Battlefront.com Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Is it possible for BFC to make foxholes only 2 instead of 4 and have them in a row?. No, not possible. The basic game mechanics means there is one Team per Action Spot. A Team can never be Split, therefore you can not spread a Team out into more than one Action Spot on purpose (it can happen when moving, but that is a temporary state). Since you can't Split a Team the number of foxholes for an Action Spot must be sufficient to accommodate up to 7 Soldiers. Each foxhole holds 2 Soldiers, so that means 4 foxholes per Action Spot are required. It is physically impossible to fit 4 foxholes in any other configuration than what is in the game now. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 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 Sorry if any of my comments came off as critical in that nature. There are always going to be situations where you just have to do something that you know is sub optimal given the map/scenario conditions etc. And then there are times where you just place things wrong as I have done more than once. One of the things that for me is good about this discussion is it has motivated me to test a variety of settings that are helping me understand how different items come together. I intend to expand the testing I did earlier to see if I can't get more granular about a variety of options and will post those hopefully by the end of the weekend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 No, not possible. The basic game mechanics means there is one Team per Action Spot. A Team can never be Split, therefore you can not spread a Team out into more than one Action Spot on purpose (it can happen when moving, but that is a temporary state). Since you can't Split a Team the number of foxholes for an Action Spot must be sufficient to accommodate up to 7 Soldiers. Each foxhole holds 2 Soldiers, so that means 4 foxholes per Action Spot are required. It is physically impossible to fit 4 foxholes in any other configuration than what is in the game now. Steve Why 7 soldiers? I think American squads split into 3 teams of 4 and German Squads can be split in half, 4 and 5. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why 7 soldiers? I think American squads split into 3 teams of 4 and German Squads can be split in half, 4 and 5. MG teams, which are not splittable, are considered one team by the game engine, and occupy only one action spot. IIRC, German HMG 42 teams have 6 members, and there is an American M1717 HMG team that has 7. FWIW, I think these MG teams are much too large to be on only one action spot, and should split onto two, at least until they've taken 2-3 casualties. But I don't run the circus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 What about Houses and Trenches Steve? Unit now are not all that exposed now when looking out of their Positions now? *bump* Have been overwritten. on Purpose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 MG teams, which are not splittable, are considered one team by the game engine, and occupy only one action spot. IIRC, German HMG 42 teams have 6 members, and there is an American M1717 HMG team that has 7. FWIW, I think these MG teams are much too large to be on only one action spot, and should split onto two, at least until they've taken 2-3 casualties. But I don't run the circus. I agree....maybe they need to be split like the ATGs are split with an ammo bearer team. That would solve a lot of problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 MG teams, which are not splittable, are considered one team by the game engine, and occupy only one action spot. IIRC, German HMG 42 teams have 6 members, and there is an American M1717 HMG team that has 7. FWIW, I think these MG teams are much too large to be on only one action spot, and should split onto two, at least until they've taken 2-3 casualties. But I don't run the circus. +1 for ability to split every support arm squad to gunner and ammo bearer teams, for mentioned reasons (target size, vulnerability ect.) Edit: How many times did you see all HMG team members bunched up around the gun in RL and under fighting conditions? Realistically, a HMG is a point target and less of a mass target as it´s now in CMN...unfortunately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree....maybe they need to be split like the ATGs are split with an ammo bearer team. That would solve a lot of problems. The problem with "hard coding" them to be 2 teams (as you often see in game with ATGs and mortars), is that teams can't pick up the heavy crew weapons (mortars & MGs, primarily) of another team. So soldiers from ammo bearer team wouldn't be able to jump on the MG and keep operating it if the Gunner and Asst. Gunner are wounded, just like you can't pull a couple of soldiers from an ATG ammo bearer team to help man a gun. I personally think the best solution would be to have HMG units behave more like rifle squads, and be splittable by player command into 2 teams - Gun team and Bearer team. These teams would then usually disperse to 2 action spots, and the player could split to two teams if necessary to fine-tune deployment. Obviously, just like with infantry squads, if the MG team's headcount gets below a certain point, it should cease to be splittable and become a single team. But perhaps there is some game engine reason why things can't work this way... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I personally think the best solution would be to have HMG units behave more like rifle squads, and be splittable by player command into 2 teams - Gun team and Bearer team. These teams would then usually disperse to 2 action spots, and the player could split to two teams if necessary to fine-tune deployment. Obviously, just like with infantry squads, if the MG team's headcount gets below a certain point, it should cease to be splittable and become a single team. That would be a perfect solution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Good point re HMG's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 +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. Maybe insert a bunker in a hedge (ie run a hedge, leave a gap, insert a bunker in the gap)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Maybe insert a bunker in a hedge (ie run a hedge, leave a gap, insert a bunker in the gap)? That's what I've done on occasion...tough to dig them out! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 +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. It´s possible to have FHs/trenches placed closer to hedgerows, if the diagonal hedgerow variants are used on a map. There´s lots of other interesting possibilities on maps, which have mainly a diagonal layout (as opposed to standard N-S, or E-W orientation). No idea, if the game engine can handle that well... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Several issues... Specialized Teams can not be a part of a Squad. Look at Mortar and ATGs to see that the Ammo Bearers are separate units. If we split up MMG/HMGs up into two separate units as well, there would be a lot more units to maintain. Plus, personnel from the Ammo Bearers can not move in to take over vacancies in the "gunner" Team, which means HMGs would be much, much less survivable in the game now. Until we can recode the game engine to accept specialized Teams as Squads *and* have personnel shifting between Teams, the way it is now is by far the better arrangement. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 *bump* Have been overwritten. on Purpose? I'm not sure I understand the question. Assuming I do, we have made no changes to how buildings work in terms of cover/concealment. Trenches probably have a specific fix for a very specific circumstance where shrapnel was able to get into the trench from the sides. I know Charles and I talked abut it but now I can't remember for sure if that has been fixed yet. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Got it. Unfortunate that there's this limitation but thanks for the info, Steve. I take it, then, that there's no way to get a single team unit like an HMG to spread itself out over 2 action spots without having the game consider it to be two distinct teams... Too bad; those 6 & 7-man HMG teams get mighty crowded on once action spot. One well-placed light mortar round can really f*ck them up... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I just wanted to know if there is something done with how many Soldiers expose themself to Enemy Spotting/Rounds and how long they expose themself? Do they keep kneeing the same amount of Time like now in 1.0 and are they that exposed with their upper Body as now in 1.0? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 ...Too bad; those 6 & 7-man HMG teams get mighty crowded on once action spot. One well-placed light mortar round can really f*ck them up... Not just that. With all of the HMG team members shooting at the enemy, more of the whole unit is exposed and to be spotted for return fire, which makes current vulnerability even more debatable. Full game owners could experiment with "reduced" size HMG teams and add ammo bearers seperately, if something like that is currently possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 The tests that were done are excellent: thanks to those who did them. I think that they show that foxholes are not as bad as I thought, which was based on the experience I posted. I'm glad to hear that. I've never claimed to be infallible I think that the experiments and discussion show that foxholes and covered arcs are both more tricky to use than one would expect... these sorts of teething problems lead to the kind of experience I had: one which made me feel that it was broken. And I have to say I will still be avoiding games where fortifications need to play a part until either some sort of patch on them or I have a lot more experience with how to drive the troops in easier circumstances... right now even if it's not "broken" its too iffy for my taste. I also have to say that if I could have my choice of customer experience, I would rather the customer rep say "mate, you're wrong, the reason your troops died was because they are green. Learn and move on" than tell me I'm irrelevant because I complain too much or too loudly. I'm actually passionate about the game because I like it and want to see it improve. If I get a bit hyperbolic that shouldn't make me "irrelevant". Of course, BFC reps are just human too, with plenty of faults of their own, and I can understand that they get edgy when customers dis their baby. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 No, not possible. The basic game mechanics means there is one Team per Action Spot. A Team can never be Split, therefore you can not spread a Team out into more than one Action Spot on purpose (it can happen when moving, but that is a temporary state). Since you can't Split a Team the number of foxholes for an Action Spot must be sufficient to accommodate up to 7 Soldiers. Each foxhole holds 2 Soldiers, so that means 4 foxholes per Action Spot are required. It is physically impossible to fit 4 foxholes in any other configuration than what is in the game now. Steve Steve,in the future patches,can we get a feature that we can change the direction of the foxholes?I have done some tests in which I found when the direction of the team in the foxhole are different from the direction of the foxhole itself,the team always can not position themselves correctly and get out of foxhole to find some new place,in some specific situation,5-6 soldiers position them in a foxhole and the other three are empty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Most of the patch desiderata, namely; more potent MGs, stouter defence works, more resistant buildings and, arguably, tanks not firing on the run, etc, are going to seriously imbalance existing scenarios and some QBs in favour of the defending side. Everyone realizes this, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Most of the patch desiderata, namely; more potent MGs, stouter defence works and, arguably, tanks not firing on the run, etc, are going to seriously imbalance existing scenarios and some QBs in favour of the defending side. Everyone realizes this, right? I think it is inevitable that changes to game will have an affect on some existing scenarios, not always to the benefit of the defender though. It certainly happened in CMSF where some of the early scenarios became trivially easy and other almost impossible. However, if the game is to progress there is no help for it. The advantage CM has got is the number, energy and creativity of its scenario designers. Thanks to those selfless and wonderful people we can look forward to new scenarios written to take advantage of the new/tweaked features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 In any realistic game, the defender should always have an advantage. An attacker should need to at least 3:1 superiority to win, and 6:1 if the defender is entrenched/fortified. If forces are dead equal, the attacker should never win unless by some fluke, a vastly superior position on the map, or some factor like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 In any realistic game, the defender should always have an advantage. An attacker should need to at least 3:1 superiority to win, and 6:1 if the defender is entrenched/fortified. If forces are dead equal, the attacker should never win unless by some fluke, a vastly superior position on the map, or some factor like that. You're right. The game probably needs a defence boost in certain details. Just saying... The 3:1 maxim may be true or a leftover mechanism from the boardgame era. Of course, the higher the marginal odds the greater the predictability. Fact is, no battle was ever designed by any military staff to be 'interesting' in the CM sense. An interesting battle results from miscalculations and unexpected events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You're right. The game probably needs a defence boost in certain details. Just saying... The 3:1 maxim may be true or a leftover mechanism from the boardgame era. Of course, the higher the marginal odds the greater the predictability. Fact is, no battle was ever designed by any military staff to be 'interesting' in the CM sense. An interesting battle results from miscalculations and unexpected events. Quite right -- although I'd also say that an "interesting" battle in the CM sense can also be one where the basic outcome is historical and predictable (defeat by an outnumbered and outgunned force), yet the scenario defines "victory" or "defeat" in game terms as performing better/worse than would be expected under those circumstances -- holding a key town beyond a certain length of time, for example, or inflicting more than a certain level of casualties on the attacker. Those are the ones I like best because they don't have to resort to artificial, unrealistic balancing to make an exciting game. 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.