Foxholes and Woods.

[Tim Niesen]

Don and I are debating the merits of foxholes in the woods. I explained to Don that units if broken units are Adjacent to good order enemy units, they must surrender if there is no rout path in concealment terrain. I conjectured that this may be also true if the broken unit is in a foxhole and Adjacent to such a good order enemy unit even if the broken unit has a rout path through the woods. Because the broken unit must first exit the foxhole. Is my analysis correct? Tim

 

[hongkongwargamer]

B27.41 .. A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered; if the MF is expended in combination with the MF for entry of another hex, any possible Interdiction must occur in the newly entered hex as per the terrain in that hex.

You can rout into the Woods withOUT getting interdicted the moment you get out of the FH. You must state that you are spending MFs in such combination beforehand.

 

[Tim Niesen]

Thus my advise against foxholes in the woods was erroneous. Put the foxholes in the woods back into the defensive plan! Thanks.

 

[Tim Niesen]

If the broken unit in a foxhole had been in open ground but next to concealment terrain would that change the answer to my question. Tim

 

[jrv]

During the RtPh only, a routing unit may leave an entrenchment and enter the next hex as one combined expenditure. Because the expenditure is combined, the routing unit would not be interdicted. This is different than during the MPh and the APh, when the expenditures are separate. In the MPh a unit must pause after spending the one MF as it leaves its entrenchment, which gives the enemy a chance to fire at it with whatever other terrain is in the hex, in your example Open Ground. In both the MPh and the APh a unit which exits a foxhole in Open Ground moves/advances in Open Ground, which will cause it to lose concealment.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...I explained to Don that units if broken units are Adjacent to good order enemy units, they must surrender if there is no rout path in concealment terrain....

Note that it is not a question of having a rout path through Concealment Terrain - the question is whether the broken unit can be Interdicted or not.

 

[Vinnie]

The rout path doesn't even need to be through terrain that has a positive tem. It' whether a -1 ffmo could apply. Sometimes you can even rout through open ground if some other hindrance applies between you and the interdict or (smoke or a grain hex along his line if sight.)

 

[von Marwitz]

Thus my advise against foxholes in the woods was erroneous. Put the foxholes in the woods back into the defensive plan! Thanks.

Where to put the Foxholes depends on what you want to do:

If you want to defend with the unit occupying it until it breaks, then place it in the open next to woods or other terrain that allows routing away. Especially, if the enemy has Mortars that would otherwise partially compromise the benefit of your Foxhole due to Airbursts. If the enemy has AFV that might want to OVR you, then placing them IN woods might deter that because it costs many MP and the AFV would risk Bog.

If you want to defend with your unit and later move away, then placing the Foxhole in Woods or other terrain that prevents possible FFMO.

Sometimes the best use for Foxholes is to create Rout Paths that can't be interdicted. For example, you can use them on a unpaved road with buildings on both sides of it. Or "connect" some forward woods hexes with a Foxhole in OG to other non-OG in the rear.

Then, Foxholes might come in handy if placed behind hedges or walls. The opponent will be able to "see" the Foxhole behind the hedge/wall but has no LOS to its contents unless ADJACENT. So if the enemy has superior or long reaching fire power but has to come towards you, you might be able to avoid that long reaching fire while in the Foxhole (he has no LOS) and force Point Blank Fire on him when he moves up to you (though he will get Wall Advantage). He might be scared away by your Dummies in such a position, too, which might look "real" there.

von Marwitz

 

[CTKnudsen]

Another player and I have been occasionally using a house rule (that was apparently considered for errata) which states that a unit uses assault movement to leave a foxhole in the MPh, it is not subject to the FFMO penalty, so long as the Location it enters is not open ground to the firer. This has the effect of making foxholes much less of a deathtrap than they currently are, so that even if placed sensibly next to non-interdictable terrain, you can leave them (slowly) without getting shot to ribbons.

 

[DonHalsey44]

Perhaps you've covered this....but why are foxholes referred to as 'deathtraps' so often in the threads?

 

[von Marwitz]

Perhaps you've covered this....but why are foxholes referred to as 'deathtraps' so often in the threads?

In case you want to leave them in the Movement Phase (or in other words with Good Order troops that aren't broken), you first need to spend 1MF to move out of the Foxhole into the hex in which it is located. There, you might be subject to FFMO and/or FFNAM modifications, which is usually a recipe for disaster.

So there are not deathtraps for being IN them but when you attempt to get out.

One of the ways you can do it with less danger is during the Rout Phase, because then the getting out of the Foxhole and the moving into the next hex (and even possibly INTO the next Foxhole) is considered one single combined MF expediture and thus avoiding Interdiction. But if you move during the RtPh, you are broken, of course.

The other way is advancing out during the Advance Phase. But then, you can only get away a single hex which might not be far enough to get out of trouble with regard to the opponent's next upcoming player turn.

For this reason, many people have demanded that the Foxhole rules should be changed to the effect that if you leave a Foxhole during the MPh, the movement costs should be combined the same way as during the Rout Phase. Some people use house rules to this effect.

von Marwitz

 

[DonHalsey44]

Thank you! Makes sense.

 

[CTKnudsen]

For this reason, many people have demanded that the Foxhole rules should be changed to the effect that if you leave a Foxhole during the MPh, the movement costs should be combined the same way as during the Rout Phase. Some people use house rules to this effect.
von Marwitz

And in my totally in-expert opinion, the HR we use about limiting this MF combination for FFMO purposes to Assault movement does the trick. Not free, but not as limiting as waiting for the APh or (voluntary) breaking. I would wonder, however, what the balance implications for many, many scenarios are.

Otherwise, I tend to use OB-given foxholes to either create rout paths out of what would otherwise be fatal rout traps, or as skulking locations behind walls/hedges, or more frequently in woodlines when the other side has OBA/mortars.

 

[DonHalsey44]

In other words, a string of foxholes?

 

[Robin Reeve]

During the APh, moving into or out of a FH in Open Ground can also strip an infantry from its concealment.
I never use house rules, but the arbitrary difference of treatment between the RtPh and other phases tempts me not to apply the RAW.

 

[jrv]

In other words, a string of foxholes?

More likely to cross an unpaved road. It costs three MF to enter then exit foxholes while routing. That pretty much says you can go through one foxhole per rout phase and also get to someplace better, i.e. woods/building.

JR

 

[bendizoid]

Thus my advise against foxholes in the woods was erroneous. Put the foxholes in the woods back into the defensive plan! Thanks.

Foxholes are death traps anyway, be careful because movement (example: skulking) is more important. If the infantry can't get out of LOS on the first MP it could be trouble.

 

[Philippe D.]

I tend to not use Foxholes to their full potential in games, because of this "deathtrap" effect - even though it can be circumvented in the APh. Plus, it's sometimes hard to place them in a position where they aren't likely to become assets to the opponent.

But, having played a series of Bocage scenarios, I've come to appreciate them a little better. Place them next to a Bocage hexside (or, for that matter, a Wall or Hedge), and they become the perfect skulking terrain - you don't have to move away, just enter the Foxhole. At least, until the opponent gets adjacent, and threatens to take WA from you...