PhantomApple Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Was reading the change log, and notIced that troops in foxholes received a concealment boost. Just curious how much that boost was? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Could I also get clarification on the patch notes re. foxholes where it says: "Troops hiding in trenches or foxholes get better protection from shrapnel" Does "hiding" here refer explicitly to the hide command, i.e., for troops in foxholes to benefit against shrapnel, do they have to have been issued the hide command? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I would take that to mean hiding (specifically ordered) or cowering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You should think of it as laying down, whatever the reason. There was a bug, of sorts, introduced late in v1.00 testing in response to a different foxhole related issue. Basically something was adjusted (good) but something related wasn't adjusted (bad). Under some circumstances the protection increase is large enough to preclude casualties at all, while in v1.00 there was a significant chance of taking a casualty. For trenches there was a separate problem with the open ends of trenches. There was supposed to be "invisible" protection from shrapnel coming in laterally, but it either wasn't strong enough or was otherwise compromised. Don't know which it was. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I do hope foxholes and trenches give more cover against artillery. IRL foxhole give very good protection and only direct hit could cause casualties. This depends of couse from caliber and blast radius too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I do hope foxholes and trenches give more cover against artillery. IRL foxhole give very good protection and only direct hit could cause casualties. This depends of couse from caliber and blast radius too. And also depends on the enemy not using proximity fused shells or timed airbursts. Tree bursts are also a problem. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You should think of it as laying down, whatever the reason. There was a bug, of sorts, introduced late in v1.00 testing in response to a different foxhole related issue. Basically something was adjusted (good) but something related wasn't adjusted (bad). Under some circumstances the protection increase is large enough to preclude casualties at all, while in v1.00 there was a significant chance of taking a casualty. For trenches there was a separate problem with the open ends of trenches. There was supposed to be "invisible" protection from shrapnel coming in laterally, but it either wasn't strong enough or was otherwise compromised. Don't know which it was. Steve I guess "laying down" in FH/trenches is meant to be abstracted "kneeling" or "ducking down", so footprint of single soldiers is minimized to provide less of a target vs. tree/airbursts also? (otherwise...a foxhole has to be of the size of a grave, in order to allow true laying down) I´d already my guess about the open end of trenches beeing more vulnerable in 1.00, so I quickly learned not to use single trench segments at all. Thanks for fixing. Will do some test runs on my small forest & trenches map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 ...a foxhole has to be of the size of a grave, in order to allow true laying down One would think so, but we have only one hole object ("foxholes") when IRL there were differences between a hasty slit trench dug immediately for shelter and not to fight from, a foxhole fighting position on the front lines that pair of soldiers had time to dig overnight, etc. Every additional hour or day soldiers stayed in one place, the more they did to improve their positions -- dragging logs or a door over the top, piling earth on top of the cover, etc. But remarkably, even a hasty slit trench would provide total protection from, say, mortars and 88s, unless it was a direct hit. It wasn't anywhere near the size of a grave -- just a meter or less deep, and only just wide enough for the soldier to wriggle in and lie lengthwise along the floor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 One would think so, but we have only one hole object ("foxholes") when IRL there were differences between a hasty slit trench dug immediately for shelter and not to fight from, a foxhole fighting position on the front lines that pair of soldiers had time to dig overnight, etc. Every additional hour or day soldiers stayed in one place, the more they did to improve their positions -- dragging logs or a door over the top, piling earth on top of the cover, etc. But remarkably, even a hasty slit trench would provide total protection from, say, mortars and 88s, unless it was a direct hit. It wasn't anywhere near the size of a grave -- just a meter or less deep, and only just wide enough for the soldier to wriggle in and lie lengthwise along the floor. Standard British slit trench was 6' x 2' and 3' deep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomApple Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Did conealment buff get expaind....huh...now I'm thread jakkin Need to generally know, so we can get effective out of our foxholes and not be destroyed. 2nd issue is setup. Knowing at what point an animal can spot u is critical. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 2nd issue is setup. Knowing at what point an animal can spot u is critical. Does that mean the patch included farm animals? Do we finally get some cowbell? Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomApple Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 I was hammered sideways:) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Was reading the change log, and notIced that troops in foxholes received a concealment boost. Just curious how much that boost was? IIRC troops hiding in foxholes are now very unlikely to be spotted at all, whereas before they could be spotted and IDed almost instantly. The cover should have been bumped up to the point where smaller mortars and arty are survivable except for direct hits. If the guys are up and firing obviously they can be seen and hit, but hiding and cowering guys should get vrey large boost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Just for the record, I would be happy to see a sketch or image of exactly what kind of foxhole the CMBN foxhole object represents. Depth, radius, ... Perhaps the foxhole that BFC has in mind differs from the mental foxhole image of others. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Just for the record, I would be happy to see a sketch or image of exactly what kind of foxhole the CMBN foxhole object represents. Depth, radius, ... Perhaps the foxhole that BFC has in mind differs from the mental foxhole image of others. Best regards, Thomm During the foxholes are bust, no they are not debate I posted this link, it might be nice if BF could indicate which defence a foxhole, in game, represents. "Link to different infantry defences from War Dept 1941 (I assume German defences were not radically different) http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/.../FM7-10-I.html" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 During the foxholes are bust, no they are not debate I posted this link, it might be nice if BF could indicate which defence a foxhole, in game, represents. "Link to different infantry defences from War Dept 1941 (I assume German defences were not radically different) http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/.../FM7-10-I.html" I reckon they look closest to "prone shelters" which are "not suitable as firing positions". It'd be shiny to have that much variety of fortification. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I think we are talking about this document (cannot open the original link). http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM5-15.44.pdf The foxholes described therein appear to give near-perfect protection to prone and even to kneeling soldiers. Is this what BFC is intending to model? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 What must also be considered is the time and effort that have been put into the construction of the "foxholes" "trenches" etc. Are these intended to be positions that the forces had a lot of time to prepare, or do they represent hastily dug holes using a minimum of effort and available camoflage. The Germans had some time in the early going to prepare positions in the bocage, the allies were mostly moving forward and other than for local self preservation would not really be constructing elaborate fortifications. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I think we are talking about this document (cannot open the original link). http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM5-15.44.pdf The foxholes described therein appear to give near-perfect protection to prone and even to kneeling soldiers. Is this what BFC is intending to model? Best regards, Thomm The foxholes do, but I seriously doubt that this is what BFC are modelling. You don't see troops standing in foxholes in the game ('less they're trying to shoot over something higher just in front of the position), they're always kneeling or prone. Which is why I said they look like the "prone shelter (not a fire trench)" on page 55. I think what they're meant to represent is some frenzied scraping with a shovel, rather than serious, methodical, by-the-book fortifications. At least that's what the visual representation seems to be, to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Shame there is no intermediate between shell scrape and trench, like a slit trench. As for time, given a shovel/ entrenching tool and a fear of shrapnel induced evisceration most soldiers can prepare quite a good shelter quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I think you're right. I doubt these are by the book foxholes with shooting steps and grenade dumps. Probably just holes that you can duck and cover in with some camo around the edges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I hope the FH is meant to be the elaborate type, that usually takes just few hours to dig and beeing prepared for combat (camoflage ect.). Germans had almost always ample time to build this type (...at the cost of less sleep during nighttimes), but less so for trenches which in normandy would rather be of the connection type. But in order to "connect", you would have built elaborate squad positions (= foxholes) before. So just offering a "scrape hole" FH type AND a "trench" in CMN, does not really makes sense to me. I could live with FH´s having no overhead cover sorts of, if they would be of the "elaborate" type otherwise. No matter what infantry type at last (incl. HMG), "abstraction" s/b in a way, that soldiers "hiding",...visually laying down, are considered to be ducking in about 1,40m deep holes, with minimal footprint vs air- and treebursts. That would just be for the single soldiers. Tripod HMG is a different matter and these likely stay exposed for damage, while the crew is considered "hiding". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Whether or you can build a "fancy" foxhole in X amount of time is very dependent on soil type and weather. Additionally, whether or not you have engineers to help and the availability of tools and materials. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Vark: Shame there is no intermediate between shell scrape and trench, like a slit trench. As for time, given a shovel/ entrenching tool and a fear of shrapnel induced evisceration most soldiers can prepare quite a good shelter quickly.To quote my grandfather - "You dug like your arse was on fire." I got the impression foxholes and trenches were pretty quickly constructed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 From my reading there were places in Russia where was impossible to dig a foxhole in the winter. The frozen ground was hard as wood. Only HE could make a foxhole in those conditions. 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.