Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

[Tater]

Foxholes were mainly useful vs. artillery...

There is no indication that this was "mainly" what they were for.

There is case after case where soldiers dug-in when there was never any chance that the enemy had artillery available.

The main purpose of FH was to "fight" from...whatever that "fighting" might entail.

ASL FH are completely useless as a defensive fortification from which to "fight" the enemy.

 

[MLaPanzer]

There is no indication that this was "mainly" what they were for.

There is case after case where soldiers dug-in when there was never any chance that the enemy had artillery available.

The main purpose of FH was to "fight" from...whatever that "fighting" might entail.

ASL FH are completely useless as a defensive fortification from which to "fight" the enemy.

Glad to see you've come around Tater. There to FIGHT from not run in and out of. :devious:

 

[Blackcloud6]

Somebody rep that man.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

In certain situations, maybe it's appropriate to have "Hasty foxholes"

Something akin to Sangars?

 

[Tater]

Glad to see you've come around Tater. There to FIGHT from not run in and out of. :devious:

Again, even without "skulking" it is generally better to not be in a FH than otherwise. And I certainly appreciate you reinforcing the fact that you don't get it.

 

[Tater]

Somebody rep that man.

Yes, rep him...he needs all the help he can get. :laugh:

 

[MLaPanzer]

Again, even without "skulking" it is generally better to not be in a FH than otherwise. And I certainly appreciate you reinforcing the fact that you don't get it.

Hey Tater get the dirt out of your eyes.:laugh: I have never said anything about skulking. Yup if your playing a flexable defense and with the types of scenerios ASLers prefer you are better off in most circumstances not to be in FH's. I have never denied that.That doesn't mean there modeled incorrectly.

 

[Tater]

Hey Tater get the dirt out of your eyes.:laugh: I have never said anything about skulking. Yup if your playing a flexable defense and with the types of scenerios ASLers prefer you are better off in most circumstances not to be in FH's. I have never denied that.That doesn't mean there modeled incorrectly.

If they aren't used then the "design for effect" relative to FH has failed.

 

[pward]

If they aren't used then the "design for effect" relative to FH has failed.

But if the design for effect didn't worry about easily moving out of a foxhole, then it works as intended. The apparent design for effect is to give a +2/+4 TEM when there is lower or no TEM to speak of.

That you can place or use them effectively is another matter entirely. Yet another skill that improves your game.

 

[Tater]

But if the design for effect didn't worry about easily moving out of a foxhole, then it works as intended. The apparent design for effect is to give a +2/+4 TEM when there is lower or no TEM to speak of.

How, exactly, does "design for effect" worry? :nuts:

If the game has a defensive fortification that is not useful for "defense" then the design has failed.

That you can place or use them effectively is another matter entirely. Yet another skill that improves your game.

I, like other "good" players, have learned to use them effectively...which is to say that we don't use them, which is FH's at their most effective.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Groundhog Day...

 

[pward]

How, exactly, does "design for effect" worry? :nuts:

If the game has a defensive fortification that is not useful for "defense" then the design has failed.

I, like other "good" players, have learned to use them effectively...which is to say that we don't use them, which is FH's at their most effective.

Ok, the design for effect was to increase the TEM available to a defender. Ignore every thing else that has come along since then, and concentrate on a time when the FH rules were written. There is only one design for effect question that should be asked: "Is a +2 TEM better than 0 or +1?". The obvious answer is yes, so it's beneficial to a static defense.

The maneuver warfare style of play, and skulking as a defensive tactic come after the creation of the foxhole rules. You admit that you understand the benefit of the foxholes as the game is played now.

 

[Tater]

Ok, the design for effect was to increase the TEM available to a defender. Ignore every thing else that has come along since then, and concentrate on a time when the FH rules were written. There is only one design for effect question that should be asked: "Is a +2 TEM better than 0 or +1?". The obvious answer is yes, so it's beneficial to a static defense.

You obviously don't understand "design for effect". The +2 TEM isn't the only "effect" of a FH. Now, did the designers at the time completely grasp all the "effects" of the FH rules, probably not...hence, the failure.

The maneuver warfare style of play, and skulking as a defensive tactic come after the creation of the foxhole rules.

That is simply not true. Being able to move out of enemy LOS (which is all "skulking" is) has ALWAYS been part of the rules and has ALWAYS been used since the beginning of ASL. Advancing into enemy LOS has also ALWAYS been part of the rules and has ALWAYS been used. What has come after the creation of FH is the term "skulking" and, of course, the whining about moving out of enemy LOS and advancing into enemy LOS.

BTW, I remember discussing the FH issue with friends going back to when I first started playing. I remember Greg Quiroga and I talking about it when we were playing RB for the first time. This is nothing new and it isn't tied to skulking.

You admit that you understand the benefit of the foxholes as the game is played now.

Are you saying that one was never allowed to move out of enemy LOS before "now"? Or that advancing into enemy LOS has never been allowed till "now"? The only difference between "now" and "then" is that these actions have been grouped under a single term and certain players consider these very simple actions to be some type of master stroke of military genius which is unbeatable in play...:nuts:

Again, "now" or "then"...it is generally better to not be in a FH. Nothing you have said changes that or makes it better. If you are OK with a useless defensive fortification as part of the game, fine.

Anyway, I think we are pretty much full circle on this so you can have the last word...(unless I come up with more brilliant repartee...)

 

[pward]

You obviously don't understand "design for effect". The +2 TEM isn't the only "effect" of a FH. Now, did the designers at the time completely grasp all the "effects" of the FH rules, probably not...hence, the failure.

I do understand design for effect and that there are other in game effects. I enjoy looking at game mechanics and seeing what makes them tick...

Unless they wrote an article or you've dug up a memoir somewhere with the juicy details, it's anyone's guess as to intent for foxholes. Perhaps they specifically crafted the rules to penalize movement from foxholes by forcing that "pause for incoming fire" movement point in the FH hex (not to mention trenches and pillboxes). If that was the effect they were looking for, they achieved it.

It's not the effect you are looking for from foxholes. It doesn't make the game designers wrong in their implemented design for effect, just different from how you want to see FH work.

 

[Mattb]

I wouldn't argue that foxholes can't be used skilfully. But creating a rout path in the right spot doesn't mean foxholes are modeled correctly. Unless there is evidence that troops regularly dug foxholes and then defended in front of them, they should always have to start occupied.

An experiment:
1) Take a scenario with foxholes - say J42 Grebbe End (pretty balanced on ROAR)
2) Add in an extra SSR: All foxholes must be placed on board and all must start occupied.
3) See what happens to the Dutch defence
4) Try again but deny the Dutch any foxholes

If foxholes are modeled correctly, I'd argue the foxhole defence should work better - since troops given time to 'dig in' ought to have a better chance.
I'm not convinced that would be the outcome.

 

[pward]

An experiment:
1) Take a scenario with foxholes - say J42 Grebbe End (pretty balanced on ROAR)
2) Add in an extra SSR: All foxholes must be placed on board and all must start occupied.
3) See what happens to the Dutch defense (as many times as it's been played already)
4) Try again but deny the Dutch any foxholes (as many times as it's been played already)

Added the bits in bold to really see what happens with the changes. To truly determine if there is an effect on balance, the same number of playings should be repeated under the new configuration. If it's been played 20 times up to now, then each of 3 and 4 should be done 20 times to see if there is a noticeable difference.

 

[B.Lizt]

Particularly given how everyone on here who's dug foxholes for a living at some point in their lives (not me BTW) says they're a royal pain to get in and out of.

Then they would not be talking of the foxholes of WWII, that these rules are supposed to simulate. They would be talking of wooden pillboxes.

During my two years in the army (as an engineer) I have made plenty of both. That the US army since WWII has upgraded the definition of a "foxhole" to include overhead protection and bombproof shelters, does not make the WWII foxhole so.

The WWII foxhole is a hole dug in the ground with your own showel - depth may vary, off course. - after the order to "dig in". From experience, even for a foxhole you could kneel down in, you'd need more than the time given for a short scenario - the 2min for a GT is certainly too short, so a rule for hasty foxholes might be in order (if you take away the death-trap characteristics - otherwise no use to bother).

But to get your ass out of a foxhole certainly takes less time than running 40meters. It takes just a little more time than standing up after lying down - certainly not 1MF in game-terms.

Anyone who's seen Band of Brothers know what they look like, the protection it would grant vs. infantry and vs. OBA particularly, the inclination for the infantry to find one when under fire (that you don't find in ASL) and the devastating effect of an indirect CH ....

So for all other purposes than exit, I think the rule is good as is.
But take away the exit MF - or combine it with entry of next hex.

Olav

 

[Steven Pleva]

So for all other purposes than exit, I think the rule is good as is. But take away the exit MF - or combine it with entry of next hex.

I was thinking that to exit a FH costs 1/2 MF, but it is considered spent in the next Location entered...

Steve

 

[pward]

I was thinking that to exit a FH costs 1/2 MF, but it is considered spent in the next Location entered...

Steve

Other than grain and plowed fields, what else takes other than a whole number in MF to enter?

In the long run apart from grain and plowed fields, (or whatever else I'm missing) that remaining 1/2 MF won't be usable at the end of the move anyhow. That works out to effectively being a full MF point cost to exit unless you can combine with a grain cost and eke out a little more movement. So why change it to 1/2 MF?

 

[Steven Pleva]

Other than grain and plowed fields, what else takes other than a whole number in MF to enter?

In the long run apart from grain and plowed fields, (or whatever else I'm missing) that remaining 1/2 MF won't be usable at the end of the move anyhow. That works out to effectively being a full MF point cost to exit unless you can combine with a grain cost and eke out a little more movement. So why change it to 1/2 MF?

The 1/2 MF can make a big difference avoiding CX in the APh. For example, a squad with a 4PP MMG advancing out of a FH into woods would be CX now, under my change it would not be CX. This also affects assault movement possibilities...

Steve