Fortifying Bocage == possible; let me show you a trick

[LemuelG]

This is only do-able by scenario designers; I discovered it after accidentally laying a row of bocage through some foxholes already placed on the map. It's that simple.

Now I just find the section of hedge I want 'fortified', delete it in the editor, go to placement-mode and move some foxholes into the gap, back to the map-editor and replace the hedge - voila!

After doing this to some key positions dislodging the Germans became much more difficult, no genuine testing has been made - observations appear very favorable, and I'm running with it.

They are still the same-old earth-pimples we all know and love though, scenario featuring bocage-forts soon

[mjkerner]

Excellent find, Lemuel. Thanks for sharing it!

[PhantomApple]

IIRC someone In the first couple weeks found this with slit trenches? Good refresher none the less as it's buried deeply I am sure.

[Broadsword56]

Eureka! This could be the innovation the game really needed to get the tactics back in balance toward a true bocage defense (fingers crossed).

[LemuelG]

IIRC someone In the first couple weeks found this with slit trenches?

Beats me, I posted this after reading about how this specifically couldn't be done in another thread; it was gonna be a surprise for the scenario - but I thought, why not? So much moaning about the poor quality of prepared positions, but there are answers for the designer who is prepared to get sufficiently 'cute' with the engine.

After I stumbled on this and instituted changes to defensive positions, the Germans went from usually bugging-out after a couple of minutes of a fire-fight (as good as dying for the AI) to holding on long enough to completely run out of ammo in some cases, if the allied player runs out of mortar rounds he's in deep poop. I'm now tinkering very carefully with their experience/motivation levels.

Try it out for yourselves. I'm interested to see and hear of your results.

[RockinHarry]

Better place for this thread would´ve been maps/mods section, but...

...nice to see some more of the old CMX1 tricks working in CMN as well. With my current focus on MOUT, I tinkered with some different, normally "no go" unit-terrain combos, that´ll likely be included in an oncoming scenario of mine:

Foxholes in rubble and buildings

Large buildings (>=4 action spots) with interior "high walls" in the basement floor (- -), (+) or (L) shaped.

"Reinforced" walls for buildings placed off center (known from another thread here and Omaha scenario)

I´ve not yet thoroughly tried placing trenches, wire and minefields (booby trapped houses?) in no go terrain, but there´s some interesting possibilities.

Some of that needs a bit of planning ahead, as placing order is reversed as reported (units first, then no go terrain), except the buildings & walls stuff.

Yet from my play testing results, I have some doubts that most these custom made combos really "work" as one intends.

I believe, everything you put within (or intersecting) a building will be ignored by the game, for LOS/LOF and cover/concealment purposes and even might provoke the game to crash. I´d the latter happen with a burning (destroyed) wooden shelter, placed within a house.

There´s a probability, that the foxhole - bocage combo just takes benefits from one or the other feature, but not both at the same time. There´s also possible side effects. Who knows...

Unless BFC does not tell us details about all this, it´s fun to toy with though.

[Chris Ferrous]

In a similar vein, I tried tanks in buildings but it didn't work for me. Although they looked to be partially in a building wall, they weren't. Tanks placed with a building on top so they didn't intersect the walls at all were 'pushed out' so they were just clipping the walls.

So, from my experience vehicles hidden in buildings seems impossible so far.

I though I'd experienced a similar thing with bunkers also. All this was v1.0 btw.

[LemuelG]

Curiosity got a hold of me, I had to do some tests to see whether I was mad or not. I did a few rounds, time demands have got the better of me for now though.

I figure it's best to test with as few variables as possible, conditions of fire-superiority for the attacker (about 2:1), who also gets a hedgerow.

The field: Default size map; 'mixed-grass' style terrain; perfectly flat. Two parralel rows of 'tall' bocage, approx. 200m apart, running from north to south.

The forces: US para company + battalion HQ - 131 men. German platoon, company HQ and HMG section - 63 men. Rough 2:1 advantage for the US, plus 3 light mortars.

Ten minutes time-limit for show-down - time for forces to spot and engage from 30-60 seconds. Soldiers spread evenly along the lines of bocage facing each other.

First round of tests is the base-line, no foxholes, US has 3 60mm mortars slightly behind the line, it's HQs can call them freely. When I give numbers they will be for (total casualties/total squads routed and broken)

Test # - Test type (US losses) (German losses)

1 - mortar/no-holes (7/0) (30/4)

2 - mortar/no-holes (9/0) (33/5)

3 - mortar/no-holes (7/0) (31/4)

4 - mortar/no-holes (3/0) (33/4)

5 - mortar/no-holes (4/0) (39/3)

Clear trend - Germans take about 50% casualties, half the rest are rendered ineffective, fleeing and/or out-of-command. Negligible harm to the US troops. Now we add holes, 13 of them to be exact - almost one for every team, two are overloaded.

6 - mortar/holes (9/0) (7/0)

7 - mortar/holes (15/0) (11/1)

8 - mortar/holes (8/0) (16/1)

9 - mortar/holes (16/0) (14/0)

10 - mortar/holes (18/0) (8/0)

Dramatic turn-around, Germans now holding their own, and sometimes even coming out ahead, despite mortar-fire; near-misses by mortars are notably less effective on the fortified Germans.

Casualties reduced by 50%+, and even though they are still heavily out-gunned the Germans hold stronger, with only 1 team routing, at most.

A few more, this time without mortars on the US side. First without holes for baseline.

11 - no-mortar/no-holes (8/0) (27/3)

12 - no-mortar/no-holes (9/0) (21/2)

13 - no-mortar/no-holes (8/0) (22/3)

Now giving the Germans back their spider-holes.

14 - no-mortar/holes (12/0) (9/0)

15 - no-mortar/holes (12/0) (12/0)

16 - no-mortar/holes (14/0) (9/0)

Again the holes are a significant boost for the Germans; in their bocage-holes, and with no nassty mortarsss, they are rock-solid morale-wise. It would have been nice to run it longer to see if the Germans could possibly win, but I haven't the time now.

Short, inflammatory conclusion: holing your bocage will at least double effectiveness of defensive fighting-positions. It works, real good.

[Amizaur]

Don't you plan to make another serie of tests with the sides switched ? Germans atacking with 2:1 advantage, US defending ?

I know you tested the effectivenes of foxholes in improving defence value of troops.

But you have collected also other interesting data. About force balance with/without foxholes. Now would be interesting to compare casualities and outcomes in symmetric German:US / 2:1 scenario. Would it be similar ? Or different ?

[LemuelG]

Don't you plan to make another serie of tests with the sides switched ? Germans atacking with 2:1 advantage, US defending ?

No. For my purposes it is irrelevant - I set a baseline without foxholes, then add foxholes into the mix and observe any changes in outcome. I set up a test which roughly reflects the conditions in a scenario I'm making, for my own purposes.

I invite you to set up something similair yourself - I am curious of course, just limited with time.

I know you tested the effectivenes of foxholes in improving defence value of troops.

But you have collected also other interesting data. About force balance with/without foxholes. Now would be interesting to compare casualities and outcomes in symmetric German:US / 2:1 scenario. Would it be similar ? Or different ?

Well, I'd expect the side with 2:1 advantage to win - all other things being equal. A big factor is the amount of time guys spend cowering/not firing their weapons, this is usually the downfall of the outnumbered soldier. Can't wait to see how a para company with 50% more firepower will fare

I did run the tests I made through 'till the bitter end, just a few times, and without mortars.

17 - no-mortar/no-holes/no-limit; firing stops completely by 24 minutes, both sides have ammo still, but Germans take so many casualties and so many run away the yanks run out of targets. US - (5/0) German - (38/10). Slaughter.

18 - no-mortar/no-holes/no-limit; very much the same results as test 17. US - (10/0) German - (32/13)

Spider-holes installed for the Germans.

19 - no-mortar/no-limit/holes; this one runs about 28 minutes until firing stops, the Germans still have some HMG ammo after the Americans are reduced to nothing but grenades and can't return fire. Germans clear winners - no-one flees, and Germany out-scores the US by 19-10. Everyone flat out of ammo.

20 - no-mortar/no-limit/holes; a shorter battle at 25 minutes, but similair results, both sides are rock-solid, but the Germans edge it 18-13. Again ammo is depleted before battle is decided.

Without the foxholed bocage the Germans routinely fail, with them they hold rock-steady.

[RockinHarry]

I´ve not fully worked through your data...but what about the "no bocage/ hole" combo tested as well? Does the bocage (for defender) matter at all, while having holes, or is it ruled out by the game, since it´s initially a "no go" option?

I´ve tried rubble & hole and it appeared that holes do not improve defensiveness of rubble noticeable.

I´m somewhat confused with the bocage/hole setup. Did you place holes AND infantry first, THEN bocage? Otherwise, me thinks, half the squad would be seperated from each other by the bocage.

Did treebursts matter, while doing the mortar tests? I think, high bocage gets some treebursts generated, even if there are no "trees" visible.

What I aim to find out, is if "no go" combos really work additive and not rule out each other internally, so that only one type is considered for cover purposes. (rubble + foxhole = rubble, or bocage + foxhole = foxhole, ect.)

[Chris Ferrous]

Logical, Rockin H.

An answer would be informative.

[LemuelG]

I´m somewhat confused with the bocage/hole setup. Did you place holes AND infantry first, THEN bocage? Otherwise, me thinks, half the squad would be seperated from each other by the bocage.

Holes, hedge, infantry - in that order, you are correct in that half the holes are on the 'wrong' side of the hedge, the soldiers need to be placed on the correct side (they will definately only gather on one side of the hedge, despite holes on both sides), given facing-orders etc.

And you are right to point out my oversight of not having a holes-only baseline test; but in my defence, I consider foxholes on their own to be about as useful a fighting-position as a soggy cardboard box, and not a patch on a decent line of bocage. Let's see...

I used my holes/no-mortar template and erased the German hedge. Let the fun begin:

I felt like calling this after half a turn - it took about 5 seconds for the Ami to spot Germans and open fire, after a couple of turns the Germans are completely broken - and this time there's no hedge to protect the numerous and cowardly routers - after 7 minutes German resistance ceases completely. ALL DEAD, German pixeltroops do not personally endorse CMBN foxholes. I wont waste my time running another

[Heckenschütze]

Hi,

I recognized the best place for foxholes are bocage corners. Here, every soldier remained in their hole after placing a hedgerow over it – except for one hole. So I made a break near the empty foxhole and positioned a Panzerschreck team in it. Now, when things get too hot, they can retreat behind the hedge to regroup.

This method not only provides the best cover and optimal LOS, it’s also historically accurate. The Germans favoured these places for their defence.

[RockinHarry]

Holes, hedge, infantry - in that order, you are correct in that half the holes are on the 'wrong' side of the hedge, the soldiers need to be placed on the correct side (they will definately only gather on one side of the hedge, despite holes on both sides), given facing-orders etc.

And you are right to point out my oversight of not having a holes-only baseline test; but in my defence, I consider foxholes on their own to be about as useful a fighting-position as a soggy cardboard box, and not a patch on a decent line of bocage. Let's see...

I used my holes/no-mortar template and erased the German hedge. Let the fun begin:

I felt like calling this after half a turn - it took about 5 seconds for the Ami to spot Germans and open fire, after a couple of turns the Germans are completely broken - and this time there's no hedge to protect the numerous and cowardly routers - after 7 minutes German resistance ceases completely. ALL DEAD, German pixeltroops do not personally endorse CMBN foxholes. I wont waste my time running another

Thanks, that clears some up.

So the main benefit of this custom setup is that the foxhole defenders are considerably closer to the berm, providing cover accordingly. Also the bocage foliage adds concealment (as in normal, stand off setup), but as the foxholes are now "buried" into the berm, defenders also have a better view through.

To sum it up: single side cover of berm + allround cover of foxholes + better view + concealment (as opposed to normal, stand off setup). Sounds much like the historical german bocage defense, as discussed before. Just need making teams small enough for this purpose (4-5 max). Working with split, understrength squads and 50% reduced HMG teams should be a way, I think.

[Blackcat]

I for one am gratful to Lemuel G, for the work he has done in this area and especially the tests he cas designed and run to demonstrate how good foxholes are when placed under bocage.

Now, what does this dicovery mean for scenario designers? Surely it must be that if they want to give the US player a fight worth having, they will have to increase the troop available to the US side (especially mortars and other HE chuckers). I think my point is, yes this makes the game more realistc, but what does it do for game play when implemented?

In the, few, PBEM games I have played so far (and to a lesser extent the scenarios) I have already become concened that the atrillery arm holds too much sway over the outcome. Artillery is rightly called the "queen of the battlefield", but being very realistic in ths respect might not make for fun games. Good work and good results Lemuel, but I would advise being careful of your wishes.

[Broadsword56]

Fun is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it just means that scenario designers who use the newer/better bocage entrenchment technique will also have to take this into account when assigning forces, VPs, and considering the balance of play. So, for example, the attacking side might need to have 3:1 or even greater numerical advantage. The defender might have the entrenched benefit as well as better spotting for indirect artillery... all of which are closer to the real-life situations that happened in Normandy. So this innovation will encourage designers and players to see "balance" in more varied and subtle ways than simply equal numbers of forces. You can even have a totally hopeless scenario for an attacker, but which still can result in a decisive victory if the attacker achieves a better result than the one that actually happened (see Long Left Flank's W.I.P. map for The Carillon Nose, in the mod thread, which probably will give rise to scenarios like these).

[Blackcat]

All fair points Mr. Broardsword. I was wondering about the effect on play in craming more units into the same area to produce, essentially, the same result and whether the candle was worth the game. I accept your views and it, for sure, is a matter for scenario designers. I await with baited breath what they give us with this new tool under their belt.

[akd]

As far as I can tell, the presence of foxholes in the same tile as bocage has no effect on the positioning of the men in that tile. The linear feature overrides the foxholes for AI positioning purposes. They make no effort to use the foxholes at all. As far as the AI is concerned, they don't exist.

If there is a direct benefit to cover (and these tests suggest there is), it likely results either from soldiers' positions incidentally coinciding with foxholes, foxholes directly blocking LoF from certain directions, or some underlying bonus that is provided by the presence of foxholes in the tile.

Seems a very handy way to increase the defensive value of hedgerow positions, but I suspect that units hiding/cowering in foxholes away from linear features and overhead obstructions will still have better cover against indirect fire.

[stoex]

I notice one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this regard is the fact that these foxholes will allow the attacker to more easily spot possible defender locations, since half the foxholes will be on the 'wrong' side of the hedgerow. The attackers will spot the empty half of the foxholes relatively quickly, so scenario designers will have to provide extra foxholes that are left empty in order to fool the attackers.

[akd]

I notice one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this regard is the fact that these foxholes will allow the attacker to more easily spot possible defender locations, since half the foxholes will be on the 'wrong' side of the hedgerow. The attackers will spot the empty half of the foxholes relatively quickly, so scenario designers will have to provide extra foxholes that are left empty in order to fool the attackers.

At 300m this doesn't seem to happen. Foxholes aren't spotted until the unit in the same tile is spotted. Not sure what happens closer.

[Blackcat]

I notice one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this regard is the fact that these foxholes will allow the attacker to more easily spot possible defender locations, since half the foxholes will be on the 'wrong' side of the hedgerow. The attackers will spot the empty half of the foxholes relatively quickly, so scenario designers will have to provide extra foxholes that are left empty in order to fool the attackers.

A very good point Mr. Stoex. Then the designer would need to allow the attack even more mortars etc. to cater for the fact that so many rounds are going to fall on empty positions, or, as alternative, more units to scout so as to ensure precous ammo isn't wasted.

As I say, I am grateful for LemuelG's work in finding this technique and his dedication in testing it. Someone like THEGPT, will have fun with it, but he will also, I suspect, want to balance the gameplay. However, given his welknown weakness outside the leg-stump, the end effect might mean his scenarios become easier.

A nice discovery from LemuelG. Whether it turns out for good or ill depends on the scenario designers who take it up.

[stoex]

akd,

At 300m this doesn't seem to happen. Foxholes aren't spotted until the unit in the same tile is spotted. Not sure what happens closer.

Not in my experience. To be fair, I haven't had much time to play since v1.01, but before that my troops were usually spotting trenches and foxholes well before spotting the units inside them at any range, at least in the open. Which, by the way, I find kinda makes sense, since the trench/foxhole is meant to conceal the troops inside it.

[akd]

akd,

Not in my experience. To be fair, I haven't had much time to play since v1.01, but before that my troops were usually spotting trenches and foxholes well before spotting the units inside them at any range, at least in the open. Which, by the way, I find kinda makes sense, since the trench/foxhole is meant to conceal the troops inside it.

I meant specifically in this situation (foxhole placed in same tile as bocage).

[stoex]

Ah, sorry, I didn't catch that from your previous post. Would be interesting to know what happens when you get closer, since hedgerow fighting does'nt often allow for ranges of 300 meters.