Fortification near bocage - is it right that it doesn't work?

[GreenAsJade]

Is there some intentional reason why fortifications can't be placed in the action spot next to bocage?

It seems to be the case that foxholes and trenches refuse to go into that action spot, so that guys who want to shoot through the bocage have to be unfortified...

This that right?

[Lanzfeld]

Steve said that the berm of the bocage gives the same protection as a foxhole so no real need to put them together.

I dont like the way foxholes and trenches are now. I am very glad they are FOW but they are so restricted right now as to where they go I just dont bother.

[GreenAsJade]

Ah - good to know about the berm... I didn't know that

[YankeeDog]

Hm. Not sure I agree with that choice. Foxholes might not give any better protection to fire coming across the berm, but they would provide better protection if (a) the position gets flanked, and ( against artillery, which may land behind the position, where the berm will provide no cover, but a foxhole or other entrenchment would.

I can definitely see myself wanting to put foxholes adjacent to a line of bocage sometimes for these reasons.

[LJFHutch]

I usually just don't use fortifications, I found them useless in the demo (though I might be using them wrong). Why pay money for something that grows everywhere and doesn't conceal you as well?

Bocage is a network of impassable chest-high-walls though so why would you ever need fortifications?

[scottie]

plenty of battle with no bocage though and if not designer will be uploading them soon enough.

[GreenAsJade]

Artillery.

As LemoN said... I just realised it, too.

I was looking at the dudes I placed all lined up to be covered by the berm and I thought "now, that looks like a prime arty target, they are dead meat!"

Please tell me foxholes and trenches are good against arty...

[LJFHutch]

Artillery.

As LemoN said... I just realised it, too.

I was looking at the dudes I placed all lined up to be covered by the berm and I thought "now, that looks like a prime arty target, they are dead meat!"

Please tell me foxholes and trenches are good against arty...

Aye, forgot about that, yeah they're an awful lot better than berms actually .... never get your entire force strung along a single massive bocage line .... my bad

[YankeeDog]

I usually just don't use fortifications, I found them useless in the demo (though I might be using them wrong). Why pay money for something that grows everywhere and doesn't conceal you as well?

Bocage is a network of impassable chest-high-walls though so why would you ever need fortifications?

As I previously noted, artillery. Bocage provides great protection, but it's directional protection and therefore only provides good protection against relatively flat trajectory fire coming from the other side of the berm. When the artillery starts falling all around the position, it's much better if the soldiers are in a foxhole or trench.

I'm less interested in it as a QB purchase issue (it may well be true that foxholes and trenches are not the best usage of points in a competitive purchase environment), than I am because I think entrenchments right up against a bocage embankment are pretty necessary to depict the German defensive positions in Normandy for historical and semi-historical scenarios.

Many of the prepared German positions in the bocage were very well dug-in. This made it very difficult to root them out with only lighter artillery fire (60mm & 81mm mortars, chiefly) since the germans could "go to ground" in their foxholes, trenches, dugouts, where light artillery usually couldn't cause much damage.

Right now, if you have light mortars, once you fix an enemy position in the bocage, you can drop mortar rounds just behind the bocage (bear in mind that CMx2 allows you to target on-map mortars slightly out of LOS, over walls and bocage and the like), and very effectively suppress and kill the enemy unit. This tactic would be markedly less effective against an enemy set up along a bocage embankment AND in a foxhole or trench.

[Edit: Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way... I'm just one of the slower typists]

[Blackcat]

"bear in mind that CMx2 allows you to target on-map mortars slightly out of LOS, over walls and bocage and the like"

Are you talking here about the effect that was given to the Brit 2 inch mortars in CMSF? I had forgetten about that, but there again I haven't noticed direct fire 60mm having the same ability. Have I missed something? I feel as if I have and its rather important.

[LemoN]

[Edit: Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way... I'm just one of the slower typists]

Yup, I "complained" about this right during my second demo battle.

As it stands now I actually find heavily "bocaged" terrain to be a huge advantage for the attacker rather than the defender.

[YankeeDog]

"bear in mind that CMx2 allows you to target on-map mortars slightly out of LOS, over walls and bocage and the like"

Are you talking here about the effect that was given to the Brit 2 inch mortars in CMSF? I had forgetten about that, but there again I haven't noticed direct fire 60mm having the same ability. Have I missed something? I feel as if I have and its rather important.

Yep; it's in. Check p. 102 of the manual. You don't even need direct fire; you can do this via a spotter. And while I haven't tried it yet with larger assets, apparently this is a capability available to all artillery types now.

Mind you, I think this capability for artillery is fine. But it does then become a very effective tactic to target a linear artillery mission fire just on the other side of a row of bocage. And one of the counters to this tactic would be to dig in the defenders along the bocage line (which is probably why the Germans dug themselves into the bocage like field rats). Obviously, foxholes aren't going to make a unit impervious to artillery, but they should mean that the attacker will have to use more and/or bigger shells to get the same level of suppression and/or attrition.

[LJFHutch]

Yup, I "complained" about this right during my second demo battle.

As it stands now I actually find heavily "bocaged" terrain to be a huge advantage for the attacker rather than the defender.

Absolutely, there's cover everywhere for advances, then remember that you're usually only advancing a hundred or two hundred meters at a time ...

[Broadsword56]

I'm less interested in it as a QB purchase issue (it may well be true that foxholes and trenches are not the best usage of points in a competitive purchase environment), than I am because I think entrenchments right up against a bocage embankment are pretty necessary to depict the German defensive positions in Normandy for historical and semi-historical scenarios.

Many of the prepared German positions in the bocage were very well dug-in. This made it very difficult to root them out with only lighter artillery fire (60mm & 80mm mortars, chiefly) since the germans could "go to ground" in their foxholes, trenches, dugouts, where light artillery usually couldn't cause much damage.

Right now, if you have light mortars, once you fix an enemy position in the bocage, you can drop mortar rounds just behind the bocage (bear in mind that CMx2 allows you to target on-map mortars slightly out of LOS, over walls and bocage and the like), and very effectively suppress and kill the enemy unit. This tactic would be markedly less effective against an enemy set up along a bocage embankment AND in a foxhole or trench.

Love 99.9% of everything about the demo, but I'd say this is my #1 and only significant concern about the game so far. I understand the technical reasons BF couldn't allow foxholes and trenches in the hedgerows. But it's a design compromise that could fundamentally change the balance of the tactics and outcomes of the game.

I guess with the current system, one could set up occupied foxholes 2 action points behind a bocage line, deploy a few split scouts as observation posts on the hedgerow itself, and then move the bulk of the force to the hedgerow or back to the foxholes as necessary, depending on whether there's a barrage or an approaching infantry attack. That would also protect German MGs against the standard US hedgerow tactic of clobbering the far corners of the field with HE and smoke. Just keep the MGs sheltered, wait until the preparatory fire and mortar barrage ends, then man the MGs and repel the attack.

Any thoughts? Does the current system really wreck the historical tactics?

[Blackcat]

Thanks Mr. Dog,

I think that is possibly the underlying cause for some of the behaviours some of the people here have been seeing. It's back to Busting the Bocage for a little experimentation for me.

[womble]

My recollection from when this was brought up before is that someone from BFC said that fortifications are meant to combine with Bocage. It might be an 'issue' if they aren't behaving as expected...

[YankeeDog]

Love 99.9% of everything about the demo, but I'd say this is my #1 and only significant concern about the game so far. I understand the technical reasons BF couldn't allow foxholes and trenches in the hedgerows. But it's a design compromise that could fundamentally change the balance of the tactics and outcomes of the game.

I guess with the current system, one could set up occupied foxholes 2 action points behind a bocage line, deploy a few split scouts as observation posts on the hedgerow itself, and then move the bulk of the force to the hedgerow or back to the foxholes as necessary, depending on whether there's a barrage or an approaching infantry attack. That would also protect German MGs against the standard US hedgerow tactic of clobbering the far corners of the field with HE and smoke. Just keep the MGs sheltered, wait until the preparatory fire and mortar barrage ends, then man the MGs and repel the attack.

Any thoughts? Does the current system really wreck the historical tactics?

Overall, I love the demo, too. But this would definitely be on my top 5 concerns list.

Fallback foxholes are a very good idea and may in some cases be preferable to foxholes right up at the bocage, because this allows you to move units into a location out of the line of fire, and also perhaps out from under the worst part of an artillery barrage. When you see the spotting round(s) come in, you can fall back, and then re-man the line once the arty stops. But they're not a substitute for up "on the line" dug-in positions, which allow the front line to hold their ground and return fire.

The big problem to me is with light, on-map mortars, which can respond very quickly, especially if you move the mortars up with the advancing troops, and use voice-directed indirect fire, rather than keeping the mortars far back, and relying on wireless C2. Looking at the classic situation where the Germans are in the bocage on one side of the field defending, and the Americans are in the bocage on the other side of the field, and want to attack across the field, right now it's VERY easy to knock out the German defensive positions with 60mm mortars once you've spotted them. Spotting the Germans will probably cost you a few scout teams, but after this, you can pick them off one by one, as long as you have enough mortar shells.

Of course, the Germans can do the same thing with their mortars to the Americans. But, as attacker, the Americans have the advantage of choosing when and were they apply their main effort.

Now, if the defender in bocage terrain were able to be behind the bocage and well dug in, then I think equation would change considerably.

I'll see what it's like once I have the full game and can play with this type of situation in the Editor... I'm not going to draw any definitive conclusions just yet. I am more than a bit concerned about this, though. I assume there was some sort of issue with getting the foxholes and trenches to position correctly along the bocage embankment, which is a shame; it would be really nice to be able to put them there.

[Wengart]

Foxholes, if you fiddle with them can be placed behind hedgerows, but the rear two positions will not have los through the hedgerow.

Another issue with trenches especially, besides being unable to change their facing, is that if they are placed behind low bocage and you tell a unit in them to face towards the bocage they will leave the trench and line up directly on the bocage.

[mjkerner]

Steve said that the berm of the bocage gives the same protection as a foxhole so no real need to put them together.

That's my experience so far. My first go at BtB, I played the Germans. I wasn't sure if the placement of units was deliberately for maximum tactical advantage---it sort of looked that way, withalot of the troops placed along hedgerow berms forward of the entrenchments, or the entrenchments out in the open. So I figured we were encouraged to do our own placement. Which I did. Big mistake...I moved almost all the entrenchments/foxholes around to be inside wooded areas, and placed most of my troops in them. When the Amis let loose the opening barrage---my troop were decimated! Tree bursts were devastating. It was a major disaster...and then the armor came busting through the hedgerows, making toast of everything left. I had about 80% casualties.

So, next time I left the set up as is. After the big barrage, most of those not in trenches and along the hedgerows were OK. I pulled them back into the trenches as the battle wore on, and ended with a major victory with a total of 48 casualtier, with the Americans losing 5 tanks and 99 men.

During that game, I had a panzerschrecker in the berm shooting through the gap at a Sherman broadside in the road right next to him. He hit it--how could he miss--but no damage. The Sherman took umbrage, pivoted a bit and blasted him for at least a full 30 seconds, maybe longer, with the bow MG. "Damn", says I. "No sweat" (Nein Schwetten?) says he, emerging from the bocage no worse the wear.

I'm loving this game!

[YankeeDog]

Good info; thanks, Wengart.

As long as the AI German squads is "smart" enough to put the MG42 in the forward foxhole that can see through the bocage (assuming the squad is facing that direction), this would seem to work fine.

Trenches are definitely a bit funky; I've basically decided I need to wait until I get the full game and can play with them freely in a simple test scenario before I draw any conclusions there...

[LongLeftFlank]

Foxholes, if you fiddle with them can be placed behind hedgerows, but the rear two positions will not have los through the hedgerow.

Another issue with trenches especially, besides being unable to change their facing, is that if they are placed behind low bocage and you tell a unit in them to face towards the bocage they will leave the trench and line up directly on the bocage.

Which is great since if your troops are shelled or flanked they can get down from the berm and take cover in the trench. It looks like you can also fiddle with the editor to combine a 3m embankment with hedge and/or dense forest to create your own bocage tile that bunkers, guns and vehicles can emplace on or in. Takes just a little fiddling to get it looking nice

The CMx2 Editor is quite powerful and can create highly realistic maps if you understand the game mechanics and put some thought into it. That's why I've been so passionate about enabling copy-paste terrain so map grogs can build prefab "tile sets" for those who want to focus on the battle design and AI.

[Broadsword56]

I wish there had been a way for BF to create a special "bocage foxhole" that would appear to be dug into the berm (like a 2D decal on a special tile maybe), that wouldn't deform the terrain or ruin FOW. Then maybe something could have been abstracted so that a unit on it would get a foxhole defensive benefit in addition to the bocage benefit.

Anyway, I'm glad to learn that about the forward foxhole and LOS. I'll have to experiment with that and see how it works.

[Wengart]

You will probably have to fiddle with the face command to get the mg in the right position.

[GreenAsJade]

There are definitely directions/situations of bocage where you can't get the foxhole near it.

I agree that there are some situations where you can: I haven't figured out the difference yet.

Should treebursts be fatal to guys in trenches in wooded areas? I thought a trench was a good place to be in an arty shower...

GaJ

[Ryujin]

A trench is handy, but has no top cover. The rounds bursting in the trees will be far more dangerous than those hitting the ground near a trench. The tree bursts will shower shrapnel down into the trench from tree height, bypassing the cover offered by the trench.

The tree bursts would have to be pretty close to get shrapnel into the trench though. A trench in a clearing would be far safer in woods.