a more elegant game design approach, but it is in no way historical. The ability to breach hedgerows with tanks did not become available widely until weeks into the campaign. Until that time demolitions remained the primary and most practical approach, especially when the alternative was going over the top. Even when Sherman "rhinos" became common (not until July), demolitions continued to be used widely. Combat engineers could and frequently did breach hedgerows. They had the skills and resources to do so. It just required more time than breaching a brick wall.

Doing it hastily (without prepping the hedgrerow) is what required impractical amounts of explosives. Placing charges in the hedgerow was the early solution. Using tanks to cut hedgerows was a later solution (aside from the small number of "dozer" tanks early on). A combination of combat engineers and hedgerow cutting tanks was probably the best solution.

Hope you give this one some more thought.

[hoolaman]

Here's another idea about foxholes (trenches):

What about separating the visual representation of foxholes from the object "foxhole"? To be more precise: creating a new class "visible foxhole" (inherited from vehicle class) and instantiate a "visible foxhole" object for each "map foxhole" as VEHICLE object.

Now: Foxhole (MapObject class)

Then: MapFoxhole (MapObject class) & VisibleFoxhole (Vehicle class)

Additionally the original map-object "map foxhole" is made invisible without any texture. And the new foxhole object, the "visible foxhole", is created for the visual representation only and is created as a special vehicle object, i.e. without height and unmovable.

Therefore for the visibility of foxholes the rules of vehicles would apply: fully visible to the friendly player, while for the opponent's side, they stay invisible until adequate LOS is established.

That had crossed my mind too. Hence I think its an excellent idea .

If you have a open top box that is recessed underground, and troops crew it like any other vehicle, and the penetration of weapons is calculated on the small portion that sits above ground, that seems an ideal way to use the spotting system that is already in the game.

If the troops happen to clip the ground mesh, or the end result looks a little like the CMx1 decal I think that is a small price to pay for a working game system. Maybe the bit of ground that clips the "vehicle" could not be rendered?

That would make it easier to have different types of trenches too, like variations of top covered trenches, log bunkers, open trenches, one and two man foxholes depending on "crew" capacity.

[Battlefront.com]

akd,

I have the same reference materials you do, though they are buried at the moment, so thanks for posting the pics

I know you are loath to go back on a statement once made (in this case "cutting only"), but please read the entire source from which I was quoting. I think you are taking away something that is not there (or maybe I gave a faulty impression earlier).

To be fair to moi, I did say that engineers blowing up hedgerows might be the way to go and that it's possible to do.

I never disputed using explosives to take out hedgerows. My concern was that the conditions for doing so were so laborious that it might not be "practical" in CM game terms. As in prep times of greater than 5 or 10 minutes. For Engineers this would be a very difficult thing for us in terms of gameplay because the player would basically have to sit around waiting to get the Engineers in place, get the charges seated, and then move up all the forces that perhaps were hanging back waiting for this to take place. That doesn't sound like a viable game to me.

The solutions are to have the designer knock holes in the hedges ahead of time to simulate where there were breaches moments before (or earlier) the scenario started.

The other option, which I just thought about, is to leverage the IED code we already have. The US player could place a "hedgerow breach charge" (or somefink!) where he wants to create a gap, then use a "triggerman" to detonate it whenever he wants to. The latter behavior is currently absent, but I don't think that would be too difficult to get included.

Of course, the scenario designer should make sure that these hedgerow breach charges are either locked down (i.e. the player can't move them) or are constrained within a US setup zone. That way the US player can't go breaching stuff on the other side of the map

Steve

[Pandur]

For Engineers this would be a very difficult thing for us in terms of gameplay because the player would basically have to sit around waiting to get the Engineers in place, get the charges seated, and then move up all the forces that perhaps were hanging back waiting for this to take place. That doesn't sound like a viable game to me.

this sounds like the best solution to me. after all the player can do "something else" in the mean time. like 5-10 minutes should be easylie spent somewhere else on the field. this option gives the player the most freedom to use it, everywhere and at any time on the map. guess they will be able to breach hedgerows and houses/walls.

the pre made holes are too much like in company of heroes. also i think makeing hedgerows and than taking away one of their biggest effects isnt too good.

and i dont know, the IED fix doesnt sound "fun" either. you cant use it in the attack wich is not good at all as the US side mostly will attack in scenarios where you have to breach this things.

only breach hedgerows wich are in the players setup zone sound to me like the worst of this 3 methodes.

think about scenarios wich got a hedgerow 400meters away for example in the middle of the map. should the attack be able to setup on 50% of the map? if you do different setup zones, are the charges magicaly beamed into position pre battle and can be triggered than at any time as long as the triggerman is in range? that all does not sound like the "real" thing to me, take the slow and universal aproach like with braching walls but slower.

EDIT:

the player just needs the time to do it. if he has to breach 2 times in a row he should get presented a 30 minute timelimit. if the player has the time i dont see a problem. the SPG9 also needs 5 minutes setup time. so if you add 2 or 3 on top, noone will notice

[Steiner14]

Moved to the trenches discussion.

[c3k]

Steve,

Bocage blowing: what you just mentioned seems like a very good idea. Using a system similar to IED's would allow the pre-game simulation of prepping the side of the bocage. This would be better than a pre-made gap since the defender won't know that there is about to be a hole in his defenses.

(My sources state that units rapidly adopted the practice of welding pipes to the front of a tracked vehicle to make the demo hole. The vehicle would just jam the pipe into the bocage, back out, the engineers would sling the pre-made explosives into the hole, and "Bang", up goes a big gap. It wouldn't take but a few minutes, start to finish.)

Regards,

Ken

[akd]

akd,

I have the same reference materials you do, though they are buried at the moment, so thanks for posting the pics

To be fair to moi, I did say that engineers blowing up hedgerows might be the way to go and that it's possible to do.

I never disputed using explosives to take out hedgerows. My concern was that the conditions for doing so were so laborious that it might not be "practical" in CM game terms. As in prep times of greater than 5 or 10 minutes. For Engineers this would be a very difficult thing for us in terms of gameplay because the player would basically have to sit around waiting to get the Engineers in place, get the charges seated, and then move up all the forces that perhaps were hanging back waiting for this to take place. That doesn't sound like a viable game to me.

The solutions are to have the designer knock holes in the hedges ahead of time to simulate where there were breaches moments before (or earlier) the scenario started.

The other option, which I just thought about, is to leverage the IED code we already have. The US player could place a "hedgerow breach charge" (or somefink!) where he wants to create a gap, then use a "triggerman" to detonate it whenever he wants to. The latter behavior is currently absent, but I don't think that would be too difficult to get included.

Of course, the scenario designer should make sure that these hedgerow breach charges are either locked down (i.e. the player can't move them) or are constrained within a US setup zone. That way the US player can't go breaching stuff on the other side of the map

Steve

I will try to get some numbers on actual prep times, but the "IED" approach makes a lot of sense. In fact, you could have generic charges of different weights that could be placed in a variety of terrain or structures. Choosing the wrong charge weight could have some amusing side effects.

However, I would still think it valuable to allow engineer units to emplace charges even during gameplay, especially as a typical bocage scenario would probably require successive rows of hedgerows be breached. But the player does not have to use it, or could coordinate other action while the timer runs. If the player is in a real hurry, he could use the same approach that was used historically: just send your infantry and tanks over the top.

Perhaps the engineer unit could carry a total weight of explosives and emplacing charges on different structures would use up some amount of this total number, the larger and more difficult the structure or terrain, the longer it takes and the more explosives are used up. I would think a hedgerow/berm, small building (as in prepping the whole building for demo, not breaching a wall), or very small bridge would be the max for a CM scale scenario.

[Battlefront.com]

Pandur,

this sounds like the best solution to me. after all the player can do "something else" in the mean time. like 5-10 minutes should be easylie spent somewhere else on the field. this option gives the player the most freedom to use it, everywhere and at any time on the map. guess they will be able to breach hedgerows and houses/walls.

I think you underestimate how frustrating it will be to most players most of the time

and i dont know, the IED fix doesnt sound "fun" either. you cant use it in the attack wich is not good at all as the US side mostly will attack in scenarios where you have to breach this things.

They definitely can be used for attack, but not after the initial setup positions. However, I'm not sure how unrealistic this is within CM's scope. AKD will hopefully manage to dig up some times for us to use.

AKD,

Yes, we can definitely allow Engineers to carry enough explosives to blow up, probably 3 Hedgerows each. Figure 12 men (or whatever the Engineer unit size is) could probably carry 150 pounds of explosives, tools, detonators, and regular kit. If the setup time were 10 minutes for each Hedgerow this would likely mean that no one Squad would likely blow more than 1 or 2 per scenario, simply because it's not like the Squad would be free to rush through a gap and instantly start setting up to blow the next one

Steve

[Pandur]

I think you underestimate how frustrating it will be to most players most of the time

i dont know, maybe we both are imagening this in a totaly different way. i mean we are two different individuals, so that would only be naturaly so, but still i want to see what you find frustrateing there

as i said a RED player right now has to wait 5 minutes till the SPG9 is set up in CMSF.

also sometimes if you are waiting 15 or more minutes for the RED support to rain down, it quiet often means a total halt for that time becouse you need that fire and you arent playing blue wich gets you the same in some minutes, so you have to wait. and thats not too frustrateing for me, after all i like playing RED.

there are always some little things you can manage in the meantime.

so if a player likes playing BLUE i think he can endure the rather realistic amount of time needed to breach a hedgerow, instead of showing the childish behaviour of "mom, arent we there yet?"

i also dont stop calling down lowly 120mm mortars with 15+ minutes arival time becouse dont like to wait. if the mission needs this, than i will do it. if its waiting for 15 minutes on a simple mortar or waiting 10 minutes for a rather important breach isnt a big difference.

thats my point of view on that.

so tell me where do you see potential for frustration? after all we are CMxX gamers here and no fast paced RTS crowd, we can endure some waiting, at least i felt so

They definitely can be used for attack, but not after the initial setup positions. However, I'm not sure how unrealistic this is within CM's scope.

dont get me wrong, iam not argumenting realism here, or just partly from the point of view where i say "i dont feel like haveing taken away a more realistic option with realistic time delay and changed into a suboptimal, restrictive option wich leaves the bunch of the work done already to only favoure the fast paced crowd out there".

iam not argumenting that breaching hedgerows is/was practical or unpractical with explosives whatsoever.

now when you say youre not sure how unrealistic this is in CM´s scope, i imagine you mean that the scenario briefing and setting could justify this IED fix.

like when saying "the first attack wave placed it(the charge) here but out of whatever reason it was not exploded and the triggerman was forgotten anyways, so you have him now and the charge already set"(and hundreds of meters of wire spawning in between ).

thats quiet cheap i find. that in fact limits all scenarios(where you have to breach a hedgerow) to settings where there was someone already. you cant be the first to arive on scene!? you cant decide on the fly where it is best to breach on the basis of gathered information about the enemy? if you placed the charge in setup its unmovable and if it happens that there is a bunch of germans there, youre screwed becouse you cant breach anywhere else.

also breaching in enemy territory, how did someone place a charge there? how can i decide in setup where to breach without any info on the enemy?

thats the questions that come to my mind when i think about the IED fix. the only downside i can see with my favoured methode is that you have to wait, but you gain so much more for this wait time that its more than worth it in my eyes.

thanks

[Sergei]

In my mind having engineers work over a breach for several minutes wouldn't be a problem, as long as the player was able to cancel it. Wall breaching in CMSF takes relatively short time, but in 5-10 minutes the situation can change greatly. The enemy might start bombing the spot with mortars, for instance, in which case you'd want to move the engineers to safety.

[Ted]

Forgive me but I am just catching up on this thread….

Steve said:

“This is the downside of having the more detailed terrain mesh. People hated the flat 2D look of the trenches and foxholes in CMx1. We did too. So we made them true 3D.

The only easy way to work around this problem is to go back to the horrid 2D decals on 3D terrain. I know some of you think that would be a good idea, but I'd not be surprised to find you in a thread from 5-7 years ago arguing that we should get rid of 2D decals and have trenches and foxholes truly 3D ”

I must of missed the “hated the flat 2D look” part of complaints in the past.

Having been an old Squad Leader player I guess I was used to the 2D look.

But if I had my druthers I’d rather have a 2D look than being able to spot the opponents or have all of my foxholes spotted in the second minute of the game.

To me that would be much more unrealistic than having to look at a 2D foxhole.

Steve you also said in the link pointing to the past discussion:

““Hidden foxholes/trenches are an extremely difficult thing for us to handle. I'm not sure if, or when, we'll be able to do this. Yes, it is on our list ””

Does that mean it’s still on the list or have you given up on the idea?

[Battlefront.com]

Pandur,

Yeah, I'm not saying "we aren't going to include Engineers blowing up hedgerows because it would be too boring", I was just pointing out that they might not be as practically useful as it might appear. Which seems to me realistic, otherwise engineers blowing up hedgerows would have been the be-all-end-all tactic for US units instead of them trying to find some other way to get through them. In other words, I expect the use of Engineers to be frustrating and, at times, impractical because that's the way it was in real life.

The IED concept allows you to start out scenario with a breach ready to go. In other words, you don't have to start up a game and wait 15 minutes to get moving. So it really isn't an either or thing here... each is good for a different usage.

Ted,

I must of missed the “hated the flat 2D look” part of complaints in the past.

Yup To be fair to the 2D trenches and foxholes, the complaints about CMx1 graphics didn't start or end there. And complaint, I guess, is not necessarily the right word for it most of the time. "A strongly expressed desire to see major graphical improvements" just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily In other words, people wanted us to move forward and make improvements to the graphical environment. Trenches and Foxholes were amongst the least "realistic" graphical elements in CMx1 so it's not surprising they were singled out at times.

Does that mean it’s still on the list or have you given up on the idea?

There's no chance of hidden trenches once the game starts. That's just not going to happen, period. What I'm still hoping for is a compromise solution for the foxhole issue since, I think, it's by far the more important of the two. As I've said above, exact or near-exact knowledge of an enemy's trenches is something that is more likely than less, even in WW2. Foxholes, on the other hand, are a completely different beast in terms of the chances of foreknowledge by the attacker.

Steve