Shallow Foxholes

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

Seems that the troops are standing in what appear to be shallow foxholes? Looks like most of their body is above the FH level. I would have thought that only their shoulders, arms, and head would be needed above the FH to fire out?

Thanks,

Gerry

[sburke]

The issue has been raised with BFC. Apparently the guys they contracted with to dig the foxholes are really short. The tall guys charged by the hour and were considered too expensive.

[YankeeDog]

Foxholes and trenches are one of the areas of the game engine where WYSIWYG doesn't really apply; compromises had to be made to allow fog of war to apply to entrenchments and therefore their graphical appearance doesn't necessarily match up with the amount of cover they offer. Therefore, I would not assume that the apparent exposure of a soldier in a foxhole has much to do with their actual exposure.

With this said, based on my own play experience, the level of cover foxholes provide seems to be more consistent with a shallow "hasty" entrenchment than a deep, fully dug foxhole that defenders have had hours or days to prepare. The amount of cover they provide has definitely gone up in 1.01, but it still is not incredible.

This isn't necessarily unrealistic, though it does represent only one possibility -- IRL, all foxholes are not created equal and sometimes defenders would only have time to dig shallow slits, rather than full foxholes. I'd actually love to have both "hasty" foxholes and "full" foxholes.

[MG TOW]

Just an observation, but shell holes, or artillery impacted ground seems to be a shallow depression below ground level. This would make a very appealing fox hole, or motar pit if ringed with a layer of sand bags. Maybe the physics isn't there. Just wondering why it wasn't exploited for defence design.

[YankeeDog]

Just an observation, but shell holes, or artillery impacted ground seems to be a shallow depression below ground level. This would make a very appealing fox hole, or motar pit if ringed with a layer of sand bags. Maybe the physics isn't there. Just wondering why it wasn't exploited for defence design.

Absolutely. The game does have deformable terrain, and shell holes, particularly large ones, can make very good cover.

The problem is that the game engine currently has no way of applying "Fog of War" to deformed terrain. So, if the defender were given the ability to place actual holes in the ground to represent foxholes, the attacker would be able to see them, too. In order for foxholes and trenches to be invisible to the attacker (until attacking units get in LOS and spot them, anyway), BFC had to go with the abstracted above-grade foxhole and trench designs were currently have in the game. I think this was the right way to go given the coding and computing power restrictions BFC is working with right now. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."

I do hope that we get fully fog-of-war entrenchments that are part of the terrain mesh somewhere down the road, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon. Hopefully, this will be possible for the East Front game family, which is certainly still at least a couple of years away. This is the game I'm really waiting for; the ETO is just the minor leagues to the Russian Front, as far as I'm concerned.

[winkelried]

Just an observation, but shell holes, or artillery impacted ground seems to be a shallow depression below ground level. This would make a very appealing fox hole, or motar pit if ringed with a layer of sand bags. Maybe the physics isn't there.

your observation is correct. there is even a application in real life which can be applied to CM: if you survived artillery shelling so far, the best cover is a shell crater since - statistically - it is pretty improbable that artillery hits the same crater in the same fire mission.

[YankeeDog]

your observation is correct. there is even a application in real life which can be applied to CM: if you survived artillery shelling so far, the best cover is a shell crater since - statistically - it is pretty improbable that artillery hits the same crater in the same fire mission.

This is a common statistical fallacy. As a randomly distributed event where previous occurrences of events have no effect on future outcomes, once a shell has fallen in a given location, the likelihood of another shell falling in that exact same location are just as high as they were prior to the first shell falling -- to draw a parallel, just because a certain number comes up in the lottery one day, doesn't reduce the chance of the same number coming the next day.

Now, the shell hole does provide good cover, so it may make sense to move into a freshly created crater if this is the best cover around. But the next shell is just as likely to fall there, as it is any other point in the artillery pattern (assuming uniform distribution of shell impacts, which may or may not be the case).

[winkelried]

This is a common statistical fallacy. As a randomly distributed event where previous occurrences of events have no effect on future outcomes, once a shell has fallen in a given location, the likelihood of another shell falling in that exact same location are just as high as they were prior to the first shell falling -- to draw a parallel, just because a certain number comes up in the lottery one day, doesn't reduce the chance of the same number coming the next day.

Now, the shell hole does provide good cover, so it may make sense to move into a freshly created crater if this is the best cover around. But the next shell is just as likely to fall there, as it is any other point in the artillery pattern (assuming uniform distribution of shell impacts, which may or may not be the case).

your considerations have a point with point fire. but there are some factors which speak in favor of the "fallacy":

• except for point fire, the fire is distributed across the target area - in CM along a line (linear) or a circular area. since this area is bigger than the CEP the firing unit introduces additional variability of the target points.
  
• the firing of artillery is not uniformly distributed - 50% of the shells fall within the CEP (which can be pretty big - depending on the firing distance)
  
• the CEP usually forms an ellipse with its longer axis in direction of the fire and the shorter axis in vertically to the firing axis.
  
  

so considering the above the probability of a shot falling into the same hole is basically a function of the fire density of the target area (number of shots / square meter) and to some extent of the CEP.

so if the fire density is high enough or the area small enough (point fire) there is a bigger chance that a shot hits again. if not the voluntarely introduced variability of the fire parameters (to get a good distribution across a larger area) speaks in favor of the "fallacy".

[Sgt Schultz]

From a design standpoint, it is quite possible to make a map's terrain fortification-friendly without spotlighting the probable locations.

Interlocking sine waves of locked tiles 1 level below average, with locked tiles at average on both sides of the lines. This allows trenches to placed in a variety of ways and places within the same area.

Locked foxhole tiles work the same way. Sprinkle them all over, regardless of terrain type on top.

This keeps the grid monkey terrain spies at bay.

[ChrisND]

your considerations have a point with point fire. but there are some factors which speak in favor of the "fallacy":

Nope, he's still right. Every time a gun shoots, assuming that the chances of the round landing in a specific area are more or less random, the chances that it will land in a specific spot are the same every time. What makes it seem to appear real is that the chances of it hitting that particular spot is quite low to begin with.

If the gun is shifting around with firing, though, then the focal point of the distribution is going to change, and the probabilities will too.

[DavidFields]

your observation is correct. there is even a application in real life which can be applied to CM: if you survived artillery shelling so far, the best cover is a shell crater since - statistically - it is pretty improbable that artillery hits the same crater in the same fire mission.

Ummm....I am afraid that this is, statistically, absolutely nonsense. The fact that a shell hit a particular place before does not change the probability that it will hit that area again. That is akin the fallacy that if someone flips a coin 10 times and got heads, the next flip has anything other than a 50/50% chance of being heads.

Indeed, with the "in the same fire mission" clause, I would think the winning plan would be to get out of the fire mission area, and thus the crater would indicate where not to be. (this does not invalidate the idea that if you were pinned in a fire mission, being in a crater is better than being on flat ground, at least as far as ground burst rounds are concerned.)

oops, I see Yankeedog made the point--and now I am going to be spending part of my evening reflecting on Winkelried's points.

If Winkelried, you effectively mean that if a fire plan is going, say, from left to right, jumping in a crater on the left means you are less likely to get hit........I will have to think about it....particularly since the person being attacked is unlikely to know the fire plan....so looking at the probability from his/her standpoint......

[winkelried]

Nope, he's still right. Every time a gun shoots, assuming that the chances of the round landing in a specific area are more or less random, the chances that it will land in a specific spot are the same every time. What makes it seem to appear real is that the chances of it hitting that particular spot is quite low to begin with.

we're talking about the same thing. if you look at a gun which fires every shot with the same parameters (elevation, direction) then you get the ellipsoid for the CEP. this would be point fire in CMBN - here i agree, that the purely probabilistic view is more or less correct (the CEP is not a uniform distribution, but that's fine for the discussion).

where i don't agree is with other types of fire where the fire is spread artificially and intentionally across a larger area - area or line target. there the probability that a single shot hits the same spot as a previous shot is not independent since the fire is artificially spread.

[winkelried]

and now I am going to be spending part of my evening reflecting on Winkelried's points.

hope not

[GreenAsJade]

I love it when someone makes a point that seems like nonsense, someone else points out that it's nonsense, and the first person can rationally describe that it wasn't nonsense, and everyone discusses this.

An actual debate. On a BFC forum. Without name calling or anything! Way to go!

GaJ

[Jammersix]

This is a common statistical fallacy. As a randomly distributed event where previous occurrences of events have no effect on future outcomes, once a shell has fallen in a given location, the likelihood of another shell falling in that exact same location are just as high as they were prior to the first shell falling -- to draw a parallel, just because a certain number comes up in the lottery one day, doesn't reduce the chance of the same number coming the next day.

Exactly!

And for precisely that reason, since one half of one percent of all the humans ever born are still alive, I have a one half of one percent chance of living forever!

There is a name for people who play the lottery number that won yesterday: "taxpayer".

[sburke]

Exactly!

And for precisely that reason, since one half of one percent of all the humans ever born are still alive, I have a one half of one percent chance of living forever!

There is a name for people who play the lottery number that won yesterday: "taxpayer".

Lottery= A tax on the math impaired.

[GerryCMBB]

What is the probability that a thread that starts with shallow foxholes will talk about the math-impaired in 2 pages. Never mind, I think I know.

Gerry

[winkelried]

although the answer won't be 42 (probably) - the really important question in CM is: Does the use of Zaphod Beeblebrox's improbability drive in CM get rid of mathematics (which in fact probably is a soft science anyway) or of shallow foxholes?

I think i go to the local pub to drink a beer and eat some salted peanuts now. just in case.

[DavidFields]

Hitler.

Stalin.

Just wanted to get that out of the way, because of the greater than 100% chance (given alternate universes) that they will eventually be mentioned in any thread. Monkies typing forever, or not.

Before this gets too Peng, reflecting on the original Winkelried post, are current military personel taught that jumping into a recent crater lowers their chance of getting hit?

Please, please, reassure me this is not true.

To me, a bigger game issue is this: I think any unit staying in one place for some time should be considered in a foxhole--either commanded or Tac AI. Now that scenarios are an hour, or 90-100 minutes, I would think it was SOP to take your shovel and dig until your butt does not show in any active combat situation. Same with barricading doors (only in CM are doors always unlocked?), and finding overhead protection. The automatic shallow trenches, and overhead protection, would decrease, perhaps realistically, the death mortar issue.

[Given Godel, all mathematical systems of sufficient power have paradoxes and are soft]

[JonS]

where i don't agree is with other types of fire where the fire is spread artificially and intentionally across a larger area - area or line target. there the probability that a single shot hits the same spot as a previous shot is not independent since the fire is artificially spread.

That's not true because each gun in a larger mission is given a specific bearing and elevation to fire all its shots. Each gun will get a different bearing and elevation to ensure reasonably even coverage across the entire target area, but they do NOT receive new bearings and elevations with each round to try and finesse the statisitics. Instead, statistics are assumed, and the ellipsoid CEP for each gun is taken advantage of to cover the intervals between points of aim.

To put this in somewhat concrete terms: Assume a circular target, being fired at with 6 guns. Now assume a concentric pentagon that is sized so that the apexes of the pentagon are coincident with the circumference of the circle. Those five points will be the points of aim for five of the guns. The sixth gun will aim at the centre of the circle/pentagon. Now the target area has the most even coverage of fire, and the ellipsoid CEP centred on each point of aim covers up most of the intervening terrain, while splinter patterns from the various rounds cover all the interveing terrain, at least for standing or exposed targets.

This falls apart for very large targets, but that is exactly why FOs are trained in the characteristics and capabilities of the weapons they're using.

Where it definately breaks down is in naval engagements. There it really is a good idea to 'chase the fountains' of previous shots. Apart from causing the target to jinx all over the place - making determing a firing solution much harder - each subsequent firing solution starts from the assumption that the previous shot was 'wrong', so the next shot must be different. Which means that going to where the last shot landed really is a good idea.

[JonS]

Hitler.

Stalin.

Godwin. He deserves a mention too.

To me, a bigger game issue is this: I think any unit staying in one place for some time should be considered in a foxhole--either commanded or Tac AI. Now that scenarios are an hour, or 90-100 minutes, I would think it was SOP to take your shovel and dig until your butt does not show in any active combat situation.

Except that actual gameplay tends to make a nonsense of this approach. Let's assume a 1 hour scenario. That's about long enough for an infantry force with supporting arms to dig itself in to stage 1. Sweet. Your entire scenario - 60-odd files transfers - consists of you deliberately not moving your force, hoping the enemy doesn't find you, and otherwise just watching your troops dig holes.

I can smell the fun and excitement from here

[Given Godel, all mathematical systems of sufficient power have paradoxes and are soft]

Still waiting for Godel?

[sburke]

Godwin. He deserves a mention too.

Sweet. Your entire scenario - 60-odd files transfers - consists of you deliberately not moving your force, hoping the enemy doesn't find you, and otherwise just watching your troops dig holes.

I can smell the fun and excitement from here

Wait, I thought we were discussing foxholes, not latrines. Though if we want to really get to realism - boys I want a latrine right there.

And what the heck does that Saxon lying usurper have to do with this. Just cause he shows up on some dratted tapestry back there? Oh wait which side are we on here? Let me see the allies represent the French and English, but Godwin was Saxon, Saxony is in Germany..okay that seals it Godwin must have been a Nazis.

[Wengart]

Wouldn't jumping into a crater reduce your chance of being hit because you are now below the level of the ground?

Assuming of course that you are not leaving a trench or some other prepared position for the shell hole.

[DavidFields]

Wouldn't jumping into a crater reduce your chance of being hit because you are now below the level of the ground?

Assuming of course that you are not leaving a trench or some other prepared position for the shell hole.

The issue is whether jumping into a crater just made reduces your chance of a round coming in that exact same spot because one had already landed there before.

And JonS, I hope you are deliberately mixing your Kurt Godels with your Avant Guarde play characters.

[JonS]

Natürlich. It seems the appropriately absurdist thing to do.