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

[LemuelG]

It really didn't take long for me to be convinced of the efficacy of holed-bocage, I had been tearing my hair out at how hopeless it was setting up a solid defence for The Hun. Once he had his holes things got thrilling, don't run out of mortar ammo, be wary of being too aggressive.

Yes, they can look very obvious once spotted - it's ugly (being CMBN foxholes, after all), but not entirely unrealistic - worked earth can be very obvious unless time is taken to remove the spoil and camouflage the position. A purchasable (like other forts) camouflage-tile is something I am looking forward too.

Someone mentioned the guys not specifically using the holes - this is true, they will not always jump into a hole, sometimes preferring to ensconce themselves in between, or wherever pleases them. This is something that happens if the hedge is there or not, how it affects events is not known by me. I suspect there is an abstract protection applied to the whole tile containing the holes and this bonus is conferred to troops in that tile whether they're in a hole or not, otherwise their antics (crawling out of holes you place them in) might be a bit misguided.

[Broadsword56]

Yes, they can look very obvious once spotted - it's ugly (being CMBN foxholes, after all), but not entirely unrealistic - worked earth can be very obvious unless time is taken to remove the spoil and camouflage the position. A purchasable (like other forts) camouflage-tile is something I am looking forward to.

Would it work to map lots of weeds and brush around the exposed (protruding forward of the bocage) foxholes to help conceal them a bit more, or at least make them look a bit less naked?

[akd]

Someone mentioned the guys not specifically using the holes - this is true, they will not always jump into a hole, sometimes preferring to ensconce themselves in between, or wherever pleases them. This is something that happens if the hedge is there or not, how it affects events is not known by me.

This is not correct. Assuming a N-S-E-W orientation, they always choose the linear feature. If they appear to be in a foxhole, it is coincidental.

[LemuelG]

Would it work to map lots of weeds and brush around the exposed (protruding forward of the bocage) foxholes to help conceal them a bit more, or at least make them look a bit less naked?

I'm actually messing around with this at the moment, but nothing much helps - once spotted they are still hideous and obvious (by their nature as CMBN foxholes ); putting them in heavily wooded areas helps delay spotting, but that is true for everything.

If anything this might encourage me not to abuse this trick too much.

[LemuelG]

This is not correct. Assuming a N-S-E-W orientation, they always choose the linear feature. If they appear to be in a foxhole, it is coincidental.

I'm not sure what you mean; when I place+face the defenders they are usually in holes, then as you watch they will start crawling around arranging themselves as they please, this happened in the forest forts before I gave them hedges as well.

I am not uncomfortable with that, I presume foxhole protection is 100% abstracted to the tile in which they are placed.

[akd]

I presume foxhole protection is 100% abstracted to the tile in which they are placed.

No. I don't know if there is an abstract bonus (possibly only against blast/fragmentation?), but I am 99% certain positioning inside the foxholes does matter.

[LemuelG]

No. I don't know if there is an abstract bonus (possibly only against blast/fragmentation?), but I am 99% certain positioning inside the foxholes does matter.

If that is the case, then one of two things is happening: an unfortunate bug is causing infantry to not take advantage of cover available to them, even when they are specifically placed inside the holes; or the UnitAI is telling you that the foxholes are utterly useless and that they feel safer lying outside the holes under that nearby bush.

What exactly is going on with foxholes? Is there a straight description anywhere of how they're supposed to work?

[RockinHarry]

Sometimes it´s hard to get infantry (of appropiate size = team or half squad) into FHs right, when there is competing cover in the same action spot. In setup phase you can do various tries with the "Face" command (actually is a "seek cover vs pointed action spot" command), until the all soldiers got it right. Oftentimes you have to "face" away, to get it happen, but leaves the random shuffeling of individual soldiers, even if clicking the same action spot for "face" all the time.

Under running battle conditions, things are even more difficult (...to predict). Maybe a "use FHs" flag is required.

[LemuelG]

I think it would be unfortunate if, considering the wildy unrealistic nature (y'all know - the fact they're above ground) of our foxholes, and our inability to place and orient them precisely, any bonuses are not applied to the whole tile. It's fine if those bonuses apply only to the first X number of troops in the tile and the others get left in the cold.

I (and others I'm sure) am finding this a very frustrating aspect of the game. I would appreciate some clarification from above.

[LemuelG]

I did some more experiments, to get a feel for what is happening. The results are interesting.

I ran all my tests again, but this time set all Germans on 'hide' with short arcs - with bocage that was enough to stop them being spotted at all during the ten minutes; with foxholes-only, they were still spotted after a few seconds, survivability improves slightly - about 10% of troops on average survive the ten minutes.

What was I expecting from foxholes+hide? Well, better concealment than not hiding for a start, this didn't happen - even without elevation on the Germans the Ami spotted them without delay; also, I would expect a guy hiding/lying in the bottom of his hole to be next-to-invulnerable to small-arms fire, this also did not happen - most guys died in their holes, with their noses in the dirt - a sad display.

What good is a foxhole that does not do the things it is supposed to do? i.e. be a simple hole-in-the-ground big enough for a trooper to hide his body in?

I put this not-unexpected disappointment behind me and ran another round of tests - this time I replaced the para company with a FO and gave him various mortars and howitzers. First I bombarded the German line with 105s - settings: linear, 4 guns, 'medium', 'maximum' - that is 140 105mm shells fired over approx. 9 minutes. Then I went through again and did the same tests with a short and violent mortar-stonk, 2x81mm, linear, 'heavy', 'maximum'; this is usually over within 2 minutes. (note: guns firing from behind the Ami side of the map, so into the bocage)

Bocage is about as useful at deflecting these shells as nothing at all - with/without bocage (no-holes) they lose 50-55 men and surrender between minutes 5 and 7 reliably. The mortar-stonk does not cause the Germans to surrender - they sustain 35-45 casualties, again with/without bocage, it seems to matter not, at least for the final result.

Holes perform much better, with/without bocage again makes no notable difference; the howitzer barrage takes about the same numbers of lives, but importantly the casualties come much slower - the hole-guys have an even chance of holding until the barrage is over - when they do surrender it is not until either minute 9 or ten (sometimes when the barrage has already finished!). I'm going to say that holes offer about 66% better protection vs howitzers. Holes perform even better again against the stonk - casualties range from 13 to 19, and are mostly 13-14; in the most favourable cases it is a reduction of casualties by over 300%!

Conclusion-time:

Bocage offers next-to-no protection against arty.

Holes offer NO concealment at all.

Holes will not completely protect guys cowering/hiding from small-arms fire.

Holes give good protection against all forms of indirect fire.

What would I have liked to see?

Holes concealing troops until they expose themselves (if the enemy has elevation on you, tough - but that isn't the case in my tests).

Holes rendering hiding/cowering troops invulnerable to small-arms (again, only if not fired from elevation, these things are holes and should be modelled as such).

[RockinHarry]

US Inf Cpy line

Veteran

Motivation Normal

Leadership 0

Fit

vs german linear FH positions (no occupants, just the foxholes)

Terrain ALL "dirt"

perfectly flat map

clear weather

noon

WeGo, US play, vs German AI, Iron mode

US Cpy. line starting at 300m away in "hunt"

1. Individual FHs (i.e 1 out of the 4 within an action spot) are discovered around the 100m distance

and ALL FHs are spotted at distance around 50m

2. Same results for all "grass" map

3. Same results for all "grassT" map

4. Same results for all "grassXT" map

5. Results for all "light forest" map (no trees), SP = ~108m, AS = 50-60m

6. Results for all "heavy forest" map (no trees) SP = ~108m, AS = 80-90m

Stopped here, as already some conclusions can be made:

Ground terrain type appears not to give any concealment benefits for Foxholes.

Moving units (hunt) do spot worse, than stationary ones (known), but if terrain makes a unit moving slower than normal, spotting range is increased.

Now for another test run.

Same as initial setup (all grass, ect.), but FH´s placed in 1m deep single action spot depressions. Results same as 1.

2m deep single action spot depressions = same result (1.)

Made a 1m high berm in front of FH line. (single line, 1 action spot = 21m, surrounding terrain all 20m) Same result (1.)

Made a 2m high berm in front of FH line. (single line, 1 action spot = 22m, surrounding terrain all 20m).

Result: Foxholes weren´t spotted, until first single US soldiers start to cross the raised berm at distance of 8-16m.

Now to some high bocage placed in single line, just in front of the foxholes.

Foxholes are spotted, when first single soldiers reach the high bocage, 8-10m away from the foxholes behind.

Foxholes behind low bocage: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining foxholes are spotted at about 50m (1.)

Foxholes behind low wall: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining foxholes are spotted at about 50m (1.)

Foxholes behind tall wall: First individual foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 8-10m way (similar to high bocage), but if all soldiers finally reach and align at the high wall, about half to two thirds of individual foxholes (2-3 from 4 within a single action spot) are spotted. Interesting....

Foxholes in light forest tile & 3 trees type D: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining single foxholes are spotted at about 40m. Some individual tree placement obviously does matter.

Foxholes in light forest tile & 3 trees type D, with an additional row of same type in front, so the actual foxhole line is one action spot behind the forest edge: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 90 - 100m away. Remaining single foxholes are spotted at almost point blank range (1 action spot), with spotters already moving into the forest edge. Individual tree placement, as well as density of trees obviously does matter even more.

Now some more unusual test. Line of row houses (individual, house #1) in front of the foxhole line. Perfect shielding, conceiling, until first soldiers are about half into the house and spot first foxholes behind (1 action spot stand off).

Turning the row houses all to rubble (2 times ALT + SHIFT + Click). Now first foxholes behind are started to be spotted at 100m distance. Remaining foxholes are spotted at range of 40-50m.

To remember, all spotters are moving (hunt), same experience & stats (veteran) and foxholes are empty.

One could make dozen more tests, with stationary spotters, different experience, foxholes at last beeing occupied by someone ect.

Hard to make conclusions here, but some things appear not quite to work, as one would expect.

[RockinHarry]

Experience level test for initial case 1. above (all grass, flat, noon, clear weather, FHs empty, hunt mode, WEGO, Iron):

Elite: 150m start spot, 90m full spot.

Crack: 100-110m start spot, 60-70m full spot.

Veterans: 100m start spot, 50m full spot.

Regulars: 90m start spot, 40m full spot.

Greens: 80m start spot, 30m full spot.

Conscripts: 60-70m start spot, 20-30m full spot.

Custom Bocage & Foxholes (LemuelG´s trick) vs. Regular spotters "hunt"

First forward foxholes spotted at about 80m and german side (of bocage) foxholes again at about 8-16m, but US infantry is yet 1 action spot away from the high bocage at this time.

[stoex]

Wait, you can spot foxholes through a high wall? That's not good...

[RockinHarry]

Wait, you can spot foxholes through a high wall? That's not good...

Yep, ...looks like even high walls aren´t that massive, or the game assumes some individuals actually peeking OVER the wall.

[RockinHarry]

And another nice test:

(all grass, flat, noon, clear weather, spotter/attacker in hunt mode, WEGO, Iron):

The foxholes are now all occupied by small HQ and scout teams (splitting normal squads didn´t quite work, due to single soldiers reshuffling outside the foxholes, after loading the battle) and on "hide". Both, US and german forces are all regular, normal motivation, fit, leader 0.

Also in order to make the hiding infantry stick with their foxhole positions, I had to assign single setup zone - action spots to all foxhole positions.

Edit: Defender AI plan for the test was: Group1, Setup, Mixed, Hide, No Dismount, Exit after 20, Exit before 25. Beside that, there were no other plans or orders. Length of battle is 30, but that´s not of concern.

Result:

After battle start, the foxholes and its occupants (still on "hide") were spotted already at the starting line 300m away.

Looks like I need to make a larger map with initial placements farther seperated...

[stoex]

There's definitely something not quite right if the empty foxholes are only spotted at 100m, but the ones that have men hidden in them are spotted at 300m. Nice find, RockinHarry - now get this setup to a beta tester asap!

[RockinHarry]

Enlarged the map (1500m) and under same parameters, attackers approached (hunt) on the foxhole line, with a single squad getting first spot of a "?" at ~350m.

The same squad approached to ~320m, spotting an additional hidden unit in its foxhole.

No other unit of the whole company, approaching at similar range had this spotting yet. C2 is well established within the platoons, but I did leave back the Cpy. HQ at the starting line (about 1 km to the rear).

Short before the 300m distance, 6 x "?" and 2 x Foxholes + occupants are spotted. (There´s 10 Foxholes and occupants onmap)

At the 200-250m range, all 10 foxholes with hidden occupants were finally spotted. (no "?" left)

Edit: "Attackers" had a 360° short covered arc, to prevent shooting and keep them moving in "hunt" mode.

[RockinHarry]

Wait, you can spot foxholes through a high wall? That's not good...

And yet another variation oddity. Now have hiding small infantry teams in those foxholes. When the foxholes behind high wall are spotted from just the other side of the wall at point blank range, hiding defenders aren´t spotted. Not even a "?".

Had to cease fire to check presence of defenders and yep, they´re still there, nose down in their foxholes.

Defender AI script: Group1, Setup, Mixed, Hide, No Dismount, Exit after 20, Exit before 25. Beside that, there were no other plans or orders. Foxholes & defenders are all in single action spot setup zones to prevent shifting.

[Broadsword56]

The test data is flying by so furiously now -- great to see it's happening, but I'm completely lost now, since the OP was about a cool discovery that one can place foxholes underneath bocage. Can someone summarize just the "what we now know" bottom line, based on these tests, in just a sentence or two?

[akd]

There's definitely something not quite right if the empty foxholes are only spotted at 100m, but the ones that have men hidden in them are spotted at 300m. Nice find, RockinHarry - now get this setup to a beta tester asap!

If a unit in a foxhole is spotted, the foxhole is instantly revealed, and even hiding units are occasionally exposed in order to maintain some level of awareness, and thus can be spotted. An occupied foxhole should be easier to spot than and unoccupied one, because there is a chance for the occupying unit to be spotted.

The tests on empty foxholes in defilade to the spotter are very interesting. Seems to suggest that foxholes are considered to be a standing man height for spotting purposes.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great stuff in this thread -- just checking in. I've had so little time for gaming lately I haven't even downloaded the patches for CMBN or CMSF yet. Gonna be that way for a while I think....

[stoex]

If a unit in a foxhole is spotted, the foxhole is instantly revealed, and even hiding units are occasionally exposed in order to maintain some level of awareness, and thus can be spotted. An occupied foxhole should be easier to spot than and unoccupied one, because there is a chance for the occupying unit to be spotted.

The tests on empty foxholes in defilade to the spotter are very interesting. Seems to suggest that foxholes are considered to be a standing man height for spotting purposes.

Sorry, akd, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. First off, if foxholes were considered to be as high as a standing man for spotting puposes, why would units not be able to spot empty foxholes from further away than 100m? Why would 'standing man height' foxholes be easier to spot when they have 'prone man height' soldiers lying down in them? Finally, my men consistently fail to ever spot enemy standing up behind a high wall, which doesn't surprise me considering the high wall is quite a bit taller than a standing man. So why should they spot foxholes under the same circumstances? There is clearly something else going on here, I think.

On a slightly different note, I do agree that occupied foxholes should be spotted somewhat easier than unoccupied ones, but the difference in RockinHarry's test (100m unoccupied, 300m occupied) seems a bit drastic considering the men inside the foxholes are supposed to be hiding.

[RockinHarry]

Need to remind, that I made the tests with a firm set of parameters, unless otherwise noted:

Map:

All flat (20m default)

All "Grass" (nothing else, not even grass variations)

Weather: Clear

Time of day: Noon

US & Germans (ALL units):

Regulars

Normal Motivation

Leadership 0

Fit

Spotters are moving in "hunt" mode & short 360° covered arc.

No covered arc, vs empty foxhole test play.

Defenders are "hide" mode, set in editor, but very IMPORTANT...I also changed the default "Plan1" for A1 units (all Group1) to:

Setup

Mixed (n.a)

Hide (!)

No Dismount (n.a)

Exit after: 20

Exit before: 25

Single action spot setup zones for every single Foxhole position & occupying defender unit.

No Allied/Axis "Parameters" (Mission) set, No terrain & unit objectives

This to make "stick" all defending units for the duration of the test game and keep them on "Hide".

Defending, hidden units contain teams no larger than 3-4 single soldiers, in order to avoid outside foxhole (re-) deploying.

This is the standard setup used for play vs. defending AI in WEGO/Iron mode.

No "Scenario Author Test" play.

If any of the parameters are changed, results may differ from small to large.

I just consider the 300m auto spotting of foxhole defenders on "hide" as a basis. I´ve seen spotting ranges for hidden foxhole defenders way higher and shorter, when certain parameters are changed.

Spotting of empty foxholes appears to be more or less hardcoded to a certain range and less parameters are influencing spotting ranges. The "behind high wall/defilade" oddity is yet unexplained, but likely is a result of the "on top of terrain" nature of currently implemented foxholes.

So when making any "test" play environments, I suggest to have sort of unified parameter sets, in order to make test results "comparable".

In first tests, I neglected AI scripts for one side or the other, but when testing vs. AI, I figured that always Group1 default set is active, which might not give the results one seeks to test out, particularaly for a defending AI.

Think this also offers BFC a better evaluation of what we´re actually doing.

[LongLeftFlank]

Just a bump of this very insightful thread.

Looks as though the engine treats foxholes (like bunkers) as a type of super low-profile immobile OT vehicle. Which explains how they're so easily spotted compared to infantry. Also explains why you can't put them in locations where you can't place vehicles (e.g. in bocage).

So as a workaround, is there any way for BFC to provide some "camouflage" overlay objects or wireframe (maybe something like the Stryker slat cage) that make the underlying vehicle or fortification harder to spot when stationary? Maybe something to think about for the Bulge family.

[RockinHarry]

Just a bump of this very insightful thread.

Looks as though the engine treats foxholes (like bunkers) as a type of super low-profile immobile OT vehicle. Which explains how they're so easily spotted compared to infantry. Also explains why you can't put them in locations where you can't place vehicles (e.g. in bocage).

So as a workaround, is there any way for BFC to provide some "camouflage" overlay objects or wireframe (maybe something like the Stryker slat cage) that make the underlying vehicle or fortification harder to spot when stationary? Maybe something to think about for the Bulge family.

Makes sense to me and I do not like the bunker (&foxhole) = vehicle solutions at all, no matter if it makes coding the stuff in the game more simple or not. Hopefully BFC puts it higher priority in the "improvement" list anytime soon.