Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

Should rule B27.4 be changed?

  • Yes, all movement to/from a foxhole location should be cosnidered a single expenditure

    Votes: 58 28.7%
  • Yes, but only Assault moving units may benefit from the foxhole's TEM.

    Votes: 50 24.8%
  • No, the rule is fine as is.

    Votes: 94 46.5%

  • Total voters
    202

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,408
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
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

Can't shoot D-fire at a 1/2 MP expenditure, so it wouldn't even need to be used in the next location, would it?
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
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
True. Now it seems like you are setting it at 1/2 to give even more of an advantage to the Defender with the FH. Combined with the removal of the pause on exit to receive fire, this would make FH quite useful.

Would you advocate changing all of the entrenchment exit costs to 1/2 MF for the same reason? Trenches and Pillboxes come to mind, maybe sangars as well, but I don't play enough DTO to recall their movement costs.
 

B.Lizt

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
43
Location
South of Oslo
Country
llNorway
I was thinking that to exit a FH costs 1/2 MF, but it is considered spent in the next Location entered...

Steve
Why are everybody so keen on keeping MF to exit. Even combined with entry for the next hex (and considered spent there) I see some LOS problems;
- if a unit sees only the exit hex, could it fire?
- if a unit sees only the hex entered after exit foxhole, how many times may it fire?
Either way it seems gamey, as the exit MF is really spent in the hex with the FH.

I'd say get rid of the foxhole exit MF altogheter. Makes rule simpler and more consistent - and the foxhole worth using.
MF to enter is good - such a hole is not always easy to find in the heat of battle; MF to exit is bad - for game-purposes and most unrealistic.

Only foxholes, trenches, sangars and pillboxes have MF to exit, as far as I recollect. MF to exit PB is OK - it's another location. But MF to exit foxholes and sangars I find strange.
It'd be a lot harder to exit rubble - why noe exit MF there? Or a regular house for that matter. Yeah, I know some advocate exit MF for more terrain types to deny skulkning, but that is a whole other discussion IMO. To make changes to deny skulking is changing the game as it is now. Might be for the better, but still is changing the game. Taking out the 1MF to exit foxholes or sangars is not changing the game, it's just changing some minor rules, and will certainly not affect balance all that much in most scenarios.

Why are foxholes and sangars treated differently than all other terrain. It's not even terrain, just a minor part the location interior.
Why not exit MF from a minefield - I'd be more careful doing that.
Wire on the other hand is special - it is designed to impede movement.

And I feel trenches justify a 1MF to exit as well, as they are by nature (usually) deep, and you'd have to climb out (unless moving to a lower level location - very good). Being in a trench ain't only for the better - it's usually a hazle to get out.

But MF to exit a foxhole ? C'mon.
Go dig one in your back yard, and practice getting out a few times. How hard can that be?

MF to exit a foxhole is bad, and ruins the use of an otherwise good fortification.

Olav
 
Top