Echo Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 For a defender in quick battles? Its not a material unit. Its a hole that can be dug by any infantry unit. One foxhole for each squad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuderian Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I agree they should be free, at least in CM:SF defenders got free 'ground scrapes'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 yes that would be fine. it was like that in the cm1 games. I`ve also posted my thought that infantry should be able to dig out rudimentary entrenchments in the field when they stay in one position for a longer time (for example 5 minutes) and therefore get a bonus against artillery shrapnells and small arms fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I agree they should be free. Not likely. BFC was basically nagged into re-instituting the unit purchase system and Steve has mentioned that they won't be expending much energy re-evaluating costs or, in this case, removing them. He believes this constitutes a development black hole which will never be entirely satisfactory to every player and a source of never ending controversy. On the other hand, there was considerable demand for this among a large segment of CMers. Too bad the formation purchase concept implemented in Shock Force didn't catch on amid all the other problems associated with QBs in that game. It coulda been a contender. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyDog Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How about a 'dig in' command, which allows the squad to construct fox holes on the fly, but dramatically reduces their observation levels until completed? These ad hoc fox holes would not be camouflaged, so they would be easier to spot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How about a 'dig in' command, which allows the squad to construct fox holes on the fly, but dramatically reduces their observation levels until completed? These ad hoc fox holes would not be camouflaged, so they would be easier to spot. To be realistic, it would not only have to dramatically reduce spotting, but also dramatically increase the unit's chance of being spotted and exposure (hard to stay hidden and in cover when you're hard at work digging). Any "Dig in " command should also arguably cause the unit to fatigue over time, and reduce it's C2 "awareness" (hard to listen to the radio or pay attention to distant hand signals when you're hard at work digging). There's secondary modeling issues to consider, too. For example, in order to dig in, a soldier has to put down his weapon. So, if the unit is surprised, there really should to be a short delay before the unit can return fire while the soldiers drop entrenching tools and picks up their weapons again. Also keep in mind that depending on ground conditions, a full 2-man foxhole can take an hour or more to dig, especially if the only tools available are just the small entrenching tools that soldiers carried (I used to have a WWII-era entrenching tool; it's marginally more helpful than a large kitchen spoon... access to full shovels and picks would definitely speed up the work). Smaller slits or "fighting scrapes" could be dug in much less time, but you're still usually talking tens of minutes, most of the time. Overall, is it something that would be nice to have? Sure. But I suspect people would use such a command only rarely, and IMHO it's therefore something that has a priority far below other new engine features "on the list", like riding on tanks, flame weapons/burning terrain, and even explicit modeling of hand-to-hand combat. In short, I don't think it's something that we're going to see until at least the Space Lobsters of Doom game family. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Do foxholes work properly now? I've actually been avoiding them since 1.00 problems and haven't "come back" to them: I'd love to hear if someone did some more firing lane testing on them! GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 For a defender in quick battles? Its not a material unit. Its a hole that can be dug by any infantry unit. One foxhole for each squad. No. It's a resource, that enhances the ability of your force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmachine113 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I would use it lets say for my second line of defense...the first one wouldnt have time to dig it. Lol I remember when I was in the canadian forces they showed us a video about digging trenches...In 5 step..The last trench was with genade slit..a roof made of metal and it could withstand a nuke explosion...lol..yeah.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 What I'd like to see is a "Player Defined" force/battle type, where for a QB the creating-player can determine how many points for infantry, armor, arty, and fortifications each player gets, and what the location vs. casualties victory point division will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 A foxhole is a pre-battle thing and if the battle is upon you its a little late, same with fortifications and trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I agree. I do think it's a fair question to ask "why do I have to trade off having one more panzershrek vs having a couple of foxholes?" In an attack/defense situation, the effect of this is to swing things away from having fortifications in the exact situation where in reality the defender would have had them. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatdog Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 If the quick battle is an assault scenario, it stands to reason that the defenders would have had time to dig foxholes or at least rudimentary shell scrapes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 "why do I have to trade off having one more panzershrek vs having a couple of foxholes?" Isn't that - making cost-benefit decisions and tradeoffs - the whole point of the purchase phase of a QB? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 At one level this is true. However, the costs tradeoff for forces are of the nature of "each side has a budget for forces, you choose what the best force mix for your plan is". The question is whether a foxhole is a "force mix component" or not. It can be argued either way. The "for" argument is that you balance your overall strategy within your budget: if you have an entrenched defensive strategy, then you have to spend points on the fortifications, and you will have more of those and less equipment. If you have a mobile defense, you have more equipement to defend with and less BYO cover to protect it with. Makes some sense. The "against" argument is that defense is typically conducted entrenched, and foxholes are ubiquitous wherever there are infantry defending, so it doesn't make sense to 'cost them out'. After typing this, I find the "for" argument more persuasive. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 In an attack/defense situation, the effect of this is to swing things away from having fortifications in the exact situation where in reality the defender would have had them. That's a function of the cost and effectiveness of foxholes vs. units. ATM I don't think they're generally worth it, which is why we don't see as many fortifications as we should. (Yes? At least I haven't seen them much even in Assaults. Anecdotal, though.) Maybe that'll change in a patch. Or maybe I'll come to understand that they are worth the points as they are. I need to do my own tests... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpheart23 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I for one am happy to just have the damn things. Like pulling teeth around here to get foxholes added 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 That leads me to ask again: does anyone know if they actually work now? Some guys like testing stuff: this would be a great one to test (I personally have to squeeze in actually playing the game around the edges of life, so testing doesn't get a look in once H2HH, CMMODS, WeBoB are all dealt with!) GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 That leads me to ask again: does anyone know if they actually work now? Some guys like testing stuff: this would be a great one to test (I personally have to squeeze in actually playing the game around the edges of life, so testing doesn't get a look in once H2HH, CMMODS, WeBoB are all dealt with!) GaJ I think I noticed that "hide" in the foxholes/trenches now provides reasonable cover vs artillery and such. It´s still as deadly as before when it comes to treebursts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Its OK that foxholes are deathtraps from treebursts, I think? That is realistic. The real question is whether inf and esp shreks can fire out from them, or at least withstand small arms fire, without being masacred? GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I will buy trenches but will not bother much with foxholes or fortifications to be honest. We really had a hard time with trenches to be honest and at first they seemed rather out of place but I think they really add to the defenses. Sometimes I even look at them and see the level of detail and am quite pleased aesthetically. I think the artist did a fantastic job seeing as the terrain mesh cant be messed with much. Foxholes are not only ugly but also may be one of the biggest pains in the ass when we were testing. I am at a loss as to what the suggestions should be to address it in future games, but it is what it is. Fortifications are great as long as there are no tanks around. If there are tanks, I feel like most of the time its just an expensive target in QB's, and that the points can be better spent on other things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Its OK that foxholes are deathtraps from treebursts, I think? That is realistic. The real question is whether inf and esp shreks can fire out from them, or at least withstand small arms fire, without being masacred? GaJ The true problem is AI use of forts. As mentioned in another thread, it would help much if reloading soldiers would dive to full cover within the forts. Could be abstracted if it´s for the lack of animation sequences. Same goes for buddy aid. No need to kneel on the trench/foxhole ledges to apply BA to the soldier below. There´s yet the problem with pathfinding, where single soldiers find better "cover" behind the foxhole mounds, instead of within, particularly after using "face" which is a tricky feature anyway. "Normal" foxholes are deathtraps for treebursts. That´s realistic. Not realistic, is that in Normandy a whole lot of foxholes were not of a "normal" type. That´s also covered in another thread exhaustively. Trenches do not provide overhead cover as well. The thing is, if a defenders position is not pushed back within say 6-12 hours, every minute of non combat time would be invested improving positions in the following order: 1. Two men foxhole (few hours, say 2-3) 2. Above plus overhead cover vs treebursts, splinters, medium mortar direct hits for the foxhole occupants (upto 6-8 hours). 3. Improved (2.) foxholes would be connected with at least crouching trenches to allow covered movements within the squad position and beyond. (half a day) 4. Digging full depth connection and combat trenches. (one day and beyond) 5. ...out of scope (squad bunkers and other elaborate defenses) Not included in the time investement is measures for camouflage, improving fields of fire, obstacles, mines, switch and fake positions, range measuring and so forth. So in CMBN, we basically have 1. and 4. and nothing between obviously. Maybe a "simple" solution could be introducing more expensive FHs and trenches that provide abstracted overhead cover for units on "hide". Maybe things are not that "simple", can´t tell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 That leads me to ask again: does anyone know if they actually work now? Some guys like testing stuff: this would be a great one to test (I personally have to squeeze in actually playing the game around the edges of life, so testing doesn't get a look in once H2HH, CMMODS, WeBoB are all dealt with!) GaJ Some significant testing and tweaking was done in the patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Shouldn't Foxholes be Free? Lets remember, the points purchase system and this constant attempt at 'play balance' are artificial from the start. Having to pay for foxholes is no odder than having to pay for snipers or barbed wire. I imagine if they were 'free' some players would be tempted to litter the setup zone with foxholes at every concievable fall-back position, turning the map into moonscape. That's the advantage of build-your-own scenarios. No points allocation. If you want 300 foxholes, 2 miles of barbed wire, or Allied concrete bunkers nobody's stopping you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 "Having to pay for foxholes is no odder than having to pay for snipers or barbed wire." Well, snipers need to be recruited and trained. Wire needs to be manufactured and hauled into position. Foxhole is...just a hole. " I imagine if they were 'free' some players would be tempted to litter the setup zone with foxholes" Limit one foxhole for each squad. 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.