Trench cover

[noob]

I can remember reading a post about trenches not increasing cover for AT guns, can anyone confirm this please ?

[Sixxkiller]

I think in my testing for something I am doing I have an 88 in a trench, it seems they are a little more protected from tank fire. I cant recall any artillery falling on it though. I will pay closer attention but I usually like the results from the infantry defending and attacking them so I really havent thought if it as much of an issue to be honest.

[thejetset]

Here is an old post related to this from Steve:

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Join Date: Feb 1999

Posts: 14,584

AT Guns don't get a benefit being in a Trench. They are considered fully exposed, though the crew might get some benefit. You need to put AT Guns in covering terrain, such as bushes or trees, to get some concealment benefit.

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

WYSIWYG, right?

AT guns don't even fit in trenches... it's a good clue that there's no protection.

GaJ

[Killkess]

WYSIWYG? Kidding? Those trenches and earthpickles werent even above earth constructions and like we know the cover is pretty much abstracted in CMBN. There is still much abstraction going on in CMBN so the 1:1 WYSIWYG argument has no point.

IIRC there were trenches which were specially constructed to incorperate at-guns IRL.

[GreenAsJade]

Yes, I was kidding. Sorry, I missed the smiley. I have put it in now...

GaJ

[womble]

There's Sandbag emplacements that give protection from some directions against small arms fire and probably fragments.

[LongLeftFlank]

You can always create map depressions to simulate gunpits, but these won't be FoW

[Amizaur]

"AT Guns don't get a benefit being in a Trench. They are considered fully exposed, though the crew might get some benefit."

I understand they are fully exposed for damage AND fully exposed for spotting purposes ?

because:

"You need to put AT Guns in covering terrain, such as bushes or trees, to get some concealment benefit."

a "concealment" means "harder to spot". Not "protected" (well, bushes would give little protection anyway".

So basically this would mean than digged-in AT-gun is just as easy to spot as gun standing in an open field ??? And only little bit harder to destroy ?

Historically, a well dug-in AT gun was MUCH harder to spot, that a gun just standing in open field. Only the upper part of the shield and the barrel would be above the ground. Russians often removed the shields from their dig-in guns to make them lower and harder to spot. The barrel was basically on the ground level sometimes.

If the gun was really well dug-in, it was COMPLETLY hidden, in a somewhat deeper part of the trench, and only when the fire was about to be opened, it was pulled few meters back, to the more shallow firing position (so the barrel was just above the ground). In case of enemy fire, they could push it and hide it again (if they had time). It worked very well for light guns (like 45mm) and even for medium ones (76mm ZIS-3). Would work for PAK40 as well, I guess.

[Sgt Schultz]

From a design standpoint, placing decent gun positions is straightforward and easy to conceal, even with grid mods.

'Dimple" - tile locked one lower than all adjacent tiles.

1. Large number of dimples placed in a veriety of terrain types.

2. Gated low bocage and hedge in treelines.

3. Foxholes for each gun crew.

4. Light and Heavy Forest tiles in front of possible positions, with or without bushes.

5. Design in fallback positions.

Making the guns hard to see is just part of it. Keeping the crews alive during the inevitable mortar attack is also important.

-

[Ted]

I noticed that an AT gun doesn't fit in a trench.

But I setup in a large crater. It look like it fits.

Can an AT gun get some protection from being in a large crater?

[RockinHarry]

I noticed that an AT gun doesn't fit in a trench.

But I setup in a large crater. It look like it fits.

Can an AT gun get some protection from being in a large crater?

Definitely, yes (large-huge craters). It´s one of the WYSIWYG cases that work. It´s also equivalent to what Sgt Schultz describes as "Dimple". Terrain contours is the best available cover vs direct and partly indirect fires and also the AI (both AIP and friendly Tac AI) has a preference for it, as one can observe when playing the game. Defilade positions are also good, but offer cover vs. one direction mostly.

It´s on the part of the map maker to offer these dimples and terrain contours though.

[Sgt Schultz]

Got to love the large craters. Perma-foxoles. The four medium choice makes the same position as a set of foxholes I believe.

Set craters on reverse slope for ATG fun.

Dry creek beds locked one tile lower make nice gun positions as well. Bed is rocky and line the banks with light forest, bushes and D trees.

-------

The more people that play with the editor, the better the experience. Take that map you like and tweak it, save it and play it.

-

[Statisoris]

Rocky is bad vs artillery though. Twice the shrapnel gets thrown up through rock frags when something hits.

[Sgt Schultz]

Sand or mud work.

[RockinHarry]

...having trees around is also not the wisest of choices. Treeburst possibilities! :eek: