Which rule do you want to change?

[Jacometti]

And as long as you stay there, it does exactly that.

Are you suggesting a Foxhole in ASL is a safer place than a shellhole ?

 

[Tater]

But tank crews were also not too keen on getting close when their weapons were effective from a safer distance.

But "close" is a relative term in ASL. Given that a hex is roughly 40meters from side to side...and a building is not in the exact center of such an area...a tank in bypass could be as much as 60ft (20yrds) or more from the actual (obstacle) in a given hex.

In addition there are lots of instances in WWII when armor was used in urban areas and got very close (within 40 meters) of enemy occupied building on a regular basis.

 

[mgmasl]

D 8.23 DEEP SNOW/ MUD BOG.. as ruled the defender knows if the AFV will be bogged or not and he may adjust his D1F according at this knowledge of a future event.. A better rule is make only a secret dr to know when the moving AFV will check BOG.. once the AFV reaches this numbered hex the defender shows the secret dr and the moving AFV roll a BOG check as usual for entering hexes not crossing a road hexside. It’s exactly the same but the defender doesn’t have any knowledge of the BOG result until the hex is reached.. besides a set of numbered 1-6 cards may be used in place of a secret dr. IMHO a needed and easy rule change

EDIT: to eliminate any defender adv roll a dr per each hexside crossed without using a road.. if the number is equal or less than the number of hexsides crossed during this MPh the vehicle has to roll immediately for BOG.. again same prob but neither attacker nor defender will know anything until the bog roll is checked for.

EDIT. To avoid any attacker adv once the BOG is passed -ie he will know the vehicle may move without risking bog - once the first roll is passed a new secret dr is done counting the new entered hex as 1 and so on.. ie as minimum a BOG DR will be done per every 6 hexsides crossed.. normally an attacker will know nothing will happen when moving the 7th hex. Key here is no one will know how many hexes will move without risking BOG and if the BOG check will be passed or not in advance..

 

[Eagle4ty]

Foxholes should be treated same as shell holes for entry, exit and TEM.

You would finally think that digging in makes you live longer, not shorter.

Meh! We didn't call them hasty graves for nothing!

[EDIT] Murphy's Laws of Combat #32: If you're holed up in foxholes, you may be held up in foxholes!

 

[wrongway149]

Are you suggesting a Foxhole in ASL is a safer place than a shellhole ?

Of course it is -as a point of 'place'. +2 vs. +1

A foxhole is intended as cover from artillery fire. Being as you don't want to be moving around outside of the foxhole when under artillery fire, a foxhole serves its purpose well in ASL as in real life. If you could exit with quickness and agility, would it then be something robust enough to provide +2/+4 cover? Not likely.

Plus, you can DIG a foxhole in ASL. You can't dig yourself a shellhole.

Now a good question might be - Why doesn't a foxhole provide the same OBA +4 vs area fire, such as mortars? I could get behind THAT change. Or maybe even being allowed to dig a 'shellhole' instead.

 

[wrongway149]

 

[jrv]

Or maybe even being allowed to dig a 'shellhole' instead.

I believe that a shellhole counter does not (in general) represent one shellhole. It represents many shellholes spread over the entire 40m hex, Passchendaele-style. A foxhole counter does not represent pock-marking the entire hex with holes. With shellholes it's possible to dash from shellhole to shellhole across the width of the hex. With foxholes, once you leave your hole, you are naked and afraid for 20m on average. I don't see being able to dig shellholes during the course of a scenario, any more than I see being able to dig trenches under fire. I also agree with the rules as written: foxholes are great to fight from but it is hard to get away from them cleanly except the wait for a lull in the enemy fire and then crawl away (Advance) or run like the dickens (voluntarily break).

JR

 

[Mister T]

Now a good question might be - Why doesn't a foxhole provide the same OBA +4 vs area fire, such as mortars? I could get behind THAT change. Or maybe even being allowed to dig a 'shellhole' instead.

I guess you meant on-board indirect fire instead of area fire, but that's a very good point. It would increase the attractiveness of foxholes.

 

[Justiciar]

No they get foxholes wrong...there should be 2 types the current version, which I would call the overhead cover version...and the as is hard exit version...

And then the hasty foxhole which would be like a shellhole...I had an ex- 82nd AB co-student buddy doing is BA when I did my MA and he often spoken about how they dug shallow holes for the night or condition which would make them safe enough from grazing fire and direct fire, but would not adequately protect them from medium+ indirect fire...

ASL on this issue needs 2 tiers...

 

[Mister T]

I believe that a shellhole counter does not (in general) represent one shellhole. It represents many shellholes spread over the entire 40m hex, Passchendaele-style. A foxhole counter does not represent pock-marking the entire hex with holes. With shellholes it's possible to dash from shellhole to shellhole across the width of the hex. With foxholes, once you leave your hole, you are naked and afraid for 20m on average. I don't see being able to dig shellholes during the course of a scenario, any more than I see being able to dig trenches under fire. I also agree with the rules as written: foxholes are great to fight from but it is hard to get away from them cleanly except the wait for a lull in the enemy fire and then crawl away (Advance) or run like the dickens (voluntarily break).
JR

Actually it's the reverse. Shellholes location are placed randomly within the hex, so movement between them is not necessarily easy. Foxholes are dug on purpose by those using it, with a view to moving between them without covering too much distance or close to a obstacle in an adjacent hex with a view to seeking shelter. Soldiers are not dumb.

 

[jrv]

Actually it's the reverse. Shellholes location are placed randomly within the hex, so movement between them is not necessarily easy. Foxholes are dug on purpose by those using it, with a view to moving between them without covering too much distance or close to a obstacle in an adjacent hex with a view to seeking shelter. Soldiers are not dumb.

If shellholes cover 90% of the hex, it doesn't matter that they are random.

The best place to fight from is not often the best place to escape from. Soldiers are not dumb, but they plan to stay in their foxholes and beat off the enemy, not fire a skirmish shot and run for the rear of the heavy infantry.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

No they get foxholes wrong...there should be 2 types the current version, which I would call the overhead cover version...and the as is hard exit version...

And then the hasty foxhole which would be like a shellhole...I had an ex- 82nd AB co-student buddy doing is BA when I did my MA and he often spoken about how they dug shallow holes for the night or condition which would make them safe enough from grazing fire and direct fire, but would not adequately protect them from medium+ indirect fire...

ASL on this issue needs 2 tiers...

I kind of see the X-3-5 PB/Bunker as the type of Foxhole (Fighting Position) that you mention with overhead cover. Because of the general abstractness of the game I think this covers many different types of fighting positions and not just the Pillbox that one may envision normally. Indeed given time and materials (18" overhead cover-i.e. dirt- with proper roof support) any foxhole can become as effective as a log reinforced PB in most situations. For the most part however WW-II combatants were taught to dig an armpit deep hole almost as a matter of course because of the almost omni present enemy artillery prevalent on most WW-II battlefields. even without overhead cover such a position was quite effective against most indirect or area fire barring a direct hit or collapse of the position. It is here that I would agree that all ATT fire as well as OBA fire should be penalized with the +4 TEM of a Foxhole (alas, it is not so). As for the true "Hasty Grave" (12"-18" deep elongated hole that one can lie down in to partially protect one from grazing fire), perhaps the Concealment rules adequately portray this as one can remain concealed even in OG if they conduct no concealment loss activity but is substantially less protective once the position has been identified (again, a game mechanic to reflect many differing situations). JMHO.

 

[wrongway149]

I guess you meant on-board indirect fire instead of area fire, but that's a very good point. It would increase the attractiveness of foxholes.

Possibly both -- but I think better cover vs. mortars would get the point across.

 

[wrongway149]

I kind of see the X-3-5 PB/Bunker as the type of Foxhole (Fighting Position) that you mention with overhead cover. Because of the general abstractness of the game I think this covers many different types of fighting positions and not just the Pillbox that one may envision normally. Indeed given time and materials (18" overhead cover-i.e. dirt- with proper roof support) any foxhole can become as effective as a log reinforced PB in most situations. For the most part however WW-II combatants were taught to dig an armpit deep hole almost as a matter of course because of the almost omni present enemy artillery prevalent on most WW-II battlefields. even without overhead cover such a position was quite effective against most indirect or area fire barring a direct hit or collapse of the position. It is here that I would agree that all ATT fire as well as OBA fire should be penalized with the +4 TEM of a Foxhole (alas, it is not so). As for the true "Hasty Grave" (12"-18" deep elongated hole that one can lie down in to partially protect one from grazing fire), perhaps the Concealment rules adequately portray this as one can remain concealed even in OG if they conduct no concealment loss activity but is substantially less protective once the position has been identified (again, a game mechanic to reflect many differing situations). JMHO.

The next question is: Would we look at foxholes differently if there were no OBA in ASL? (I might, as they would be designed to a different purpose.))

 

[jrv]

6+1 should battle harden to 10-3.

JR

 

[Binchois]

6+1 should battle harden to 10-3.

JR

Don't you mean the other way around (10-3 battle hardens to a 6+1)? You know, so the Circle of Life can keep on turning...

 

[jrv]

Don't you mean the other way around (10-3 battle hardens to a 6+1)? You know, so the Circle of Life can keep on turning...

A 10-3 should battle harden to an 11-4. That's a discussion for another day.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Now a good question might be - Why doesn't a foxhole provide the same OBA +4 vs area fire, such as mortars?

One reason could be because an onboard 81mm MTR attacks on the 8-FP column whereas 80mm+ OBA attacks on the 16-FP column. The difference in +2 roughly accounts for the two column difference.
Not saying this is the reason, but it could be.

 

[Robin Reeve]

D 8.23 DEEP SNOW/ MUD BOG.. as ruled the defender knows if the AFV will be bogged or not and he may adjust his D1F according at this knowledge of a future event.. A better rule is make only a secret dr to know when the moving AFV will check BOG.. once the AFV reaches this numbered hex the defender shows the secret dr and the moving AFV roll a BOG check as usual for entering hexes not crossing a road hexside. It’s exactly the same but the defender doesn’t have any knowledge of the BOG result until the hex is reached.. besides a set of numbered 1-6 cards may be used in place of a secret dr. IMHO a needed and easy rule change

EDIT: to eliminate any defender adv roll a dr per each hexside crossed without using a road.. if the number is equal or less than the number of hexsides crossed during this MPh the vehicle has to roll immediately for BOG.. again same prob but neither attacker nor defender will know anything until the bog roll is checked for.

EDIT. To avoid any attacker adv once the BOG is passed -ie he will know the vehicle may move without risking bog - once the first roll is passed a new secret dr is done counting the new entered hex as 1 and so on.. ie as minimum a BOG DR will be done per every 6 hexsides crossed.. normally an attacker will know nothing will happen when moving the 7th hex. Key here is no one will know how many hexes will move without risking BOG and if the BOG check will be passed or not in advance..

I use a deck of five black cards and one red card.
For each bog hex entered the owner of the vehicle draws a card.
If red, the bog DR is made.
Works fine for solo play too.

 

[Mister T]

If shellholes cover 90% of the hex, it doesn't matter that they are random.

The best place to fight from is not often the best place to escape from. Soldiers are not dumb, but they plan to stay in their foxholes and beat off the enemy, not fire a skirmish shot and run for the rear of the heavy infantry.

JR

We have no reason to consider that they cover 90% of the hex. Look at the board 2 printed shellholes, some hexes have very few impacts.

The best place to fight is the place where one can also find a way to leave without being stuck in a suicidal place (EXC: Japanese).