Lurker765 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I, too, have problems with protection in foxholes and trenches. If I place a trench near bocage my men will crawl out of the trench and over to the bocage. Does this mean that bocage is better than a trench for cover? The trench (or foxhole) is placed as close as I can get it to the bocage, but it appears to be in an adjacent action spot. I also have many of my men will lay in between the empty foxholes rather than climb in one. I tried using the 'face' command in every direction and some men will then get in the foxhole while others will climb out and lay behind a foxhole. Does that provide them any cover since the foxhole is raised out of the mesh? I have men with normal morale and a leader in the trench with them that leave the trench during an artillery strike to huddle under a tree. Do trees actually provide more cover from arty fire than a trench in the open? That doesn't seem right. I have had four men in a trench together all die from a single arty shell that hit 25-30m away. Is this normal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I am not sure whether the weapon can be reloaded in the prone state. Wouldn't it be loaded by his assistant? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I have men with normal morale and a leader in the trench with them that leave the trench during an artillery strike to huddle under a tree. Do trees actually provide more cover from arty fire than a trench in the open? That doesn't seem right. Actually, it should be more dangerous under the tree as the tree can cause treebursts, which are deadly to troops on the ground. Being in the trench should provide almost perfect cover except from a shell landing in the trench or close enough to bury its occupants in displaced soil. I have had four men in a trench together all die from a single arty shell that hit 25-30m away. Is this normal? Not in real life. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayak47 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'd experiment with this if my wife gave me enough time on the computer! But, has anyone tried this with a "hide" command? Hide should cause the guys to go down and stay down in their holes, while not having this command would assume that they are regularly exposing themselves to fire or spot. Even four guys might be peaking out of trench at the same time and get nailed by the same shell. It shouldn't happen all the time though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 4 men dying to 1 arty shell 25-30 meters away could be realistic - if the arty shell is from a battleship maybe. Even 8 inch it might happen, though not consistently every time. 105s, no, it might cap a guy from shrapnel at that distance but not all of them at once. It would need to be much closer to get most of them (like within 10 meters). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayak47 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 30 meters is only 100 feet, that's easilly kill radius for just about anything artillery size. But hey, I used to blow this stuff for a living, what do I know! But you make a good point, the size of the shell wasn't mentioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 30 meters is only 100 feet, that's easilly kill radius for just about anything artillery size. But hey, I used to blow this stuff for a living, what do I know! But you make a good point, the size of the shell wasn't mentioned. it's from the demo game scenario Busting the Bocage. Whatever the Americans have in that scenario is where I noticed that the artillery is absolutely deadly to troops cowering in their trenches. I can't remember what the four soldiers were doing when the one shell wiped them out that turn, but from what I remember there was more cowering than spotting going on while the shells were raining down. I have no problems with someone getting whacked from 100 feet away from a 105mm shell (if that is what it was), but if they are in a trench that seems a bit much. Especially four men at once. That same scenario is where I found the massive difficulties in getting my men to stay in their trenches even if they weren't under fire. They just prefer to go into the bocage, but I wanted them to stay away from it so they could ambush the Americans when the enemy snuggled up to the bocage. But, every turn my men crawled out of the trenches and back to the bocage even if the artillery was landing next to them (unless they were cowering and stayed in the trenches). So, every turn I would send them back to the trenches and this repeated until most of them died. The four casualties in the trench fell victim to a somewhat stray shell and they were in the open away from anything that would tempt them out of their trench. Anyway, do the raised up off the ground foxholes actually provide cover to the men hiding behind (not in) them? WYSIWYG and all that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 "Hide" in foxholes is a good suggestion, except it too is not realistic. It goes too far in the other direction: completely cuts of the possibility of spotting enemy from there and returning fire. As I started out saying: the troops need to "hide" (duck) _when there's a threat_. Prior to that, as someone else said, they need to expose only their heads, not their torso (either explicitly or abstractedly). I'm too scared to put my men in trenches: they look too exposed GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Looks like the code managed to get us fog-of-war on the placeable fortifications (foxholes and trenches) but has lost cover against indirect fire for everybody and cover and concealment for towed guns against any fire on the way. To get cover you need to use non-FoW fortifications. That gets us back to whenever I made that point during development: for me the thrill of leading forces into an unknown potential death trap of hidden AT guns and infantry is what a Normandy game should be about. At the time I thought that what was missing was the fog of war on the fortifications, it didn't occur to me we'd lose cover and/or concealment. I said this to Steve in the other thread: the current mix of cover and concealment from 3D on one hand and terrain type abstraction on the other hand is leaning way too far toward the former. I really hope the code can be flexible enough to do this. It should be reasonably straightforward to increase cover value in foxholes and trenches. But if spotting is pure 3D so far that might not be easy to integrate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 Trenches aren't _always_ useless: ... I was encouraged to see them survive the direct hit on the trench wall... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Looks like the code managed to get us fog-of-war on the placeable fortifications (foxholes and trenches) but has lost cover against indirect fire for everybody and cover and concealment for towed guns against any fire on the way. To get cover you need to use non-FoW fortifications. Trenches and foxholes are not intended for towed guns. There's 'Sandbag Wall' for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Trenches and foxholes are not intended for towed guns. There's 'Sandbag Wall' for them. Yup that's the non FoW fortification that redwolf was on about - sandbag walls are always visible and not subject to FoW from what I've seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I think that Infantry in Houses and Foxholes should get their Heads down more often on Enemy Fire and the Supressionlevel goes down to fast. One time i tested the Effect of 81mm Mortar Fire on US Positions in Foxholes. The First few Rounds Hit around them (about 50m more or less). The Soldiers where on their Knees in their Foxholes. First Casualties ocurr. Everything allright to me because of the First Shrapnels flying around. Then they where supressed by the "Supression Meter". Okay. But after half a Minute the Supression Level got down way to fast in my Opinion (overall Supression goes down to fast). The Soldiers (after around 30sec.) put out their Heads again as the Second Wave ov Barrage goes down, killing lots more People then if they where Prone in their Foxholes. I hope you get what i mean. Infantry shouldnt expose that much in Houses, Foxholes and Trenches. Infantry (even without Hiding) should peek their Head up or 1 Soldier should spot for them or even two and the Rest should stay Heads down. Then they should get up when there is an Enemy and should Fire fast and then gets heads down again. But maybe its overall Balanced well? So that Enemy Fire is that inaccurate that the overall outcome is okay? Are Buildings abstraced in Terms of Cover? Or does for example like this: 0.50cal Hits Brickwall at Range X, does/not penetrate and Hit the Guy behind the Wall? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 We read in another thread that buildings are abstratect in terms of cover. First the projectile has to intersect the soldier model. Then the soldier gets a dice roll that likely will save him due to cover. See my Mr Invincible video for this in action.. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Trenches and foxholes are not intended for towed guns. There's 'Sandbag Wall' for them. As mentioned then you cannot place them where you want and the scenario of advancing combined arms into a zone where you think AT guns hang out becomes unrealistic. Furthermore even if sandbag walls were working with fow, I don't think that restriction is realistic. AT guns were dug into the ground pretty much the same way that infantry and MGs was. Just ggoleing for photos I can't find pak40s with sandbags, but interestingly enough they seemed to have a SOP to make a wooden floor for the dugout. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I just wish we had the tools to do our own "excavations" and some loose sandbag and other defensive pieces that could be slapped together however the designer wished. The elevation tool is to blunt to provide this feature. We would need sub-action spot detail level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I just wish we had the tools to do our own "excavations" and some loose sandbag and other defensive pieces that could be slapped together however the designer wished. The elevation tool is to blunt to provide this feature. We would need sub-action spot detail level. I'm not really happy with the choices and effectiveness we have now myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I'd have to say that Houses, foxholes and trenches all seem to confer less cover than one would expect. Lying prone in the open seems to be a more survivable tactic than using these as "cover" - not least because troops appear to fire over their heads a lot - it's almost as if they expect the enemy to be kneeling or standing and aim accordingly. In trenches, foxholes and houses, they are kneeling or standing and die as a result. I think so too. In one scenario, I had two HMG teams and 4 rifleman firing at enemy infanty lying in an empty field at a range of perhaps 400m. The infantry appeared to be on a forward slope, and near the edge of the map. This engagement went on for nearly 10 minutes, and I don't think I ever hit one enemy soldier. I just saw rounds flying overhead and off the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Can I ask why it is people think that the Sandbag Walls aren't behaving according to FoW? I just did a test and they most certainly do. And why is it being said that they can't be user placed? I just moved them about in my test scenario. Anybody that thinks we should have stuck with CM:SF's non-FOW, non-placeable defensive terrain is nuts. Either that or they haven't played CM:SF as the defender against a Human player. Now, do we need to tweak things a bit more? Probably. We're looking into this already. But let's not get down the road of completely useless speculation about what the code can and can't do. That's always a silly thing to do because 99% of the time there's no problem with the code's structure in a situation like this. Or at least no code issue that can't be fairly easily worked around when there is a definable and justifiable alternative behavior to go after. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 So we can change the Behavior of the Infantry? Make them go more Prone to Enemy Fire and just pop up fast and Shoot and then get back down again? We can make them not sooo exposed behind a Wall,Window or similar? That would be awesome! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 But let's not get down the road of completely useless speculation... Steve This is the internet. So I'm afraid that's a 'no'. Also, can you get rid of enemy minefields? I hate them and they kill my men. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Bump for my foxhole question again. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 Can I ask why it is people think that the Sandbag Walls aren't behaving according to FoW? Slight frustration: there was only one misguided comment on FOW ... most of the thread is about the apparent lack of effectiveness of foxholes, the difficulty of getting the TacAI to use the, and the apparent over-effectiveness of HE at distance. Any insight about these actually issues (as opposed to the imagined FOW one)? Ta! GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Can I ask why it is people think that the Sandbag Walls aren't behaving according to FoW? I just did a test and they most certainly do. And why is it being said that they can't be user placed? I just moved them about in my test scenario. Steve Well in the final battle of the 'courage and fortitude' campaign I am pretty certain that there were sandbag walls visible in areas that I had never had LOS too, which was a bit of a giveaway to where some AT assets might be. In retrospect though there was some pre-game intel in this battle, and I could see some enemy fortifications (such as some of the barbed wire) in the setup phase; it seems that pre-battle intel on fortifications shows the actual fortification rather than a '?' marker like it does for units. Don't know if that is intended behaviour or not, but I've only seen it with sandbags and barbed wire that I can remember, not with foxholes or trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 These fortification items seem to suffer from the same problem as Flavor Objects - They move around inside the action spots each time you restart the Mission. Didn't this problem with flavor objects exist back in CMSF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.