Foxholes seem to be really really broken

[Steiner14]

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the foxhole problems were, before and after the forum noticed problems with them, being reported internally by beta testers, including specific complaints being forwarded on from the outer forums.

As i had stated: If the foxholes are a known problem, why was the whole action in the video defended, if one key aspect of this scene, namely the foxholes, already have been identified as problematic?

[PLM2]

I don't wanna add fuel to the off topic fire but something I've noticed about this community is that members are eager to make excuses for parts of gameplay that feel faulty as if they are explaining a real world simulation.

I have no doubt in my mind the developers of this game are the best of the best and as a guy who absolutely hated and deplored the concept of 1-1 after CMSF was released, they've definitely made it worth the transition. I literally dream of shooters stemmed from the concepts of CM. But that doesn't mean everything is perfect. Its version 1.0 we're playing. Remember CMBO? Was that perfect? Heck no, but i'll bet there were people here defending the suppressing effects of HMGs as being spot on. Just my two cents.

[sburke]

As i had stated: If the foxholes are a known problem, why was the whole action in the video defended, if one key aspect of this scene, namely the foxholes, already have been identified as problematic?

You have assumed immediately that the model is wrong and the foxhole is the issue. As Steve noted in his reply, it may be a contributing factor to how things turned out or it might have nothing at all to do with it. I for one suspect even when they tweak the foxholes, these guys are still in for a world of hurt. Green troops in an exposed position under fire are just not going to be able to do what you necessarily want them to. IMHO their morale and experience is going to factor in more heavily here than whether they were able to bury their faces in the dirt.

Ergo the video doesn't prove your point regardless of whether foxholes deserve some tweaking.

[Sgt Schultz]

From a design perspective, rather than QB purchase, I can see using trenches and craters for fixed defenses. The glazed chocolate doughnuts ( ) can be parceled out in small numbers with designer notes on proper usage/placement.

Foxholes seem to be a two-edged sword if not placed just so. One edge should be dulled a bit with the patch, but it appears they are still more for adding cover to existing terrain than providing their own. Its not "I wish that spot had cover, let's put foxholes there". It's more like "I want my troops to HOLD that wall, so they get extra cover.

Green/Low Morale/Unfit troops(which I believe contributed to GaJ's experience somewhat) can be seen in historical battles, which is as it should be. Be aware that they suck(BADLY), and plan accordingly. One of the primary reasons I make fictional battles is so that I am not constrained by those Undermensch.

My humble suggestions for profitable foxhole use are...

1. wait for patch

2. use them to add to rather than create cover

3. put hardy troops in them

4. 360 degree cover circles allow best range control without targets wandering out

5. use HIDE only for incoming arty strikes or direct fire HE

---

[ChrisND]

As i had stated: If the foxholes are a known problem, why was the whole action in the video defended, if one key aspect of this scene, namely the foxholes, already have been identified as problematic?

See that word? There's your problem right there. You make this out like it's some sort of competition to out-explain the "other side", like this is adversarial. People are trying to find explanations that describe why what happened did, or at least in part so, instead of immediately reverting to "Fault!" because what happened doesn't match in lock step with what they expected would happen.

Internally, if, after some closer analysis, there appears to be fault, then more investigation will be done and bug reports will be written. And if it's a soft factor like morale there's likely to be quite a bit of internal discussion before changes are actually. At no point will people take umbrage because someone else dares to have a different interpretation of an event.

[sburke]

I'll try to answer these as I can below, but the main point is simply your energy would be better placed at developing data to prove your point or presenting situations that can duplicate the effect so folks have hard data they can see.

If one customer raises a concern, what is the reaction? I cannot remember that a BT would have shared a (later corrected!) problem immediately. Instead every concern is automatically refuted.

Case in point someone just noted the purchase cost in the editor of rocket artillery. I think within 24 hours two BTs had responded. One was unsure and the other agreed it looked to be a possible error. Hardly the knee jerk reaction of an automatic no. Granted it is one incident and no case is proven either way on a single example, but from what I see the BTs take a genuine interest in discussing behavior BUT they start from their experience which is generally things work. Generally that has been my experience as well, but it is computer code there are bound to be situations where it performs unexpectedly. Those performance issues can also be exacerbated by poor placement and bad tactics by players which are going to be the first things the BTs are going to see being far more familiar with the game. It is human of them to first make sure issues are not simply being created by folks (like me) who just haven't learned the game yet. I count 39 BTs according to the credits in the manual, all of varying degrees of participation both in the forum and in time devoted to testing. Those 39 people have dealt with an avalanche of comments from "my units are trying to shoot TCs too often" to "buildings give too much cover/not enough cover, Tanks LOS/LOF through destroyed tanks/trees/intervening terrain". etc etc. These guys deserve some slack. The game is still a work in progress obviously as the really difficult items to code (foxholes and bridges for example) are still being looked at and tweaked. BFC is working on modifying the UI. Even with the variety of concerns denoted by some 20+ pages of threads, it is a damn good game. Decrying it as unplayable or in your words

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

is just being overly melodramatic and doesn't help your credibility.

Come on, you know the difference between endless development and endless discussion.

Look into the HMG-supression-effect-thread. This i call an endless discussion. The problem was clearly expressed in the beginning and what was the task of the BTs? They come up with hundreds of explanations, why the game's reaction was ok, although you can clearly see, that's not the case. It's not enough to hint at a problem, because they think they have discussed it enough and know it much better anyway.

Yes I get the difference, but the discussion is part of a development process. One month of citing examples of issues that then need to be vetted and prioritized for guys who already (hopefully) have full time jobs is a pretty short time frame and a bit much to expect from them. That they don't immediately respond yes to every instance brought to their attention is a good thing from my view. What you see clearly wrong in the video, I see as normal expected behavior. Tweaking the game needs to be surgical and folks are making blanket judgements that may or may not even be an issue as opposed to a perception.

Shouldn't beta testers be helpful in discovering problems and hint the developer where to look? Here, mostly all raised problems first have to be fought against the resistance of BTs. Steve, although developer and this is his baby, for me shows more distance to his work and recognizes problems earlier than some of the BTs.

Yes but they also need to sort out the chaff and considering most of us have been playing this less than 30 days there is a lot of potential for chaff especially when we use examples of units not perfoming who are green. Just how much time should a BT waste on this particular item if that is the data source? I say none. They should instead go play with the bridge issue (which as I understand it is being worked on and has to do with a particular bridge model). How much is Steve being influenced by discussions going on with the beta testers is something we do not know. My general experience is as someone who joins in after he sees the intial arguments and discussion, he starts at a more balanced point further down the line.

Blinded experts are ignorants. They do not listen, because they believe they know it better. They only listen, if they can't ignore it anymore. Be it because of the quantity of voices or because of the loudness or if the authority says so.

They DO know it better. Doesn't mean there aren't situations they have not seen or experienced, but many have been playing this game quite some time and know with quite a bit more detail what kind of discussions are going on within the beta forum. They also listen to coherent arguments with some data they can review that isn't obviously flawed especially if it comes from a reliable source.

What do we have so far:

Maybe foxholes could need to provide more cover. Also self preservation in combination with hide and/or cover arcs should be looked at, too.

And what was the reaction of some of the BTs? They immediately tried to explain why things are ok anyway. But how can this be the case, if the protection of foxholes was too low, or if unhiding units do not fast and agressively enough open fire?

Because you assume that the situation presented played out BECAUSE of an error in the covered arcs or foxholes. Just because both may need some work doesn't mean this would not play out the same way again. You have overlooked contributing factors that could possibly weigh in so heavily that the potential issues with foxholes or covered arcs would actually not change this at all. Instead of arguing with flawed data, go develop some tests with good data to prove the point.

You mean to explain problems that way, that the defend-my-game-threshold is not triggered?

The more intelligent ones focus on the discussed facts or the raised problem and the ignorants will defend the satus quo anyway. Therefore i prefer the direct and honest speech and if some of them therefore are running around like startled chicken, i'm very sad, but i will survive it.

I suspect none of them like hearing the game is so broken it is unplayable because it isn't true. Maybe some react more than others, but I expect most if not all get pretty disgusted with remarks like that. That they don't express that isn't a critique of those who do express their disdain for that attitude. There is also room for disagreement within the beta tester group no different than there is disagreement within the purchasing public. I also don't see an issue in that video. I see what I expect is pretty close to realistic. Again that doesn't mean there isn't an issue with various items in code, it is just not apparent that what occurs in the video is necessarily a result of anything but bad play.

[Battlefront.com]

You have assumed immediately that the model is wrong and the foxhole is the issue.

Correct. The "it's broken, fix or do somefink" is the WORST type of customer feedback we get. Players need to be open minded because VERY OFTEN they are flat out wrong. If can not count how many times someone posts, 100% convinced of a bug, and then himself admits that he got it wrong. It would appear Steiner14 would like us to throw objectivity out the window and just say to ANY PERSON "you're right, we're wrong, we'll get that fixed right away" no matter what.

As Steve noted in his reply, it may be a contributing factor to how things turned out or it might have nothing at all to do with it. I for one suspect even when they tweak the foxholes, these guys are still in for a world of hurt. Green troops in an exposed position under fire are just not going to be able to do what you necessarily want them to.

I tend to agree. I think better foxhole behavior would have lead to one or more US casualties that didn't happen in this example, but I think in the end the Germans in that foxhole would have met the same fate.

Ergo the video doesn't prove your point regardless of whether foxholes deserve some tweaking.

Correct.

See that word? There's your problem right there. You make this out like it's some sort of competition to out-explain the "other side", like this is adversarial. People are trying to find explanations that describe why what happened did, or at least in part so, instead of immediately reverting to "Fault!" because what happened doesn't match in lock step with what they expected would happen.

Very true. And some personality types think a discussion means one side making a point and the other side immediately agreeing with it out of some sort of obligation. Poppycock

Internally, if, after some closer analysis, there appears to be fault, then more investigation will be done and bug reports will be written.

The primary reason to do this is sometimes even an obvious problem does not have an obvious cause. I made a post a long time ago about Tigers not spotting Shermans during Beta Testing. We were convinced the Shermans had some sort of undeserved spotting bonus, when in fact the German Tank Commander was incorrectly placed within the turret and was looking to the side instead of straight ahead. Good initial observation, wrong hypothesis of the problem.

Steve

[sburke]

Post the results if you get around to it.

Here you go. By no means is this considered to be exhaustive or conclusive. I'd have to build a matrix of units and then document over a lot more trials than what I ran, but I think I at least have some baselines of behavior.

I created a map of 15 enclosed firing ranges each about 120 meters long by 50+ meters wide. I placed a German HMG unit at one end and an American rifle platoon at the other (my intent originally was to include the effect of suppressive fire by other units, but that ended up being irrelevant).

The US units were all regular typical. The German units started at regular in C2 to green, low motivation no C2.

In test one all units were set to hide with covered arcs approx halfway down the field. A single US squad was set to assault in each field. All additional US units were set with short covered arcs to prevent their providing suppressive fire in this test. With the covered arc, hiding or not all German squads were overun without exception. The foxhole emplacements were spotted immediately with the MG unit and taken under fire. The firepower of a single US squad was enough to suppress before the assaulting units entered the covered arc, once suppressed they never stood a chance. There were slight variations in how quickly they were suppressed, but none managed to inflict a single casualty.

In the second set of tests I removed the covered arc. The results for the regular units was dramatically different. Three out of 5 butchered the US squads. The green units however were still overwhelmed though they had varying success at inflicting some casualties on the US units.

In the third set of tests I added trees to the German position for better cover and concealment. In this case all 5 regular units were able to pin down or destroy US units despite the covered arc. The green units though able to inflict more casualties all succumbed. The German positions were not spotted until after they had opened fire, but the green units did not react well to the random fire of the assaulting units and were already becoming suppressed before being spotted.

In the fourth test I removed the foxholes. In this case only one German unit was able to hold off the GIs. Though still not spotted immediately, removing the protective bonus of the foxholes was definitely noticeable.

Though I would not consider the results to be conclusive about foxholes and a few other items in this thread, I did find however that rarely would a unit fire before a unit entered the covered arc (only 3 cases one by a US squad that was supposed to not fire). There was no appreciable difference in spotting between hiding and non hiding units, but at 100 meters, perfect weather and billiard flat conditions the units would have had to have been blind.

My conclusion is if you are fighting with green units, use a covered arc sparingly and never shorter than the distance it will take to be spotted. Once the unit is spotted it is far too easily suppressed, once suppressed if it has no other support to slow down any attackers it will simply be overrun.

Foxholes should be emplaced in a position of cover. In the open they are too easily spotted and once spotted they aren't going to keep your men alive and functioning without being part of a larger defensive plan. If isolated they are a speed bump. Placed in concealment with regular infantry though, they will represent an obstacle that will require some prep fire before attempting to assault.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll try to answer these as I can below, but the main point is simply your energy would be better placed at developing data to prove your point or presenting situations that can duplicate the effect so folks have hard data they can see.

An excellent point, as are your others. We are always impressed by data, we are never impressed by tantrums and hyperbole. Well, at least not favorably impressed

I suspect none of them like hearing the game is so broken it is unplayable because it isn't true.

Correct. We don't mind, at all, when genuine (or even reasonably suspected) problems are brought up. It's always good to double check new areas that might not have received as much attention as others. Or to see a much larger sample of experiences than we could ever have with a small testing group. It's all good stuff.

But when someone tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the game is "unplayable"... well, we simply write that person off as irrelevant. Just as we would someone arguing that the world is flat or that Amy Winehouse did a great show in Belgrade

Steve

[LJFHutch]

It's best to do blue/blue or red/red, I did a test with 3 firing lanes and each had 3 squares where units were placed. The units were identical: 3 squads of US riflemen with their commanding units holed away out of sight. One side of US infantry all had foxholes and the others were in the open. Apart from 1 lane seeing almost no action (apparently they couldn't see each other) the rest was pretty good:

Sorry for the large image.

Basically, foxholes - while not great - are pretty effective at tipping the balance of the fight.

[Runyan99]

World's worst firing range.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting tests! Always good to see more than anecdotal information in a conversation.

My conclusion is if you are fighting with green units, use a covered arc sparingly and never shorter than the distance it will take to be spotted.

The best asset of MG or rifle Squad is it's ability to engage targets at a distance. Limiting the engagement range can sometimes be useful, but in an open field situation it rarely is. Reason? You want to keep the enemy AWAY from your positions, not invite them to join you

One exception I would advocate is when you are covering a big field with good cover on the attacker's side. It's better to let them advance perhaps 1/3 of the way to your position, then hit them with everything you have. This way they are stuck in the open, but have longer to go forward than backwards. The two most viable options for the attacker are to wait it out until conditions improve (like bringing a tank into action) or to crawl back to cover. Getting up and assaulting forward might work, but my money is on the defenders all else being equal.

I think some people try the above but think "closer is better" and let the attackers get 2/3 of the way to the defensive line. Bad idea.

Foxholes should be emplaced in a position of cover. In the open they are too easily spotted and once spotted they aren't going to keep your men alive and functioning without being part of a larger defensive plan. If isolated they are a speed bump. Placed in concealment with regular infantry though, they will represent an obstacle that will require some prep fire before attempting to assault.

The tweak to foxholes should make them more viable out in the open, but still... being out in the open will remain "sub optimal" vs. a position with some cover.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

LJFHutch, thanks for another test. It's good to see that the foxholes aren't completely crap like some have accused them of being. Not necessarily all that they should be, but not utterly useless.

v1.01's foxholes will probably make more of a difference in some situations than others, simply because some situations have more or less going for them than others.

Steve

[Taki]

Hello.

Found this Topic now. Didnt recogcnize it first.

Im the Guy on the other End playing the US Forces. Because all that Customers are to emotional and irrational the Facts first.

Its an ongoing PBEM Battle so i cant tell you all the things like exactly how many men are shooting at that Foxholes but later on we can discuss that.

Scenario: Buying the Farm

Type of Game: PBEM

Squad of Green US Troops with NO Link to its Commanding Unit. Chain broken with its HQ Unit.

The Foxhole was spotted 1 Turn ago but no Units where reported in there and no "?" Sign.

At the Start of the Round there are LOADS of Troops opening up Fire on all Fronts on Enemy Positions behind that Mentioned Foxhole but noone had an Aimtarget at that Foxhole (if i recall that right, cant see my Orders in that PBEM File). The Enemys Positions that had Area Fire where appriciated about 20m higher on Ground then the German Pixeltruppen in the Video.

So there where around 3-4 0.30cal Guns opening up Fire right over the Green German Troops onto another Target. There where loads of Riflefire going on and some Shots fell short close that Foxholes wich supressed the German Units in there a bit.

My Impression and Opinion on that:

The US Green Troops are totally unaffected by that Sheer amount of friendly Bullets flying over their Heads. The Foxhole was spotted a Turn ago so the Spotting on that Units in it where Probably made easier by the Engine?

They where Green Troops and did a Great Job by taking out that Foxhole. A bit too good for my Taste but it was a Bit Lucky and if that First German Rifleshot would Hit one of the Us Boys i would have taken the Foxhole anyway because they would have got mowed Down kneeing in their Holes exposed.

So GSJ is right here. Okay the Foxhole is very close to the Enemy Line and retreating is no Option because of allmost open Terrain. The Troops where Green but my Boys where too. But you cant setup a good Defense without ambushing from dug-In Positions. The Soldiers (even with Hide Command) should sometimes pop their Head up and watch for enemys for Short Times. Or there should be a Command that does exactly that! Right now units in Buildings, Trenches and Foxholes are just way to exposed and take to much casualtys to enemy Fire. Standing on a Window gives you excessive Casualties that feel unrealistic when you take a look onto the Casualties to Unit laying in the Open.

So how should someone setup a Defense without a Hide command Exposing all of his Troops? Impossible right now but that is beeing fixed right? So no Problem for me right now anymore.

What concerns me more is that there are other Units beside that one running forward that got in Line to German SMG and MG42 Fire too on Ranges about 100m ago. They are in Foxholes and Trenches and facing the right direction to my US Boys.

The MGs dont supress well nor do they any Casualties on my Running Troops. There is another Topic on HMG Effectivness and it had been stated and tested quit alot that effectivness of that Weapons in some cases are way too low. Will that be fixed in Patch?

The Steiner thing:

I dont want to go to much on Offtopic but at some Point im with Steiner here. I think BFC made a Great Game and in most cases its just simply Plain GREAT. But you come here with some sorts of weird things you watched in the Game and everyone wants to explain/exuse why the Game is doing this or that and that everything is fine. You get mowed down with Comments like "BFC Tested it for 5 Years, who the Hell are you? They made everything allright etc" and the "Do more Testing! This one was just an Exeption"

I agree with you and in most cases trust the Experts that are way more involved like me in some Topics and its your Baby and you did hell of a Great Job! I was wrong on some Points (you remember my Scout Car and Halftrack Problem in one PBEM?) and used the wrong Tactics that worked well with CMx1. But there are LOTS of things that needs some Fixing in 1.0 and the way customers are treated for just wanting to make a better Game out of this mostly by the BetaTesters and the Fanbase are no good.

Yes it is a good game. but please stay calm, keep open minded so we can make a better Game out of this as it is right now.

Is there any List that shows us what things are fixed for 1.01?

[PhantomApple]

Stainer, you might actually enjoy running tests. Running my own gave me a lot of insight on how all the factors you dismissed earlier impact what you think you just saw during gameplay.

And thanks for posting the results guys.

Ps - There are a few songs that are just downright prophesetic....if Rehab wasn't in the top 20, it would be a crime

[Taki]

LJFHutch, thanks for another test. It's good to see that the foxholes aren't completely crap like some have accused them of being. Not necessarily all that they should be, but not utterly useless.

v1.01's foxholes will probably make more of a difference in some situations than others, simply because some situations have more or less going for them than others.

Steve

What about Houses and Trenches Steve? Unit now are not all that exposed now when looking out of their Positions now?

[akd]

Same change is happening with trenches in v1.01. There is no known bug with windows, and it is debatable whether or not they should offer more cover than they currently provide.

[GreenAsJade]

I just want to note that in normal circumstances I wouldn't set up a foxhole defending in an open field like that: it's clearly not a great place to be defending.

Unfortunately, in this scenario, the way it is set up, I saw little option

GaJ

[Steiner14]

Could be related to the foxhole problem:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1288896&postcount=13

[Lurker765]

Scenario: Buying the Farm

Type of Game: PBEM

Squad of Green US Troops with NO Link to its Commanding Unit. Chain broken with its HQ Unit.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the full game (demo only so far) and can't check this scenario out myself. And I wanted to make sure I understand you since it appears English is not your first language (and I probably can't write anything in your native language).

Are you saying that the soldiers involved in this particular assault were green Americans running across an open field attacking the enemy in foxholes without any working command chain while having live fire going around them in both directions?

[stikkypixie]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the full game (demo only so far) and can't check this scenario out myself. And I wanted to make sure I understand you since it appears English is not your first language (and I probably can't write anything in your native language).

Are you saying that the soldiers involved in this particular assault were green Americans running across an open field attacking the enemy in foxholes without any working command chain while having live fire going around them in both directions?

I believe some units are green (as in experience). But don't forget that in CMBN you can also set their motivation and that suppression plays a big role as well. The modifier that the squad leader has also influences the troops.

In other words, there are green troops and green troops.

Not saying that there is nothing wrong, but just wanted to point out that there more factors than just experience.

[Childress]

Same change is happening with trenches in v1.01. There is no known bug with windows, and it is debatable whether or not they should offer more cover than they currently provide.

I don't think so. I set up a test, 3 US squads firing at 3 German squads. Germans occupied a trench, foxholes and open field. Firing lanes were separated by a wall. The American squads have, of course, a numerical advantage: 12 vs 9. Distance is ~170m.

Results: Germans were very stalwart in their trenches. The squads lost 2-3 men and cohesion was maintained. US troops disintegrated after a few turns.

Germans in foxholes proved slightly more resistant to fire than the ones in the open. But the effect was barely noticeable. Sometimes they routed before the exposed troops.

[akd]

I don't think so. I set up a test, 3 US squads firing at 3 German squads. Germans occupied a trench, foxholes and open field. Firing lanes were separated by a wall. The American squads have, of course, a numerical advantage: 12 vs 9. Distance is ~170m.

Results: Germans were very stalwart in their trenches. The squads lost 2-3 men and cohesion was maintained. US troops disintegrated after a few turns.

Germans in foxholes proved slightly more resistant to fire than the ones in the open. But the effect was barely noticeable. Sometimes they routed before the exposed troops.

I did not mean that they will provide the same cover, but that both will have exposure for unhidden troops reduced to be more in line with the real world exposure rather than the 3D representation in the game. Trenches will continue to provide better overall protection than foxholes. Plus placement in foxholes will also be improved, which is currently less of a problem with trenches, so you will definitely see a more substantial improvement with foxholes compared to trenches.

[skelley]

Is it possible for BFC to make foxholes only 2 instead of 4 and have them in a row?.That way we could split squads up and not have empty foxholes. Maybe use the face command to set which side of the action spot square you want it to be closest to instead of dead center of it. Then it would be possible to get them close to hedgerows.

[Childress]

Is it possible for BFC to make foxholes only 2 instead of 4 and have them in a row?.That way we could split squads up and not have empty foxholes. Maybe use the face command to set which side of the action spot square you want it to be closest to instead of dead center of it. Then it would be possible to get them close to hedgerows.

+1

But one notices that even soldiers in foxholes can fire through hedges with the the grey LOS line.

Better yet, it would be cool if the trenches could be moved up right to hedge. Now they can't. But such a position becomes, one imagines, nearly impregnable, requiring intense arty to move them out. But the Germans apparently did fortify to this level on occasion.