The tank can spot my hide ATG in the trench beyond 800m before I fire?

[Lanzfeld]

Are sandbag emplacements FOW?

[akd]

Didn't say they weren't "working". But Steve has said a number of times that LOS in the game is real point to point line traced. If you look at the trench object in the game, you can see that the coverage area for a soldier is only about waist high and that's only if he is in the kneeling position. So without tweaking the numbers a bit for additional benefit, that's all the cover that those soldiers in trenches will enjoy. Which, of course, may be exactly what they did, but it's never been outlined by BFC (to my knowledge) how that works (tweaked or no). Remember, trenches and foxholes are simply objects on top of the terrain mesh - they do not in any way deform the terrain (to conform with the desire for FOW). Doing it this way solves the FOW problem, but may lead to some other undesired side effects, such as the anti-tank gun problem mentioned above......

AT Guns would be in the same situation with CMSF-style trenches. What is required is a crew-served weapon specific FOW fortification, like a gun pit.

[Battlefront.com]

Didn't say they weren't "working". But Steve has said a number of times that LOS in the game is real point to point line traced.

Steve has also said, a number of times, that Charles fudged the code to account for this when dealing with Foxholes and Trenches So it's not an issue.

Which, of course, may be exactly what they did, but it's never been outlined by BFC (to my knowledge) how that works (tweaked or no).

There are several very detailed threads about the new fortifications made during development. I think one was even a dedicated Bone thread. But what's past isn't relevant, what is relevant is that you now know your concerns were addressed with the original design.

Doing it this way solves the FOW problem, but may lead to some other undesired side effects, such as the anti-tank gun problem mentioned above......

ATGs wouldn't fit in CM:SF literal trenches either, so this is a non-issue when comparing the two systems.

Bottom line is the new system is vastly superior to the old CM:SF system. The player can place stuff where he wants, they aren't spotted unless observed, and they provide the protection they should (though, of course, this is more-or-less subjective).

Agree with AKD that we really need a Firing Pit that is a single, large hole in the ground that takes up a full Action Spot. I have no idea if this can be added, but it isn't a new suggestion so there might be a reason why it doesn't exist.

Steve

[LJFHutch]

I just did a test, 800m away was a Sherman unbuttoned, in the forest (completely open field in front of it) 1-2 trees deep and fairly open was an AT gun. The Sherman failed to notice 2 shots flying just over it's hatches, the guy on the top only realized something was up when a shell smacked into the ground a few meters from the front of the tank.

[Polo]

I just did a test, 800m away was a Sherman unbuttoned, in the forest (completely open field in front of it) 1-2 trees deep and fairly open was an AT gun. The Sherman failed to notice 2 shots flying just over it's hatches, the guy on the top only realized something was up when a shell smacked into the ground a few meters from the front of the tank.

Sounds good to me...

On the other hand, I don't agree trenches provide enough cover against small arms fire. But that doesn't mean I won't later on.

Regarding protection against artillery, it may be OK for what I have seen.

Polo

[gunnergoz]

I play WEGO and looked pretty closely at the replays when I was attacking the trenches in the Delaying Action scenario and it was clear they were protecting anyone who lay down in them from direct fire but anyone kneeling or standing in the trench was exposed to direct fire. I suspect the same is true for foxholes - lie down in them and you are better protected than if you kneel. The question is, can two men both lie down in a game foxhole? I doubt that.

[Steiner14]

Agree with AKD that we really need a Firing Pit that is a single, large hole in the ground that takes up a full Action Spot. I have no idea if this can be added, but it isn't a new suggestion so there might be a reason why it doesn't exist.

It's great, that you are interested to enhance the game in that aspect.

As i understand it, the problem arises from the absence of terrain-FOW. Since terrain-FOW is out of discussion, how about to put it into player's mind, although it isn't there?

Would it be possible to give certain unit-classes in the game a 2nd visualization-model? This 2nd visualization-model doesn't need to have any similarities with the real visual-model? I imagine two different visual models, the engine can choose, depending on the circumstances.

i.e. think of a trench/firing-pit which impact's the terrain. Fits nicely into the code, but unfortunately can be seen on the map.

Now, before this type of unit-class is placed on the map, this instance of the unit receives a copy of the terrain texture and a copy of the shape of the action spot it is about to be placed in. This applies only to the 2nd visual-model.

Now this 2nd visual model is the active one for unspotted firing-pits, until this action spot (or the underlying physical model) becomes spotted. If the firing pit/trench becomes spotted the engine activates the real visualization-model and this element becomes visible on the map (maybe even with the consequence, that it only becomes visible for the units that have spotted it, while the others still have no clue about it).

Additionally, in the case, that the ATG in this firing pit opens fire and becomes spotted by a enemy unit, the engine identifies the instance of the hidden firing-pit and switches off the 2nd visualization model - the "real" firing-pit becomes visible, too.

[MengJiao]

Are sandbag emplacements FOW?

I don't know, but my impression has been that they protect the guns pretty well from small arms and MG fire.

[Rokko]

I've made it test and to me it seems the foxholes/trenches are flawed somehow.

I can't imagine this to be possible....

...with a foxhole like this, the should be neither LOS nor LOF behind that wall.

[Polo]

Could you elaborate a bit, Rokko, please?

Polo

[Rokko]

Well as far as I understand foxholes are supposed to be largely underground, even if not portrayed so ingame. So I assume when in foxholes the soldiers' heads are about at ground level, higher when they are firing (part of the upper body exposed), but overall like lying troops. Now the low walls in CMBN are about waist high, so I would think that troops in foxholes shouldn't be able to look, let alone fire behind them. BTW, lying troops set to "hide" do not have LOS.

[denbushisan]

From what I've observed so far it seems to me that trenches provide rather little cover against small arms or artillery unless the occupants are set to hide and kept prone. Any squad in a trench that I've seen that is exposed to any significant amount of fire is wiped out pretty quickly.

A bigger problem is what to do with AT guns, especially vs artillary. The crews of AT guns seem to be wiped out VERY easilly by any artillary strike, and since there is no way to entrench them, this is EXTREMELY annoying to me. I tried having crews abandon their guns and take cover in nearby trenches with the "hide" command until the artillary barrage is over, but much to my dismay, there is no way for them to remount their guns. This is a HUGE oversight in my opinion.

BATTLEFRONT, can we PLEASE get a way to have dismounted crews remount their guns, or a way to entrench guns, or a way to camoflage guns, or all three? That would be awsome, otherwise my AT gun crews pretty much get wiped out at the outset of any engagement, particularly when the enemy has artillary/mortars available.

[Magpie_Oz]

A foxhole in general should be a simple shallow hole in which a man or 2 can curl up into a little ball and hide from direct fire.

This can then be enhanced into an entrenchment by being enlarged or deepened.

A trench is more developed still and should be deeper than a man is tall with a step in it to allow for fire, overhead protection, sand bags, bunkers and interconnection to other saps.

Not sure which of these CM:BN models but they do provide varying degrees of protection especially from airbursts.

To my mind a foxhole should provide a little cover to a unit that does not fire back and should be invisible if behind a wall (as in the old ASL). An entrenchment the same amount of cover with the ability to return fire and a trench should really offer the highest level of cover while allowing full fire production.

[Gazmaps]

A possible bug with AT guns. If limbered upto a prime mover once deployed they seem to stay stuck as limbered up and will not fire (but will however move). Ive tested this on the US 57mm AT and one of the German Field guns.

I did a little test on defence visibility. I found that trenches remain concealed much better than sandbags and foxholes. In woods you need to be ontop of the trenches usually before you see them. The sandbags are generally spotted faily early as are the foxholes this makes providing cover for the AT difficult as the sandbags seem to be fairly easy to spot and will give away the posistion.

Ideally need to increase concealment of sandbags (so can be used to provide cover for AT guns or create a new emplacement defence).

Some other points:

-Cannot change orientation (face) of wire obstacles, trencehes and hedgehogs though you can for sandbags.

-Cannot see Field of view/fire for bunkers

-Need cover armour arcs so they dont keep firing of at infantry (although I havent see this yet myself).

-I think all the emplacements and field defences are to expensive. It removes the incentive to use them as you generally cant buy enough to be effective from what Ive seen (mainly in quick battles, so could probally be alleviated by a good scenario designer)

Though Im not whining. The game is excellent.

[Redwolf]

A foxhole in general should be a simple shallow hole in which a man or 2 can curl up into a little ball and hide from direct fire.

No, the main reason troops are ordered to dig foxholes in the evening, especially Americans in Normandy, is artillery fire. Of course they are placed in a defensive line and can then be used against direct fire, but attacks are much rarer than interdiction and harassment fire.

The main reason to build trenches is communications. They allow people to move between defensive position while under fire (indirect or direct), which is used for tactical movements and for resupply.

Both should give about the same protection against fire *if* the occupants are in a position to actively defend and have LOS to attackers.