Shouldn't Foxholes be Free?

[RockinHarry]

"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.

Depends upon your imagination of a game, compared to RL. A hole or trench is part of your "selected" defense measures and holes/trenches do not dig themselves. You need to invest time and with regard to trenches you´ve likely (invisibly) assigned engineer support from superior HQ.

You might have a free hand from superior HQ with regard to your defense methods (Auftragstaktik). It could be selecting a mobile defense with some armor support, but no entrenchments, or a static defense with infantry well dug in. None of these efforts are for "free" and "resources" (units, material, time) are always limited to some extend, so you have to "purchase" to reflect this.

So just see "purchasing" holes, as purchasing time for getting troops dug in.

[Squatdog]

"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.

This.

Barbed Wire is a finite resource, while every rifleman and crew will have a rudimentary entrenching tool.

[YankeeDog]

This.

Barbed Wire is a finite resource, while every rifleman and crew will have a rudimentary entrenching tool.

By that logic, you could argue that buying an artillery battery and FO should automatically get you TRPs, and buying engineering units should automatically get you trenches and probably also log bunkers, as long as there are trees on the map. None of these defensive assets really require much in the way of concrete resources, just a few hand tools (which engineers especially usually carried with them), and time.

Purchase points in QBs have little to do with realism; they're there to help assure that the fight is reasonably balanced. Since foxholes convey an advantage (of whatever magnitude), they have to have a cost. The present system allows the defender to choose to not spend points on foxholes and other entrenchments, which might be less likely in realism terms, but certainly isn't impossible as it could represent a "hasty defense", where defending units have arrived in the area only slightly ahead of the attacker. He will then have more points to spend on units, which (if the point costs are properly set) will keep the fight more or less balanced. Which, again, is the whole purpose of the point system.

I really don't see the issue here.

[LJFHutch]

I must agree with Yankee and the others, the points are based on how effective a unit is in the game, not how much it costs to produce, that is more related to rarity. If it was based on cost to make/produce nobody would ever purchase a Tiger and the battlefield would likely be far less authentic.

[Kuderian]

Sorry I forget to qualify my previous statement, each squad should get one free foxhole in defense scenarios aka (**heresy alert heads-up**) CMx1 ;-)

[RockinHarry]

Sorry I forget to qualify my previous statement, each squad should get one free foxhole in defense scenarios aka (**heresy alert heads-up**) CMx1 ;-)

valid point

[Kuderian]

edit replace aka with a la

[RockinHarry]

Quick shot: Think it would take serious coding efforts to have FHs autoplaced under each defending infantry, since FH placement is more complicated and restrictive in CMBN, than it was in CMX1. Then there´s also these hard to handle micro pathing issues for single soldiers within an action spot, as well as the spread of teams in more than one AS.

[Squatdog]

By that logic, you could argue that buying an artillery battery and FO should automatically get you TRPs, and buying engineering units should automatically get you trenches and probably also log bunkers, as long as there are trees on the map. None of these defensive assets really require much in the way of concrete resources, just a few hand tools (which engineers especially usually carried with them), and time.

Purchase points in QBs have little to do with realism; they're there to help assure that the fight is reasonably balanced. Since foxholes convey an advantage (of whatever magnitude), they have to have a cost. The present system allows the defender to choose to not spend points on foxholes and other entrenchments, which might be less likely in realism terms, but certainly isn't impossible as it could represent a "hasty defense", where defending units have arrived in the area only slightly ahead of the attacker. He will then have more points to spend on units, which (if the point costs are properly set) will keep the fight more or less balanced. Which, again, is the whole purpose of the point system.

I really don't see the issue here.

No, digging a rudimentary foxhole without overhead protection generally takes 2-4 hours depending on the terrain and will be one of the FIRST things a unit will do when establishing a defensive position.

This was how it was modelled in CMx1.

[Bartokomus]

what was wrong with the old way in CMx1 where forces on defense were automatically given foxholes, every other kind of fortification you paid for. i still am suprised when i start a PBEM on defense and this isn't the case...

[YankeeDog]

what was wrong with the old way in CMx1 where forces on defense were automatically given foxholes, every other kind of fortification you paid for. i still am suprised when i start a PBEM on defense and this isn't the case...

I can just as easily flip that around -- what was good about it? Effectively, the old way forces the defender to buy foxholes, since these have to be taken into account in the force balance. Foxholes for "free" = reduction of points to buy units, in order to keep things balanced.

In the new system, the defender can choose to spend no points on fortifications, representing a hasty 'in situ' defense, such as defensive units moving into a new position to contain a breakthrough, or perhaps a unit that has just obtained an objective defending against a rapid counterattack.

Or, the defender can just buy some foxholes, representing a defending unit that has had at least a few hours to prepare, but not a lot of time.

Or, the defender can go all the way, going beyond foxholes (except for perhaps a few forward OP positions), and go all the way to trenches and bunkers for the rest of his units.

Seems like a better, more flexible system to me.

[Statisoris]

Seems like a better, more flexible system to me.

Having to purchase fortifications in CMBN is not very flexible when you really think about it. At the current/default point ratios for attacker and defender (Attack Mission Type), the defender really hurts themselves by buying fortifications. It is already a very tough task to defend with 38.7% less points than the attacker (Medium Attack). In my PBEM games, none of us has ever won a standard quick battle in defense and that is with no fortifications purchased. Fortifications do not kill them enemy, they only serve to delay the defenders death and most smart commanders would not trade a square of foxholes for a few more soldiers.

I support "optional and limited" free foxholes for the defender. By "optional and limited" I mean that the defender has a variable number of foxholes that can be placed, which is based upon the number of soldiers under their command. They do not have to place them if they do not want them, but that number of foxholes is there if they want them. Also, the defender would get extra foxholes if the battle type was "assault".

Isn't this how CMx1 handled things?

[YankeeDog]

Having to purchase fortifications in CMBN is not very flexible when you really think about it. At the current/default point ratios for attacker and defender (Attack Mission Type), the defender really hurts themselves by buying fortifications. It is already a very tough task to defend with 38.7% less points than the attacker (Medium Attack). In my PBEM games, none of us has ever won a standard quick battle in defense and that is with no fortifications purchased. Fortifications do not kill them enemy, they only serve to delay the defenders death and most smart commanders would not trade a square of foxholes for a few more soldiers.

I support "optional and limited" free foxholes for the defender. By "optional and limited" I mean that the defender has a variable number of foxholes that can be placed, which is based upon the number of soldiers under their command. They do not have to place them if they do not want them, but that number of foxholes is there if they want them. Also, the defender would get extra foxholes if the battle type was "assault".

Isn't this how CMx1 handled things?

Sounds to me like what you're suggesting is that entrenchments may be too expensive for the additional protection/functionality they provide and therefore are not a good "buy". If they were worth their price, QB players wouldn't have any problem spending some points on them.

In other words, the overall system as it is now may be OK, but the details of points allocation and unit point cost may be off. This is rather a different subject.

[Squatdog]

Having to purchase fortifications in CMBN is not very flexible when you really think about it. At the current/default point ratios for attacker and defender (Attack Mission Type), the defender really hurts themselves by buying fortifications. It is already a very tough task to defend with 38.7% less points than the attacker (Medium Attack). In my PBEM games, none of us has ever won a standard quick battle in defense and that is with no fortifications purchased. Fortifications do not kill them enemy, they only serve to delay the defenders death and most smart commanders would not trade a square of foxholes for a few more soldiers.

I support "optional and limited" free foxholes for the defender. By "optional and limited" I mean that the defender has a variable number of foxholes that can be placed, which is based upon the number of soldiers under their command. They do not have to place them if they do not want them, but that number of foxholes is there if they want them. Also, the defender would get extra foxholes if the battle type was "assault".

Isn't this how CMx1 handled things?

This.

It's absurd that the defending side starts with absolutely no defensive works whatsoever and have to severely handicap themselves by manually purchasing them with points that could be spent on units.

[LJFHutch]

I agree that foxholes are not "worth" the purchase, but I don't see how in any way that means they should be given for free. Fortifications seem much to expensive at the moment for the little protection they provide: usually if there is bocage that's about twice as effective as a concrete bunker anyway.

I say make them cheaper or adjust how effective they are - if they're not currently realistic.

[Michael Emrys]

At the current/default point ratios for attacker and defender (Attack Mission Type), the defender really hurts themselves by buying fortifications. It is already a very tough task to defend with 38.7% less points than the attacker (Medium Attack).

So, can't you and your opponent agree to adjust the attacker's point allotment downward? That option is, after all, available during the purchase phase.

Michael

[Bartokomus]

I can just as easily flip that around -- what was good about it? Effectively, the old way forces the defender to buy foxholes, since these have to be taken into account in the force balance. Foxholes for "free" = reduction of points to buy units, in order to keep things balanced.

In the new system, the defender can choose to spend no points on fortifications, representing a hasty 'in situ' defense, such as defensive units moving into a new position to contain a breakthrough, or perhaps a unit that has just obtained an objective defending against a rapid counterattack.

Or, the defender can just buy some foxholes, representing a defending unit that has had at least a few hours to prepare, but not a lot of time.

Or, the defender can go all the way, going beyond foxholes (except for perhaps a few forward OP positions), and go all the way to trenches and bunkers for the rest of his units.

Seems like a better, more flexible system to me.

AND i can counter-counter flip... hmm. yeah i definitely see your point of view, but it's definitely a preference thing. I don't think in assault/defend scenarios that foxholes should be paid for i guess.

it's certainly not a big issue, but the departure from the previous method doesn't make sense to me. it's just a change which was obviously not driven by development, but a change in opinion from the dev. team, which they're allowed to do. but i don't like!

[Statisoris]

So, can't you and your opponent agree to adjust the attacker's point allotment downward? That option is, after all, available during the purchase phase.

Michael

Yeah, if everything remains unchanged, agreed upon force adjustment is one method that can be used to promote use of fortifications. If BF refuses to make Foxholes free, what we really need is a force adjustment option for defender as well as attacker. The amount of points the attacker gets is good, the defender just needs a little more points so they are willing to use fortification. That way the attacker could keep their overall force advantage, but some preplanning between opponents is required.

PBEM opponents would have to agree though that the extra 10% or whatever would be fortifications only points. If not, the adjustment will just lead to the attacker buying another infantry squad which wasn't the point of the adjustment.

[LJFHutch]

The amount of points the attacker gets is good, the defender just needs a little more points so they are willing to use fortification.

But would anyone actually do that? To me the problem seems to be the cost/effectiveness of the fortifications, I would simply buy more infantry/armour/artillery.

Just because players have more points doesn't mean they will "waste" them. It'll be the same as now but the games will be unbalanced in favour of the defender who now has more points.

[Statisoris]

But would anyone actually do that? To me the problem seems to be the cost/effectiveness of the fortifications, I would simply buy more infantry/armour/artillery.

Just because players have more points doesn't mean they will "waste" them. It'll be the same as now but the games will be unbalanced in favour of the defender who now has more points.

I dont think you read my entire post, or didn't understand what I meant by "fortification only". I meant the extra points would be agreed upon to be fortification only or they don't get used.

[Squatdog]

Perhaps have the defender given a free allocation of foxholes depending on the number of points he has to spend, say one placable foxhole per every 200 points?