Foxholes seem to be really really broken

[GreenAsJade]

... I just had a team of 4 enemy guys rush across an open field and leap into the foxholes that my team of 4 guys was manning, mowing my guys down in the process.

My guys were hiding with a covered arc. The enemy entered the arc, my guys popped up to shoot at them ... and died.

It appears that my guys would have been better standing in the open, so they would have been on an equal footing with the attackers, instead of bending down and trying to take cover that doesn't protect them...

As always, I'm open to insights about why this might actually not be a major problem... maybe I didn't use the correct orders to make my guys react properly?

But if this is how it works... it seems that attack/defend scenarios are pretty much out of the question while this sort of crazy stuff happens. Defenders need foxholes to be working...

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

(note: One argument would be "hey, the enemy went outside your covered arc, so your guys stopped shooting at them". That would be OK, except we heard from Steve that guys are supposed to ignore covered arcs if they are threatened... and indeed, they should do that... so maybe its both covered arcs _and_ foxholes that are broken!)

[Hiram Sedai]

I had a german gentleman with a handgun walk behind my corn fed Americans and shoot 4 of them in their foxholes. It was more of an execution than a battle. I had to watch two Lady Gaga videos to cheer me up after that.

Please fix or do somefink.

[Runyan99]

Limited experience has made me unenthusiastic about foxholes also. In a large scenario I just started PBEM, I put almost all of them in an empty field at the back of the map, and lined my infantry up along hedgerows or in woods.

[akd]

Looks to me like they are taking quite a bit of fire from other locations. The MG42 is suppressed and cowering before the approaching guys even take a shot, then he gets whacked first, leaving only 3 riflemen taking a lot of fire. Pretty hopeless situation without supporting fire.

That said, exposure for unhidden troops in foxholes has been reduced for the patch.

[GreenAsJade]

Limited experience has made me unenthusiastic about foxholes also. In a large scenario I just started PBEM, I put almost all of them in an empty field at the back of the map, and lined my infantry up along hedgerows or in woods.

Thats OK except when the scenario design determines where they are, and doesn't provide anything else (as in this case).

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Looks to me like they are taking quite a bit of fire from other locations. However, exposure for unhidden troops in foxholes has been reduced for the patch.

Actually, they aren't taking any other fire. The other bullets you see are crossfire from unrelated skirmishes. When I zoom out it appears clear that these bullets are intended for nor intersecting with the guys in question.

As always, I can send the save file if needed.

I have heard that foxholes are being improved in the patch. This is good news. What I hadn't realised up till now is just how urgent that improvment is. I for one won't be playing any more attack/defense games till it's fixed.

GaJ

[akd]

They are partially suppressed before the closing US team takes a shot. This is mostly an example of the role bad luck can play. Think how differently it might have gone if that first shot from one of the German riflemen had connected with the approaching team.

But please do send the save so I can take a closer look.

[wokelly]

I really dislike foxholes in this game, the soldier simply do not stay in them, especially if they need to shift direction and engage a new target. Foxholes need to be designed like buildings where soldiers "enter" them.

[PhantomApple]

I watched it 4 times, and although I agree that fox holes can be a pain to deal with, what I came away with was that hide might have not helped at all (didn't spot till they were almost sharing that foxhole), those guys knew where you were, 1-2 lucky garand rounds at point blank range killed all 4 guys.

I didnt come away at all that the foxhole was somehow culpable.

Ps. Those 3 riflemen would have been in a fetal position in open ground post garand(s), and hide had em sucking cover pre-garand. Actually now that I think about it I never considered that being in a fortified position makes a squad more susceptible to suppression. AFAIK it doesn't, my play experience in cmx2 has never shown that, but I'd have to test to be sure.

[argie]

Definitely, for whatever reason, they were already suppressed when opened up.

[PLM2]

My big problem is that infantry don't seem to regard foxholes as cover on their own. I've had units in a wide open map ditch their foxholes and sit out in the open (closer to the enemy) and engage them. Also I haven't really managed to get a unit to retreat to backup foxholes on their own, even when they're in a great spot and safe. Theyre just as likely to run away and lay on the ground five feet from the foxholes than get in them. The same goes for trenches. Its almost like the units don't regard the same way as other cover such as a tree or some bushes... or a wall.

Its obvious under artillery barrages that this seems to be the case... Units will often crawl a few feet away out of their foxhole and sit there under the barrage as if the cost benefit of leaving a foxhole to move just outside was somehow justified.

[Peregrine]

When it comes to CLOSE fighting like that relative cover doesn't seem to matter too much. Whoever gets suppressed first loses. Hard to tell from the little clip but it would have been better if your guys opened up sooner. Having them on hide wouldn't have helped with this.

[Lurker765]

I have found that having units lying on the ground in between the foxholes provides better cover for my men than being IN a foxhole. I have had squads wiped out with the last man almost always being whomever was lying prone behind or between foxholes.

So how would everyone recommend doing an ambush in CMBN if you can't use hide and covered arc? If you don't hide then you get spotted. If you do hide then you fire last.

I'm also giving up on attack/defense battles until the patch. I'm curious to see the change in protection.

[Lurker765]

My big problem is that infantry don't seem to regard foxholes as cover on their own. I've had units in a wide open map ditch their foxholes and sit out in the open (closer to the enemy) and engage them. Also I haven't really managed to get a unit to retreat to backup foxholes on their own, even when they're in a great spot and safe. Theyre just as likely to run away and lay on the ground five feet from the foxholes than get in them. The same goes for trenches. Its almost like the units don't regard the same way as other cover such as a tree or some bushes... or a wall.

Its obvious under artillery barrages that this seems to be the case... Units will often crawl a few feet away out of their foxhole and sit there under the barrage as if the cost benefit of leaving a foxhole to move just outside was somehow justified.

This is my experience as well.

[Agua]

I think your cover arc f'd you in that one GaJ. What I've noticed, though, is that if you come upon them from a direction other than that which they're facing, the troops inside are pretty much toast. On the other side, I've had an entire squad, save 1 guy, get mowed down by 1 light machine gunner in reverse slope that somehow survived the opening barrage in Busting the Bocage.

[GreenAsJade]

So this is ridiculous, right?

In one conversation I'm being persuaded that its OK that my guys fire at a tank outside the covered arc that is no immediate threat whatsoever, and now I'm being persuaded that its OK that my guys _stopped fighting_ some guys that were _rushing at them and killing them_!!!

Someone said "the hide is the problem". Sure. But if they weren't hiding they would have been sitting up getting mowed down. So how exactly are we supposed to successfully utilise foxhole cover?

And it's not the case that the incoming guys were "almost upon them" before they were spotted. They had a long long run through an open field to get to the foxholes, and at one point they stand still in the open and fire upon the foxhole occupants.

It's completely broken, IMHO. Those foxhole guys should have been lying down in the foxhole with only their gun and their helmet poking out, and they should have been firing like mad.

GaJ

[Lurker765]

I think your cover arc f'd you in that one GaJ. What I've noticed, though, is that if you come upon them from a direction other than that which they're facing, the troops inside are pretty much toast. On the other side, I've had an entire squad, save 1 guy, get mowed down by 1 light machine gunner in reverse slope that somehow survived the opening barrage in Busting the Bocage.

How is this possible? He had a cover arc so that his men would open fire on the exact area they would be coming from. The enemy soldiers arrived in that area and even stopped and stood there for 5-10 seconds. Isn't that the purpose of a cover arc? To limit your men to shooting at someone in a specific area and when the enemy goes there they should get shot?

[Oddball_E8]

yeah, ive had very poor experiences with foxholes... most of the time anything in the foxhole dies faster than anything in the open right next to it (and i know this since my troops tend to crawl OUT of the foxholes when under fire to sit next to them in the open)

even from a very very long range, it seems you are more exposed in a foxhole than on open ground :/

i have a sneaking suspicion that there is a decimal in the wrong place or something in the coding for foxholes, making them actually less cover than open ground is...

[ClarkWGriswold]

My guys were hiding with a covered arc. The enemy entered the arc, my guys popped up to shoot at them ... and died.

I think that's the problem. Troops ordered to hide can spot and will occasionally shoot, but not enough to be effective (In my experience hiding troops shoot just enough to give away their location and become bullet magnets). I'd bet that if you had a covered arc and NO hide order, your men would have mowed down the attackers. Instead, they laid down and covered their heads until the guys were right on top of them, and by then it was too late.

Edit: Basically, the hide order is useless in CMBN. Worse than useless; Harmful.

[gunnergoz]

Hiding troops seem somehow...demoralized...by the hide order. They seem to respond to threats more slowly and seemingly lose confidence or aggressiveness. Maybe that's the way its supposed to be, but if so, then perhaps we need an "ambush concealment" order that preserves their fighting edge without turning them into quaking, indecisive Uphams.

[mjkerner]

that preserves their fighting edge without turning them into quaking, indecisive Uphams.

Good one!

[wolf66]

So this is ridiculous, right?

In one conversation I'm being persuaded that its OK that my guys fire at a tank outside the covered arc that is no immediate threat whatsoever, and now I'm being persuaded that its OK that my guys _stopped fighting_ some guys that were _rushing at them and killing them_!!!

Someone said "the hide is the problem". Sure. But if they weren't hiding they would have been sitting up getting mowed down. So how exactly are we supposed to successfully utilise foxhole cover?

And it's not the case that the incoming guys were "almost upon them" before they were spotted. They had a long long run through an open field to get to the foxholes, and at one point they stand still in the open and fire upon the foxhole occupants.

It's completely broken, IMHO. Those foxhole guys should have been lying down in the foxhole with only their gun and their helmet poking out, and they should have been firing like mad.

GaJ

You are right. This behaviour is ridiculous and any attempt to defend it is a joke. Remember what the outcome was in CMx1 when you had guys sprinting in the open and a german squad opened up from hide on them ? they IMMEDIATELY hit the deck with casualties and tried frantically to sneak to cover, like they well should ..... now you got those GI Joe Übersoldiers and the Germans feel like syrians with cooler uniforms .....

[LemuelG]

Edit: Basically, the hide order is useless in CMBN. Worse than useless; Harmful.

I disagree, if your guys are being engaged by a reasonably faraway unit while in cover of some sort, 'hiding' is usually good enough to cause the enemy's visual contact to vanish, allowing you to make a discrete getaway (on their bellies).

But yeah, it didn't do OP any good... I'm not surprised, for me it means "don't fire, don't spot, just lie on belly and keep head down", and I am glad for that.

Shame bayonets aren't modeled, that would have been great at the end there... I mean, they pretty much had to jump in the holes with the Germans, and even then one survived till the end of video. So broken

User error.

[PLM2]

Then hiding doesn't work in the way of the original CM because it was great for use in conjunction with a cover arc.

Ive found some uses for hide... on a mission today I had a platoon hq on one side of some raised elavated train tracks taking fire. I just told them to hide and they didn't get hit.

I have had problems though getting units to actually stay down and hide when under fire.... even at ranges of 400 meters or so. My self-esteem raising defenses on open ground maps are showing me that telling my men to hide when I need to them to conserve fire in a trench doesn't work so well. I have to also give them a cover arc or else they'll start shooting again... even if the incoming fire isn't really directed at them.

IMO attacking is already tough in CMBN... But on the other hand, the defensive fortifications don't seem to work as well as I'd expect. Not only with trenches/foxholes but it has became quite routine for me to knock out bunkers with a couple 1917 MGs lately at maybe 300 meters.