Foxholes look like Chocolate Glazed Donuts

[Michael Emrys]

Why can't we have a perfect world Michael? :confused:

Beats hell out of me.

Michael

[BloodyBucket]

[Nidan1]

Beats hell out of me.

Michael

A wonderful idea....

[kulik]

The discussion board demanded demanded demanded that fog of war rules apply to trenches and foxholes. So you have trenches and foxholes where FOW rules apply.

I was one of those who demanded it, and im proud of it. God damn, i shouted so hard i almost passed out.

[Wodin]

They look more like large stools done by a dog with some sort of OCD going on..

Still they don't bother me as I know they will be re textured to maybe blend in abit more....

[Lt Belenko]

Beats hell out of me.

Michael

that can be arranged

[Mr Byte]

mMmmnn....Donuts....

if you listen carefully to the video AAR you can hear on of the soldiers complaining about sugar in his hair after he takes cover from the artillery

[Krilly]

Will glazing them cause richochets?

[StellarRat]

I have to agree that they not right. When I first saw them in the AARs I didn't even know what they were. To me they look like giant gopher holes with poorly colored dirt. If I remember my limited entrenchments training you're supposed to make them less obvious not more.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Will glazing them cause richochets?

For AP rounds, perhaps, but HE shells just tend to stick.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I have agree that they not right. When I first saw them in the AARs I didn't even know what they were. To me they look like giant gopher holes with poorly colored dirt. If I remember my limited entrenchments training you're supposed to make them less obvious not more.

Everyone knows they are not right, including BFC. But they are as good as they can be. In real life you dig a foxhole/trench down into the ground. They tried that in CMSF but it had the huge drawback of the enemy being able to see where your foxholes/trenches were located, whether they were in line of sight or not. The other choice is the solution they've implemented in CMBN, where the foxholes and trenches are above ground, but unable to be seen until they are in LOS.

There's simply no way to put the 3D model above ground and still have it look "real". I think most everyone would much prefer slightly odd looking foxholes to the alternative of not really being able to use nicer looking foxholes since the enemy always sees them.

[scottie]

agree the foxholes don't look quiet right but fog-of-war is more important IMO.

[MikeyD]

The next question usually is "What would you like to see" and the answer invariably is something that couldn't possibly be done while obeying FOW rules. You're not going to get holes sunk into the terrain mesh. You're not going to get waist-deep man holes or mg fire pits. For entirely obvious reasons. After our own initial resistance the Beta guys played a couple scenarios and saw they were functioning like foxholes function. Obeying FOW, working like foxholes, and inf teams able to position themselves in them... all that was left to complain about was mere eye candy.

[Rokko]

I don't know much about programming nor the Combat Mission engine, but wouldn't it have been possible to make changes in the terrain mesh after the battle starts also FOW-relevant? That way either shell holes and fox holes would only appear to player when a unit sees them.

Anyway, its obviously too late now, but it would have been an option I guess.

[stikkypixie]

I don't know much about programming nor the Combat Mission engine, but wouldn't it have been possible to make changes in the terrain mesh after the battle starts also FOW-relevant? That way either shell holes and fox holes would only appear to player when a unit sees them.

Anyway, its obviously too late now, but it would have been an option I guess.

No it is unfortunately not possible. The foxholes don't look that honestly and it's beta so there is a chance it will improve

[YankeeDog]

I don't know much about programming nor the Combat Mission engine, but wouldn't it have been possible to make changes in the terrain mesh after the battle starts also FOW-relevant? That way either shell holes and fox holes would only appear to player when a unit sees them.

Anyway, its obviously too late now, but it would have been an option I guess.

Steve has repeatedly, and in great detail, said "no". At least, not with any reasonable amount of time and effort. That is, full FOW foxholes that properly deform the terrain mesh are theoretically possible, but practically speaking would take so much coding time to make work that they're a non-starter for a company like BFC with only two coders (one until fairly recently).

Do a search for his past posts containing the words "foxhole", and I'm sure you'll find it from the horse's mouth.

[bodkin]

I still say they look more realistic then the "Dirt Barnacles" they had earlier in the Beta.

I preferred the 'dirt barnacles' look rather than the ones with the ring of sandbags around the top. The sandbags make them look too neat and well prepared when most of photos from the battle I've seen depict a hurridley dug dirt hole.

[GonzoAttacker]

foxholes....that mean somefink is what it is. They are defensive wow what a plus. so they look like doughnuts? Who cares? as a war gamer these are what the doctor ordered. you get defensive points! Do they look great? No, but they work! this is a simulation, eye candy is great, but it is never perfect. We got what we asked for.

Finally as for the rocking and rolling. Tiger tanks to rock and roll when they shoot, it is basic physics! also the Germans had a suspension system from the get go that worked, so all there vehicles rocked. The Shermans did not rock and roll until the late 44' after the breakout when the new suspension began to show up.

The modders will have fun, i am sure there will be seasonal mods for the foxholes, we will have sugar doughnuts , log covered, pine covered and what ever they decide will be fun. Bottom line is the coded foxhole gives you some defense and reduces casulties.

[Baneman]

Maybe in the fullness of time it will be possible to have both ?

Perhaps a hurriedly-dug "Dirt Barnacle" offering fractionally less protection than the prepared "Sandbagged Foxhole".

[ClarkWGriswold]

Finally as for the rocking and rolling. Tiger tanks to rock and roll when they shoot, it is basic physics! also the Germans had a suspension system from the get go that worked, so all there vehicles rocked.

Uh, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llP9Q0e4kU8#t=6m3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llP9Q0e4kU8#t=6m31s

The vehicles barely move at all when firing. If they did, it would make for an awful unstable gun platform. Not even the large caliber self propelled arty vehicles rock like the ones in CMBN (

).

Steve even said point-blank in another thread that the rocking of the vehicles was exaggerated on purpose (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1247114&postcount=65).

[StellarRat]

I gave this some more thought and I understand why from a programming perspective why they look like the do. One thing that could be done is to try to make the colors match a little better with the ground they are dropped on.

[ChrisND]

I gave this some more thought and I understand why from a programming perspective why they look like the do. One thing that could be done is to try to make the colors match a little better with the ground they are dropped on.

Already suggested officially a loooong time ago.

[LongLeftFlank]

The foxholes look just fine up close, and like rubber rafts from a distance, which is no big deal. I definitely wasn't a big fan of the "earth pimples" they used as a placeholder. Let the modders go to work and let's see what comes up.

[DLaurier]

Maybe in the fullness of time it will be possible to have both ?

Perhaps a hurriedly-dug "Dirt Barnacle" offering fractionally less protection than the prepared "Sandbagged Foxhole".

I like the idea of two types of foxhole.

Hastily dug scrapes, and well prepared positions.

[Michael Emrys]

I like the idea of two types of foxhole.

Hastily dug scrapes, and well prepared positions.

Don't we already have that after a fashion? Don't trenches provide more protection than foxholes, or do I have that wrong?

BTW, upthread somebody said that foxholes are always dug into the ground. While generally true, it does not hold for quite 100% of all cases. Particularly, in two cases it is not done that way. One is where the water level is high, as was often the case in many parts of The Netherlands for instance. The other is where the ground is too hard to dig into. This situation was sometimes encountered in the Western Desert where the ground could be just a few inches of sand covering bedrock. In that case, a sangar of sand bags, when available, or stacked flat rocks was built. Although using rocks was not entirely satisfactory due to the production of flying chips when struck by bullets or shell fragments, they were sometimes all that was available.

Michael