Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

[Treadhead]

In my KGP CG, I've got about 10 vehicular crews that (pre-setup) abandoned their 251/1's, handed off their LMG's to other squads (allowable by SSR), and are now on digging duty, just for the purpose of creating strategic locations. It really is rather silly.

My impression is that the CG that allows such silliness has the flaw in it.


Regards,
Bruce

 

[jwb3]

My impression is that the CG that allows such silliness has the flaw in it.

We did a similar thing when we played the Cheneux one; as the US, our first day planning included carefully figuring out where we wanted to dig in order to unify our entry area and setup zone. And we didn't have a bunch of otherwise-useless vehicle crews who had nothing better to do.

But my understanding is that it is no longer a KGP-only thing. It's my impression that those same perimeter rules have become the standard for almost every CG since, haven't they?


John

 

[tppytel]

My impression is that the CG that allows such silliness has the flaw in it.

Fair enough. I was only answering your question about whether widespread digging of useless foxholes did in fact occur. But I do think the KGP-style perimeter determination system games pretty well as a whole - you end up with a simple perimeter determination process that requires you to hold a decent sized area for several turns, rather than encouraging last-minute dashes into uncontrolled territory. I tend to think of the foxhole digging as representative of your troops' effort to adequately scout the area, scope out possible defensive points and avenues of attack, interrogate civilians, and report results to commanders rather than just physically digging a hole in the ground. Perhaps CG designers could instead institute a procedure for establishing an arbitrary Strategic Location similar to hole-digging, but without the hole and some of the DRM's. For example, if a Strategic Location is supposed to represent your troops securing an area, it doesn't make a lot of sense that Prisoners would be able to assist you - currently one of the easiest ways to get a quick foxhole net near the front lines as the attacker is take a bunch of prisoners and then put them to work. If such a procedure required a DR of 6 rather than foxholes' 5 that might discourage digging a hole except in places where they're actually appropriate.

 

[Hovned31]

Trenches Rule and Foxholes suck. I have found that units tend to get trapped in foxholes. It would be nice to change the rules but I think it is way too late to do this.

 

[Will Fleming]

In my KGP CG, I've got about 10 vehicular crews that (pre-setup) abandoned their 251/1's, handed off their LMG's to other squads (allowable by SSR), and are now on digging duty, just for the purpose of creating strategic locations. It really is rather silly.

Half of my DR in my last scenario of PrBr were digging foxholes. Not for cover, but to extend/connect my perimeter just like this.

I couldn't really move forward due to allied FB arriving on turn 1.

 

[Will Fleming]

Bruce take a look at tangled up in blue (Npum Ga map). The Japanese can setup entrenched (errata limits this to foxholes). They have 8 squads and 2 leaders if I remember and I suppose could setup 9-11S worth of foxholes depending on the exact wording of the SSR.

I chose to use none and beat a **VERY** good player without them. With my fallback/skulk defense and the terrain (mainly dense jungle), they would have been a liability. We discussed a few locations where they *may* have helped, but even those would have been better used by the attacker since I was the only guy with MTR.

Perhaps having two foxholes would be good. "Hasty" ones dug during play that don't offer good protection similar to sangars or whatever and ones meant to represent ones when the troops had time to dig in. I would like to see both be 'shellholy', but I am not sure what to do with trenches. I would suppose they would be a problem. Are they 'shellholy' or do they remain the same. (In a lot of cases, trenches already are shellholy--pillbox, RB cellar, lower elev, adj trench, ???)

Was desert the zenith of ASL but we all missed it? (Sangars, +2 DRM to entrench)

 

[James Taylor]

If one is trying to using skulking with Foxholes, I might suggest that it is an incorrect use of Foxholes. Within the ASL game system.

Regards,
Bruce

Exactly Bruce. That's why I don't use them that way. But what I FEEL is that because we have skulking within the GAME, AND because of the way FH are implemented they are less effective than they apparantly were in real life.

I'd simply like to see a FH that I could skulk out of and back into.

And I would prefer if it was an optional rule or SSR.

What that would give me would be a wooden building level TEM with the same skulking movement opportunities.

Multiple trenches accomplish what I'm looking for... but they are TOO powerful within the game system (bogs, no FFNAM, etc), i.e. I'm looking for something in between.

JT

 

[Tater]

Perhaps CG designers could instead institute a procedure for establishing an arbitrary Strategic Location similar to hole-digging, but without the hole and some of the DRM's.

Most CG have what are called "objective hexes". A player can designate a particular hex (that meets certain criteria) as a strategic location. The thing is that in most CG you only get one "objective hex" per certain RG (usually a coy/plt) purchased. Usually that means maybe 2-4 "objective hexes" per scenario.

 

[Tater]

My impression is that the CG that allows such silliness has the flaw in it.

Spoken like someone who doesn't play much CG's.

 

[Tater]

When moving into a Foxhole with combined MF, where is the unit for Defensive First Fire purposes?

When moving into a woods hex across a wall with combined movement where is the unit for DFire purposes? :nuts:

If it breaks, is it beneath the Foxhole, or on top?

If it breaks, is it on the wall or in the woods? :nuts:

Are all MF expended beneath the Foxhole counter when entering the hex, or are any considered to be expende in the Location but outside the Foxhole?

Are all MF considered expended on the wall or in the woods? :nuts:

When moving out of the Foxhole, e.g. from beneath a Foxhole and into an adjacent Building for combined 3 MF, what is the target hex for DFF purposes?

When moving out of a woods/wall hex into an adjacent building for a combined 3 MF, what is the target hex for DFF purposes? :nuts:

If the unit breaks, where is it placed, in the Foxhole hex on top of the Foxhole, or in the building hex?

If the unit breaks, where is it placed, in the woods, on the wall or in the building? :nuts:

There are differences between a Foxhole and a normal terrain feature. For non-fortification terrain, you are in the terrain entirely. You apply the TEM for that terrain.

It would work pretty much the same way for foxholes.

But Foxholes are conditional. You may be beneath or on top of the Foxhole counter. It is in fact, supplemental to any other terrain in the Location.

It isn't supplemental...it is seperate...you either claim the fxh TEM or you don't. Claiming means you are in it for all DFF purposes...and just like leaving a wooden building to enter an adjacent hex...all the MF are spent in the hex you are going to as one combined movement. Your attempts at over dramatizing the issue is really pathetic. You practically have to suspend any knowledge of ASL to even make it appear that changing fxh entry/exit might be a problem.

I'm assuming the option will be retained to enter the Location without entering the Foxhole, or to exit the Foxhole without exiting the Location. Well, if we retain this characteristic, then we are basically admitting that a Foxhole is a unique type of terrain that the unit has to "enter" to take advantage of, or "exit" to leave.

ALL terrain types are unique! :nuts:

Using combined MF circumvents that unique characteristic of Foxholes, namely that they are a separate, man-made terrain feature within the hex that is independent of other terrain.

The thing that makes them most unique among fortifications is that they are USELESS as a fortification.

Allowing units to enter and exit Foxholes as if they were Buildings or Woods, does not respect the inherent (and designed) characteristic of a Foxhole as represented in ASL.

IOW, you don't want to offend the designers! How, liberal of you.

 

[Robin Reeve]

When moving into a Foxhole with combined MF, where is the unit for Defensive First Fire purposes?

In the Foxhole, as with shellholes.
If movement into and out of a foxhole was conceived as per shellholes, all would be quite simple.
Both terrain features are quite alike after all, and reality arguments could work the same for both of them.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I sometimes set up foxholes in OG to provide rout paths to units who would have to cross that OG during RtPh and suffer Interdiction, otherwise.
I am not sure that foxholes are provided in scenario OB's with such an intention...
Am I the only one to set up Foxholes that way?

 

[jwb3]

I sometimes set up foxholes in OG to provide rout paths to units who would have to cross that OG during RtPh and suffer Interdiction, otherwise.
I am not sure that foxholes are provided in scenario OB's with such an intention...
Am I the only one to set up Foxholes that way?

Not at all -- it's an accepted, if little used, part of my local group's playbook.

For example, I thought about doing it in a recent playing of J41 'By Ourselves', where the German starts with 5 MMCs and 3 Foxholes. Three of my MMCs were better off skulking than being in a Foxhole, so I had an extra one left over. So I started looking at ways to use them as rout paths.

In the end I decided not to, but only because anywhere they could help me rout, they could also help the attacker advance forward while staying in cover.


John

 

[arno_FR]

I sometimes set up foxholes in OG to provide rout paths to units who would have to cross that OG during RtPh and suffer Interdiction, otherwise.
I am not sure that foxholes are provided in scenario OB's with such an intention...
Am I the only one to set up Foxholes that way?

Like in FrF20 Hitler's Amateurs ?
I would like to ask the question to the designer.

 

[Ole Boe]

I think the current Foxhole rules are bad, especially the MF cost for exiting the FG, so I would be happy if only the exit part could be combined with entrance of the next hex.

ASL is a game of design for effect, and the current FH rules has the effect that being outside the FH is usually the best place for the defenders. Not being able to skulk or move out for other reasons withouth being subject to DFF in that Location is just an extreme detriment for the defender.

Even in stand and die defenses, skulking is an important tool, making Foxholes the absolutely last resort.


...and this was just not how Foxholes was used in real life...


As for the rule problems that Bruce Bakken brings up - for once I agree with Tate that it looks like Bruce just tries to be difficult. We already have terrain types where the MF cost are combined with entering a Location (shellholes, walls, abrubt elevation change etc.), so I suggest that Bruce reads those rules and see if he understand them.

 

[Treadhead]

Not being able to skulk or move out for other reasons withouth being subject to DFF in that Location is just an extreme detriment for the defender.

Why shouldn't it be? You think crawling out of a "manmade hole in the earth, dug by troops for protection" [B27.] should be easy to leave without detriment?

On what basis in reality?

Even in stand and die defenses, skulking is an important tool, making Foxholes the absolutely last resort.

"Skulking" is not a military maneuver, and is not a defined game activity. It is a gamey player action that takes advantage of the system.

So sad for players that can't "skulk" out of a Foxhole. I'm sure our soldiers wish they had the ability to "skulk" out of Foxholes.

And anyway, I wonder how the Marines felt went they crawled out of their Foxholes. I'm guessing that they felt pretty damn exposed.

...and this was just not how Foxholes was used in real life...

Are you meaning to tell me that the purpose of having a foxhole, "in real life", was so that a soldier could skulk in and out of that position?

And which of your extensive combat experience with Foxholes are you drawing upon to demonstrate how they were really used in "real life"?

As for the rule problems that Bruce Bakken brings up - for once I agree with Tate that it looks like Bruce just tries to be difficult. We already have terrain types where the MF cost are combined with entering a Location (shellholes, walls, abrubt elevation change etc.), so I suggest that Bruce reads those rules and see if he understand them.

Do you really think I am so stupid as to not understand the mechanics of combining MF costs?

I have never stated that combined MF costs wouldn't work, or would be difficult to implement, or would create Defensive First Fire challenges.

But using combined MF costs for Foxholes would dramatically change the interaction between DEFENDER and ATTACKER, and the very nature of Foxholes themselves.

Shellholes are printed terrain. Walls are printed terrain. Abrupt elevation changes involve printed terrain.

Foxholes are Fortifications counters.

And even though Foxholes have TEM like printed terrain, there are some fundamental differences about Foxholes that make them so different as to require different treatment.

1). "... units in the same hex can be subject to different movement costs or TEM dur to occupation of different features within that hex. For example, units in an entrenchment ... are subject to different effects than other units which share the same Location, but are in different terrain features within that Location." [A2.8]

When in Shellholes, everybody is in Shellholes. There is no "different feature" within a Shellhole hex; only movement into a shellhole is conditional. When crossing a wall to enter a building, everybody has to cross the wall and is in the building; some units can't step around the wall, while others move over it. When you cross a double crest, everybody has to cross that double crest.

When MF are combined for multiple terrain types, there is no question of some units being in one terrain feature while other units are in a different terrain feature. All units are in the same terrain feature at all times. When it breaks, it breaks in that terrain feature. When it drop Possession, the SW remains in that terrain feature.

But Foxholes are different in that respect.

2.) "A unit in a foxhole is placed beneath a foxhole counter, while any other unit in the hex but not in the foxhole is placed on top of the foxhole counter." [B27.1]

By allowing combined MF costs, you have removed this feature of Foxhole, namely that a unit could break outside the Foxhole or drop Possession outside the Foxhole.

Ah, but wait. A unit would always have the option of entering the hex without entering the Foxhole, right? And then if it changed its mind, it could then expend MF to be placed beneath the Foxhole, right?

Of course. But that's just a concession that Foxholes are different than every other terrain feature that shares the same Location, that you can be either in the foxhole or out of the foxhole.

There is no other terrain feature that is like this.

Ah, the comparison to Shellholes.

Well, for starters, the TEM of Shellholes is only +1 for all fire, while Foxholes are +2/+4. Right there, that tells me that Foxholes were conceived as significantly more protective than Shellholes.

Secondly, during every phase except the MPh, units in a Shellhole always receive the +1 TEM; there is no question of some being in the shellhole feature, and others not being in the shellhole feature. In fact, shellholes are Inherent Terrain: "the entire hex... [has] the characteristics of that terrain type."

Shellholes bear zero resemblance to Foxholes when it comes to their TEM and terrain feature.

There is more than just MF costs involved, or Defensive First Fire mechanics. Altering the movement into/out-of Foxholes changes the fundamental nature of the Foxhole feature.

You know what it sounds like to me?

"Waa-ah... those bad meanies are shooting at me before I can reach the protection of the Foxholes. Boo hoo hoo. And then, <sniff>, and then, when I try to leave the protection of my hole, wah, they shoot at me again. Tell them to stop, tell them to stop! Wa-a-a-a-ah! "

 

[Tater]

And which of your extensive combat experience with Foxholes are you drawing upon to demonstrate how they were really used in "real life"?

Upon what military experience are YOU basing YOUR reality arguments? IOW...hypocrisy abounds.

"Waa-ah... those bad meanies are shooting at me before I can reach the protection of the Foxholes. Boo hoo hoo. And then, <sniff>, and then, when I try to leave the protection of my hole, wah, they shoot at me again. Tell them to stop, tell them to stop! Wa-a-a-a-ah! "

That's funny! Irrelevant, but funny...:thumup:

You have missed the whole point Brucie. It isn't a reality argument...never has been (other than the reality of The Game).

Fxh's aren't being used as a fortification...AND...you know it. I know you are a good ASL player and I know you are smart enough to realize that setting up infantry in fxh's is usually a bad idea...I don't know for a fact that you don't use them...BUT...the combination of "good player" and "smart guy" would lead me to suspect that you play fxh's just like everyone else...which is to say you seldom use them.

The "Game" reality is that, based on "design for effect", the fxh rules are broken...that is the "design" is not giving the expected "effect".

 

[Tater]

In the Foxhole, as with shellholes.
If movement into and out of a foxhole was conceived as per shellholes, all would be quite simple.
Both terrain features are quite alike after all, and reality arguments could work the same for both of them.

Excellent point...I wish I had thought of it.

So, if Bruce has a problem with fxh combined movement, then I sure hope he never tries to play a scenario that has shellholes...his head might explode!!!

:clown:

 

[Treadhead]

In the Foxhole, as with shellholes.
If movement into and out of a foxhole was conceived as per shellholes, all would be quite simple.
Both terrain features are quite alike after all, and reality arguments could work the same for both of them.

Actually, Shellholes and Foxholes are quite different in game terms.

The only similarity is that they both contain the word "hole".

Other than that... not much.

 

[Treadhead]

Upon what military experience are YOU basing YOUR reality arguments? IOW...hypocrisy abounds.

Well, I knew that statement was coming. Fair enough.

But then again, I'm not the one wanting to change anything. Foxholes are meant to model some aspect of reality, otherwise they wouldn't be there. To change that model, there must be some demonstration of why that model does not adequately reflect what it is supposed to reflect.

You have missed the whole point Brucie...

NOBODY calls me "Brucie". Please don't call me that.

I know you are a good ASL player ...

Er, <ahem>, I make no claims about my playing ability...

...I don't know for a fact that you don't use them...BUT...the combination of "good player" and "smart guy" would lead me to suspect that you play fxh's just like everyone else...which is to say you seldom use them.

I can't say that is true. I definitely try to use them when available. I may not dig them a lot, but if they're there, I try to figure out why and then use them accordingly.

The "Game" reality is that, based on "design for effect", the fxh rules are broken...that is the "design" is not giving the expected "effect".

I believe that is just an opinion. It makes suppositions about the intended "effect" to begin with.

Listen, I'm not just going to sit idly by and allow players to express this opinion without challenge. After 20+ years, how can this change suddenly be required?

I understand about the "body of evidence" after many years of playing by many good players.

But perhaps other things should be looked at as well: The combined MF costs for entering Shellholes. Is that a valid game mechanic? Or how about the combined MF costs for routing through Foxholes. Is that a valid game mechanic?

Could it be that those game mechanics -- which everyone seems comfortable with -- could be flawed?

IMO, the average player probably does not know enough about game systems and system analysis to decide whether any particular rule fits well within the overall structure.

And the way rules are "clarified" or "changed" in recent history, I'm not just going to sit here and allow this concept to snowball without forcing people to actually think about what they're suggesting. I could too easily see this "errata" suddenly appearing in a Journal one day.

Regards,
Bruce