Foxholes seem to be really really broken

[LemuelG]

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.

Personally I hope BFC are working on resolving the FOW/deformed terrain issue sooner rather then later; like many I'm sure, I look at them (forts) with a bit of a cocked eyebrow... I'm not sure what to think really, though I do know they are currently not 100% satisfactory, for entirely obvious reasons.

[PLM2]

I seem to recall in CM1 that that's all that craters were too... maybe something along those lines would work? In the scenerio I just played (A delaying action) I noticed the mapper put several units in small craters instead of foxholes.

[dieseltaylor]

: (

And you think of all the scenario designers who have made assumptions about trenches and foxholes, and then refined the timings ....

[LemuelG]

I wish there were a condensed history of fortifications in CM games for those whom it passed by... I'd like to know the origins of the debate, and the design choices which lead to the current state of affairs. (anyone? )

[GreenAsJade]

Just to note that I think "hide" possibly should be the wrong thing for the situation I was in, because a "hide, really, hide" order is a legitimate thing (as someone else said).

I _had_ to use "hide" though, because there is no other way to have troops in an entrenchement and not have them completely exposed. That's why I used hide: because there is no "sit sensibly out of harms way in a foxhole" command.

I also will re-affirm that I know that BFC have acknowledged that there's a bug here (Steve described it in another thread, something to do with the abstraction of cover) ... the purpose of raising it again in this thread was that up until this turn I hadn't realised just how broken it was. I previously thought "OK, with hide, this is still workable".

However, I can't see how to make it work now: there is really no point in setting up a defense in foxholes at the moment.

GaJ

[Steiner14]

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.

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

Über-soldiers walking against entrenched infantry squads in the open, heavy MGs, even MG42s, almost useless against infantry in the open, hidden units prefer to be slaughtered instead of unhiding and shooting back - how in the world can all this get the praise of beta-testers?

For me the infantry behaviour at the current state broken and i can't stand to play it at all.

Shock Force has been out long enough and SF-players didn't recognize that certain inf behaviour ruins any entitlement of realistic infantry fighting?

And how this can get a 10 of 10 rating (= no improvement possible, perfect!). What a joke.

[Fat Dave]

Sounds like you're having a tough time of it Steiner14.

Sorry to hear it.

I have a joke for you though...

Why wasn't Jesus born in Australia?

Because they couldn't find 3 wise men and a Virgin.

Seriously, I don't think the infantry is that broken, but that's just my opinion

David

[bodkin]

Über-soldiers walking against entrenched infantry squads in the open, heavy MGs, even MG42s, almost useless against infantry in the open, hidden units prefer to be slaughtered instead of unhiding and shooting back - how in the world can all this get the praise of beta-testers?

For me the infantry behaviour at the current state broken and i can't stand to play it at all.

Shock Force has been out long enough and SF-players didn't recognize that certain inf behaviour ruins any entitlement of realistic infantry fighting?

And how this can get a 10 of 10 rating (= no improvement possible, perfect!). What a joke.

So much of infantry behaviour is dependant of the factors assigned to the infantry by the scenario designer - motivation, experience, leadership, fitness all contribute to performance on the battlefield, as well as the fact that abstraction is still at work depsite 1 to 1 modelling.

You need to be more specific in your complaints, someone didn't behave the way you wanted them to so the game is fundamentally broken . Is all your saying at the moment.

[Sgt Joch]

Über-soldiers walking against entrenched infantry squads in the open, heavy MGs, even MG42s, almost useless against infantry in the open, hidden units prefer to be slaughtered instead of unhiding and shooting back - how in the world can all this get the praise of beta-testers?

beacuse what you say is a lie.

[Sgt Joch]

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

There is a problem with foxhole protection which will be fixed, but I think there are a couple of other factors at work here which may mean this is a one-off thing rather than a regular occurrence, for example: the defenders appear to be "nervous" (hard to read the video) at the start and move to "rattled", there appears to be fire coming from another direction which partly suppresses them and the US soldiers attack from outside their cover arcs so they don't fire.

[The_Capt]

Über-soldiers walking against entrenched infantry squads in the open, heavy MGs, even MG42s, almost useless against infantry in the open, hidden units prefer to be slaughtered instead of unhiding and shooting back - how in the world can all this get the praise of beta-testers?

For me the infantry behaviour at the current state broken and i can't stand to play it at all.

Shock Force has been out long enough and SF-players didn't recognize that certain inf behaviour ruins any entitlement of realistic infantry fighting?

And how this can get a 10 of 10 rating (= no improvement possible, perfect!). What a joke.

I rarely comment on these types of things but this one should be bronzed. Presented with the clarity, poise and maturity of a teenage hissy-fit over shoes.

[Lurker765]

There is a problem with foxhole protection which will be fixed, but I think there are a couple of other factors at work here which may mean this is a one-off thing rather than a regular occurrence, for example: the defenders appear to be "nervous" (hard to read the video) at the start and move to "rattled", there appears to be fire coming from another direction which partly suppresses them and the US soldiers attack from outside their cover arcs so they don't fire.

What are you talking about? He posted the video so you can see what is happening EXACTLY. Twelve seconds into the video one of his defending soldiers stands up and shoots at the incoming soldiers (to no effect). All of the incoming soldiers are in the cover arc location.

Eventually the incoming soldiers get out of the cover arc, but only after running quite some distance through the cover arc and after taking ineffective fire from the defenders and then they jump in the foxholes with the defenders!

From what I can read of the text it appears the defenders are not "nervous". The text looks like it switches from "spotting" and "hiding" and only changes when the shooting starts.

And he mentioned that there was no fire coming from outside onto his troops. In fact you can see the last American soldier shooting at another unit to the right of the screen that was ALSO shooting at the attacking uber-soldiers.

[Sgt Joch]

From what I can read of the text it appears the defenders are not "nervous". The text looks like it switches from "spotting" and "hiding" and only changes when the shooting starts.

Check their experience/morale status, they are "Green" troops, their morale is at "Cautious" at the beginning, it switches to "Nervous" before they even take any casualties. You are dealing with poor quality troops who do not have the best morale to begin with.

And he mentioned that there was no fire coming from outside onto his troops. In fact you can see the last American soldier shooting at another unit to the right of the screen that was ALSO shooting at the attacking uber-soldiers.

If you watch the video, you can see firing coming from the top left corner and also firing coming from the hedge at the top of the screen aimed directly at the foxholes. It is also not totally clear if the casualty is caused by the "uber-soldiers" or by the firing coming from the hedge.

[sburke]

What are you talking about? He posted the video so you can see what is happening EXACTLY. Twelve seconds into the video one of his defending soldiers stands up and shoots at the incoming soldiers (to no effect). All of the incoming soldiers are in the cover arc location.

Eventually the incoming soldiers get out of the cover arc, but only after running quite some distance through the cover arc and after taking ineffective fire from the defenders and then they jump in the foxholes with the defenders!

From what I can read of the text it appears the defenders are not "nervous". The text looks like it switches from "spotting" and "hiding" and only changes when the shooting starts.

And he mentioned that there was no fire coming from outside onto his troops. In fact you can see the last American soldier shooting at another unit to the right of the screen that was ALSO shooting at the attacking uber-soldiers.

Well here is what I see watching the video, and granted all I can see is the perspective from this unit and the video is a bit blurred on my PC. It appears there is an assault order on this position and the American unit is not identified until 5 seconds into the vid. At the 9 second mark the first soldier pops up to fire on the advancing unit. 2 Seconds later another soldier pops up. When the 3rd pops up he immediately cowers denoting there is some impact of suppressive fire or this unit already has morale issues. At this point the advancing unit is now firing upon this unit and the red bar (Which I assume is an interface mod) is now indicating increasingly levels of suppression. The unit is now taking casualties and unless they have somewhere to bug out to or someone to support them, they are going down. The foxhole incidentally is in the open with no nearby cover. My experience with placing foxholes in the open is they become area fire magnets. If you don't have the unit protected with covering fire from other units then you have pretty much wasted a foxhole as these guys will get suppressed and over run.

There is definitely other fire crossing the field, but from the perspective of the video you can't really tell what it is or whom it might be directed at.

In short I see nothing here to justify steiners rant, the behavior does look authentic and the foxhole very possibly poorly placed. Granted that is based on very little info but if you are gonna state the game is essentially unplayable (steiners words, not necessarily Green as Jade - I don't mean to put words in your mouth GaJ) you need to provide something more than a short video of an isolated unit being overrun in an assault. Just sticking them in a foxhole doesn't mean you now have an impregnable position.

I am in the midst of a pbem game with Broadsword56 in Bois de Baugin that has been bug and issue free (other than my learning curve on using the proper FO). It definitely rates the 10 of 10 the game has been given as I think broadsword will attest to as well.

[MengJiao]

Sounds like you're having a tough time of it Steiner14.

Sorry to hear it.

I have a joke for you though...

Why wasn't Jesus born in Australia?

Because they couldn't find 3 wise men and a Virgin.

Seriously, I don't think the infantry is that broken, but that's just my opinion

David

I think the infantry work fine, at least from my real time perspective. To do a proper attack you have to build up to a suppression and then the final assault should be a squad with good morale etc. Works well.

Defense: once the enemy is almost on top of you, it is too late to do anything fancy. Either pull back or counterattack with a reserve. Just hoping that that hiding or getting your arcs right or being in a hole properly really doesn't work when you are relatively suppressed and the enemy is upon you.

[sburke]

Check their experience/morale status, they are "Green" troops, their morale is at "Cautious" at the beginning, it switches to "Nervous" before they even take any casualties. You are dealing with poor quality troops who do not have the best morale to begin with.

LOL that is the portion I couldn't see on my PC. They were green? And these guys are freaking out cause their position in the open (foxhole or not) was over run. JFC I don't need uber troops to overrun green troops placed in a position unsupported in the open. I could use girl scouts. C'mon guys you need to be able to understand a little better that experience and morale have a huge impact on your troops. If they are poorly led, green or have morale issues you need to give them every advantage you can as they are very brittle. They spot poorly, cower easily and aren't going to follow your commands well. Troops of this quality need lots of support, covered positions to retreat to etc etc.

I think someone owes the beta testers a bit of an apology. Probably won't get it so I'll do it for you.

Beta testers- We apologize collectively when ranting about unit behavior if we haven't studied the full parameters of the engagement and made an effort to understand the tactical situation and the quality of our troops. Blaming you is just easier to do than to understand how we got our pixeltruppen butchered.

[Steiner14]

Beta Testers,

instead of getting personal, i suggest you concentrate more on things that should be improved instead of attacking others.

[sburke]

Beta Testers,

instead of getting personal, i suggest you concentrate more on things that should be improved instead of attacking others.

and perhaps you could review the evidence in the same level of detail that is required of them to understand the issue before you rant about their incompetence. These guys aren't paid to either prepare the game for release nor for the time they put in to validate behavior we claim as "unrealistic' when basic stuff like the quality of the troops isn't even accounted for when citing an example of uber troops and problems with MGs and foxholes. Sheesh if the beta testers reviewed stuff at that level this game really would be unplayable.

[The_Capt]

Beta Testers,

instead of getting personal, i suggest you concentrate more on things that should be improved instead of attacking others.

Heh, I'll assume the shot on this one. Ah, now the wounded rabbit routine.

"I was only pointing out things needing improving and the nasty beta-tester/BFC staff attacked me without reason. This is clearly another sign the game/company is broken."

Your rant here and elsewhere suffer from a very common ailment of this generation; self-absorbed hyperbolic perspective syndrome.

The game isn't broken just because you think it is. Foxholes are not citadels. MGs are very close but could use some FPF tweaking. Covered arcs and hide could use some work but tactics can be adjusted. Thanks, got it. And plse hold the emoticons.

[Blackcat]

Fom that short video I find it difficult to conclude that anything is broken, other than perhaps the plan for the defence. There are rounds flying everywhere, the defenders maybe in C2, but they are green and not in a good state to start with. Trying to do a close range ambush with poor and partially suppressed troops is seldom going to end well.

I'd be interested to know the experience and morale level of the attackers and how much fire they had taken on their way in. I'd also like to know what happened to that last defender, who is still up when the video finishes (I see that two of the attackers are cowering).

As an aside it is intreesting to see what sort of fire the defenders put down. Watch the video carefully how many defenders are actually firing at anyone time? GaJ has given us all a chance to learn here - one or two rifle shots will not stop an attacking unit - maybe hide is not the best command to use if that is what it produces.

I dunno, but if I was in GaJ position I'd be thinking, "Hmmm, that didn't go well. What could I do better next time?" rather than ranting on here claiming attack/defence scenarios are out of the question until something is fixed. I might also reflect upon the fact that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of games going on every day, but few, if any, of the posters here seem to find as many problems as I do.

[mjkerner]

Heh, I'll assume the shot on this one. Ah, now the wounded rabbit routine.

"I was only pointing out things needing improving and the nasty beta-tester/BFC staff attacked me without reason. This is clearly another sign the game/company is broken."

Your rant here and elsewhere suffer from a very common ailment of this generation; self-absorbed hyperbolic perspective syndrome.

The game isn't broken just because you think it is. Foxholes are not citadels. MGs are very close but could use some FPF tweaking. Covered arcs and hide could use some work but tactics can be adjusted. Thanks, got it. And plse hold the emoticons.

Well said, Capt. You will never please Steiner14, apparently. I don't know whether he suffers from SAHPS or not, and don't care. But I am glad for his original posting, since it has brought out very good comments and analysis from patient and knowledgable people on various factor to look for when trying to judge aspects of this game.

Steiner 14, maybe you should take notice of these responses.

[vonRocko]

nothing to add here

[Sgt Joch]

I dunno, but if I was in GaJ position I'd be thinking, "Hmmm, that didn't go well. What could I do better next time?" rather than ranting on here claiming attack/defence scenarios are out of the question until something is fixed. I might also reflect upon the fact that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of games going on every day, but few, if any, of the posters here seem to find as many problems as I do.

no need for that, the purpose of this board is to discuss these issues and either inform fellow players or discover issues that need to be dealt with. Players should never be shy about raising issues and we should all try to discuss them on a rational basis. GAJ is just discovering the joy and frustation of the CMx2 system for the first time.

[ClarkWGriswold]

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).

I disagree with your disagreement.

The hide order is virtually useless. For ambushing or scouting, it's definitely worthless. Troops that are ordered to hide, don't. They still shoot when they see an opportunity. Not enough to actually kill anyone, but enough to give away their position and make themselves a target. If enemy units attack, hiding soldiers don't fight back until it's too late, and don't fight back as effectively as if they were not hiding.

Cover arcs, on the other hand, are very effective. In all but extreme cases, soldiers given a cover arc order will not fire outside the cover arc. So, they don't give away their positions. Similarly, they're not keeping their heads down, so they still spot with 100% effectiveness.

The only time I've found Hide to be useful at all is when I've got guys who are taking fire and have nowhere to go (for instance, inside a house, taking fire from a superior force). In these cases I can Hide them and try to preserve them until I can use another element to take out whoever is firing at them. But I know full well that if the enemy rushes their position, they are toast.

If you want to prepare an ambush, scout without giving away your position, etc., you definitely do not want to use the Hide command.

[Stitch]

The already-demoralized green exp'd hiding unit in a foxhole out in the middle of nowhere with no backup = a hopeless situation.

That said, I have bad experiences with foxholes that were in a supported position and not out in no man's land. I experienced baby-sitting MG crews as they would break and run some 20m away in the open and cower. Foxholes seem to attract fire, and yet not mitigate damage by providing cover.

Granted they are cheap defenses, but I'm glad they'll be getting a makeover in the first patch.