Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

[wrongway149]

Should rule B27.4 be changed to make foxhole movement consistent with routing from a foxhole?

(extra MP to enter/exit foxhole is combined with COT to allow unit cover of the FH throughout the entire one-hex movement.) Should this be allowed for all movement, or just Assault-moving units?

 

[Tuomo]

I said yes to the assault moving idea. Look, this is supposed to be a game that models WW2 combat well. And as the rule stands, foxholes are not used even semi-historically. Good players often ignore foxholes for fear of not being able to get away from them, whereas hunkering down into a FH was about the very first thing a grunt would do when coming into the line. They were not just the stand-and-die positions that they have become in ASL.

If you allow the assault movement idea, then all you're doing is giving up a -1 FFMO if the FH is in OG; doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. Compare fortifications (FH and Trenches too) to Gullies; you can NAM into a Gully and get the immediate TEM without being shot at (barring a snap shot as you enter the gully hex). With a FH or Trench, you're still entering the hex and diving into subterranean cover, but you have to eat FFNAM and FFMO "outside" the Fortification to do it. Doesn't seem consistent.

Tom

 

[Stalwart]

I like the rule the way it is. From a design for efffect perspective, it replicates the uncertainty and exitement of entry of/ exit from a foxhole rather well. In my limited experiance with foxholes (aka sllit trenches), I found I was either jumping into/out of them while standing up (separate MF expenditure) or crawling (Assault Movement style)

 

[James Taylor]

I'm one of those who relegates FH to stand and die positions or for creating rout options. (Usually the latter).

With the way FH are, you have to be very careful that you don't place them in a way that your attacking opponent can take them and use them against you.

At least if you could withdraw from them in one simultaneous move you would have the opportunity to skulk out and back.

I think FH were overall more beneficial in real life than they are within the context of the GAME currently. I want them to be a more valuable asset within the game context and feel that will more accurately portray their value in reality.

Changing the MF expenditure is only one viable approach to fixing FH (IMHO). FH would may also be more valuable if a unit could *crawl to the bottom*, i.e. remove themselves from being hit in the same way a unit that can fall back into a gully from crest status can.

I'm also probably more in favor of a *NEW* FH rule rather than changing the existing one, i.e. perhaps a FH+ optional rule that would be available for designers to specify in new scenario designs, or be something that two agreeable players may choose to use if they so desired.

JT

 

[Brad Knoll]

I think Foxholes in ASL are not quite right, they have always bugged me. To me it seems like a Foxhole is quite similar to Shellhole. Both a basic hole in the ground that isn't deep enough to stand up in with protection. A basic shellscrape ie 'foxhole' is nothing more than a depression you dig for cover. The longer you have to dig the better it is, but a basic one is way smaller thatn a shellhole. It takes way more effort to run from shellhole to shellhole than from shellscrape to shellscrape. I would just adapt and use the shellhole rule to more accurately represent Foxholes.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I voted Yes, all movement, etc.
If things are to be changed, better keep the more simple possible.
I seriously doubt that any change will occur, as it is no erratum...
But I still do hope that something can be done to avoid the foxholes to be the deathtraps they are up to now.
There already is an "allowance" to rout from an entrenchment to another without suffering interdiction, so I believe someone realized that there could be some problems, already at the time the rule was designed.

 

[jwb3]

I think this is a classic example of something that, while it is admittedly broken, is not worth fixing on its own.

If a 3rd edition were being done with fixes to all sorts of minor problems like this one, then I'd be all for it -- and all for a systematic effort to identify and fix whatever scenarios the changes had a meaningful impact on. But just fixing this one problem in a vacuum is kind of pointless, IMO. It has too many siblings that are crying just as loudly for attention.

I do think that allowing units to drop into full cover is a better "3rd edition" solution; in my "ideal ASL", an infantry unit could be fired on as it leaves the hex it started the MPh in -- thus making skulking completely pointless --but units would be able to seek better cover in almost any terrain. Thus, when a unit was being fired on it would do the real life thing and DUCK!!


John

 

[Will Fleming]

I think foxholes suck except as noted. Last ditch defense or for routing/not routing. Even then, they aren't really all that good either.

As a skulker primarily, they just aren't any good even in woods. In my last game of "Blockbusters" as the Japanese, I didn't even bother putting any foxholes on.

I like the shellhole adaption the best. Same rules, but better TEM. I would be for the change, but it certainly would affect some existing scenarios.

 

[Ronnblom]

You can't change the foxholes rules in such a substantial way now... It's way too late. It would be like, say, changing the TEM of some important terrain type.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You can't change the foxholes rules in such a substantial way now... It's way too late. It would be like, say, changing the TEM of some important terrain type.

I believe you are right, unfortunately.
Now, one could create a "slit trenches" rule, with appropriate counters and better rules, that could be included in any new scenario design.
Will's idea of adapting Shellhole rules is cool.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

you have to account for dfire; any change would have ramifications far beyond fh; trenches/pb/disembarking from conveyance etc.

 

[rdw5150]

“You can't change the foxholes rules in such a substantial way now... It's way too late. It would be like, say, changing the TEM of some important terrain type.”

Hey we can dream about changed can’t we:>)))))

“I didn't even bother putting any foxholes on”

Can you do this (decline some of your OB)?

Anyway, I agree FH at times are not worth it and should be treated more like Shell holes. I have been hurt by them as much as I have been helped my them. I suppose they help against OBA but I am not certain they are worth the effort….

Peace

roger

 

[2 Bit Bill]

Since we're talkin' rule change on Foxholes, I feel they are too easy to dig.
Any folks ever dig one or dig the earth?

 

[ecz]

I like the idea of an optional rule for foxholes to be added and applied on mutual agreement or by SSR. But please nothing mandatory and capable to alter thousands of existing scenarios.
As rules are today I think to have tried to dig once or twice in 15 years of ASL. Not much realistic.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

Anyway, I agree FH at times are not worth it and should be treated more like Shell holes. I have been hurt by them as much as I have been helped my them. I suppose they help against OBA but I am not certain they are worth the effort….

Peace

roger

They are the #1 place to be (barring a CH but you'd more likely be dead anyway) when a Bombardment hits.

 

[Khill]

Since we're talkin' rule change on Foxholes, I feel they are too easy to dig.
Any folks ever dig one or dig the earth?

Oh ya, or a mortar pit!

The FH as is are death traps and I do tend to avoid them. These are some good suggestions for a fix.

 

[Will Fleming]

I think this would be different than the 'other' terrain change in that some in the community want it, and most would probably agree that ASL foxholes aren't very useful especially compared to how good they are in a fight.

Maybe Robin has the best idea--create a new terrain type.

 

[wrongway149]

I think this would be different than the 'other' terrain change in that some in the community want it, and most would probably agree that ASL foxholes aren't very useful especially compared to how good they are in a fight.

Maybe Robin has the best idea--create a new terrain type.

B27.45 Slit trench- by SSRs, foxholes may be considered 'slit trenches'. Movement into a slit trench hex is as if via shellholes (B2.4), but the TEM remains +2.

 

[rdw5150]

"B27.45 Slit trench- by SSRs, foxholes may be considered 'slit trenches'. Movement into a slit trench hex is as if via shellholes (B2.4), but the TEM remains +2."

hmmmmm do I see a SSR in upcoming Shelling designs?

:>)

Peace

Roger

 

[wrongway149]

"B27.45 Slit trench- by SSRs, foxholes may be considered 'slit trenches'. Movement into a slit trench hex is as if via shellholes (B2.4), but the TEM remains +2."

hmmmmm do I see a SSR in upcoming Shelling designs?

:>)

Peace

Roger

I'll put it in the big file of wannabe SSRs.